And I’m pretty sure Nikos was referring mostly to the image/subject matter first, which is why I think all the arguments that came back at him are just the usual stretches / defensive posturing you get whenever someone compares photography with other artforms (painting is usually the trigger).
Printing is my favourite part of the photographic process but give me a break.
Your comment about books comparing poorly with real prints interests me. I’m not arguing there is a right/wrong answer, but having “grown up” on good quality photo books of the work of photographers who were known to be into printing (and having become accustomed to these reproductions) I was disappointed when I finally saw these things live. Maybe disappointed is too strong a word for what I felt but anyway it was actually somewhat liberating.
I've seen & own some fine quality photo books. I have a friend who is an artist...& a poster/
giclé reproduction (which she also sells @ $50 compared to multiple thousands for the original)....is a pale imitation of her painting.
The only real life comparison i have to offer. I have the book
"The American Cowboy: A Portrait" (Jay Dusard's 1983 masterwork). It is a finely printed volume of beautiful LF portraits. I also have a silver gelatin print of the cover photo printed by Jay. They are both 'good' in their mediums....but the print viewed live has something you don't get from the book image.
As to your point about disappointment/liberation.....I also think there is a difference between seeing something (albeit in a book)....and seeing something for the very first time. The brain just processes them differently. After spending an entire day at the Louvre, a handful of things i'd never seen (Winged Victory for example), remain vividly, in my memory, while paintings like the Mona are just ticked off on the
i've seen it" list