Who still prints? Digital-only users

[Calzone]

Robert,

How satisfying is it to look at prints that one made/created.

Really lovely.

I can't wait till I set up my darkroom. Right now it is in storage. One day...

Cal

 

[Michael Markey]

Don’t print vet often and when I do I get Ilford to do it
At my local camera club PDF are becoming more popular as the costs of printing increases and the viewing conditions vary so much
Prints are shuffled around the country to be judged in the various competition s and when they come back (if they come back) well you can imagine
The old guard still persists but the younger end think print an unnecessary expense and it doesn’t show their work to best advantage .

 

[KM-25]

I don't print a lot of color for my self but for clients for sure. I farm it out though so I don't have to waste time doing the digital drudgery my self which to be honest, I find my good print resources will always outdo me and I don't have to deal with paper waste and ink issues.

Silver printing from film on the other hand, that is a real hand made article so I do it all my self.

 

[Calzone]

Silver printing from film on the other hand, that is a real hand made article so I do it all my self.

KM,

I appreciate the craft and the hand made aspect of wet printing.

Plus-one.

Cal

 

[cz23]

At this point in the poll, we have what you'd call a reliable predictor: the younger you are the less likely you are to print. Not surprising, but not good news for the printer and paper industries.

John

 

[ColSebastianMoran]

Initially, I didn't print from digital. In my opinion, viewing photos on a nice, crisp, back-lit display is better experience than holding a 4x6" print. So, the display replaced my previous regular practice of 4x6 prints of everything.

But, larger prints are another story. For selected images, prints from digital are far better than what I got from 35mm film. Costco 20x30 inkjet prints are economical and consistent. I especially like prints on metal (Adorama, print on metal coated glossy white). And, for some images, canvas prints display very nicely. I'm making display prints 20x30 for the walls.

Big prints from digital is a whole new ball game.

 

[Calzone]

At this point in the poll, we have what you'd call a reliable predictor: the younger you are the less likely you are to print. Not good news for the printer and paper industries.

John

Wet printing seems to be a dying art.

Perhaps us old geezers that wet print or wet printed back in the day still have the romance that this is true photography, meaning not just image capture, but actually printing and creating an artifact (print). The only reason I don't wet print is that presently I don't have a darkroom. One day...

I'm not surprised by this poll's result. The Internet, a computer screen, or even my dimmed down EIZO calibrated monitor is not the best way to display my work. I can print what I can't see on my EIZO.

Cal

 

[KM-25]

At this point in the poll, we have what you'd call a reliable predictor: the younger you are the less likely you are to print. Not surprising, but not good news for the printer and paper industries.

I mentor some two dozen photographers age 18-23, all of them print, none of them post on forums so this is not at all an indicator of what is really going on in my experience.

On the other hand my wife who at 41 years old and is ten years my junior took it upon her self to borrow my FM3A and 50mm 1.8 AIS and load it with some color film from out of my freezer. She took it for a family gathering in California a couple months ago.

She loved getting and sharing prints so she now has taken permanent loan of it, I’m sure she would let me use it if I asked her…;-)

 

[RichC]

At this point in the poll, we have what you'd call a reliable predictor: the younger you are the less likely you are to print. Not surprising, but not good news for the printer and paper industries.

OP here...

Or it tells us that RFF members are mostly over 50! 🙂

What I should have done was set up the poll with 7 similar age options - but titled "I mostly don't print my good photos".

Unfortunately, without that second control group, the poll results aren't terribly helpful. All it tells us is that RFF members aged over 50 print - that may be because younger folk don't print but older people do, or perhaps most people print but RFF has very few young members!

 

[cz23]

OP here...

Or it tells us that RFF members are mostly over 50! 🙂

What I should have done was set up the poll with 7 similar age options - but titled "I mostly don't print my good photos".

Unfortunately, without that second control group, the poll results aren't terribly helpful. All it tells us is that RFF members aged over 50 print - that may be because younger folk don't print but older people do, or perhaps most people print but RFF has very few young members!

You know what Mark Twain said: "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Still, I suspect our trend would hold up across the general population. I'd wager that even the majority us 55+ photographers don't print regularly. But I don't really know.

John

 

[JohnBeeching]

To me the end point has always been to produce a tangible print of my photographs. That is as true today with digital as it has always been for film. There are some excellent papers available and an A2 print, black and white or colour, looks spectacular mounted and framed behind glass. Alternatively, I produce self-published photo-books, which are a good way to complete a project to give or sell.

If photographers don't print why do they spend such vast sums on expensive kit when a simple point and shoot or phone would be good enough for the computer screen?

 

[Rob-F]

I threw out my big Canon printer that took six ink cartridges when it started giving problems, and bought a little canon Pixma 100 to print out documents. I haven't tried printing photos with it yet, but I will eventually--I guess.

 

[Michael Markey]

If photographers don't print why do they spend such vast sums on expensive kit when a simple point and shoot or phone would be good enough for the computer screen?

Because high definition computer screens are seen as better than analog printing systems.

The argument goes that digital cameras have continued to improve in terms of resolution etc but analogue printing systems have been static.

Why buy a high resolution camera and loose it pushing the image through an inkjet when you can use a high res screen.

That’s what they tell me .

 

[RichC]

Because high definition computer screens are seen as better than analog printing systems.

The argument goes that digital cameras have continued to improve in terms of resolution etc but analogue printing systems have been static.

Why buy a high resolution camera and loose it pushing the image through an inkjet when you can use a high res screen.

That’s what they tell me .

To be fair, monitor screens are increasing in resolution rapidly. 5K screens like Dell’s 5120×2880 pixel, 220 dpi, 27 in. monster need a 14.5 MB image to fill the screen. That’s about the same resolution as a print, assuming a typical 200-300 dpi.

It’ll be a few years before 5K or 4K screens become the norm though...

 

[Dogman]

Because high definition computer screens are seen as better than analog printing systems.

The argument goes that digital cameras have continued to improve in terms of resolution etc but analogue printing systems have been static.

Why buy a high resolution camera and loose it pushing the image through an inkjet when you can use a high res screen.

That’s what they tell me .

I suspect "they" are wrong. "They" usually are.

But no matter. To each his own.

I highly recommend reading "The Printed Picture" by Richard Benson. A great history of how printing has evolved in methods over the ages.

 

[Michael Markey]

Well , perhaps.
By they I mean the younger end of course
I find myself in a curious position on this one.
As an avid reader of books since a early age I have a house full of them and would never think of buying an electronic version .
However as far as photographic prints are concern , sure I have what I consider to be my best shots printed and stored in archival portfolio boxes but I never look at them. At least not often
I don’t get the same pleasure out of a print as I do from a book and I can’t explain that frankly
I prefer to view them on a screen and I certainly would clutter up a wall with them although I do have two hanging
They’re up there for mainly nostalgic reasons because the printing was organised by Stewart (Sparrow) late of this parish.

 

[fireblade]

Yes, i print digital. Just picked up a box of Hahnemuhle Matt FineArt in the 310 textured German etching. Can't wait to print the first one over the week-end.

 

[NickTrop]

Just scanned this responses to this thread -- aia (apologies in advance -- a new acronym I just invented) if it has been addressed. However, just because you don't print with an inkjet (and I will tell you, I truly have a love/hate relationship with this tech -- mostly hate) doesn't mean you don't "make prints" using a service. Prints, photo-books etc. Not sure of the costs/benefits of this but to my way of thinking, it's more efficient/cost effective insofar as a vendor likely has an industrial $xxx,xxx commercial printer that's obviously better than my dinky $xxx consumer-grade printer that's much better maintained... Seems to make more sense to rent that capability on an as-needed basis. I've used a few of these services over the years, have no preference, and have been satisfied with the results.

I go back-and-forth on this. I haven't used my Epson Artisan 1430 in a couple months. I am dreading that next print. I see clogged print heads and a gallon of expensive inks wasted in the "hope" of fixing the problem, followed by YouTube searches on how to fix the yet-to-be determined problem.

I trust we've been there?

 

[Calzone]

Just scanned this responses to this thread -- aia (apologies in advance -- a new acronym I just invented) if it has been addressed. However, just because you don't print with an inkjet (and I will tell you, I truly have a love/hate relationship with this tech -- mostly hate) doesn't mean you don't "make prints" using a service. Prints, photo-books etc. Not sure of the costs/benefits of this but to my way of thinking, it's more efficient/cost effective insofar as a vendor likely has an industrial $xxx,xxx commercial printer that's obviously better than my dinky $xxx consumer-grade printer that's much better maintained... Seems to make more sense to rent that capability on an as-needed basis.

I go back-and-forth on this. I haven't used my Epson Artisan 1430 in a couple months. I am dreading that next print. I see clogged print heads and a gallon of expensive inks wasted in the "hope" of fixing the problem.

Nick,

I understand where you are coming from.

I made the jump. My 3880 is my small printer, and at best I think it is kinda Pro-sumer and not on the level of the real "Pro" floor standing printers. I own a 7800 and I can't afford to run it year round. I use Piezoflush to place it into storage mode. The 3880 basically stays online all year.

Kinda hard to justify a big printer unless you print big. And if you don't print regularly we all know what happens...

Not many print because of either space or economic reasons. Printing is expensive, especially if one prints big.

Cal

 

[RichC]

Just because you don't print with an inkjet ... doesn't mean you don't "make prints" using a service. Prints, photo-books etc. Not sure of the costs/benefits of this but to my way of thinking, it's more efficient/cost effective insofar as a vendor likely has an industrial $xxx,xxx commercial printer that's obviously better than my dinky $xxx consumer-grade printer that's much better maintained... Seems to make more sense to rent that capability on an as-needed basis.

I trust we've been there?

OP here ... I'm of the school that considers a photo only truly "done" when printed.

I only make inkjet prints as proofs or tests, using my trusty and reliable (touches wood) Epson R2880 that I've had for about a decade.

I prefer traditional silver-based colour prints (I don't do B&W): C types. Compared with inkjet prints, C types to my eye are slightly softer (details less crisp) but with gentler and greater tonality (esp. in shadows), and seem more natural (because the image is below the surface rather than sitting on the surface. You can "look into" a C type whereas you "look at" an inkjet - which has an abrupt cut off to vision rather than tailing away...

As Calzone says, large prints are expensive! But my inkjet printer is handy ... it's all well and good faffing on screen, but the acid test is looking at a physical print, and I'd rather waste a couple of pounds rather then tens of pounds getting a print professionally printed, then finding I don't like how it looks!

Interestingly, C type prints from professional agencies are way cheaper than inkjet prints! Which suits me fine, since I like the former best!