Winsor Crosby wrote:
> The other interesting factoid to emerge from that article is "Around
> eight out of 10 digital pictures are thought to never make it into
> printed form at all." Wonder if that's based on the tendency to shoot
> a lot more pix because "they don't cost anything" or if people are
> satisfied by seeing pix on screens -- ranging from LCDs on the backs
> of cams to computer displays to televisions and projectors.
>
>
> I would say that 99 percent of my slides never made it to print either.
>
That's what I was going to say too. With slides, I needed a projector or
viewer. Prints were either crappy or expensive, or more likely both.
With digital, I can get or make great, cheap prints, use a projector or
view on screens of various sizes. I've revived the slide show on a
computer screen and had people actually watch and enjoy it.
For myself, I honestly prefer viewing images on a good, calibrated
monitor. I do think about printing, mounting/framing more of my images
for display, but haven't done anything about it yet.
Another view could view the change as eco/resource friendly. Instead of
getting gazillions of prints, often "free" doubles or triples, most of
which get looked at once and thrown away or stuffed in a drawer forever,
the culls don't waste trees, etc. and add to land fills, many decent
ones are only viewed on monitors and only the best are printed.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|