An all digital world?

[robert blu]

I shoot film, I shoot digital, more about this in this other RFF thread here, post 96.

But always make a point one each 10, or each 20 or ...but I always have a few prints done. Sometimes they go in an album, sometimes just an old cardboard box. But always a few prints. The only digital world is not for me, thanks, maybe I'm too old ...

robert

 

[cz23]

Here’s an unpleasant thought. What happens to your digital files when you die?

My kids already claimed mine. My daughter wants everything related to India. My son wants the street work. They're computer literate enough to know where to find them. Me, I'm pretty sure I'll be well past caring.

John

 

[Godfrey]

My kids already claimed mine. My daughter wants everything related to India. My son wants the street work. They're computer literate enough to know where to find them. Me, I'm pretty sure I'll be well past caring.

That's the spirit! 🙂

G

 

[rodt16s]

FAR more of my photos have been featured in books, magazines, and on-line.
G

Two out of three for the non-digital media.

Must admit I've found printing more accessible since the digital realm

 

[kbb]

Prints are infinitely more valuable than files, period.
Prints---and reproductions in books--- are a superior way to share still photography.
iPads are an awful way to look at photos.
If I shoot a movie, I accept that electricity will be needed to process and project(share) it. But not with stills.

The ability to make color prints quickly and with total control is one of the 'miracles' of digital.
The ability to make either black and white or color prints without a wet darkroom and the attendant stink, chemical exposure, and---worst of all---dumping of developers and fixers into the environment is a seriously great thing.