Very nice article, Bernard, following the ever popular path of "futurist predictions." Of course digital picture frames will get better and cheaper and will become more popular as a result. (They better; currently their size, resolutions, and dynamic ranges make them a joke.) But don't run out and sell your Epson anytime soon.

Read Marshall McLuhan's "The Medium Is the Message" (required reading in college freshman English during the 60's when I was coming up) and you may change your mind about your prediction that luminescent pixels will largely replace paper-based ink pixels. Why have electronic "readers" made virtually no inroads whatsoever into the market for books? Why has television not rendered the movie theatre extinct (and why are iPods not likely to do so either)? Why is television not an effective substitute for live theatre? The short answer to all these questions is that each medium modifies the base content and delivers to our consciousness content that is different from the base content. (Read McLuhan for the more comprehensive explanantion, written in his beautiful prosaic style.)

Your analogy to the quantum shift in methods of music distribution is not parallel, because that shift relates to the delivery of music to the presentation device and not to the means of presentation of the music to our senses. The latter devices, speaker systems and earphones, have not changed appreciably for decades.

Best regards,
Bruce

Regarding the main driving force behind the development of display technology and death of paper:
IMO, you can find what that is by purchasing a 60's album by the roling stones in a song called I can't get no satisfaction.
It's not man's desire for progress that is driving things forward, but man's desire for having things now and man's in-ability to be satisfied with status quo, or material things for that matter.
Hopefully I'm not to far off topic or hyjacking your thread.
jj

I think Bernard is a lot more right than wrong. Electronic books are at the early stages of the power curve, and adoption will continue to grow exponentially. In the early stages of adoption that power curve is hard to identify since in terms of the overall total consumer market selling 1 one quarter, 2 the next, 4 the next and 8 the next etc. etc. isn't really newsworthy. The analysts are already admitting they underestimated the sales and short term growth potential for the Kindle by a factor of 2.

For me, and a large number of my acquaintances, High Def wide screen PVR TV has in fact replaced movies. The extent to which movies are still somewhat popular is driven largely by investments in blockbusters (the movie "long tail" migrated to home viewing on a TV a long long time ago) as well as the fact that getting out of the house for an evening is often the primary objective, with the movie only secondary.

I think electronic frames are, in fact, a good substitute for the snapshots that used to be pinned to the wall. I expect that sooner or later the traditional large fine art print will be the same. Of course we'll always have museums for the "real thing"

Like you, I read McLuhan in the 60's - Kurzweil's Singularity is Near is an interesting read for this millennium.

The part that facinates (scares?) me is the idea which has been around in music forever: The Re-make. Something that has always been taboo in many other forms of art. Bernard hints at this here:

"We have already seen that the authoring environment of the photographer sort of will become one with the viewing environment of the viewer. What if the viewer is another artist? What if authoring is possible on both or multiple ends? You have de facto created a wonderful virtual art creation platform that will go beyond photography. You have a virtual canvas spreading across continental divides."

Will it be alright for me to take another's image, adjust it (convert to B&W, add a tone, remove some saturation, change the color balance...), then re-introduce it as my interpretation? Will I need the original photographer's permission?

Ugh.

Dave Chew

Interesting that on a more pedestrian level, I have been seriously thinking of getting a quality photo-frame to display some of my many images. So many are languishing in my hard drive that to print even a small fraction would not only be prohibitively expensive, I wouldn't have the wall space to hang them even it they were to be printed. Not only can a single photo-frame cycle through a multitude of images, it can even show short video clips and play sound, something that even the most advanced paper print would have a hard time duplicating.

Another great plus is that it is very portable so that I can easily bring it along on visits to friends to show some highlights of recent photographic adventures.

The only thing that would still be difficult to do would be to carry a small snap shot in your wallet but with advances in OLED technology and flexible displays, that too might soon be possible.

Very interesting article and thought process. Just the other day I was admiring the view of a 30" monitor and wishing I could buy three of them to display my panoramas in three segments in what is essentially a 16"x60" display. The cost would not be that much of a multiple of the cost of framing the panorama. But we are not too far from having full wall sized gigpixel screens. We will still to prints, but the best work will be shown illuminated.

I love this site. I always look forward to checking the latest and enjoyed Bernard's article. Good stuff and discussion worthy.
FAS in the home, perhaps for some. FAS in gallerys, offices, public spaces and shopping malls, certainly. Slide shows and video are available now through the device you are looking at now. There is a time and place for the constantly changing visual feast.
I had the priviledge of growing up surrounded by fine artwork in my parent's house and now in mine. Some of these pieces offer something new each time I look at it. To me fine art is contemplative and something to be enjoyed again and again while living with it. Will FAS replace that? Not for me, YMMV.

Just what the world needs, another electrical device sucking the juice to tame our need for folly. The threshold of boredom arrives quickly as we grow tired of all the crap in our cribbs.

My youngest son (16) told me today he wanted to become a "green" architect, pretty cool.

Hi,

I agree with Bernard, mostly. Todays TFT displays have a dynamic range that cannot be reached on reflective media. It's essentially like the transparency vs. print.

In a sense we are already there, I guess that 95% of the pictures common man takes never get printed.

I don't see JPEGS selling for 300 kUSD at Christie's, however. I think that a certain amount of uniqueness belongs to gallery art. I'll also suspect that Giclees will have a higher pricer point than Inkjet prints, by the way ;-)

Regarding technology adoption i think it depends the factors cost, convenience and to a lesser extent quality. Especially in photography we have seen that good enough but convenient and economically feasible printing methods replaced better but more expensive or inconvenient methods. Dye transfer is probably still one of the best methods for maximum quality but very few have the craftsmanship it takes. Even the best dye transfer artist may need a working day for a single print. So dye transfer is inconvenient and for that reason is going to die out.

Once display technology offers the minimum quality needed it will win, if it's convenient and cheap enough.

One thing to keep in mind is that "Silicon is expensive but pixels are free". There is a certain cost related to the size of the display, but cost of a display of that size is probably very little dependent on the number of pixels. This is not really true for motion pictures because you need quite a lot of computer power to feed a high res motion display with data but it would hold for displays intended for pictures.

I expect displays to improve in quite a few areas. We probably can live with the color gamut we have, but wider gamut would probably be a desirable feature. We have very few displays, if any, that can match the resolution of a digital camera.

One thing to keep in mind is that picture presentation is quite expensive.

- To begin you need wall area
- Then you need lighting on the wall are
- Framing and mounting pictures is not exactly free
- Antireflex coated glass is very expensive and it may be needed if you want to present your pictures behind glass
- Paper and inks also cost

With the above costs on mind using flat displays for presentation may be economically advantageous.

Once the advantages of one technology outweigh the disadvantages at an acceptable cost the market tends to flip. Compare with digital photography. Now photographic film is often no longer in stock but a special order item and has anyone found a buyer for an enlarger recently?


Best regards
Erik

Hi!

I respect your opinion, but I feel that you have a negative attitude to development. I'd also would like to point out that displaying good quality prints takes a lot of illumination, and that god illumination essentially is incandescent lighting (because of the spectral characteristics needed for correct reproduction of color) so it also sucks juice.

Erik

Enjoyed your article Bernard, I believe that paper will be with us for quite some time (otherwise Epson, HP, et al will be very upset!!) however with that said I recently purchased an Apple TV box after reading a piece about it in a recent Outdoor Photographer magazine. It took all of 90 seconds to set up and while I'm fairly sure the "your photos" feature wasn't intended to be it's selling point, it is amazing! Now my HDTV acts like an ever changing display of my photos, it's rendering of them (in HD BTW) is superb, there is the occasional glitch in that an image that was intended to be displayed in portrait orientation is displayed instead in landscape mode but these are very few. When not actively displaying a slide show of selected shots it can be configured to display thumbnails of your library in an ever moving, swirling pattern. As an added benefit, it's great for showing off images to customers in a very relaxed and comfortable setting.

Bernard, I couldn´t disagree more with your Orwellian view of the future. I have no doubt that such devices will happen - digital did, in my view an answer looking for a problem - but you are missing the point about collectors: exclusive, speculative and essentially financial decisions about purchase, where even the little matter of who printed the image makes a huge difference in perceived value. The Mona Lisa wouldn´t be worth what it is were it but a light show on a gallery wall....

Anyway, printing a picture is part of the quest for the Holy Grail for many photographers; particularly now, where traditional photographic means have become, as you indicate, niche. But it is niche that gives cachet.

Rob C

Rob,

I am glad to see you disagreeing, the main goal is this little write up was to trigger a debate.

The collector point is a valid one to some extend, but it could probably be possible to control the diffusion in such a way that a limited number of digital copies exist.

Cheers,
Bernard

Truely an interesting view of the crystal ball. What most probably agree on is that the advances in display technology are going to change something about the way photographs are consumed. If this replaces the current ways or adds to them remains to be seen of course. In the days of Daguerre quite a lot of people expected the art of painting to fall into oblivion soon but both photography and painting coexist these days.

What i like to add a warning thought to is the idea of transferring concepts of photographic prints like limited editions to digitally displayed photos by technical means of controlling copying and display of the images. You mention the music sector as a positive example how this can work but I think this is not going to work - neither for music nor for photos in the long run and as the major way music/photos are consumed.

The bottom line of these thoughts - if digital displays replace printing as the major way photographs are viewed as much depends on the technical developments in display technology as it depends on the view both the artist and the viewers have of their relationship, the photographs and the display medium. I think this process should be seen more as a chance for creating new fields of use for photography than as a risk for loosing control over the distribution of images and a loss in revenues.

Greetings,

Christoph

Interesting essay. I can imagine its future. But, I doubt it as being a likely world line in spacetime.

If one were keywording it for search, some of the words in that metatag would, I assume be, fine art photography. I want to discuss the fine art part.

One thing I have noticed, and I consider it nearly an axiom, is:

What is a significant means of recordation and communication, when superceded by a means that is easier either in execution or quicker or more accurate, the older means becomes an artistic means of expression.

Technologies of information recordation or communication seldom totally disappear. Rather they become less widespread, and archaic, and are practiced by a smaller group, labeled "artists".

Examples:

Sculpture and wall/base reliefs.
Ancient cultures used it for literal communication to people, and representation of and communication with unseen but believed to exist entities. Rising labor costs and expanded literacy have pretty much pushed that role of sculpture away (other than in some religious uses yet, and things like war memorials, etc.).
Sculpture, freed of its utilitarian role, also developed abstract forms. It also became firmly established as "art".

Painting.
Originally also used for communication and recordation. Portrait of the third earl of______, or The Battle of ___________. It also started as a decorative craft, then slowly moved to expressive abstraction. With the advent of photography in th3 1800's, painting moved (with the exception of portraits for those better off) totally to art.

Photography.

The first photos considered art, where "pictorialist" (imitative of painting) black and white. Then, as color developed, (pardon the pun. Color equaled more "information" & greater "accuracy"), B&W nearly immediately became "abstract", and to this day, B&W photography is still more widely consided "artistic" than colour.
Also, consider method/gear. Film-chemical workflow is, collector-wise now more "artistic" than digital capture-digital workflow. So called alternative processes (i.e., 19th century photographic technology) is highly valued.
The more eye-hand coordination in "real" space necessary, and less automated and basic the process, the more "artistic" it is considered by museums, galleries, collectors.

The advancement of video technology in the market place (remember, the primary use of "imaging" by the consumer masses is the saving of memory of significant people and events), with its higher recordation of information, and percieved accuracy of the representation, (along the lines i am discussing) will accelerate the move to "art" for pigment on paper prints.
The acceptance of pigment on paper prints, from digital workflow is already entering the art world. The advances in screen technologies, mass storage, digital video, miniaturization for consumers (the still picture keychain will become the video key chain, etc.) will push not only digital workflow prints, but still imagery itself firmly into the realm of "fine art", eventually. Probably, sooner than we think.

Assuming for the sake of discussion, that technological advancement in recordation and communication for utilitarian purposes continues, the paper photograph will join truly be perceived, by nearly all, as "fine art", along with sculpture, painting, etc.

some years ago i was blown away by an exhibit of 16x20 transparencies (BBC wildlife photographer of the year)

have had a Phillips photoframe for a couple of years for grandkid images (which has deterred my wife from pinning them to every free surface and the gift of snaps in ugly frames by the kids) - now distribute cards for photoframes 2 or 3 times a year to other family members. when we babysit the grandkids theyl spend significant time staring at the photoframe images. Have been dissapointed in the lack of availability of larger higher resolution photoframes.

i was pleasantly surprised that the new Samsung HDTV has a USB port into which i've plugged an 8G flash card with HD resolution JPEGS (not of the grandkids) - just need to get the color calibrated

i don't think prints are going away and i think it will still be a long time before new technology gets to a really satisfactory level of resolution, but we're only beginning to see results of letting the digital genie out of the bottle

I'm with Bruce here. The increasing convenience and connectivity of video displays is appealing, and a sequence of images played off a USB thumb drive on a small "digital picture frame" is more fun than a bunch of 4x6" drugstore prints on the refrigerator. But that's not what we're talking about with a fine art print.

A hand-crafted print is a very specific physical artifact. The color gamut, surface quality & reflectivity, tonal balance, dynamic range, hand-feel and so forth are all chosen by the artist to serve a particular æsthetic goal. The image file from which the print is derived is not the same thing; more like a negative than a finished piece of art. Certainly we can expect future advances in color management to reduce the current crap-shoot uncertainties in the appearance of an image on-screen. But video display will remain a highly fugitive, malleable medium, lacking any enduring quality by its very nature.

Buyers of fine art are generally looking for a unique, enduring, tangible physical artifact. I can safely predict that the "digital rights" to display an image file on a home video display will always be recognized as having lower value than an actual print made by the hand of the artist. The fact that the digital file can be endlessly duplicated with 100% fidelity speaks for itself. I can certainly see the rapid acceptance of video-displayed images as a direct substitute for lowest-common-denominator "wall-art"; the digital equivalent of everybody's "hang in there" cat photo poster of the early 1970's. But replacing the fine art print? Not so much.

There are many clever examples of "video art" or "video installation" floating around, but they have not had the staying power of the traditional fine art print. It may well be that future improvements in color gamut, transparent (i.e. painless and automatic) color management and affordability of high-end displays will make them attractive and accepted for displaying images as art. There is a real risk that, much as the i-pod and free to cheap downloads have drastically devalued music, widespread acceptance of video display may hammer the value of the fine image as well. But I doubt this, simply because the audience for fine art photographic prints is so miniscule already.

Geoff, you echo my sentiments about the needs of collectors of photographic art.

The place for amateur, non-commercially considered photography, is probably ripe for change - change, in the sub-amateur world as distinct from the keen amateur photographer sense, is what drives a lot of wheels, so why not those of how the material is exhibited? That´s not to bullshit it - why should people be expected to love photography? but I do believe that there will be ever more polarisation within the photo world with which we are currently familiar. I used to think that pro photography would be immune from amateur "wannabe published" attack, but I was proven wrong by the advent of penny stock. It has clearly shown that money men don´t care about anything but money. Even when they run large companies using photography.

Art photography already suffers from the intrusion of commerce. Photographs that would otherwise never get a second viewing become hyped into works of art and collectors buy into the deal, perpetuating the myth of the value of the stock, because that´s all the photograph then becomes: stock.

But hey, if somebody can make his/her way selling faux art, then lucky he or she.

Regardless of the value of the photographic currency, the value of the piece must be protected at all costs, so I expect that the medium as it is will survive.

Rob C

You are probably aware of this, but IBM released more than 4 years ago a 22inch 3840x2400 LCD display with a resolution of 192 DPI...

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/reviews/63390/ibm-t221.html

I am sure that they could go much higher today if they wanted to.

Regards,
Bernard

I would think with others here that collectors are appealed by the uniqueness of an artefact (I'm thinking of the insane value of ancient stamps where the printer got the work made half upside down ('inverted'), or cut at the wrong position...).
And from what we can see today, any form of DRM or anti-copy system is bound to be by-passed, I'm afraid.

So the collectors market will still demand for paper prints (the more you'll spit and put your fingerprints on it the better ).
Though, you may well be right, because it may be a very small niche compared to today's market - which includes not only collectors but also fine art enthousiasts (amateurs in the french literal meaning, "someone who likes"), and the latter may effectively depart from the paper as soon as another media deserves an image better.

I've been carrying a Toshiba Libretto for 9 years now, and whether I'm on a photo shoot with the metro parks clubs, or sitting in a restaurant, I commonly pop out the computer and show a dozen or so photos to whoever is around. And people remember that. So whether the future is electronic paper or something else, for me it's a current process. And why haven't electronic books taken off? Mostly because of copyrights and restrictive formats. I'm not talking about encryption et al, I'm talking about PDF's and such that make text extraction and reformatting such a pain that nobody wants to do it. In spite of that, I have the equivalent of over a thousand books of reference info on my computer, in plain text, most of which is accessed by my plaintext hypertext viewer for instant cross-ref's and research. The future was here years ago, and most of y'all missed it.

That´s an interesting point of view, but to someone less enthusiastic about electronic gadgets it underscores very strong reasons why there will probably be paper or similar material prints for many years to come.

Apart from the problems that we shall face regarding energy supply, there is something very nice about there being no more effort required to see an image than to just raise the eye to the framed thing; what a drag to have to switch things on or off - TV is a pain too far already! Speaking of which, we had thought about going from our ancient Sony Trinitron, still working well (Fate, please don´t feel tempted), to one of those newer elongated jobs. Then we thought about the content and realised that it wouldn´t be improve one iota. We decided not to take the purchase idea any further.

The thought of going to visit someone and having to watch their photo-screen endlessly showing Baby, the uncle, last year´s holiday or anything else would certainly provide a good incentive for staying at home with a sudden diplomatic headache.

Rob C

We're almost there! When I first saw my images on a full HD LCD TV I knew the future of print was changed forever. Sony already makes a picture frame LCD TV of up to 40" (http://www.sony.co.uk/article/id/1209376192786).

I for one think images look much better on a LCD TV than on a piece of paper. I never really liked inkjet prints compared to wet darkroom prints. I've bought some from alleged top photographers in the US and have consistently been disappointed.

In a few years you can probably have LCDs with higher resolution and customizable mattes and frames.

The fine art print collecting market is so tiny that it isn’t worth considering into this equation. Very few photographers can live from print sales anyway, but that has sadly always been the case.

While change can be sad in many ways, I for one will not cry when ink sales plummet. Epsons and HPs greed has never done anything good for photography.

You mean, other than financing the development of the rapid advances in printer technology that we have enjoyed over the past several years? Maybe those long hours of daylight up in Arctic Norway have reset someone's circadian rhythms or something....

So let me once more, for the umpteenth, tiresome time on this and other forums, take you through Capitalism 101:

1. It takes capital to finance the sort of R&D, manufacture, marketing, and distribution required to bring printers and their consumables to the customer, who is not under obligation to purchase them. Hence, a powerful incentive to make good stuff people actually want. Making bad stuff no one wants, or good stuff too expensive for people to want, results in bankruptcy. (q.v. General Motors.)

2. Capital comes from investors/shareholders, who seek the highest possible rate of return on their investment; and from customers, who purchase products they want at prices they consider acceptable. These are VOLUNTARY transactions, done on terms agreeable to all parties.

3. Companies have to generate revenues sufficient to cover operating costs and a sufficient rate of return to their shareholders--"sufficient" defined as "compared to other possible uses of capital at similar risk." Inadequate ROI-->no investment in the company-->no R&D-->no products at prices you'd be willing to pay.

This stuff doesn't just pop out of the ether for us all to enjoy. It has to be made from the sweat of someone's brow and the coin from someone's pocket.

I eagerly await someone's explanation of where "greed" fits into this scenario. You don't like the products, don't buy them. The company is not morally obligated to give its private property away at fire-sale prices because someone thinks they're too expensive.

Time for a little Ayn Rand I think....

I suspect most amateur's photos will never be printed in the near future, but viewed on HD TV screens ( or similar type displays.) Small prints will never happen, just files of bits displayed as needed.

I find slide shows of my images, via my Apple TV, on my 52 in LCD HD TV, quite pleasant and I anticipate in a few years displays will get even better.

Prints will survive, just as oil and watercolor images survive, but they will have to make room for a newer, bigger, brighter, display as well. It will be interesting to watch. Daguerreotypes are still around also, but not commercially viable for very many folks these days.

Photojournalism is already merging, melding with video journalism - HD displays will just augment this as well. I believe.

I also found Bernard's article interesting, but I suspect that much of the advanced technology he refers to will take a very long time in development before it even approaches the capability of displaying the subtlety of detail one can find in a fine art print.

I've long been interested in the transition from standard definition TV to high definition TV, but the process is taking such an inordinate amount of time, I'm beginning to lose interest.

I recall reading about 30 years ago that the Japanese had developed their own analog HDTV system, but the transmission wasn't compatible with existing standard definition sets.

One could say that the transition from SDTV to HDTV has been going on for at least 30 years and that it's not complete yet by a long shot.

It so happens that I have a very fine, but old-fashioned, German-made Loewe CRT TV set that has a 'tint' control that can be used during PAL transmissions and which allows for very accurate fine-tuning of color hues. The black levels, contrast ratio and flicker-free image quality are superb, yet it's only a standard definition set.

Every time I go shopping, and get the urge to pop into an electronics store to check out the latest plasma and LCD screens on offer, I come away disappointed. I get the unshakable impression that there's no High Definition option that retains the same over all image quality of my old Loewe set. I see lots of garish images with blown highlights, blocked-up shadows and inaccurate hues.

Now I know that this impression may largely be due to the fact that those displays in the store are not calibrated. With a device like the ColorMunki I might be able to get a vast improvement, but the ColorMunki requires a computer to be connected to the display and any calibration profile created resides on the computer (or laptop). Such calibration would definitely be useful for displaying photos, having a slide show for one's guests.

After a bit of research on the net regarding plasma & LCD display quality, I find it is true that these large plasma & LCD displays (40" to 60" diagonal) have not yet caught up with the black levels of a good CRT set. The ones that come closest seem to be the Pioneer Kuro models (kuro being the Japanese word for black).

The latest Pioneer Kuro models are expected in Australia around October, about the same time as the latest Epson wide-format printers that provide reduced ink costs, no ink wastage when switching from matte paper to glossy, and presumably increased gamut and less bronzing compared with my 7600.

New technology can be expensive, but $5,000 for the latest high definition display which, by still photography standards, is not high definition at all, but very low definition, and which doesn't even have the black levels of an old-fashioned TV set of even lower resolution, doesn't seem a great buy to me.

Consider: 1920x1080p is approximately 2mp. Even the cheapest and most basic P&S camera will exceed that resolution. My next DSLR will likely by 24mp.

I'm not aware of any movement to progress beyond the HDTV standard to the next level.

I think Bernard's futuristic scenario is a long way into the future.

Mike

There is no better way of which I know to lay out the commercial realities of life than you have just done. All that´s missing, perhaps, is an illustration of the other side: Germany in the East during the long reign of Soviet occupation. I can hardly wait to buy one of those beautiful, reliable little cars, shop in one of those delightful little boutiques - almost makes me want to fly right over to Russia and try out one of those pre-capitalist flagship stores: Gum.

But that apart, I think Ray, in his post here, has touched on another reality: the sheer lack of interest in new technology when it becomes too expensive for Mr Average to buy into the dream. As I said in my previous post, the latest TVs are not in my home, not because of price, though I do think they are too expensive for what they are - but because the purpose to which they would be put isn´t worth the candle: WYSIcrap.

Somebody mentioned the difference in the number of exposures made to the number of prints that ever see daylight. What would be different? Would you want to look at your own crap either? If not, would you feel good about displaying it to others in even more revealing horror?

The number of collectors might be small, in a world sense, but the number of photographers chasing them is ever growing, as you can see from the ever rising sales of magazines like B&W and the personal websites devoted to that objective - sales to buyers.

Reports of the death of print are somewhat premature.

Rob C

This thread sounds so similar to the threads on the death of traditional photography when digital photography was just appearing (e.g. about six or eight years ago). People pooh-poohed the idea that digital photography would take over from film. They said digital cameras would never have enough resolution to equal the quality of film, etc... But it happened.

I think Bernard might be right. I have no doubt that some people will still prefer prints (myself included - I don't like computers) but you have to look beyond your personal preferences and look at what is likely. I think most people will prefer to view their pictures electronically as soon as that becomes cheap enough and convenient enough. Note that I don't say "as soon as the quality is there" because quality isn't very important to most people (most snapshot shooters) and the quality today is almost certainly good enough for them.

I think the "fine art print market" might be different, but that's a niche compared to the great mass of snapshot shooters.

I already know many people that never get their pictures printed. They show them to family and friends on the computer, on the telly, or on their mobile phone screen. They don't see the need to make prints.
Anthony

Svein


I have the opposite experience to yours: my own printing (black/white) on an HP Pro B9180 is much better than anything I did in the wet darkroom, and I was known to be a very good printer in the commercial world where I earned my living.

I do not like matt papers because of the loss of tone; however, once I put those matt prints into proper crystal plastic sleeves, or behind glass, they regain the full magic of the monitor and that, combined with the almost total local control of Photoshop, makes for the best prints of my life.

Just the day before yesterday, whilst thinking about the skirmish on the MF Digital Picture Show, I pulled out my set of prints on A3+ and was knocked out with just how great they look after not having seen them for a few weeks. I was sorry not to be able to show them off, but as mentioned some longish while back, I fear litigation and must hide my light behind the bloody bush - at least, off the blatant web. I have to say, coming from 35mm transparency film and a humble D200, I was not in the least embarrassed by the technical exhibition over on that MF thread. In fact, quite the opposite. Sadly, I can´t publicly prove it, but have the personal satisfaction of knowing the facts and that will probably have to suffice - at least for now.

All that said, I cannot vouch for the quality of the prints that you bought from whomsoever you bought them - that´s another matter - but that does not diminish the quality that is really available.

On your other point, it isn´t relevant if many photographers live off their prints or not: the same number NOT living off them today is still buying the material to make the prints today, and it is prints that matter to them, otherwise, they´d just stick their JPEGS up on the TV and let it go at that.

Rob C

I work as an investment banker, so you can spare me your oversimplified Chicago-School approach to capitalism. There are greedy capitalists and there are not so greedy capitalists out there. I could also give you countless examples of R&D which has been motivated by far greater goals than filling some investors pockets.

My nits with Epson and HP printers are the following:

1) HP made me waste ink by creating software that tells the printer the cartridges were empty when they in fact were not.
2) Epson made me waste ink by cleaning all nozzles each time I needed to change a cartridge. In fact, changing a cartridge should not trigger a cleaning cycle unless it is needed.
3) Epson made me waste ink by cleaning all nozzles each time I hade to clean the nozzles used by only one cartridge.

Not only does the printer manufacturers overcharge me, they force me to produce waste and pollute the environment in more than reasonable amounts. As greedy capitalists they should be forced to pay for their lack of moral responsibility in a way that makes their owners cry all the way to their bank. In a well functioning democracy capitalists should, like all members of society, work for the greater good of the people, not individuals, and in accordance to ethical standards.

I have read both of Ayn Rand bestsellers and her flirtation with fascism and devotion to egocentrism made them a chilling and horrifying read, especially since her vision of the world is becoming more of a fulfilling prophecy each decade.

I'm glad inkjet is working out for you Rob. It's probably more about who prints than what printer they use. I have a couple of excellent B&W silver prints at home and just love the smooth grain free appearance, not to mention the extremely smooth transitions of colour in the very dark areas. After a couple of bad giclee (?) purchases maybe I'll check one of your prints out - just to see how good it can be done .

Of course, none of us can predict the future, but the demise of film had most of us baffled a few years ago. In Norway it is almost impossible to get hold of film and a lab to process them. Prices have also sky rocketed.

As for amateurs, all my friends and family who used to make paper copies, do so very rarely now. Most images never leave their computer or cellphone. I also see very many printers collecting dust (mostly because people are amazed at the cost of new ink cartridges). We're still in a period of transition and if the digital revolution has thought us anything it must be that things happen faster than anyone could imagine.

QED.

[quote In Norway it is almost impossible to get hold of film and a lab to process them. Prices have also sky rocketed.




I can still buy film in Mallorca, but as I have a freezer full of it already, which I can´t get processed locally, the negative circle is almost complete. Barcelona, I´m assured, still has labs open to E6, but as you say about Norway, the costs are higher than seem worth considering.

Rob C

Edit: On the matter of print quality, perhaps it´s more a matter of not expecting too much in the way of mechanical/electronic instant perfection fom the computer.

This site - I don´t bother with any others anymore - does have a very strong group-interest in computer magic, computer calibration, this, that and the photographic other. Whilst I agree without reservation that all of these things are positive contributions to print quality, I have this gut feeling, now that I have spent a fair amount of money on doing digtal printing, that we have not really pushed the goalposts that far from where they used to be in at least one sense: there still seems to be no substiture for repeated testing of prints until the final, wanted result is achieved. Only the way to that point is new; the journey is still unavoidable.

Thirty years ago I formed a publishing company with a fellow who wanted to reprint rare and out of prints books, mostly history and genealogy. He was a scientist and had worked on lasers for the Navy. While I argued that we should print hard bound books because the books were history and meant to be around for a long time, he believed that books would be obsolete by the year 2000 so he only wanted to print paperbacks. I left the company soon after, but it still exists and still printing paperbacks, waiting for the book era to end.
Amazon's kindle is a great idea if you want or need to carry books around with you, but for me and apparently millions of other nothing beats holding the book in your hands, smelling the paper and being able to quickly check back a page or two to reread a paragraph or make a note in the margin. Will I even buy a Kindle? Perhaps some day but I won't stop buying books.
Which brings us to photographs. No screen is ever going to be able to replace the feeling of holding a print by Paul strand, Ansel Adams, William Neill, Stephan Johnson, etc.
Thanks, Bernard, for bringing up the ideas. Yes, the times are a changin, but if the only way we can read is on a Kindle or see photos on a screen, what a sad world this will be.

Dum inter homines sumus, colamus humanitatem...

I couldn´t agree more. There is little to beat a real book, and the screen is nowhere near a substitute.

I recently bought the reprint of Haskins´ Cowboy Kate and paid for it with my own hard-earned. Would I have done this if the same pleasure were to be had by merely looking at pics on the internet?

There isn´t much space around the house anymore, but what I have been able to use for books holds the things that give me most pleasure, amongst which is the Taschen one on Jean Loup Sieff. Incidentally, I have seen that spelled Jeanloup and also Jean Loup, and in the back of the front part of the dust-jacket it is Jeanloup. However, on the cover, it seems very much to be written Jean Loup.

The ease of turning back a page or two is similar to the simplicity of holding a loup(e?) over a transparency and editing that way, as compared to doing the same thing on a monitor. Perhaps it comes with age. But I wouldn´t swap without protest!

Rob C

And people think that I live in the past!

Rob C

Senecam tuus tenes. Te veneratio!

Non congruere congrueamus!

I still can't get over the fact that the latest and most expensive HD displays cannot display the full resolution of an image taken with the latest mobile phones, which now boast 5mp built-in cameras.

HD displays are deliberately bright and contrasty with generally oversaturated colors in order to attract customers. Has any mention been made in this thread, of the long term eye strain of staring at transmissive screens?

I recall well, at the time I bought my first computer I also bought a CD containing 1750 books of the classics, out of copyright and very cheap. I thought, this is just fantastic. I have effectivley a huge personal library of great works of literature for just a few dollars, instead of a few thousand dollars that the printed versions would cost.

But the reality is, I'm not motivated to read books on a computer monitor. Perhaps that's because I already spend so much time processing photographic images on a monitor. Others might spend a similar amount of time playing computer games, chatting on the net and reading email.

There's something special about a book, but I'm losing interest in newspapers.

Most TVs can be calibrated and adjusted to your taste. I have the TV calibrated with the same system I use for my PC monitor! For normal viewing I use an energy save mode which dims the screen considerably.

Full HD is just 2MP, but I imagine future LCD screens will come with increased resolutions for picture viewing, just as you can change the resolution of your PC Monitor.

Yep, I'm a hopless romantic Rob

There is defineatly something to be said about prints and books, but personally, nothing compares to the luminous quality of backlit images. Both medias will live side by side for sure, but I imagine that general paper copies of snapshots will continue to decline as the "mobilephonegeneration" grows up and more and more images will only be viewed on some sort of electronic display.


Michael, te veneratio quoque!

Yes, I understand you can adjust the TV contrast, brightness and color, but it's still transmissive and more of an eye strain that reading a printed book.

Regarding the increase in resolution of future LCD screens, my point is, it's happening rather slowly. My current Sony 19" CRT monitor which must be at least 8 years old, is set at 1800x1440 and 70Hz. Although that's not an HD aspect ratio, it's slightly higher resolution than an HD display in terms of total pixel count.

There are no large, TV type displays which are as high resolution as my relatively cheap, 8 year old Sony CRT. It might happen eventually, but to replace large, fine art inkjets, the resolution increase would have to be substantial; another step upwards from HDTV of similar magnitude to the difference between SD and HD.

http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....20&#entry215741

Cheers,
Bernard

Yes, indeed. And let's not forget that each TFT display pixel usually consists of 3 subpixels. A 1600x1200 display is, in a way, quite close to a 6MP camera in terms of photon processing (producing or collecting) transistors.

Pierre

The physical photographic print is, and will remain, the apex of the photographic display media.

Electronic media (Internet, electronic picture frames, "fine art displays", etc.) are, and will remain, the domain of amateur photographic enthusiasts, commercial promotional communications, and family photos.

Was there something important missing in this list? The apex thing? Well, hear this. The most powerful/useful/influential image on *any* media is the one that's at hand, i.e. here and now. And since my 9x6x1 inch laptop is with me everywhere, my photos are probably more influential and certainly more useful than 10 other people put together, including every pro who doesn't have an audience on Fox TV every evening.

"dalethorn", I've absolutely no idea what you meant to assert here.

I'm not surprised.

Do I detect a Foveon versus Bayer debate developing here . A 6mp Bayer type sensor is roughly equal to a 3.4mp Foveon sensor, but even an image from the Sigma SD9 is too big for an HD display. Whether your images are 6mp Bayer type, 3.4mp Foveon type or 3-5mp cell phone images, if you want to create a slide show on your latest 60" plasma 1080p screen, you'll have to either crop those images or downsample them, that is, throw information away.

Bernard,
The link to that IBM news item is not working properly for me, but I do vaguely remember reading about that several years ago. I believe the monitor was fairly small, wasn't it? Around 22" probably.