Bob Michaels
nobody special
Simple, people will not go to the gallery if they cannot see the real thing. They will just stay at home and check out an electronic image on the internet.
That is not to say that galleries will not evolve to be able to show motion art or sound enhanced art. But that is an addition, not a replacement for classic original 2-D art hanging on the wall.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
This is the classic internet false dichotomy. Too many are arguing either that there's no point in making prints at all, or that there's no point in electronic imagery. Distressingly few seem prepared to concede that there's room for both.
Cheers,
R.
Cheers,
R.
Glass Addict
Established
I'm sure everyone has touched on one thing or another on this, but I'll say my piece.
In most cases, value of a photograph comes from the actual content. Depending on whether it is stored, sold, bought, and shown drives people's preference on the medium: digital or print.
For storage, some people choose to store digitally while others in prints. People who choose digital may be because it is very convenient and obviously less bulky. Others who choose print may see it as a tangible asset and feel more comfortable having something physical.
For buying and selling, value in a photograph lies not only in the content but also the format as well. Digital format, as it is not something tangible and cannot be authenticated, and more importantly, very easily duplicated (CTRL+C, CTRL+V), will not commend much value than if it was in print. Prints can be numbered and signed, sold in fixed numbers, and this adds value. As a seller/buyer of photographs, it makes more sense to limit the number of copies to maintain value.
For Showing to friends and family, I would say this is half and half. Really depends on the preference. Some people like to show on screens and flip through like an album, and others likes to show them by hanging them up on walls/physical albums. Personally, having multiple screens hanging on walls doesn't make any sense. Digital screens will always be more expensive than paper.
My 2 cents..
In most cases, value of a photograph comes from the actual content. Depending on whether it is stored, sold, bought, and shown drives people's preference on the medium: digital or print.
For storage, some people choose to store digitally while others in prints. People who choose digital may be because it is very convenient and obviously less bulky. Others who choose print may see it as a tangible asset and feel more comfortable having something physical.
For buying and selling, value in a photograph lies not only in the content but also the format as well. Digital format, as it is not something tangible and cannot be authenticated, and more importantly, very easily duplicated (CTRL+C, CTRL+V), will not commend much value than if it was in print. Prints can be numbered and signed, sold in fixed numbers, and this adds value. As a seller/buyer of photographs, it makes more sense to limit the number of copies to maintain value.
For Showing to friends and family, I would say this is half and half. Really depends on the preference. Some people like to show on screens and flip through like an album, and others likes to show them by hanging them up on walls/physical albums. Personally, having multiple screens hanging on walls doesn't make any sense. Digital screens will always be more expensive than paper.
My 2 cents..
Last edited:
ampguy
Veteran
I think it's important
I think it's important
I've noticed after printing 100 8.5x11 b/w and color works, that I'm not shooting with the DOF I'd like. The DOF, when I look at the print from 10" is less than what I saw on the screen or on the 'puter.
It's good to print regularly, and check things out.
I think it's important
I've noticed after printing 100 8.5x11 b/w and color works, that I'm not shooting with the DOF I'd like. The DOF, when I look at the print from 10" is less than what I saw on the screen or on the 'puter.
It's good to print regularly, and check things out.
SciAggie
Well-known
Your point is well taken. My understanding of the OP was to question if there was still any point to making prints; I did not take this to exclude the value of digital images. I have thousands of images on my website that are for the benefit of a limited audience. I certainly agree that web hosted, or electronic viewing is the current mainstream method of viewing photographs. I use that method the majority of the time myself.
As you have pointed out, there is a place for both. I still enjoy a print well matted and framed and hung on my wall. I also enjoy the feel of a book or album in my lap as I leisurely thumb through pages. As a percentage of the images I view, they compose a fraction of a percent.
Prints may be come less common in the same way that hand written journals and love letters are perhaps less common than they once were. The point I have wanted to make is that in my experience, it is the hand written note, the hand written journal, and the hung print that have had the most impact on me personally. I believe that is true for others as well. I also don't believe that is a micro view of the world - just a different way of experiencing it.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Ah, the tennis girl scratching her beautifully-formed bum, Athena poster icon of the early 70s. Go on: tell me an electronic image would make you smile as much. I never bought that one, but I bought others, and 'won' yet others.
From where I'm sitting by my internet computer I can see (going clockwise)B an original promo 8x10 from Harvey (Jimmy Stewart), three hand-coloured engravings of wild pigs, a piece of embroidery, a photo of my late mother-in-law and her younger sister, aged 13 and 7, taken in the 1920s, an 8x10 Hollywood-style portrait I took of a friend's daughter when she was 11 (she's now 26 -- I may have to take her wedding pics in September), a picture of a drummer in Times Square, a 5x7 inch still life of artichokes printed on POP, Frances's name and mine in Tibetan calligraphy, and a 1981 Academy Awards program (Frances was an usher).
Would I get the same from a screen? I think not. Physical pictures have a history, a presence. Fleeting images on a screen, don't.
Stuff that stays on your wall says something about you. So does refusing to make/display 'real' pictures.
Cheers,
R.
From where I'm sitting by my internet computer I can see (going clockwise)B an original promo 8x10 from Harvey (Jimmy Stewart), three hand-coloured engravings of wild pigs, a piece of embroidery, a photo of my late mother-in-law and her younger sister, aged 13 and 7, taken in the 1920s, an 8x10 Hollywood-style portrait I took of a friend's daughter when she was 11 (she's now 26 -- I may have to take her wedding pics in September), a picture of a drummer in Times Square, a 5x7 inch still life of artichokes printed on POP, Frances's name and mine in Tibetan calligraphy, and a 1981 Academy Awards program (Frances was an usher).
Would I get the same from a screen? I think not. Physical pictures have a history, a presence. Fleeting images on a screen, don't.
Stuff that stays on your wall says something about you. So does refusing to make/display 'real' pictures.
Cheers,
R.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Some art theorists are quite dismissive of the 'precious object' (as in the orginal print, the love letter, whatever). I feel rather sorry for them. The 'precious object' is by no means an essential part of all art, but equally, it cannot be totally ignored in all art.
Cheers,
R.
Melvin
Flim Forever!
Prints have WAY better resolution than a monitor. They are just flat out technically better. Look at a 5x7 darkroom print, your ablity to see very fine detail is limited only by your vision. Now look at the same image at 5x7 on a computer screen, the fine detail just isn't there. You have to blow up the image to see it.
What I want to know is what is the point of having thousands of dollars worth of Leica glass and cameras if you're going to look at the pictures at 72 dpi?
What I want to know is what is the point of having thousands of dollars worth of Leica glass and cameras if you're going to look at the pictures at 72 dpi?
Last edited:
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Thank goodness. Have you seen what most people look like nowadays?
And the means of looking at an image that doesn't require electricity. I much prefer a good print to what I see on a screen. Sure the screen can be poppier or snappier, but a print has texture, changes with the light and has a physical presence an LCD does not. I played around with video and Super 8 film in high school, what can I look at now? The Super 8. The video (on beta) is long dead.
Keith
The best camera is one that still works!
As for galleries displaying images on screens or LCD's that happens a lot at the gallery where I shoot the occasional opening. They also have a very high powered digital projection system that uses an entire wall of the gallery and a lot of what is there is stills and not necessarily video. Its struck me as odd at first but I'm kind of used to it now and do tend to see it as the future of imagery.
wgerrard
Veteran
I bought a nice enlarger more than a year ago with every intention of learning to make prints. Never used it. I am more than happy scanning negatives. In fact, before I buy my next camera, I will almost certainly sell off my scanner, my film cameras, and lenses.
I understand the impact of hanging prints on a wall, But, I don't do that. Besides, I can store thousands of images online, but only hang a relative few on my walls.
The people who I want to look to at my pix want to see them online. If I don't post them at a site they can see, they won't see them. Simple as that.
It's time we recognize that shooting and tweaking images for online display is as honorable as working in a wet darkroom. You all didn't ride a horse to work today, did you?
I understand the impact of hanging prints on a wall, But, I don't do that. Besides, I can store thousands of images online, but only hang a relative few on my walls.
The people who I want to look to at my pix want to see them online. If I don't post them at a site they can see, they won't see them. Simple as that.
It's time we recognize that shooting and tweaking images for online display is as honorable as working in a wet darkroom. You all didn't ride a horse to work today, did you?
FrankS
Registered User
I'm very happy that the general public is embracing digital photography (capture and viewing) and leaving silver-based photography for those who wish to continue to express their creativity in the traditional way. In the same way, I'll bet many painters were happy when photography was invented.
evanbaines
Drunk the RF Kool Aid
You probably agreed with Cypher in the Matrix too, didn't you? 
(gently kidding)
I will make prints because I enjoy holding a print in my hands, and prefer it to looking at a screen. I am proud of my work when it hangs on a wall. I have less emotional attachment to images in bits and bytes and LCD's. If this is not the case for you, then that is perfectly fine.
(gently kidding)I will make prints because I enjoy holding a print in my hands, and prefer it to looking at a screen. I am proud of my work when it hangs on a wall. I have less emotional attachment to images in bits and bytes and LCD's. If this is not the case for you, then that is perfectly fine.
daninjc
Well-known
There is not much point in making prints of all one's work ( or vacation snapshots and family pics) anymore. It's much easier to keep it stored digitally so it's readily accessible to be looked at anytime (can't do that with negatives). And post it online, so it's easily shared. In this the times have really changed (for the better).
I see the point in printing a few selected images (the - very subjective - best of one's work) to hang on a wall, exhibit in a gallery, coffee shop, or whatever.
Also prints make good gifts that are not matched by .jpeg attachments or facebook wall posts. And the the craft and time invested in the print-making adds value to the print from a human/emotional point of view. People love tangible objects and the idea of uniqueness.
As for for artists that want to sell limited editions - try to sell a limited edition in .jpeg format. Perfect reproducibility of digital images might get in the way of that.
I see the point in printing a few selected images (the - very subjective - best of one's work) to hang on a wall, exhibit in a gallery, coffee shop, or whatever.
Also prints make good gifts that are not matched by .jpeg attachments or facebook wall posts. And the the craft and time invested in the print-making adds value to the print from a human/emotional point of view. People love tangible objects and the idea of uniqueness.
As for for artists that want to sell limited editions - try to sell a limited edition in .jpeg format. Perfect reproducibility of digital images might get in the way of that.
emraphoto
Veteran
prints command a premium. not my rules... just how it is.
i like prints
i like the 'craft'
i like prints
i like the 'craft'
majid
Fazal Majid
Viewing a photograph on a good monitor is superior to a print, just as slides were, because of the higher contrast ratio. I got into a bit of an argument with a customer service rep at X-Rite because the Colormunki Photo maxes out at a luminance far below what a modern screen can deliver:
Of course, the implicit assumption behind that line of reasoning is that the only point in color calibration is to make prints, when prints are now the exception rather than the rule.
The only prints I make are large ones (11x14 or 13x19) for hanging, and there is only so much space available on the walls. I do agree with the previous poster that Blurb books are an excellent way to showcase photos.
Of course, the implicit assumption behind that line of reasoning is that the only point in color calibration is to make prints, when prints are now the exception rather than the rule.
The only prints I make are large ones (11x14 or 13x19) for hanging, and there is only so much space available on the walls. I do agree with the previous poster that Blurb books are an excellent way to showcase photos.
KM-25
Well-known
Sorry to put it so bluntly, but if you have to ask, then you are just another guy with a camera on the craptastic internet, not a real photographer.
Last edited:
kievman
Kievman
I have always enjoyed looking at prints much more than on a screen. The prints I make in my darkroom I also know will last a lifetime unlike digital images and I will be able to enjoy them for a life time too unlike digital- Kievman
raid
Dad Photographer
The posted question somehow brought to my mind the question: "Since we have many ways of transportation, is it still meaningful to take a walk?"
While making prints will not improve your physical health, like walking does, your soul may benefit from it.
Making prints is not necessary, but it is not unnecessary either.
While making prints will not improve your physical health, like walking does, your soul may benefit from it.
Making prints is not necessary, but it is not unnecessary either.
collarge
Newbie
Gallery Prints
Gallery Prints
Its been done all ready, galleries have put up LCD's/TV's and recently at a David Hockney exhibion rows of iPads, you can see a video clip here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11666162
I donk think the idea will take over prints as you still need to be able to size an image, frame and mount into different styles,colours and textures, frankly I see the screen a symbol of work, people want to see something that makes them relax there eyes in my opinion.
Gallery Prints
Its been done all ready, galleries have put up LCD's/TV's and recently at a David Hockney exhibion rows of iPads, you can see a video clip here http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11666162
I donk think the idea will take over prints as you still need to be able to size an image, frame and mount into different styles,colours and textures, frankly I see the screen a symbol of work, people want to see something that makes them relax there eyes in my opinion.