Bill Pierce
Well-known
Here’s a simple question for the digital age. It’s one that applies to family albums and professional portfolios. Is it enough to store your photos digitally on discs, cards, flash memory and the “cloud,” looking at them on computer screens, pads and celphones? The answer will be different for different people; so, what do you think and why?
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
We are using both at home.
Big screen for PC in the dining room has slide show of nine thousandths family pictures. It is great to see pictures from eighties and recent ones.
We have albums as well and it is great to look at them. Many photos were printed as they can't be printed anymore. Some are from 18.. something. Some are from the end of analog C-41 negs printing era. We also have family portraits printed in the darkroom and in the digi labs in frames on the walls. 8x10 mostly. I recently printed one in the darkroom and another was just printed from the scan, because I can't print it good under enlarger.
My mother-in-law have many of those at her apartment as well. And my parents, relatives and friends have online access to full sized digital copies.
Big screen for PC in the dining room has slide show of nine thousandths family pictures. It is great to see pictures from eighties and recent ones.
We have albums as well and it is great to look at them. Many photos were printed as they can't be printed anymore. Some are from 18.. something. Some are from the end of analog C-41 negs printing era. We also have family portraits printed in the darkroom and in the digi labs in frames on the walls. 8x10 mostly. I recently printed one in the darkroom and another was just printed from the scan, because I can't print it good under enlarger.
My mother-in-law have many of those at her apartment as well. And my parents, relatives and friends have online access to full sized digital copies.
kiemchacsu
Well-known
No its not enough.
Every year, I make a family photo album following the timeline.
My kids enjoy them very much. So far I have made 7 books and I will keep doing that. I guess that if I only stored photos digitally, we would have not looked at those old photos anymore.
In short, I like the tag line of a member here "a photo is not a photo until printed"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Every year, I make a family photo album following the timeline.
My kids enjoy them very much. So far I have made 7 books and I will keep doing that. I guess that if I only stored photos digitally, we would have not looked at those old photos anymore.
In short, I like the tag line of a member here "a photo is not a photo until printed"
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Dogman
Veteran
It's fine for snapshots and to show your vacation pictures but I don't consider it a serious way to display photos. I print photos I feel strongly about. There's nothing quite as pleasant or satisfying as creating something of substance.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Bill,
Even on my calibrated EIZO dimmed down to 50 Lux in a dark room the screen cannot reveal the shadow detail that are in my prints.
Also for archival quality it is prints or negatives.
In someone's avitar they state, "It is not a photograph until it is a print." This is true for me.
Cal
Even on my calibrated EIZO dimmed down to 50 Lux in a dark room the screen cannot reveal the shadow detail that are in my prints.
Also for archival quality it is prints or negatives.
In someone's avitar they state, "It is not a photograph until it is a print." This is true for me.
Cal
mpaniagua
Newby photographer
Agree. "substance" is the keyword. Digital is practical but seems pretty insubstantial to me, so IMHO, nothing beats a printed framed photo either on a wall, desk or kitchen
. It has an ageless element to it that digital lacks, cause once you turn off the power or run out of batteries, the picture is gone.Roger Hicks
Veteran
Enough? Not for me.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
No. I find that no matter how much fun it is to look at photos on-line, on a television, on a display, on a smartphone, the game changes instantly when you hand someone a print. Small or large doesn't matter: the nature of the interaction between the viewer and the image is different when they hold a print. A print becomes a 'precious' thing, unlike an image on a display; it is valued more and looked at with more thoughtfulness as a print.
I've seen this over and over again since first I started putting high resolution images on displays in the middle 1980s. The viewing medium changes the nature of the image.
G
No, I prefer to make books at the very least. I have relaxed though regarding showing images digitally.
Dwig
Well-known
For me and for these two narrowly limited uses, digital is enough.
"Storage" yes, except I do not consider "cloud storage" to be a viable storage solution at this time, at least for me.
Viewing, on the other hand, it another thing entirely. Viewing the occasional family snapshot on a monitor is fine. For me, artwork must be printed and displayed.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Prints hang in my house. Digital on my wife's facebook.
I guess we have to live with both, but it feels like I'm actually "living" with my prints. They're on almost every wall
I guess we have to live with both, but it feels like I'm actually "living" with my prints. They're on almost every wall
cz23
-
I agree completely on the special charm of prints. But a web site, blog, or other online medium allows the remarkable potential to share with friends and family near and far, as well as with strangers across oceans and continents and cultures. We've never had that opportunity before. (Not that the world gives a hoot about my photos. But still....)
Both are wonderful and I wouldn't want to be without either.
John
Darthfeeble
But you can call me Steve
I prefer prints, but enjoy the sharing. It's a blessing to be able to see pictures from everywhere in the world and in the comfort of my office chair.
Fraser
Well-known
For me personally I always feel whats the point of taking pictures if no one else can see them, for my family pics thats why I have a website but sometimes it still nice to make a print for the wall.
jarski
Veteran
Perhaps am "21st century digital boy" (although not a boy anymore). But new smartphone screens are more enjoyable to me than Fuji Instax "print" or a blurb book.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I agree. I can hardly imagine being without Flickr and other web sites at this point, it's so much a part of my photographic process. Connections to friends and family, connections to the larger audience who see my work .. For both of these things, digital display is essential today. But ...
The question however was whether digital display is enough. From my experience, for my work, and to fulfill my intent, I can only respond "No." What I try to do with photography requires additional display forms for exhibition, personal use, and so forth.
G
rhl-oregon
Cameras Guitars Wonders
A slightly different perspective, not about preferences but about experience, necessity, invention and viewer response.
A few years ago I took part in a 3 person exhibit, where my wall space was the most restricted, but was also in the central lobby/walk through. I put up 10-12 prints, but also set up 4 laptops and one 24" Apple monitor to run 4 projects of 30-50 images as 3-second slide dissolves.
At the opening, viewers of my work tended to cluster around the monitors/slide shows before inspecting the prints (if they looked at the prints, that is). Most watched at least one project, some watched all 5. Did I imagine people would gravitate to the screens? Yes, of course in this screen culture! Was I pleased that people "paged through" an entire book of images, or several books worth? Yes. Did I sell any prints? Yes, but not off the wall; a few people selected images from one or another screen project to have printed.
I do have enough frames/mattes for a show of 6-24 prints of various sizes, and they mostly live at home with favorite images. But if I could do a show with one or two large but portable wall-mounted monitors, I wouldn't hesitate to make that my exhibitionist M.O.
A few years ago I took part in a 3 person exhibit, where my wall space was the most restricted, but was also in the central lobby/walk through. I put up 10-12 prints, but also set up 4 laptops and one 24" Apple monitor to run 4 projects of 30-50 images as 3-second slide dissolves.
At the opening, viewers of my work tended to cluster around the monitors/slide shows before inspecting the prints (if they looked at the prints, that is). Most watched at least one project, some watched all 5. Did I imagine people would gravitate to the screens? Yes, of course in this screen culture! Was I pleased that people "paged through" an entire book of images, or several books worth? Yes. Did I sell any prints? Yes, but not off the wall; a few people selected images from one or another screen project to have printed.
I do have enough frames/mattes for a show of 6-24 prints of various sizes, and they mostly live at home with favorite images. But if I could do a show with one or two large but portable wall-mounted monitors, I wouldn't hesitate to make that my exhibitionist M.O.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
Robert,
Thanks for sharing this. I have my gal's old IPAD. For seeing lots of images the display is a good way to go.
Cal
Godfrey
somewhat colored
Indeed! Having 'live' displays does attract attention and at least gets viewers interested in the work you've done. it is why I have multiple iPads, so that I have plenty of options for what to carry and how to show work.
I know one wedding photography outfit that delivers the wedding album in print form, of course, but includes an iPad with a customized 'live' display presentation as well.
G
Rick Waldroup
Well-known
I have my own website where I post my photos. In my home, I have a small listening area for my stereo, where I have several prints hanging on the wall. I am about to venture into the self-publishing world, which is where I think the future lies for photographers- photo books.