An all digital world?

[Bill Pierce]

I was wondering how often you print pictures. A lot of professional photography is sent on to clients as edited and corrected digital files, not prints. And a lot of family pictures are emailed jpegs. Face it, prints are for walls. I still make prints for submission to museums and galleries (although prints of my grandchildren have a greater chance of hanging on walls). And I love making little inkjet postcards even when email communications are faster and cheaper. But I’m an old person. Are prints going the way of newspapers, magazine, even books? Are we heading towards an all digital, all screen world???

 

[back alley]

i'm an old fart myself...i like both, prints and digital...my ipad mini is a treasure trove of education and entertainment...i have prints on most of the available wall space in my townhouse...and a digital frame with new images too!

 

[f16sunshine]

Are we heading towards an all digital, all screen world???

The short answer is no, we are not headed to an all digital, all screen world.
I sure do print less there is no question about that.
I also print larger than I used to. Digital printing has changed the cost of prints.
Color 8x10's on fuji paper for around $2,.. has made having larger prints around the house or to give as gifts easier than ever.

I have wealthier techie friends who have digital frames and large HD screens scrolling their pics all day long.
I'm not attracted to the idea although I know others may be.

 

[AlexBG]

Have to say yes, an all digital world is coming. The next 10 years we will be hanging digital frames magnetically to walls capable of charging the frames.

 

[KM-25]

No, of course not, people don't want an all digital world. And among the most vocal who don't want it are young people who are born into an age of hype-to-profit.

 

[Godfrey]

I was wondering how often you print pictures. A lot of professional photography is sent on to clients as edited and corrected digital files, not prints. And a lot of family pictures are emailed jpegs. Face it, prints are for walls. I still make prints for submission to museums and galleries (although prints of my grandchildren have a greater chance of hanging on walls). And I love making little inkjet postcards even when email communications are faster and cheaper. But I’m an old person. Are prints going the way of newspapers, magazine, even books? Are we heading towards an all digital, all screen world???

It happened I had this conversation with a photographer friend of mine (currently actively engaged in professional work too, I might add; it's her career income) just yesterday.

Very very few of my photos hang on my walls or the walls of my clients. FAR more of my photos have been featured in books, magazines, and on-line.

But I have always printed my photos regularly, and continue to do so. I make cards from them which I send to people. I make exhibition prints from them that I share at photo group meetings, at exhibitions, and occasionally sell. I print them just to have them in a box, ready to look at whenever I feel like and without need for the mediating influence of an electronic device. The qualities of paper, surface, touch, etc, are all important to the viewing experience too, and the psychological impact of having created a tangible Thing, the print, has its impact on the photo as well—at least for the maker.

One of my resolutions for 2015 is to print one or two photos a week. I let my printing slide and become somewhat erratic in 2013-2014, I'd print a bunch now and then rather than on a regular basis, which meant I had to re-learn my print workflow each time. Making a high quality print once a week is a better plan as it keep you and the printing machinery exercised and in top shape.

If nothing else, it means I'll have a bunch of nice prints to give away at the end of the year has holiday gifts. ;-)

G

 

[kxl]

Not in my lifetime...

I think there is an inherent human need to have something tactile to appreciate. From my admittedly limited perspective, digital photos prompt nonchalance: "nice picture, you must have a nice camera" whereas analog media hanging on a wall evoke reverence for the skill and mastery.

What digital media has done is allowed greater visibility to those photos. Anecdote: It never ceases to amaze my brother-in-law in Chicago (I'm in SoCal) that I can go online to costco.com, order prints and/or build photo-books that he can pick up at his local Costco.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

All of my volunteer photography is submitted electronically. Makes it easier to recycle at both ends

At home, we like to have relatively fresh family pictures at our house indoor walls.
Also me and my wife like to print photo books for friends after some of their projects are finished, since I'm fooling around and taking pictures.
I'm like making contact prints of portraits and presenting it in neat package. I see some of them around even after it was presented, sometimes...

One hour before I just finished my blog new entry.
It is how in my basement while listening vinyl records I offered guests to take LF portraits with view camera by themselves.
Wife took picture of husband and in opposite. I developed two 4x5 and we made contact prints with my daughter, then my wife framed it. We presented the framed pictures and husband took it to their bedroom night table. Five days in total between taking pictures and getting them into their current place. No digital will give you so much fun and family involvement. With no computers involved.

I'm thinking of wet printing for the scans which are popular on my Flickr. Not for big money reason, but just to share it differently.

One thing I noticed last week in first time - appearance of Fuji instant print camera at Walmart's main counter. It was only digital before. I see young ones using these in real and on Flickr.

But... my old friend send me e-mail with picture of my parents apartment building and surroundings. Something I'm unable to see for years now. Few weeks prior to this, I have my friend picture file which is very old slide scan I did recently.

And of course I have my mobile pictures straight forward at FB, they are for sharing of fun, not for printing.

To sum up. In my world it is well balanced between files and prints. Each has its own purpose.

And for final note. I think if your pictures are only in digital files they aren't good enough or it is worth for images banks only

 

[cz23]

...One of my resolutions for 2015 is to print one or two photos a week....
G

I think I'll join you in that resolve. There are few things better than pulling out a box of nice sized prints to share with friends after dinner. Especially if they explore a subject of common interest. The iPad experience just isn't the same.

Two per week. One hundred prints this year. That's some real communal viewing pleasure. And it would certainly improve one's photography. How about a "2015 Two Prints Per Week" thread to keep us backsliders motivated?

John

 

[Pioneer]

Old Fart here so keep that in mind.

I still print, even digital, because I want to hold it in my hand.

But there is more. Digital is a great medium for transferring files and taking a quick look at photographs. But it is not the best long term archival solution. Although any print will likely degrade eventually, in the interim you don't have to worry that the software program still reads it, that a virus has not corrupted it, or that a hardware glitch has not lost it entirely. Digital just is not stable enough to trust without continual oversight.

You may not keep the print on the wall, but you could at anytime if you wanted. Digital images are not so easy. By there very nature some form of electrical power is necessary to display them. Even digital picture frames have to be plugged in.

 

[pete hogan]

Printing? Not so much. We've had a Pix-Star digital frame for a while, and then the little kids showed grandma how to send pictures to it. Print requests, which had always been substantial, have dropped off completely.

I print a few 4x6 on the Photosmart for my shoebox.

The difference from the '70s and '80s is quite remarkable.

 

[bigeye]

Bill, I ran a poll in Dec '11 about this, asking amateurs only how many *framed prints* they made in the prior year: http://rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=113890

It had a decent response, though many pros couldn't resist responding, making the numbers 'better' by a good bit. Even skewed up a bit, they were pretty bad.

At that time, 2/3s of us made 5 or fewer framed prints a year.

I wonder if that has changed much. It seems that there are an awful lot of very expensive 18, 24 and 36 mp cameras making only web shots.

 

[Godfrey]

I think I'll join you in that resolve. There are few things better than pulling out a box of nice sized prints to share with friends after dinner. Especially if they explore a subject of common interest. The iPad experience just isn't the same.

Two per week. One hundred prints this year. That's some real communal viewing pleasure. And it would certainly improve one's photography. How about a "2015 Two Prints Per Week" thread to keep us backsliders motivated?

Sounds like a good idea for a persistent thread. What forum should it be a part of, I wonder, given that we all shoot with a bunch of different cameras.

You know, I'm going to post a note to my photo mailing list, SeePhoto (http://micapeak.com/mailman/listinfo/seephoto), and announce my intention... I wonder how many others might participate.

G

 

[mfunnell]

And for final note. I think if your pictures are only in digital files they aren't good enough or it is worth for images banks only

I have a similar feeling. I have a rule (violated only when I have a specific purpose for illustrating something online) that I won't post a photo online (even just to share via flickr) if I haven't printed it - even just as a 6x4 to stick in a cheap plastic album. I figure that if I couldn't even be bothered printing it then it's really not something that I should display anywhere.

I have also noticed a couple of things lately that didn't seem quite so noticible a few years ago. The first is that people seem to really appreciate seeing printed photos (even if just the aforementioned 6x4s in cheap plastic albums; though a good A4 size print seems even more appreciated). In a world awash with easy-to-browse digital representations it seems (maybe, perhaps, it's too early to tell) that printed photos are unusual enough that people seem to value them more than they did even a few years ago when digital was 'fresh'. The second thing I've noticed is that when sharing photos with friends and family they appreciate getting them at a size that allows them to print at their end, rather than easy-on-the-bandwidth e-mail size (which used to be the preference). For this I've found Dropbox to be quite useful, despite a residual (and probably unjustified) discomfort at not being able to ensure the final print is as I'd prefer it.

...Mike

 

[cz23]

Sounds like a good idea for a persistent thread. What forum should it be a part of, I wonder, given that we all shoot with a bunch of different cameras.

You know, I'm going to post a note to my photo mailing list, SeePhoto (http://micapeak.com/mailman/listinfo/seephoto), and announce my intention... I wonder how many others might participate.

G

How about "Photography: General Interest"? It's not really a project or exhibition. And that forum is widely viewed. Why don't you start it? I'm a lightweight around here. We can share images we've printed, papers, processes, storage, successes, failures -- anything related to this initiative that helps and inspires.

John

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I have a similar feeling. I have a rule (violated only when I have a specific purpose for illustrating something online) that I won't post a photo online (even just to share via flickr) if I haven't printed it - even just as a 6x4 to stick in a cheap plastic album. I figure that if I couldn't even be bothered printing it then it's really not something that I should display anywhere.

I have also noticed a couple of things lately that didn't seem quite so noticible a few years ago. The first is that people seem to really appreciate seeing printed photos (even if just the aforementioned 6x4s in cheap plastic albums; though a good A4 size print seems even more appreciated). In a world awash with easy-to-browse digital representations it seems (maybe, perhaps, it's too early to tell) that printed photos are unusual enough that people seem to value them more than they did even a few years ago when digital was 'fresh'. The second thing I've noticed is that when sharing photos with friends and family they appreciate getting them at a size that allows them to print at their end, rather than easy-on-the-bandwidth e-mail size (which used to be the preference). For this I've found Dropbox to be quite useful, despite a residual (and probably unjustified) discomfort at not being able to ensure the final print is as I'd prefer it.

...Mike

Well, we might be on opposite side of the cloud. I like to share my wet prints scans as well on Flickr and thinking of doing it more while it is enough dark time to print before spring come. I feel picture to be unfinished if it only on neg scan.

What I see more is returning to analogue from complete digital. Don't know why, but some musicians do their recording on tape.
Not to mention vinyl return. 40% production increase at Nashville. And where I'm turntables are sold now in big box stores. Some people have enough of music files somewhere and want to have big pictures on albums and posters.

Limited tablets screens even more limited digital frames... It doesn't suite some for quality pictures. I could only appreciate pictures in files at our computer where we have dedicated graphics card. Our Apple tables are not even nearby. They are making good pictures and crapshoots looks the same.
I think people who watched too often pictures on mobile phones are those who claim it doesn't matter how pictures are taken. It is good picture if they could see it clear on credit card screen size and nothing else.

In Milton, where I'm we have a lot of young and full size families. I walk a lot with my. What is amazes me is how many homes have huge pictures (family and else) printed at so big size I could see the faces from the street

 

[sojournerphoto]

Just before Christmas my wife found an old cyanotype I had made. It was really an experiment - a contact sheet of 9 frames of my daughter in 6 by 7 format. It is a thing of great beauty, in spite and because of its flaws. That is why I don't want to live in a (n all) digital world.

 

[Pioneer]

I started on Mike Johnston's latest project shooting a digital camera and making one print per day beginning the first of this year. So far they have only been 4x6 prints (black and white will have to be 5x7). If I can keep to this I will have 300 or more prints.

I have also been shooting my Bessa R as well (which is probably cheating) so I haven't totally abandoned film for digital.

 

[froyd]

Bill-

In a way the digital revolution has opened many more printing options. Almost everybody I know now publishes a yearly family photo book. While some don't much much thoughts in the layouts, they are forced into editing the mass of snapshots into something that can fit in 25-100 pages. Most of the images in the books are large and a pleasure to look at. This is FAR better plowing through the old albums filled with just about EVERY SINGLE 4x6 that was returned to them by the photo lab be it out of focus, over exposed or poorly framed.

I also print larger and better prints on my inkjet than I used to do in the darkroom. I do still miss BW fiber, but my average darkroom skills are inferior to my digital printing ability and my current BW prints on the Epson R3000 look really great. I will need to buy more wall space before I will fill the need to upgrade this printer!

Digital printing has also made it easier to print on a variety of materials. From clothing to home furnishing to acrylic, etc. It's not framed images on a wall, but the printed image still has a place in our world.

 

[shadowfox]

We have here a few threads where we take digital pictures of our darkroom prints.

First I thought it was ironic, but the more I think about it, it's really not.

Without the burden of travel cost and time, I'd love to visit with each and everyone who contributes and talk about prints while holding those in my own hands. So digital is nothing more than just a means to showcase our prints in a practical manner.

So no, as long as there are people who appreciate printing the old way (or even inkjet prints), an all digital world won't do at all.