Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph

[Herb Chong]

from what Shel describes, some of the people who submitted prints have 
higher opinions of their abilities than warranted. i think it is just as 
hard to produce really high quality prints on digital media as on wet. the 
tools for accomplishing it are vastly different. once a digital print has 
been gotten right though, it stays right. paper and ink variation is much 
more manageable if you are that fussy.

most of the local fine art pros that i have talked to have switched to an 
all digital workflow post capture (digital camera or scanned slides). they 
have done so for the following reasons: quality, control, consistency, and 
longevity, in that order. longevity really cuts into profits because the 
gallery display wet prints would fade noticeably after a month under gallery 
lighting and would have to be replaced. archival digital prints don't have 
this problem, at least for the people i talk to. their prints move fast 
enough that it's not an issue.

Herb...
----- Original Message ----- 
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <pentax-discuss@pdml.net>
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2005 12:11 PM
Subject: Re: The Decline and Fall of the Photograph


My feelings about digital workflow and inkjet printing differ widely from 
yours. But I get to see the cream of the crop. As I've mentioned before, 
almost all the pro portfolios that get circulated through the big ad 
agencies are 100% inkjet, and many of them are magnificent. (A surprising 
number are crap as well. But it's usually the photography that's 
deficient, not the printing.) In any case, I look forward to printing a 
couple of your files.