Is there a point in making prints anymore?

[GSNfan]

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?

 

[Neare]

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.

 

[tedwhite]

What are you going to hang on the wall or in a gallery, an SD card?

 

[thegman]

Yes, if only just to hang on the wall. It would be grossly inefficient and backward to power a display just to do something a bit of paper can do.

Also, looking at a physical photo album is just do much better than a screen (and I'm a software developer, brought up in the age of computers). Screens glare, laptops get hot, they have a lot less resolution per square inch than paper.

I like computers, I enjoy working with them, including looking at photos, but paper is currently technically superior for viewing still images and text, such books, magazines, photo prints.

 

[GSNfan]

What makes you think galleries will not isntall HD/ displays?

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

 

[Tim Gray]

It's a lot cheaper and neater to hang prints on the wall than LCD screen everywhere. They also make great gifts. They store well in boxes too - some of my most valued items from the past are prints and slides that were carelessly thrown in a drawer 25-50 years ago and somehow managed to survive.

My life is much richer by the prints I stick up on the fridge with magnets and the prints I give to friends.

Soon, I plan on starting a small box with a label that reads 'My best work'. I will make prints of my very best stuff and store them there. I figure when I pass on, when everything else gets trashed, it might get passed on. I'm still young (early 30's), but if I keep true to this, in will have 40-50 years of memories in it by the time I go. Pictures of my grandkid's grandmother when she was young, etc., that could be really meaningful to them someday.

Sure, most of this stuff is in a jpg somewhere on my hard drive and probably up on flickr. But flickr won't be around in 20 years, and neither will my hard drive. I do plan on remaining vigilant about my digital backups, etc., but I don't expect anyone else to be as vigilant about my stuff after I'm gone.

 

[Pickett Wilson]

I've started thinking along these same lines.

Photos just look so much better on a backlit display than on paper. There is a continuing issue with color consistency from display to display, but that is also getting better. And in a few more years, tablets will be cheap and common. I think the physical prints will become even more a niche thing than they are now.

 

[Neare]

Proof of ownership is in the content and not the container.

😱 I disagree with that entirely.

 

[GSNfan]

I can see the point of Blurb books, but ironically I have looked through more digital versions of Blurb books rather than paper ones.

As far as hanging prints at home is concerned, well, why not install a digital display unit that automatically shuffles photos and is backlit so the images look great no matter what lighting condition at home?

The idea of thousdans of prints in the boxes is just seem to me a relic of the past... You can make a gallery of photos and post it so all your friends can see it at their own pleasure rather than looking through it one print at a time which is a very boring and time consuming process... There is a very good reason people say that there should not be no more than 24 images in a portfolio, its mostly have to do with time and boredom that ensues when looking at photos.

 

[GSNfan]

😱 I disagree with that entirely.

Just because RFF forum is not printed, which will probably make thousands of pages, it does not mean its not copyright protected.

Hopefully now its clear.

 

[Sparrow]

... yes, it's a good idea to print ones' photos, well, if they're good enough that is, there's no point wasting paper on the rubbish

 

[regularchickens]

Tangibility, persistence/permanence, control over the finished product, choice of paper, increased dynamic range, relatively low expense for large print sizes compared to similar displays. Fuji peel-apart films get wows when I'm shooting with a model that images on an LCD don't, and for good reason. I enjoy my photos much more when I have a finished physical product that I can appreciate than when they're on a display and gone within minutes just like all the rest of the ephemera that flick(e)rs past our screens these days.

 

[Benjamin Marks]

I like prints. I just don't have time to make any.

 

[jsrockit]

What are you going to hang on the wall or in a gallery, an SD card?

An LCD for each photo... 😉

 

[_larky]

People prefer looking at prints. I've done the research.

 

[GSNfan]

Tangibility, persistence/permanence...

What you 'see' does not have to be tangible to make it 'real'.

Just because a photo is in the form of digital information, it does not mean its no-existent, it does exist, simply in another format where you can see it but cannot touch it... Since a photo is meant to be seen rather than touched, it really does not make a difference and the success and superabundance of digital imagery is a testament to that.

 

[skibeerr]

I prefer prints. I have never owned a top notch calibrated computer screen, maybe that's why I see so much more in a print (with my glasses on 😀)

 

[Neare]

Just because RFF forum is not printed, which will probably make thousands of pages, it does not mean its not copyright protected.

Hopefully now its clear.

No, I'm afraid it isn't as simple as that.

The line between content and container is blurred and both are transient. Content can be changed and it is only it's container than can trace it's origins back to its owner. The container itself is a concept, not simply something physical. An idea, a name or knowledge itself are part of the container just as a piece of paper is.

 

[easyrider]

Unfortunately many people think the same way as the OP -- no prints. The percentage of people making prints is very small.

The result will be that there will be very few family albums. The electronics get outdated, hard drives, die, etc. Most images will perish. No visual history will be left.

 

[regularchickens]

What you 'see' does not have to be tangible to make it 'real'.

Just because a photo is in the form of digital information, it does not mean its no-existent, it does exist, simply in another format where you can see it but cannot touch it... Since a photo is meant to be seen rather than touched, it really does not make a difference and the success and superabundance of digital imagery is a testament to that.

Sure. But I like to separate my images from said superabundance and place them in a format in which they have their own presence and context so that I feel like they're not lost in the mix. My interest in photos, art in general, and how they're presented, is not purely functional.