I've noticed a huge increase in digital images being posted on the net, of all different sorts. It seems like a very convenient way to shoot but I fear that it's not possible to produce a high quality and long lasting print this way. I have never seen a digital hardcopy that will compete with a decent silver print but I haven't seen many digital prints period and would like to know other people's experiences and also if anything is coming down the pipeline. Thanks.

-- Andy Laycock (agl@intergate.bc.ca), February 10, 2000

Answers

For my web site work, I wouldn't consider using anything but my Sony Mavica. I can do a days shooting at the client's place of business, and then produce instant web pages on the laptop while they watch over my shoulder. When they start talking about how to make changes and so forth, the cash register starts up.

For "real" photographs, I wouldn't consider anything but silver-halide.

-- Tony Brent (ajbrent@mich.com), February 10, 2000.

I have a couple of friends who are switching to digital, saying they can't tell the difference between the prints they are making on their Epson printers and what they can produce in the darkroom. But I can. If you look at their prints with a magnifyer, what you see is less detail, but if you look at a silver print what you see is more detail.

I do appreciate the tonal control they have with Photoshop and their printers, and I utilize Photoshop's controls for low-rez images for my web site all the time, but I am still making some pretty striking prints in my darkroom that simply cannot be obtained via printer.

Also, I am seriously concerned about the permanence of digitalia. My fine prints will last for centuries. My negatives should be around and reproduceable for a century or more. Right now, a digital print from an inkjet printer will last 20 years if you are lucky, and if the image is purely digital there is no negative to preserve and use again. Luminos is experimenting with silver and platinum based inks, but they clog the printers pretty badly and still only last for 75 years.

I fear that a lot of stuff that is stored digitally will not be reproduced indefinitely, and will therefore disappear within a few years. I doubt that CD's will be readable after 20 years, and certainly not after a century. I would like to hear more comments about this issue. I have books in my library that are 100 years old, still perfectly readable, and I expect to pass them on to my children and grandchildren. Can we say the same for anything we are publishing digitally at this time?

-- (edbuffaloe@unblinkingeye.com), February 11, 2000.

And now the bad/good news. There is a new digital process that is now being used in Europe that out puts directly on to the B&W photographic paper of your choice. It is then developed,etc,etc,etc to current archival standards. The advantage of the process is that you can have an 8X10 print scanned and then outputted at any enlarged size 16/20 ,30/40 ? and the "grain" structure remains at the 8X10 size. The fear the digital images will not be around as long as paper/film images ,I believe, is only wishful thinking. Its less than doubtful that methods and technologys will be developed to ensure their safe keeping for the future..

-- jim megargee (mvjim@interport.net), February 11, 2000.

How do you define digital images? Do you consider images that were captured on film but scanned, dodged, burned and spotted in photoshop and printed on archivally processed photographic paper "digital"? I use this example--which is available with today's technology (go to www.shutterfly.com to order photographic prints from digital/digitized photos, as a proof of concept)--to illustrate the point that we're allready starting to see hybrid photo/imaging combinations that could combine the best of each technology.

Here's a telling comment about the future of photography. While I wasn't able to attend PMA this year, I've spoken with many friends in the photographic press who were there. One person told me yesterday that PMA has changed incredibly in the last couple of years. "It's gone so digital, I felt like I was at Comdex" she said. Fuji has introduced a 4 megapixel consumer camera (although how they arrived at the 4 megapixel claim is a subject of hot debate), and an undebatable 6 megapixel pro camera at PMA. Another company is a month or two away from introducing a CCD that can record megapixel images just by slipping it into a traditonal 35mm camera. There are technologies in development that I'm on nondisclosure--but I can say they are pretty mind-blowing, and are less than a year away.

There are several inkjet ink/paper combinations just now hitting the market that have been tested by Wilhelm to last well beyond 120 years, and more to come which are expected to last up to 500 years! The inkjet industry, after initially testing the photo market waters, now knows it has a goldmine and is working overtime to address longevity issues until they have surpassed archival photography as we know it. I belive that it's only a matter of time before all of these issues have been resolved.

As for digital print quality, they are very close and have reached the point where, for 80-90% of all photography users, quality is acceptable. For the rest of us, it's getting closer. Based on the improvements I've seen in the last couple of years I think it won't be long before digital print quality catches up to photographic (although my Epson 700 probably won't be capable of such quality--there will need to be a new generation of printers).

I also belive film will continue to be the best image capture medium for many more years. But once the image has been captured on film, we are quickly reaching the point where all bets are off as to what happens next.

-- Mason Resnick (bwworld@mindspring.com), February 12, 2000.

To add to Mason's response. As someone who, at the moment, makes his living at the back end of the process. (film processing and printing) I confirm Mason's discription of what is and has been happening. At least at the professional level. Only a few years ago at typical situation would be that a photographer would drop off a job of say 50-60 rolls of b&w film for processing. The film would be run and contacted and sent back to the shooter. Within a few days we would recieve the contacts back along with a work print order of 100 to 150 workprints. Usually 11X14"'s. Then after a week or so recieve the final print order. Usually 15-20 finals. Today, we run and contact the film. And the next we hear from the photographer is a request for finals. It is rare that we now do any work prints. Contacts are scanned,edited and the "work prints" are outputted ( just run through a laser copier) for editing and layout. Our finals are also often sent to be scanned and enhansed, retouched, etc. prior to publication. This is very true of most campaign (fashion, commerical) work that you see out there today. Copy negatives are another area where ,if you have the money, digital would and usually is, the first choice.

-- Jim Megargee (mvjim@interport.net), February 13, 2000.

As an amatuer with no knowledge about the commercial world of photography, I can see the benefits of the digital processes outlined above, but for me the home use of digicam/view on screen/print on inkjet is of little interest nor offers much enjoyment. I have seen some nice colour (not B&W) digital prints done with equipment affordable to the home user, but never actually compared the same image printed both ways. I know my HP-695 and HP-870CXi printers can't do anything like photo quality. And how do you do a 16x20 for example?

The Web go me back into photography after several years of infrequent use (kept taking family/holidays on the p&s, but not much b&w) with the various sites with galleries and the ability to get some feedback (I won't call them critiques) but as I get more critical of the quality of my prints, the less interest I have in posting it anywhere as what can be displayed on the screen is poor compared to the original (not to mention the 'gamma' monster!)

I guess it comes down to what you want to obtain/achieve from this wonderful world of Photography...

-- Nigel Smith (nlandgl@eisa.net.au), February 13, 2000.