Is process important to you in photography?

[hepcat]

I think that's wrong, Hepcats answer was before my question and doesn't really answer it.

I think it's an oversimplification to just suggest if you can see (or look) for the process the image 'just isn't working'
In fact the assertion is just plain daft, I can easily tell a Bromoil image or a cyanotype from the look of the process.

Does this mean the image isn't working?

Certain images are unique because of the process; Bromoil and cyanotype are two examples. Whatever the image, it is is going to look unique, and the unique look of those just can't be replicated. That still doesn't necessarily make the image "work."

I was under the impression that the original question posed was about whether one could discern between conventional chemical processing/printing and digital processing/printing. My reply was toward the more pedestrian and ubiquitous B&W and color images that most of us use most frequently where the process really shouldn't matter. Nor should the device used to take the image.

 

[shadowfox]

I only have one thing to add to the conversation:

I think people who emulate the look of chemical photographic processes using software will get a greater appreciation and maybe even inspiration if they took the time to understand how the actual process is done.

If you are looking for resources, f295.org is a good place to start for alternate processes. For film processes, RFF alone is a wealth of knowledge.

 

[foto_mike]

When I'm making a photograph, the process is important because I enjoy the process itself as well as the result.

When I'm looking at someone else's photo, the process is unimportant. The final image succeeds or not on its own with explanation.