Why do people absolutely want color *prints* ?

[Arthur Entlich]

Maybe the reason people won't post at 2000 x 3000 is because of your
second statement. Some people consider their intellectual property is
there own, and you should compensate them financially for use of that
property.

If you are/were a UPI photog, I assume you were paid for your images.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

GP, for a UPI photographer (I'm assuming you are being truthful)
it would seem you may not have gotten out much.

Some people have family and friends in places where there are no
computers. Even Bill Gates came to recognize the vast differences in the
state of hi-tech around the world. And, I'm sorry, but it's damn
arrogant to tell people they "have" to get a computer, or a laptop.
Some people don't have $500 to $1000 available for those needs, and
another $500 or more per year for broadband.

Further, computers and hard drives crash a lot more often than people's
homes burn down. Hard copy still makes a heck of a lot of sense.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

Almost ALL inkjet and photographic papers are acid free, as is most bond
paper made today. The cost to buffer or use non-acid bleaches/fibre
break down agents has come to minimal difference in cost, and it is
environmentally a safer method of processing pulp.

The issue of saving trees is one thing, and a valid crusade, but that
has little to do with printing photos. For one thing, the paper content
in photo papers is often less than in cheaper bond paper. Specialty
papers contain plastics, polymers, ceramics, and other elements to bulk
them up. Secondly, if you were to compare one daily run of newspapers
to all the photo prints made, the photo use would be dwarfed, let alone
standard monochrome computer output, or trade softcover books (which are
still made on acid paper usually.)

All in all, worrying about people printing photos in regard to global
tree use, is a bit like worrying about squirrel farts in terms of CO2
emissions.

Art

PS: There is really no reason recycled paper can't be used in photo
inkjet papers if it is properly processed. In fact, some post consumer
probably is used today.




GP wrote:

 

[GP]

GP, for a UPI photographer (I'm assuming you are being truthful)
it would seem you may not have gotten out much.

former UPI photographer...

Some people have family and friends in places where there are no
computers.

You mean in 3rd world countries?

Even Bill Gates came to recognize the vast differences in the
state of hi-tech around the world. And, I'm sorry, but it's damn
arrogant to tell people they "have" to get a computer, or a laptop. Some
people don't have $500 to $1000 available for those needs, and another
$500 or more per year for broadband.

No, but they do have enough money for a brand new TV set that will keep them
busy daydreaming. These days, you can get a brand new computer with monitor,
for around $600. More than 3 years ago, I rebuilt mine for 500$. At that time,
I thought I'd have to scrap it as obsolete in 2004. Now, I believe my proud
Celeron 850 will be OK for another 3 years.

Entry-level computers shouldn't cost more than $150 a year. Often, more
wealthy members of a family give them away after 3 or 4 years of usage and
they're still perfectly usable. If I had no money, rest assured that I'd get
myself a computer for next to nothing.

As for the internet, I do pay for highspeed because I use Linux and I download
my distro. But I could get the distro from a Linux user group and use a 56K
connection @ $15 / month

Further, computers and hard drives crash a lot more often than people's
homes burn down.

And, of course, you can't afford a brand new CD burner at 30$ ? Did you loose
your mind, Art?

GP

 

[GP]

Snapshot sized prints, in particular, at about
20 cents each, seem to me a perfectly good way to share images.

They really seem WAY too small to me. My 19" monitor seemed the right size for
about half an hour after I got it. The next one will have to be a 21"...
unless the projectors price has gone down and the definition up

Small pictures have no impact. I'm dreaming of life-size and larger pictures.

GP

 

[GP]

Maybe the reason people won't post at 2000 x 3000 is because of your
second statement. Some people consider their intellectual property is
there own, and you should compensate them financially for use of that
property.

Yes, it's certainly a possibility. But some people have another job --
Greenspun is a teacher at the MIT -- and would like to offer their pictures as
some programmers like to build their software the way they like it and then
offer their code to the world.

If bandwidth wasn't still expensive, we'd get more larger pictures for free.

GP

 

[GP]

Yeah, that's it, people just want to spend their money.

The truth is, the industry is suffering because a lot of picture that
used to get printed aren't being made to hard copy anymore.

And I wonder if it doesn't have to do with some arguments we get here

There are many good reasons for making prints. My posting on permanence
of media is just one (earlier this morning),

Yes, I remember you forgetting about the existence of CDs and DVDs. I just
answered this message.

monitor is working at no more than 130 dpi, and the prints I make are
over double that (real resolution).

Yes, but if your image is showm on a 19, or better, a 21" monitor, you may
back off a bit compared to a 4 x 5 print. And because, it's lighted from
behind, the colors are much more vivid.

If my video card had 64MB ram instead of a measly 32 (My first computer must
have had 256k I could set my monitor definition to 1600 x 1200, and I would
get better quality than what I have now. But I do find that at 1280 x 1024,
it's already pertty goood.

Monitor and electronic images are
great, but both have their place. When electronic "paper" (more likely
reflective LED screens) become more popular, perhaps people will no
desire prints

Don't worry! People from "the industry" will still be there to dictate their
desires.

GP

 

[Anoni Moose]

Arthur Entlich wrote:

Don't worry! People from "the industry" will still be there to dictate their
desires.

Particularly when one of those reflective LED screens costs the same as
a print of the same size!

Mike

 

[GP]

They really seem WAY too small to me. My 19" monitor seemed the right
size for about half an hour after I got it. The next one will have to be
a 21"... unless the projectors price has gone down and the definition up

Small pictures have no impact. I'm dreaming of life-size and larger
pictures.

Gee, it seems nobody thinks as I do here, which is surprizing, because I'm
only speaking of the most fundamental rule in photography, which is "crop it
tight, boy!" When it comes to human and animals, what speaks is in the detail.
(And, of course, it's truer for photojournalism because of the bad quality of
printing.)

Take that 4 x 5 picture where your child has one of those unforgettable smile
on his face, then, look at it on your 19", or even 15", monitor. Don't you
feel the impact is different when you feel the texture of his skin, when you
see the sun shine in this little drop of saliva at the corner of his mouth?
Now, imagine the same picture the full size of your wall. Wouldn't it be a
whole world you'd be discovering?

Hey, come on! I discovered a new world just by switching from my 15" Daytek to
my SyncMaster 950p. Of course, it wasn't only a matter of size but of a
larger dynamic range (or contrast ratio, if you prefer), higher definition, etc.

So, why think small when you can think big for much cheaper?

GP

 

[Toby]

For me it is simple: Prints have much higher resolution than a computer
monitor.

Toby

 

[Hecate]

I printed the photos on Canon Photo Paper Pro with Canon ink in my Canon i9950.
We'll see if they actually outlast the computer.

--

Probably not with Canon ink.

 

[Arthur Entlich]

You are also assuming everyone wishes to spend the time to become
computer literate, and learn how to burn CDs, and so on. There is a
tremendous investment we make in using computer equipment. Yes, it's
becoming easier for neophytes, but some people would trade looking at
hard copy images on photo paper and reading a good novel, or making a
nice apple pie, or learning origami for that matter, for spending the
time and effort and money to get a computer system because you want to
sent them pictures by email.

And, yes, people have the right and necessity, in some cases, to use
their money in other ways, if they even have it. Yes, fine, the "3rd
world" (now usually referred to as the developing world) where I have
seen how scant the living conditions are, having lived there. And yes,
right in downtown Montreal, where some people still want to have
pictures of their babies or their sister's babies without having to own
and carry a computer around to see them.

I find your world view incredibly arrogant and lacking in vision,
especially for a UPI photographer. Did you not ever get assignments out
of your own home?

I find it very admirable that you are environmentally aware and
concerned. I won't bore you with my accomplishments in that area over
the last 30+ years. But you have lost perspective because not only does
the MAJORITY of the world still not even own computers (by the way, are
you aware that over 60% of all computers worldwide still run on Win 98
or earlier operating systems?) but of all the concerns about saving
paper pulp, to target photo imaging is just plain silly. Considering
all the paper that is discarded within 30 days of distribution
(newspapers, magazines, flyers, brochures, letters, envelopes, junk
mail, greeting cards, gift wrapping, cardboard shipping boxes, it goes
on and on), why target photographs, most of which are held onto for
years if not decades and beyond.

I think you are asking the wrong person if he has lost his mind.

Art

 

[Arthur Entlich]

That's fine, for you. And by the way, I agree about the size issue. My
next exhibition will be images that are 16" in the narrow direction.
I'll be printing on a Epson 3000, hopefully. Old, 4 color technology,
but for the viewing distance, just perfect.

I use a 17" monitor for my computer, and it could be larger. The next
one will be LCD or whatever is taking its place. Although for color
matching, CRTs are still better, the technology is way too
environmentally nasty.

But, getting back on track, it is not for you to decide what size images
people wish to enjoy and view. You criticized people for printing hard
images, and "only 8x10"". I show my digital images on my TV when I
don't do slide presentations with real live slides and Navatar lenses on
my projectors, which I project to about 8-10 feet across in my living
room. Yes, I like nice and sharp and big, also. BUT, I fully
understand the reasons people print snaps, and 8x10"s, and I fully
understand why people prefer to have hard copy images to carrying around
their 21" monitor and computer ;-)

Art

 

[GP]

And, yes, people have the right and necessity, in some cases, to use
their money in other ways, if they even have it. Yes, fine, the "3rd
world" (now usually referred to as the developing world) where I have
seen how scant the living conditions are, having lived there.

America printing for Africa! A new subject at hand!

Stop top posting Art. You really look like a dimwit. See:
(e-mail address removed)

GP

 

[GP]

But, getting back on track, it is not for you to decide what size images
people wish to enjoy and view. You criticized people for printing hard
images, and "only 8x10"". I show my digital images on my TV when I
don't do slide presentations with real live slides and Navatar lenses on
my projectors, which I project to about 8-10 feet across in my living
room. Yes, I like nice and sharp and big, also. BUT, I fully
understand the reasons people print snaps, and 8x10"s, and I fully
understand why people prefer to have hard copy images to carrying around
their 21" monitor and computer ;-)

I tell people that they gobble too easily ink companies' -- you know, Epson is
one of those -- publicity and that printing is not really the way to go. 95%
of the printing make is not for grandmas, family members with no computer,
construction sites or Africa. It's for persons who have computers. We all know
that and pretending the countrary is completely ridiculous,

And, of course, contrary to what you said in other messages, my pretention is
not that printing pictures uses too much paper for the ressources we have
left, but that, generally speaking, we'll have to rely less and less on paper
to get information.

Stop your bad habit of top posting, Art. 10 years of doing the wrong thing is
no excuse to go on with it. You really look like a senile dimwit.

GP

 

[Ron Cohen]

Why should top posting by Art be such an issue? I'd rather read a top posted
response than to have to page down through many lines to get to the current
reply. Maybe netiquette says top posting is bad. Personally, I prefer it. As
to why people want color prints vs. viewing them on a monitor or big screen?
One of the reasons might be it's a little difficult to put a big screen (or
a little one) in your wallet to show off pictures of the grandkids?

 

[GP]

Why should top posting by Art be such an issue?

You're quite right. It's even worst when some dunces have no idea what they're
doing and post the original message as if it was a signature.

Otherwise, you might want to check the result of idiocy here:

As
to why people want color prints vs. viewing them on a monitor or big screen?
One of the reasons might be it's a little difficult to put a big screen (or
a little one) in your wallet to show off pictures of the grandkids?

Ok. So, for now, people print to send copies to poor people in Africa, for
construction sites and to carry in their wallet. No wonder the industry is
thriving!

GP

 

[GP]

Why should top posting by Art be such an issue? I'd rather read a top posted
response than to have to page down through many lines to get to the current
reply.

Gee... Because it's you, I believe I'll give the great newsgroup secret away.
When you answer a 15 screen message, with one of your so well thought
one-liner, you normally don't quote all the message, but only the part you're
referring to, say 10 lines at most. Hence, people who read you won't have to
scroll.

If they do want to read the message you're answering, it's just atop yours.

I hope I won't ruin your day which such deep, close to metaphysical reflections.

GP

 

[measekite]

Top posting does make more sense. Look at the latest post and if you
need refreshing then scroll. If you are continually following a thread
you save time.

 

[Hecate]

Stop your bad habit of top posting, Art. 10 years of doing the wrong thing is
no excuse to go on with it. You really look like a senile dimwit.

How do you tell when someone has lost an argument on Usenet? They are
the first ones to insult one or more of the other posters....