hi clive,
i tihnk the print justifies the print, because to me at least whatever way the person took to make the print
was just a road taken. even work done with wild processes, negatives made in dangerous circumstances or
the most mundane of photographic of images (some may call trite "snapshots" ) i don't think a process will change much
except to the maker. in the end, unless the person is being hired to sell their work ( through an ad or gallery " agency" )
for the most part photography fallis into the " art for arts sake " otherwise - it is the buyer ( or in the case of the gallery, the seller )
who may have final say and say " the image of the swingset made with a flipped hawkeye, processed in dog's urine fixed in salt water from the
galapagos islands, printed on hand made mulberry paper, on chloride emulsion made from tears collected from the last election cycle,
toned in uranium found on the dark web muled from a rogue nation and painted with alleged billy bob_angolina's blood from viles purchased
from an itinerant ebay account from eastern Europe looked better as a machine print"
but omlettes are pretty good too
ymmvftasotc