Print or screen...

Prior to the digital age, prints were the exception. Grandparents would go to the village photographer on special occasions. During the sixties, there was one uncle who had a camera and would take occasional family pictures and print them. I experienced the non-digital phase and was lucky to gather a large amount of printed pictures. All in all, the printed pics win... I have them in a photo album which I can pass on to the next generation.

There is no question that both prints and screen displays of photographic work have their place in the world. Why does all of this have to be placed as "in the digital age" or not?

Most of the albums of the previous generation in my family were lost due to one thing or another. Whenever I find some of the scraps left over, I scan them and distribute the images to everyone in the family—as both prints and as image files suitable to be displayed on smartphones, tablets, or display screens. More will survive into the next generation now because the images are in more than one place.

G
 
Prior to the digital age, prints were the exception. Grandparents would go to the village photographer on special occasions. During the sixties, there was one uncle who had a camera and would take occasional family pictures and print them. I experienced the non-digital phase and was lucky to gather a large amount of printed pictures. All in all, the printed pics win... I have them in a photo album which I can pass on to the next generation.
Dear Peter,

Surely "the rule".

On-screen images were REALLY rare, and prints were a lot more common than projected slides.

Cheers,

R.
 
I like the idea of print AND screen.

Scanned split grade print of a 35mm negative on ADOX MCC 110.

Erik.

41418243371_d2abc0705c_c.jpg
 
Here's a brief article that points out some of the advantages of prints. It's worth a glance.

https://www.thephoblographer.com/20...photographers-still-print-photos/#more-114791

That's a nice article, but most of the benefits are described in terms of the pleasure printing and prints bring to the photographer. I agree with all that. There's nothing like handling and viewing a nice print.

But in terms of sharing your work, the web can't be beat. (Not that anyone ever looks at my stuff online. :)) So I agree that both formats are wonderful.

John
 
That's a nice article, but most of the benefits are described in terms of the pleasure printing and prints bring to the photographer. I agree with all that. There's nothing like handling and viewing a nice print.

But in terms of sharing your work, the web can't be beat. (Not that anyone ever looks at my stuff online. :)) So I agree that both formats are wonderful.
It is not an either/or proposition. You can do both. The issue is a false dichotomy.
 
I didn't read the 35 VF thread and ordered OM 35 VF. It came, I looked into to it and has wrong proportions and crappy quality. But. Seller put as the gift small new empty photo album for kids. This weekend was ice storm with advisory not to travel. I printed photos for this album with trusty Epson C88+ and gave it to our daughter as her first own photo album.
It made both of us happy...
 
It comes back to the same old issue, nearly impossible to get to get a commercial source to print the file perfectly, not just commercially acceptable. Certainly possible to get a decent $20 8x10 print.

Put them on line and few have calibrated monitors .
 
Back
Top Bottom