This is true, and people need to separate all of the versions of Digital
Printing. I know of 15 at least. Incidentally, the above is not a new
idea...we used it years ago. In this case, longevity is the same as
conventionally produced images made by contact or projection.
>>>>For the most part I believe that digital imaging technology has been
driven by the magazine and advertising industry. The stability of a
magazine or advertisement image over more than a few months or years is
not usually an issue, and hasn't been a prime consideration until
recently.
True, it is money. Digital files save the editors and publishers money and
time and get the product to press faster. Color separations were slow to
produce compared to doing it digitally. This is sad because of the quality
issues. Good digital is available, but if you consider the cost of a top
quality digital camera (ours was about $45,000.00 with the bells and
whistles), the cost of equipment required to store and manipulate LARGE
files and the cost of a printer that gives people the quality they are used
to...digital currently is out of reach for many photographers. I have some
PC Boards I photographed digitally and also used 5 X 7 film to shoot, and
you would be amazed at the difference.
If this is not the case, how come there are so many posts to various
mailing lists asking where they can get their files outputted with high
quality.
RM