Discussion in 'photography, graphics & art' started by FridgeMagnet, Nov 13, 2009.
Why not buy a printer? Take your pics, then print them off.
Take Polaroids, scan them then print them? actually I did do that once to enlarge one
No. Take digital pictures and then print them off. Much less expensive, you also have the 'original'.
Well, that isn’t instant, or, more importantly, fun.
No, but it does have much greater clarity, is less expensive, and if you are so minded, you can 'enhance*' before you print.
*One of the many bees in my bonnet. If a picture is mucked about with, then it ceases to be a photograph and becomes an art work. A photograph is as taken, cropping is permissible, but nothing else.
When I decided at the start of 2018 to only shoot raw, unless I had very good reasons to shoot jpeg, (before it had been the other way around) I also agreed that I would in some way process all my images thenceforth. As it happens at the moment my raw images do resemble my ooc jpegs quite strongly so I don't have to do as much editing as I had anticipated.
It gives different final results, the characteristics of digital sensors and printers are different to how Polaroid film works, but more importantly it's a different dynamic of making both print and picture in the first place - and that affects what you get at the end.
In fact there is an interesting issue around the conceptual relationship between print and "picture" and how that changes by medium, but instant film is just one example of that.
Every photograph is mucked about with to some degree. Even if you don't do it after taking the photo, somebody else has (the JPEG engine, the RAW processor, the film manufacturer, whoever made the printer, the person who looks at the final result in different environments etc).
Separate names with a comma.