A good photograph is a good photograph in such a way that the process itself might be an integral part of it, but it’s not the focal point. In other words, the moment you can almost separate out the image from the process - just like you’d think about Hipstamatic as picture plus filter - you’re in trouble: Suddenly, the process itself becomes part of what is being evaluated. But who cares whether it took you three days to make a picture or whether you got that great picture seeing something and then snapping it very quickly?In photoland, the cult of process is tied to the cult of work. It’s almost as if the more physical and technical effort you put into a photograph, the better it is, or rather: the more we have to admire it. But why would we?
This is one of the issues I have all the time. It's not about the process, it's about the image. Many times I will get into discussions about the work I do and someone will snarkily say, "It's all done in post, the photographer does not matter!" Which is so far from the truth that now-a-days I either get a bit offended or just dismiss the person outright as uneducated. It sounds a bit harsh, but I am over that statement. The difference between a well composed, beautifully lit, perfectly timed shot and a careless "one off" has huge repercussions for what I can do with it in post.
