<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Long Live the Print?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/</link>
	<description>Thoughts on Photography, Digital Imaging, and Travel</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 14:00:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Bryn</title>
		<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/#comment-1138</link>
		<dc:creator>Bryn</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 07:05:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timgrey.com/blog/?p=11#comment-1138</guid>
		<description>Even if you ignore the initial cost of the 50&quot; plasma, I&#039;d say you spend way more on electricity displaying the photo on the wall (even if it&#039;s on only a few hours a day) than you would making a print and hanging it. A large plasma can run 500 - 1000 watts at $.23/kWh comes at 10 hours a day comes out to $419 per year (used 500 watts)  (which ignores the fact that electricity is under priced -- doesn&#039;t take in to account environmental cost of mining coal and putting it in the atmosphere which will be paid later in taxes etc) LCD display use less power but still 200-400 watts. 

Of course framing isn&#039;t cheap either, and I certainly agree that the colors and the three dimensionality on the screen is much more than a print so I just mention it as something to think about (I noticed so many digital picture frames were sold this christmas and got to thinking about all the people that will leave these on scrolling through snapshots even when they aren&#039;t home)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Even if you ignore the initial cost of the 50&#8243; plasma, I&#8217;d say you spend way more on electricity displaying the photo on the wall (even if it&#8217;s on only a few hours a day) than you would making a print and hanging it. A large plasma can run 500 &#8211; 1000 watts at $.23/kWh comes at 10 hours a day comes out to $419 per year (used 500 watts)  (which ignores the fact that electricity is under priced &#8212; doesn&#8217;t take in to account environmental cost of mining coal and putting it in the atmosphere which will be paid later in taxes etc) LCD display use less power but still 200-400 watts. </p>
<p>Of course framing isn&#8217;t cheap either, and I certainly agree that the colors and the three dimensionality on the screen is much more than a print so I just mention it as something to think about (I noticed so many digital picture frames were sold this christmas and got to thinking about all the people that will leave these on scrolling through snapshots even when they aren&#8217;t home)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave Borsky</title>
		<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/#comment-1035</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave Borsky</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 27 Dec 2007 12:22:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timgrey.com/blog/?p=11#comment-1035</guid>
		<description>I agree that prints, done properly are beautiful to look at and are certainly tangible. However, they are so very fragile, and so dependant upon proper lighting and viewing position. On the other hand , a well developed digital file displayed on a modern flat panel display in high definition is truly amazing. The internal lighting of the screen provides a drama and three dimensionality that to me is far superior to most prints. Besides, it&#039;s wonderful to be able to change the photo at will, with no cost, as your interests and tastes change. People that have seen my prints , under proper lighting, definitely enjoy them more as a slide show on my 50 inch plasma screen in high definition! Also, some of us need to think of the tremendous savings in ink and paper as well as precious time  that is involved in proofing and printing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree that prints, done properly are beautiful to look at and are certainly tangible. However, they are so very fragile, and so dependant upon proper lighting and viewing position. On the other hand , a well developed digital file displayed on a modern flat panel display in high definition is truly amazing. The internal lighting of the screen provides a drama and three dimensionality that to me is far superior to most prints. Besides, it&#8217;s wonderful to be able to change the photo at will, with no cost, as your interests and tastes change. People that have seen my prints , under proper lighting, definitely enjoy them more as a slide show on my 50 inch plasma screen in high definition! Also, some of us need to think of the tremendous savings in ink and paper as well as precious time  that is involved in proofing and printing.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert (Bob) Davis</title>
		<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/#comment-111</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert (Bob) Davis</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Nov 2007 18:09:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timgrey.com/blog/?p=11#comment-111</guid>
		<description>&quot;The print.&quot; It congers many thoughts and visual applications. However the print is all mighty in that it, and it alone, can convey the trueness of what the photographer/artist envisioned at exposure. The life expectancy of prints will be . . . well . . . they&#039;ll be around basically forever unless some wonderful new technology appears and viola we all can&#039;t live without it, much like the digital camera and Photoshop of today replacing film. So will the print &quot;Long Live?&quot; Truly so - what would our walls look like without them? In regards to Mr. Smiths comment I find that his question about the printer is academic unless the print is of superb quality and detail, then and only then would the printer name/type be of value to know (we all want excellence). With technology moving forward and developing at a rate expotentially to where it was four years ago, I&#039;m inclined to believe that companies manufacturing printers will be offering us, the consumer, machines that will WOW even the snobiest of juror/judges. As Ms. Cross puts it, &quot; . . . in the end it is the print now and forever more . . . !&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;The print.&#8221; It congers many thoughts and visual applications. However the print is all mighty in that it, and it alone, can convey the trueness of what the photographer/artist envisioned at exposure. The life expectancy of prints will be . . . well . . . they&#8217;ll be around basically forever unless some wonderful new technology appears and viola we all can&#8217;t live without it, much like the digital camera and Photoshop of today replacing film. So will the print &#8220;Long Live?&#8221; Truly so &#8211; what would our walls look like without them? In regards to Mr. Smiths comment I find that his question about the printer is academic unless the print is of superb quality and detail, then and only then would the printer name/type be of value to know (we all want excellence). With technology moving forward and developing at a rate expotentially to where it was four years ago, I&#8217;m inclined to believe that companies manufacturing printers will be offering us, the consumer, machines that will WOW even the snobiest of juror/judges. As Ms. Cross puts it, &#8221; . . . in the end it is the print now and forever more . . . !&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nelcha Cross</title>
		<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/#comment-80</link>
		<dc:creator>Nelcha Cross</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 08:31:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timgrey.com/blog/?p=11#comment-80</guid>
		<description>Dear Tim,
   .....as one that printed my own Cibachromes for years before I took a class from you just after your daughter was born, I have to agree... I photograph with THE PRINT in mind.....Whether using the 4x5 or the 1DSmkII I want the best image in the can, so the print will be all I can make it.....and I DO feel that the archivability of the Print is also of HUGE importance. Thank you for all you do to help all of us.... and reminding the newbies of the basics before the computer....in the END it is the Print now and forever more...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dear Tim,<br />
   &#8230;..as one that printed my own Cibachromes for years before I took a class from you just after your daughter was born, I have to agree&#8230; I photograph with THE PRINT in mind&#8230;..Whether using the 4&#215;5 or the 1DSmkII I want the best image in the can, so the print will be all I can make it&#8230;..and I DO feel that the archivability of the Print is also of HUGE importance. Thank you for all you do to help all of us&#8230;. and reminding the newbies of the basics before the computer&#8230;.in the END it is the Print now and forever more&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Rich Collins</title>
		<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/#comment-78</link>
		<dc:creator>Rich Collins</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 18 Oct 2007 01:18:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timgrey.com/blog/?p=11#comment-78</guid>
		<description>As a photographer who sells online Prints, Tim, I have to say without question the actual Print is not only what provides me an income, but what showcases our homes, our offices, the banks and restaurants we frequent, even our favorite shopping haunts (pun intended).

 My prints range from 5x7&quot; up to 32x48&quot; and I really enjoy it when a client calls or emails me to say how much more they enjoy their rooms once the Print is framed and hung. It is the final analysis of photography.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>As a photographer who sells online Prints, Tim, I have to say without question the actual Print is not only what provides me an income, but what showcases our homes, our offices, the banks and restaurants we frequent, even our favorite shopping haunts (pun intended).</p>
<p> My prints range from 5&#215;7&#8243; up to 32&#215;48&#8243; and I really enjoy it when a client calls or emails me to say how much more they enjoy their rooms once the Print is framed and hung. It is the final analysis of photography.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tim Grey</title>
		<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/#comment-74</link>
		<dc:creator>Tim Grey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Oct 2007 02:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timgrey.com/blog/?p=11#comment-74</guid>
		<description>In response to Charle Smith&#039;s questions, the issue of what printer was used really wasn&#039;t a consideration. Quite frankly, when you&#039;re evaluating individual prints, you really can&#039;t tell much difference between printers. Comparing the same image printed on various printers would certainly show some (relatively subtle) differences, but prints on their own don&#039;t reflect this. Of course, judging prints in this manner also reminds me that many photographers still struggle with getting the best prints, both in terms of image quality and color accuracy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>In response to Charle Smith&#8217;s questions, the issue of what printer was used really wasn&#8217;t a consideration. Quite frankly, when you&#8217;re evaluating individual prints, you really can&#8217;t tell much difference between printers. Comparing the same image printed on various printers would certainly show some (relatively subtle) differences, but prints on their own don&#8217;t reflect this. Of course, judging prints in this manner also reminds me that many photographers still struggle with getting the best prints, both in terms of image quality and color accuracy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Kennedy</title>
		<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/#comment-72</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Kennedy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Oct 2007 18:18:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timgrey.com/blog/?p=11#comment-72</guid>
		<description>......&quot;thereâ€™s something about a print that seems vital to photography&quot;  I sure agree with the importance of printing the image. It is not published until it is printed....often you can&#039;t see the flaws until it is printed.  I print to 12 X 18 to be sure it is perfect.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;&#8230;&#8221;thereâ€™s something about a print that seems vital to photography&#8221;  I sure agree with the importance of printing the image. It is not published until it is printed&#8230;.often you can&#8217;t see the flaws until it is printed.  I print to 12 X 18 to be sure it is perfect.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Charle Smith</title>
		<link>http://timgrey.com/blog/2007/long-live-the-print/#comment-65</link>
		<dc:creator>Charle Smith</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 13 Oct 2007 14:29:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://timgrey.com/blog/?p=11#comment-65</guid>
		<description>Tim, what did you learn about new printers from your recent judging?  I&#039;m sure you asked, &quot;What printer did you use for this image?&quot; several times.  Do you have any new intelligence on printers to share?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Tim, what did you learn about new printers from your recent judging?  I&#8217;m sure you asked, &#8220;What printer did you use for this image?&#8221; several times.  Do you have any new intelligence on printers to share?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

