Mr. Marshall, you are wrong about your reply. The comment that computer
output not being archival is correct. Regardless of the paper used to print
the output on, the fact that it is a material similar to photographic paper
means very little. It is the dyes or pigments used, the manner in which
they are applied, the way they are handled, stored or displayed also factor
into it. There is absolutely no proof that a digital image will be here
even 5 years from now. None. Nada.
As far as being able to manipulate in Photoshop, so what. This is not
necessarily a bonus. I will, however give you that being able to make a
proof is nice.
As far as your comment about digital output being virtually impossible to
distinguish from a photographic print, I can tell and have always been able
to tell. Perhaps you need more experience looking at actual prints not
digital stuff. I get the idea that you have never actually seen a well made
photographic print. Your comment about getting a true photo print....to be
a true photographic print you need to make it using photographic
technology. There is a difference between something made on photographic
paper and something that comes out of a digital printer.
RM