Mark Roberts wrote: > mike wilson wrote: > > >>>From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>mike wilson wrote: >>> >>> >>>>He eliminated (many of) those in-camera. The point is still that >>>>3000 files is not the same as 3000 prints or slides. Produce >>>>equal numbers of the same end product before you tell me that >>>>it is cheaper. >>> >>>It's cheaper because you don't *have* to produce *any* prints. >> >>There's something wrong with that logic. Once I work out what it is, >>I'll get back to you. > > > There's nothing wrong with that logic because, odd as it may seem to > old 20th-century farts like you and me, the print is no longer the > preferred medium for viewing photographs, at least for most people. > > As the transition from film to digital was taking place it was widely > noted in the trade publications that the number of prints being made > from film was plummeting. The number of digital prints being made was > rising... but not nearly enough to make up for the decline in film > prints. > > What's been happening is people more and more thinking of a computer > monitor as the "normal" way of viewing photographs. A print is > something you settle for when you're forced to - like when you have to > carry some around to show people where there's no computer available. > The kids of today will grow up considering the print to be an optional > extra. Indeed, they seem to be doing so already. > > Recently, I had thought that came out of the blue so unexpectedly it > really startled me: They're *right* in their preference! > > I've always preferred projected slides to prints: An additive, RGB > image always looks brighter, more vibrant than a reflective, > subtractive CMYK image. It's more appropriate to the way we see. An > image on a monitor is an additive, RGB image, like a slide. In the past > this viewing medium has been at a disadvantage because of limited > contrast, limited resolution, limited size and great expense. But > monitors are getting bigger, better and cheaper all the time and the > trend isn't going to stop soon (2000 x 5000 monitor resolution is > expected to become common within a few years). > > Personally, I *love* good prints. I love making good prints and viewing > them. But I'm the kind of intellectual geek who visits art galleries > and spends time thinking about... well, things like this. This means > I'm in a minority far separated from the average snapshooter who drives > the industry. And the only time I make a print is when it's going to be > 8 x 12 or larger. > > I think the print is almost dead as the default product of the average > snapshooter and it's becoming more of a special item. But I've come to > think that this isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Er, some of that is precisely what I have been arguing for some time now and have been roundly vilified here for saying so. It may be true in some parts of the world but not everywhere, by a long way. I don't _think_ you are confused regarding size and resolution (2000x5000 is a size, not a resolution) but the things that I don't like about the trend are the poor resolution of the images so shown, of whatever size, and the lack of ability to show really large images easily. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
