> as the best prints coming from computers at the moment emerge
> on to the very same paper that are used for other photographic prints and
> thus have exactly the same life scale.
Peter,
You're a hero in the eyes of a client when you produce a fast and
stunning print. After he speeds across town in his black BMW to his
client, you've become the villain. The inkjet/dye sub print is dead.
The guys in labcoats say it isn't a problem.
Maybe to them.
At the sharp end of the stick, outside of certain, limited lifespan
applications for which digital imaging is very well suited, it is still
a toy.
As for :
> Visually they are also impossible to tell from those produced manually,
> although a skilled printer might look at some and wonder how some things
> were possible.
Special effects, agreed. Composites ? Obviously.
Anywhere close to a good photo ? Rubbish.
Although the gap is closing.
The quality of photography is diminishing every day.
Don Cardwell