Why print?

[jack69]

Personally I enjoy a lot more printed images than monitors,

resolution is never better on a monitor, even on recent "retina displays" with 350 ppi.
An inkjet printer lays 1440x720 points of ink per inch, at least.

Besides, there are so many types of paper (and ink!) that add texture, and "feel" to the work that cannot be reproduced by a monitor and in many cases it is part of the work of a photographer as it has always been. Baryta papers, rag papers, matte finish, glossy finish, pearl finish.

It's part of the job.

If a photo is only a reminder of what happened in a certain day, then cellphone photography is more than enough.

Erroneously posted.

No, what I meant was that I posted my post by mistake.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Bobo Hodls]

It's just another subjective preference, of which there are many, and all are equally valid. You'll get opinions about printing being THE medium of choice, because a fine print takes effort and skill to develop - no one likes to hear their attained skills are not valued or might be becoming passé.

Personally, I get great satisfaction from various electronic displays - but they don't quite provide the satisfaction attained when a good image printed, mounted and framed, with my own two hands. For some reason I still find that form of presentation most significant.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

 

[elRicardo]

Oooh haha OK, no problem!

 

[JulesJ]

How sad a viewpoint you have. Do you have a car, which is more wasteful, that or the beautiful b&w prints by my favourite photographs hanging in my house? I hear you points but they are sad to hear. The fact tat you will never apperception a great fibre print on your wall is, in my opinion, your loss.

We have over a hundred hanging in our house and they only ever receive compliments?
Jules

True blue blood photographers scoff at digital photo-imaging because it has become too easy and inexpensive to shoot pictures, view them on monitors, and share them everywhere online. This has opened up the field to vulgar masses.

Printing, meanwhile, remains expensive and wasteful. Expense and waste are the requisite marks of any aristoractic art form. They overwhelm the poor of money or leisure time, limiting the field only to the nobily idle or cream of elites. It takes a palace to exhibit hundreds of prints, and prints grace the manor they same way as paintings, sculpture, or stables of horses might. Poor slobs, on the other hand, can seldom collect more than occasional 4x6 prints to stick in a lowly album, and most end up in shoeboxes.

Besides, prints consume lots of ink and sales of cartidges make more money for Canon than camera bodies. Part of the virtue of expense is the sheer pleasure dervived by spending--because it shows that you can.

If any commoner should ask, "Why print?" the connoisuer need only reply:

Why, my dear fellow. It's not something one can explain. If you have to ask, it simply shows a lack of good breeding. Just looking at you, one sees you could never understand such things, so it would be a waste to try to explain. A pitty.

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[JulesJ]

Virtually everything you ever purchase uses the world resources. If you are worrying about a few prints in your house and worry about everything else to an equal extent then I hope your house is totally empty of all consumables.
Jules

Ink? I thought real photo printing consumed silver and chemicals! (and trees).

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[JulesJ]

It's just another subjective preference, of which there are many, and all are equally valid. You'll get opinions about printing being THE medium of choice, because a fine print takes effort and skill to develop - no one likes to hear their attained skills are not valued or might be becoming passé.

Personally, I get great satisfaction from various electronic displays - but they don't quite provide the satisfaction attained when a good image printed, mounted and framed, with my own two hands. For some reason I still find that form of presentation most significant.

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[JulesJ]

It's just another subjective preference, of which there are many, and all are equally valid. You'll get opinions about printing being THE medium of choice, because a fine print takes effort and skill to develop - no one likes to hear their attained skills are not valued or might be becoming passé.

Personally, I get great satisfaction from various electronic displays - but they don't quite provide the satisfaction attained when a good image printed, mounted and framed, with my own two hands. For some reason I still find that form of presentation most significant.

And I bet you prefer CDs to going to live concerts too, and refer to see a Van Gogh and the other great painters reproductions in a magazine rather that visiting the great art galleries of he word to see originals.
Jules

--
...Bob, NYC
http://www.bobtullis.com

"Well, sometimes the magic works. . . Sometimes, it doesn't." - Little Big Man
.

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[jeffcpix]

I have never had to think twice about how far away I view photogrphs

Sorry to beat the dead horse, but I

just attended a show of Impressionist paintings at the Hermitage Museum in Amsterdam. On one wall of the hall, there was a print of a painting of the
interior of a department store (Le Bon Marche, my guess).

It was approximately 10m high x 15m across.

Looking up at it from a certain distance (where the image filled my
field of vision and the vanishing point made sense), there
was quite a bit of 3D effect. But what really made it work was
viewing it from a balcony one floor up -- then, it
really 'popped' because I was looking DOWN on the tops
of the display cases in the painting -- just as the painter would have --
or a photographer looking at his groundglass (albeit upside down) --
from a single perspective.

One rarely gets to see such large prints -- and from the proper

vantage point -- but it makes the point that size (and viewing distance) matters.

Also, one of the notes to the exhibition had this statement:
"Impressionism is the high point in the artistic conquest of reality."

Hmmmmm. Artistically conquering reality -- now that's something I'll have to put on my bucket list.

 

[InterestedParty]

And no way around it.

 

[John W Hall]

Because I haven't found a 17-feet wide monitor yet,
and if I did, affording and transporting it would be difficult.
Also I'd soon be wanting a wider one.