There has been a perennial question as to whether a photographer is considered talented, or more accurately a success, if their work is not seen, recognized and critiqued during their lifetime. In much like the question as to whether a photograph is really complete unless it is printed (and that's not the focus here), the issue of debate has been that if one takes photograph, if no-one apart from the photographer sees their work, are they 'successful' as a photographer?
Even more intriguing, why would someone take images and not even process the film? Would it be just a matter of economics, or was the imperative the actual act of capturing the image? Garry Winogrand, while famous and successful, left behind, unpublished, 300,000 images...