A print is the end product of wet photography.
A digital image is the end product of digital photograhy.
You have to go through some conversion steps to get from one to the other.
That said I do have some digital prints hanging on the wall. That is
because I do not have the facilities to do wet color, and there are no
labs in this small town that do it either. Interestingly enough I can do
an 8x10 cheaper on my printer than I can buy them, but 4x6's are far
cheaper to buy.
There is also the fact that I had the digital with me when I shot them,
and not the film cameras. The Oly fits into a small waist pack that I
had, and is convenient to carry. The Graphic fits into... Well ask some
of those who saw it a GFM.
graywolf
http://www.graywolfphoto.com
"Idiot Proof" <==> "Expert Proof"
-----------------------------------
Rob Studdert wrote:
On 24 Nov 2005 at 15:15, graywolf wrote:
If the final image is all that is important, and it is going to be used
in digital form (Web, pre-press, etc) digital is the way to go because
you save a bunch of intermediate steps. If you want an exhibition print
film is the way to go because you save a bunch of intermediate steps.
I'm in agreement, I still like using my friends darkroom but I'm very glad that
wet printing isn't my only option these days. What I don't understand is how
it's possible to avoid a bunch of intermediate steps if using film processes to
create an exhibition print? I can only assume that your suggesting that someone
else would have to create the print? Then the photographer would have to be
hanging over their shoulder directing them or alternately leave the final image
look to the discretion of the printer?
Cheers,
Rob Studdert
HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA
Tel +61-2-9554-4110
UTC(GMT) +10 Hours
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/
Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
