Is there a point in making prints anymore?

You make a good point. Personally, I'm looking forward to using Blurb-type printed books as the primary method of showing/looking at my photos.

There's also an interesting use for prints brought about by the digital age. A lot of people are concerned about the archival safety of their digital files, whether on hard drives, CDs, etc. However, if you've made a quality print for all the images you really care about, then if all else fails you can simply scan the print and make another. 🙂
 
SciAggie said:
With all due respect, these are your opinions and feelings on the matter and that is perfectly valid. Other individuals and posters have different opinions and they are no less valid. For me, video is not someting I enjoy as much. As for photos that are cringe worthy, I would say that could apply equally to videos or any other electronic presentation.

One reason I like looking at a book or album with family is for the stories and memories that are shared during the process. In my experience the same type of interaction doeasn't occur during a video - we probably would not pause and share memories.

Different strokes for different folks...
Click to expand...

You're point is valid as well, but then how many people make wet prints of their family photos in large size? Not many I assume.
 
Neare said:
Yes.

Without physical proof of ownership, you don't really own anything more than a blip of some digital signal.

Although we don't 'need' prints, the world can only suffer without them.
Click to expand...

I read recently, that with the danger of data loss to digital images stored on magnetic or optical media, an archival print was the only current method of preserving the image properly.
 
rpsawin said:
And what do galleries sell? Do they sell prints or HD Displays? Follow the $$$ in terms of galleries.

The real question is what is the best way for you to display your prints given your purposes.

Best regard,

Bob
Click to expand...

I think you raised an even more important point. Why should someone buy a large paper print?

Collector factor maybe but even then why not buy the whole gallery of your favourite photographer in digital format and view it on your large digital display which could be e-paper or a panel hang on a wall?



Sorry if I cannot keep with all the replies but I'm as much interested in finding another view about this issue than what I think, but so far I'm not convinced.
 
GSNfan said:
I think you raised an even more important point. Why should someone buy a large paper print?

Collector factor maybe but even then why not buy the whole gallery of your favourite photographer in digital format and view it on your large digital display which could be e-paper or a panel hang on a wall?



Sorry if I cannot keep with all the replies but I'm as much interested in finding another view about this issue than what I think, but so far I'm not convinced.
Click to expand...

I suppose that some day one would download photos from a gallery. Given the cost of owning/maintaining a physical location it would seem to me that moving from prints (analog or digital printing) to files will also mean moving from a physical gallery to a virtual one.

Just think of the $$$ to be saved on wine & cheese...😀

Bob
 
rpsawin said:
I suppose that some day one would download photos from a gallery. Given the cost of owning/maintaining a physical location it would seem to me that moving from prints (analog or digital printing) to files will also mean moving from a physical gallery to a virtual one.

Just think of the $$$ to be saved on wine & cheese...😀

Bob
Click to expand...

That is inevitable. But also more importantly art photography will not be defined by a few people in the galleries and so on, it will be ratings in websites such as flicker that will determine the value of a photo.

This is consistent with democratization of photography that we have sometimes talked about in this forum. The fact is that we, as the audience of photos no longer need an elite of photographer, critics, galleria and so on to define to us what is good and what is bad, we take our own photos and we judge ourselves what's it good and what is not. To me that is very exciting.
 
No one has mentioned that viewers prefer prints because they can control the amount of time they spend looking at each image. The viewer has the opportunity to glance at an image and move on or spend time dwelling on an image they like.

Electronic viewing makes us our own worst enemy when we try to show way too many images and insist that the viewer spend too much time with each one. Remember the anguish of someone bringing out multiple trays of 35mm slides? And you cringing because you just knew they were going to leave those slides on the screen for too long while they described their great time in BFE? It still exists but now electronically. When someone whips out an electronic device to show me their photos, I usually remember that I am late for a root canal appointment.
 
GSNfan said:
You're point is valid as well, but then how many people make wet prints of their family photos in large size? Not many I assume.
Click to expand...

Your original post does not mention the size of prints being an issue. I do have prints that range fron 8x10 to 16x20 in my home - not many for sure - but then I don't think there would be many LCD displays in a home either.

Just for example, there is a large 16x20 B&W print of my mother in her wedding gown. My sister inherited the print and has it hanging in her home. I have an electronic version and it is far less satisfying. I am glad to have the digital version (which I had printed) but my point is that the original print has a value of it's own that for me extends beyond the image itself.
 
Hey, my first package of print paper just arrived in the mail. Don't tell me the party's over when I just got here. ;-(

I haven't even mixed the chemicals yet.

From my point of view, there is a different mojo in doing things with a physical medium as opposed to digital. No matter how "good" digital stuff gets, it is still virtual, not real.

Randy
 
SciAggie said:
Your original post does not mention the size of prints being an issue. I do have prints that range fron 8x10 to 16x20 in my home - not many for sure - but then I don't think there would be many LCD displays in a home either.

Just for example, there is a large 16x20 B&W print of my mother in her wedding gown. My sister inherited the print and has it hanging in her home. I have an electronic version and it is far less satisfying. I am glad to have the digital version (which I had printed) but my point is that the original print has a value of it's own that for me extends beyond the image itself.
Click to expand...

Of course one cannot argue against human emotions and sentimental value of things, your point is valid but that is looking at things in a micro level.
 
GSNfan said:
With tablet PCs, e-readers, smart phones, ipads, other pads, OLD displays, e-paper and finally HD monitors/TV with very high dynamic range, is there any point in making prints any more?

Once a print was the only way to see a photograph the way it was intended to look like, and projectors for slides, now you can look at a photo even in the back of the camera in the LCD, and then your computer monitor and so is everyone else and in all digital display devices.

Why make prints, especially if you're not shooting for money and especially when no one is asking to see your prints?
Click to expand...

I was thinking the same thing for a long whiile, and stopped making prints, (black and white by hands or even color from digital scans). Although I printed few books on Blurb and otherwise, but it's different.
But recently I was part of a gallery exibition and I saw my pictures printed huge, 40 by 30 inches, couple were larger. And I realized that impact on people from these pictures is completely different, and I would say a lot stronger. Since then - if I print I print big. It is so cheap now, for $25 you can order huge print online.
 
zauhar said:
Don't tell me the party's over when I just got here. ;-(

Randy
Click to expand...

I'd lie if I say that is not true, but I'm afraid it is true. The party is over as far is how photography was practised.

Ten years ago people still wrote love letters... Its sad isn't it... but there is a new party, the only trick is getting in, and one of the prerequisite I assume would be to get the idea of the passed party out of one's system.
 
GSNfan said:
.......................... art photography will not be defined by a few people in the galleries and so on, it will be ratings in websites such as flicker that will determine the value of a photo. ..........................................
Click to expand...

Can we make a list of iconic photographers who have never posted photos to flicker or any website that accommodates ratings? Or, make a list of iconic photographers who do post to rating sites? Let's see we could start off with............ uh, uh, I can't think of any.
 
Last edited:
GSNfan said:
What makes you think galleries will not isntall HD/ displays?

Neare: Proof of ownership is in the content and not the container.
Click to expand...

The reason I can say with confidence that galleries won't install HD/Displays for stills is because people who suggest that they will, will be the same people who say they are not going to pay money for a digital file. Galleries are in it for money and somewhow I don't think they'll be following any business model you suggest to them.
 
It is not really necessary to make always prints. Many other ways are to enjoy photography, this is true. In my opinion to have in my hand a nice print gives me a much warmer feel than looking at it on a screen. At the end it will be a personal choice, or taste. But a print is a finished product. That is the photo. I say this because many times I see photo on digital devices and when someone comments "oh, nice but it seems me that the whites are washed out" the answer always is "oh. It look perfect on my monitor!"
But when you show a print that is!
robert
 
Each of us will decide if an electronic image or a traditional print is the best way to present our work. I work with electronic imaging and page layout every day; I make traditional silver prints because I enjoy the process and the results. At the end, it's my work and I'll do it however I please.
 
GSNfan said:
..................... Why should someone buy a large paper print? .....................................
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen a real Ansel Adams or Edward Weston print? Personally I am not fond of that genre but the difference between the real thing and an electronic image is like night and day.
 
I love looking at a well printed photograph preferably larger than 8X10. Seeing a print matted, framed and hanging on the wall is what it's all about for me. The small image on a computer screen is a poor substitute for a really nicely done print. Jim
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom