Caroline Surely it is based on, in part, what the customer is willing to pay. If people will pay �60 for a print then they perceive it to be of that quality. They recognise that the value is in the image not in the method of printing.
It also doesn't matter if you photograph digitally or not - again it is the image that matters - your preference for digital just shows a) you have adopted newer technology because it fits with the way you wish to work, b) you are convinced of its quality and c) you have exceptionally good taste :-)) In terms of your prints - as long as they last as long as a conventional print (which they will being Lyson inks) that is of value to a customer. You also take extra care over the average digital user in that you calibrate, use profiles and use a CIS system (partly for the longevity). Your use of digital allows you finer control than you feel you would achieve through conventional means. It is also a bit cleaner in that you don't have all those nasty chemicals hanging around. (Although having dropped a bottle of Lyson Light Black on my floorboards the other day - cleanliness is not perhaps the advantage it might be!!!) regards Richard Earney -- http://www.method-photo.co.uk > On 10 Aug 2004, at 12:23, Caroline Shipsey wrote: > > > > > However, I feel that I now need to offer some kind of > > explanation/justification of the 'digital' thing to support my work, > > the prices I charge (around �60 per A3print, mounted, unframed), and > > professional photography in general. =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
