Print It and Frame It

[PeterToronto]

Greetings guys

In my opinion, the greatest negative impact of the digital photography revolution is that people are no longer printing and framing their images. Instead, their entire catalogue of images remains hidden on external hard drives and/or laptops. Undoubtedly, many of these catalogues are not even backed up sufficiently.

I'm still trying to put my finger on why exactly it is that I prefer printed images over digital images. One thing I know for sure is that I'm not a fan of the "impermanence" of a digital image flashed up onto a monitor. It's there one minute, or should I rather say one second, and gone the next. There really is nothing tangible, lasting, or of substance there. It's simply a series of zeros and ones, that disappears into the ether once a keystroke on a keypad is engaged.

I do acknowledge that the habit of not printing is understandable, because images just look fantastic on a thirty inch backlit cinema display. However, viewing your images in this manner truly limits your audience by not allowing others to appreciate your work as well. In addition, there's still something about a framed image that speaks to people on a deeper level. Framing your work, if done properly, enhances an image and also raises it to a higher standard. A framed piece become a temporal and lasting object. In many cases, it even becomes a family heirloom. Here's a thought: consider printing and professionally framing your favourite shot from the last calendar year. Then, continue to do it on an annual basis. Your family and friends will thank you for it.

If you enjoyed the read, there's much more on my website. Check it out if you're interested.

Peace
Peter

peter anthony PHOTOGRAPHY - Home

 

[KmH]

There is only so much wall space and table top space available in a home.

 

[ann]

perhaps another reason folks don't have prints made these days.

when they used film , there was only one way one could view the image, a print; unless of course one could read negatives, but that is not the general public.

 

[KenC]

I print images because the texture of the heavy matte paper I use contributes to the effect the image has. In addition, reflected light just doesn't look like transmitted light, so overall my prints have a really different "look" or effect than the same images on a screen. I don't put many of them on the wall, but when I collect a bunch on a similar theme, I have them bound so they are easy to keep in a bookcase to look at whenever I want. But then, I read actual books rather than reading on a screen, so I must be a Neanderthal or something.

 

[Early]

With the lighted picture frames we have today, there's really no need to print for display, except, of course, for the occasional blowup.

I just hope for our future generations that these digital files will be readable 75 or 100 yrs. from now. There is no negative to fall back on.

 

[KmH]

How do you double or triple mat a digital frame?

How do you display in a digital frame using an offset mat window?

How do you display a photo in a digital frame so it looks like it was printed on canvas?

How effective can a digital frame be at displaying both landscape orientation and portrait orientation photos?

ann hit the nail on the head, in the days of film you had 2 choices:

1. have a print made from the negative if print film was used
2. or project a slide if a transparency film was used.

I would venture that people today are still getting about the same number of desktop and wall prints made, but are making a lot more photos.

 

[Eco]

I still have my images printed and framed. When I get bored looking at them on my desk or on my wall I insert a new 8x10 and place the "used" one in a folder until my mood changes and I want to look at it again.

 

[Mike_E]

So, are we in C# or D major?

 

[ann]

i print out images, some are mounted and framed to archival standards, and of course i don't know anyone who buys a photo for a digital frame, at least not the type i mean( fine art)

some projects i put in a folio for table top viewing.

it is my feeling i have nothing (well, at least only 1's and 0's) unless it is printed

 

[Early]

Did I misread the original post? When we have a roll of film developed, we get back a pack of prints for general viewing. Since most of us don't take the time to print out every picture we take with digital cameras, we use digital frames for general viewing. There are a lot of shots that are worth viewing by family and friends that aren't worth blowing up or printing on special paper.

 

[oldmacman]

Get topic.

I love printing my digital shots. I have colour corrected my screen and uploaded my local processor's colour profile into PS so that I can preview a print before sending it off. I print about 5 8x10 shots per week for my personal portfolio. They get rotated in the frames around the house.

I am always blown away by the amount of detail you get in a print. The screen resolution never does justice to the amount of detail that is available.

 

[subscuck]

Even in the days of film no one I knew ever matted and framed an entire roll of 36. You took your best shot(s) and had them enlarged and matted and framed them. I do the same with digital. The shots I like go to mpix for printing, then I mat and frame them. I have to agree with Keith, people are still probably framing and matting the same amount as they did pre-digital.

 

[c.cloudwalker]

i don't know anyone who buys a photo for a digital frame, at least not the type i mean( fine art)

Not that I know if he displayed photos but Bill Gates was displaying art in digital frames in his 25th century home. I won't get into how ridiculous that home was (sitting for a hundred people in the DR but had to do some remodeling when he had his second child... to add a 3rd BR) but the idea of the digital art display tells me this guy has not understanding whatsoever of art.

Anyway, back to the OP: I agree with the print it part, but not the frame it part.

Framing can get quite expensive and, as pointed out by KmH, there is limited space to hang works in most people's homes. Especially an artist's home. Most studios I have been in, the vast majority of photos are sitting in boxes, the vast majority of paintings are leaning against the walls.

Print them, YES. Fewer and fewer people seem to understand photography as a printed media. They are happy to look at them on their computer screens. And maybe that is the future. It would make me sad to think so but I'm just an old fart. Lol.

 

[astroskeptic]

I just hope for our future generations that these digital files will be readable 75 or 100 yrs. from now. There is no negative to fall back on.

If your archival format (tiff, jpeg, whatever) stops being supported by the current software tools, you simply have to migrate it to the new format. For me, the bigger concern is media migration.

 

[rufus5150]

Framing can get quite expensive

The framing part... ugh, the first time I had stuff framed for a show, I thought 'durnit, I'm in the wrong business!' It's pricey.

I guess I'm one of the oddballs in the digital age. I do have thousands of unwashed images, but those I tend to process out fully end up at least as a 4x6, 4x5, or 5x7, or alternatively, in a photobook. My walls are covered with mine and other photographers' photos, and when it's just for myself, discount frames from the art stores do the job.