DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> has photography moved on and prints irrelevant?
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 20 of 20, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/30/2007 10:46:21 AM · #1
I don't think prints are obsolete, but then again, I am consistently "behind the times."

I have found that when I get into a "slump" and just don't want to shoot, if I get two or three decent shots printed (the bigger the better), it motivates me to shoot more.

And, perhaps it is just the ruralness of my area, but photography on the computer is still a new thing here. I know lots of people that do not even have a computer, much less Internet, etc. so prints work very well for them. :)
03/30/2007 10:35:19 AM · #2
For a typical portrait shoot I charge $100 for my creative fee. I then sell anywhere from $100 - $500 or more in print sales (including framing). I've only had one person to EVER ask for shots on CD, I gave her the two images she wanted because she had already bought several hundred $$s in prints. :)
03/30/2007 10:32:49 AM · #3
Prints work without electricity.
03/30/2007 09:48:03 AM · #4
Originally posted by dwterry:

I bought one of those digital frames and gave it to my wife for Christmas. The advantage was that I could load it up with hundreds of images (of family) all while occupying the space of an 8x10" frame.

Since that time, I've found that it's a fun gimmick / conversation starter. But my wife mostly leaves it turned off except when company is around (and only when she remembers to turn it on).


Same thing for me. I bought one the same size for my Mom and Dad for Christmas and loaded it with tons of family photos. They thought it was very cool, but they don't really use it except for when company is over.

In my opinion, there's nothing digital in this day and age that can replace a nicely framed print.
03/30/2007 09:30:10 AM · #5
Originally posted by Raziel:

I don't think that prints are dead.


I also think prints are not dead or will ever be dead

I also just got in the mail a 12x48 photograph (below) that looks great compared to whats on screen
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/13719/thumb/474026.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/13719/thumb/474026.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I dont think I will ever be into or buy those digital picture frames, its just not that same to me, I just love ordering prints and to see them hanging on my wall through out my apartment.
03/30/2007 09:17:15 AM · #6
I don't think that prints are dead.

I've just picked up an 8x12 of the photograph below that I had printed today, and the print looks so much better than the version on the screen.

' . substr('//s73.photobucket.com/albums/i209/Umhakel/DPC%20Forum/th_KB0_0398.jpg', strrpos('//s73.photobucket.com/albums/i209/Umhakel/DPC%20Forum/th_KB0_0398.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/30/2007 08:23:51 AM · #7
Originally posted by blindjustice:

But just wait until TV screen, lcd plasma technology creates a paper thin "picture frame" type tube that can be hung anywhere. When these things are all over, why not cycle a bunch of art through this rather than having a third rate off color print on the wall?


See my post, immediately above yours. At least in our household, this has turned out not to be true. I fully expected the digital frame to be used a lot. Instead, it is left turned off most of the time.
03/30/2007 08:09:52 AM · #8
Originally posted by Didymus:

I don't think there's reason for pessimism.
Computers didn't kill books,
internet didn't kill newspapers,
video didn't kill the radio star,
photography didn't kill painting
and I really don't think the genuine paper print will ever go out of fashion.
True value will always be recognized and appreciated.


Photography didn't kill painting because they are two totally different things. Digital editing may take a chunk out of air brushing and some of the visual graphic manual arts.

But:

******Video Did kill the radio star.
Bands and people like Steely Dan, Janis Joplin, etc. would not be around today as big as they had become.
INstead we have Justin Timeberlake and ashlee simpson and that Creed-rip off bald jackass from american Idol.

****If you watch the news at all, (you won't find this in a paper) the internet is killing newspapers. Sure it won't kill the small town rag- but just give it time to kill the big lousy city papers.

There is something to be said for the true colors of a nice print hanging on the wall; and that may never go out of fashion or function. But just wait until TV screen, lcd plasma technology creates a paper thin "picture frame" type tube that can be hung anywhere. When these things are all over, why not cycle a bunch of art through this rather than having a third rate off color print on the wall? Video technology may not kill prints yet, with scrapbooking and all, but the way of the future, and its really only an issue of display, is digital, not print.
03/30/2007 07:48:57 AM · #9
I bought one of those digital frames and gave it to my wife for Christmas. The advantage was that I could load it up with hundreds of images (of family) all while occupying the space of an 8x10" frame.

Since that time, I've found that it's a fun gimmick / conversation starter. But my wife mostly leaves it turned off except when company is around (and only when she remembers to turn it on).

Meanwhile, we have some nice prints around the house that are always on display. So I guess "real" wins out over "virtual" in our house.
03/30/2007 04:45:20 AM · #10
As long as we still have grandma's that flat out refuse to buy one of those damn computers, We will always have a need for prints. Trust me on this one.
03/30/2007 03:09:27 AM · #11
I don't think there's reason for pessimism.
Computers didn't kill books,
internet didn't kill newspapers,
video didn't kill the radio star,
photography didn't kill painting
and I really don't think the genuine paper print will ever go out of fashion.
True value will always be recognized and appreciated.


Message edited by author 2007-03-30 03:10:13.
03/30/2007 02:58:34 AM · #12
For me, a print is the final step.

Holding a print is, well, like holding a new baby. It's finished, complete, done and real.

I love prints :)
03/30/2007 02:16:50 AM · #13
Looking at your printed images on the wall is the final step in the photographic process, it completes the cycle. Digital photo frames are gimmicky pieces of crap.

Those fancy Dell/Apple 30" LCD's have 2560x1600 resolution, which is still a lot less than a good print, and look at the price tag on them... Any kind of TV, even an HDTV, is even lower res, and it's only good for viewing from a long ways away.

Consumers are moving towards accesibility for most of the stuff they want to see, and I think still photography will become less popular for most 'snapshot' applications, as video becomes better quality and costs less, capture devices become smaller and lighter, and bandwidth and storage capabilities increase. Cell phones are the new PC, and everyone will expect full-motion video on their phone instead of a picture in their e-mail.

For art, though, printed photographs on the wall will never die. At least, when they do I'll be long gone so I don't care.
03/30/2007 02:06:06 AM · #14
I think photographic printing (i.e. darkroom) is an art onto itself. There's is also somethign really special about taking a picture off your computer and then printing it out. Its the whole tangible quality to it that really hits home I think.
03/30/2007 02:03:21 AM · #15
When I can buy a 20X30 photo frame for $30 that looks as good as a print I'll believe paper is dead.
03/30/2007 01:14:32 AM · #16
Originally posted by kawana:

idk, i think theres something special about being able to hold a photo in your hand. Until they can make a Digital photo frame thats as thin as photo paper, i think prints will be used just as much.


Fujitsu e-paper
03/30/2007 01:05:04 AM · #17
idk, i think theres something special about being able to hold a photo in your hand. Until they can make a Digital photo frame thats as thin as photo paper, i think prints will be used just as much.
03/30/2007 01:04:13 AM · #18
I think it depends on whose looking at them.
Galleries will demand prints for some time to come.
People still want wall art that they don't have to plug in.
But at photo club they're already talking about doing away with print competition in favor of and "easier" medium--projected images.
So, no, I don't really think prints are going away soon...but what do I know?
03/30/2007 12:56:30 AM · #19
Moving in that direction -- but not there yet and still quite far away.
03/30/2007 12:44:30 AM · #20
with digital, have prints become a moot point?
how many still do prints? are 100% photo crops the important thing now?
the stores are already selling digital photo frames and photo albums.
what do you think?

Message edited by author 2007-03-30 00:51:09.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/23/2021 05:47:08 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2021 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 09/23/2021 05:47:08 AM EDT.