civilized ku # 5126 / the new snapshot # 177-78 ~ seeing is believing

Adirondack guideboat guy ~ in the Adirondack PARK (embiggenable) • µ4/3

relaxed / Mirror Lake Inn ~ Lake Placid, NY (embiggenable) • iPhone

billboards ~ Rochester, NY (embiggenable) • iPhone

Is a digitqal file, or for that matter processed film, a photograph? That question was posed in yesterday's entry on TOP.

iMo, a digital file / processed negative are indeed raw ingredients for a photograph. However, just as the raw ingredients for a cake are not a cake, a digital file / processed negative do not come to life until they are in print form.

That is to write, an tangible / tactile object which can be hung on a wall, presented on a page in a book or as a simple snapshot print. An object which is not device dependent for viewing and can be distributed (in any number) to friends / family and/or handed down to future generations.

Setting aside the above, it is my opinion and experience that, for a picture maker, the real value of making prints is how he/she will react to them. I know that I have a entirely different viewing experience / reaction when viewing prints rather than viewing a picture on a screen. And, it simply does not matter if it's a small "dimestore" print or a 24"x24" (in my case) Epson Ultrachrome Ink print. A print is a print and viewing one is (or certainly should be) a distinctly different viewing experience from that of viewing the same picture on a device.

And, with a cornucopia of low-cost small print printing sources out there - online or the corner drugstore and such - it a wonder to me that more picture makers don't print their pictures.