On Printer Machines and Klingon Cowgirls

Photographic terminology drives me buggy. It is not only poor to start with, but then it changes. A lot of terms that were correct and proper when I was young, even though they kinda didn't make sense, are no longer known to young people now. And so they get the terms wrong. Or maybe wronger. Perhaps just wrong in a different way; variants of wrong.

Anyway, "printer" is now a problem, and it wasn't forty years ago when I was in art school. A printer back then was a human person who printed, and there wasn't much ambiguity. A printer, now, is this black lump:

...And yet a printer-person is still also a printer, which gives rise to possible statements such as, "I decided not to get a printer, so I need to find a printer."

As is our way, eventually language shall catch up to the use-cases and we'll find a way to indicate needed distinctions. Maybe the problem in photography is merely that its changes consistently keep two hops and a sidestep out ahead of language, which then always has to keep up, and can't, quite. Little me, fenced off here in my little virtual domain, tried in my usual wan and lugubrious way to offer up a correction for this, but I'm not good with names or coinages, alas. I tried to start calling the person a "printmaker." This has not, um, become universal. It would have been nice if printers like the Canon above had been called "printer machines" from the get-go, but I know better than to hope anything will change. A few of you indefatigable longtime readers will recall that I originally made the suggestion that "digital imaging" and "photography" should be made distinct, terminologically speaking. A photograph should be something that makes a direct record of the light of the lens image; a digital image is an analog, a map, if you will, of picture elements substituted for points in a lens image, that can be modified at will.

You know, this would be a fun idea for a book: use confusing and confused terminology as a jumping-off point for riffing-slash-educating about photography. I would have fun with that.

At any rate: after a whole day of research a.k.a. poking about the web until my butt hurt from sitting too long, it appears that the Canon Pro-1000 (B&H, Amazon) might be the most recommendable home printer for advanced amateurs on offer today. It apparently does B&W really well, it still has 80-ml ink tanks for $59 (74 cents per ml, or $2,791.74 per gallon) whereas its chief competitor, the Epson P900 (B&H, Amazon), now gives you only 50-ml cartridges for $44 (88 cents per ml, or $3,331.16 per gallon), and ships with carts that are only a quarter full, which is really very stingy of Epson—they want to get you on that needle ASAP—and Carl reports that his P900 is cranky about paper-feeding. Not that there's anything wrong with a P900; it gets 4 our of 5 stars on Amazon, vs. 4.4 for the Canon, and users report top-quality output. But the Canon seems to have just that bit of an edge.

Evidence in front of your own eyes
My suggestion that "photography" and "digital imaging" (DI) should be distinct was angrily shouted down, back in the day, by many of those to whom I floated the idea. My judgment was that it was a status issue to them, because, in the early days, film was what had all the weight and prestige, and DI was the poor techie-dweebie come-lately stepchild struggling to come up to film's level. Obviously those days have passed. Anyway, the suggestion that DI was inherently different and needed to be linguistically cordoned off was met with umbrage and outrage. It was exactly the same thing, the shouters shouted; it's just a different method of accurately and exactly recording the lens image, if you want it to be; there's no requirement that you change anything. And besides, it was easy to change things in film photographs too! I have eight examples from history right here! You're an idiot!

Flame wars ensued.

Oh, really? Well, consider this photograph (clue—this is a test):

Now, you're a savvy picture-looker-atter, so you probably sense something's fishy. You might at first think that this is a modern recreation of an old-tymey somethingtype, and that those are modern people in costumes. Because you've seen that before.

Well, wrong, albumen-breath. As you might know if you read PetaPixel, the people in that picture never lived and breathed; they're not actual humans who ever existed. The image has no historicity whatsoever. The picture is a creation of version 4 of an artificial intelligence image generator called Midjourney. Mario Cavalli, who collaborated with the program to create this, gave it verbal instructions, and this is what the generator came up with.

Good as it is (uncanny valley, anyone?), if we look at the image a little more closely, we start to see that there are still a few bugs in the system. For example, the man in the background appears to be wearing a hat that is eight sizes too small; the sign hanging behind our historical couple appears to be written in Klingon; there were none to very few plate-glass windows that size in the era of that style of dress; and there is something very wrong with that fellow's right hand. Birth defect, you might say, in a metaphorical way. And they appear to be sitting on—what? At least the image gets one insight rather right: the pained expression on the face of the virtual cowgirl might be due to the fact that she appears to have rather overtightened her corset, poor dear. Either that or her waist measurement is actually 17 inches. Another birth defect, perhaps?

It's fine for me to act all superior, but the scary thing is: the bot will get better. Soon you won't be able to tell a photograph-as-legitimate-evidence of things in the world, from an image created from verbal instructions by a very smart dumb machine. Lies, which are increasing greatly in popularity in our culture lately, will become even more invisible as far as photographs are concerned. Photographs will no longer show you anything accurate about the world. That you can count on, anyway. Orwellian is an understatement. But we were halfway there before Midjourney came along.

I rest my case from all those years ago. Naturally there are all sorts of blurry boundaries, but digital imaging is inherently a different thing from photography. And, eventually, we will come up with new language to tag it with; although we might stay a step or three behind the changes, same as it ever was.

Time for my breakfast! Thanks to those of you who signed up for Patreon, or upped your monthly give, for our 17th birthday and 10,006th post yesterday. I do need the encouragement, in my very young old age. We're going to try to keep this leaky old ship afloat for another trip around the sun.

Mike

Featured Comments from:

Brad Dow (partial comment): "I’m also super-sensitive to the cost of ink, and consider it carefully as I shop for a replacement for my aging Epson 4900, and I agree that the razor blade model is annoying. But I decided not to let ink cost distract me, because the cost of high-quality paper is on average about five times the cost of ink. Here’s the average ink cost for a letter-sized print with an 6x9 inch image:

Epson P900: $.26
Canon Pro-1000: $.21

"The cost of a letter-sized sheet of Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag is about $1.44. (The per 9x6 ink costs in my aging Epson 4900, with its 200 ml carts is only $.17. But there’s a downside to large carts for a low-volume printer. The ink in several little-used positions, especially for someone who prints mostly B&W, expires before I can use it up, and replacement cost is higher. I’d still prefer bigger carts, but this factor closes the gap somewhat.) In any event it’s a bit like the cost of darkroom print chemistry. It’s not trivial, but it’s dwarfed by the cost of paper."

Kristine Hinrichs: "For what it’s worth I spent a great deal of time deciding between the Pro-1000 and the Epson—and settled on the Canon. After a year of use, I am very happy with my decision. I have two suggestions—get one of the extra maintenance cartridges right away. You do go through them quickly and their availability is inconsistent—B&H limits you to two each purchase. I also generally better result using their print utility—Canon Print Studio Pro (not always, but usually). It works as a plugin for LR & PS. You probably know these things, but maybe not. Happy printing!"

robert e (partial comment): "The fake 'photograph' is disturbing enough, but people are hard at work applying similar principles to generate, for example, fake scientific literature."

Jeff (partial comment): "Epson relies on the user to trigger cleaning cycles. Canon machines automatically trigger cleaning cycles, whether the user wants them or not. So clogging might be reduced, but the cost per print is higher unless one frequently prints. This video explains the Canon approach. There are of course other differences in the Canon vs. Epson approach: user replaceable print heads (Canon) or not (Epson); feed mechanisms; ink sets and number of inks, etc. The Pro-1000 is also much bigger and heavier than the P900, if that matters."

Stephanie Luke: "The final print has always been the point for me. I started out in the darkroom, but, with the advent of digital, color became possible, and I never looked back. The best thing I ever found was a used flat file. It takes up a ridiculous amount of room in my small house, but I can store the multitudes of prints I've made over the years. Also, the top makes a good place to cut mats and frame (and reframe) prints. My output would never rise to the level of a master printer, but it provides me with a lot of satisfaction. I exhibit a few prints in various galleries most months, and sometimes people even buy them. I use an Epson 3880, and, yes, they can be a bit temperamental, but when it's functioning properly, it makes beautiful prints."

Ed. note: The above are samples of what Stephanie means by flat file, for anyone who might not know. They're for storing large sheets of paper such as maps, CAD drawings, blueprints, or artwork, and are used by engineers, architects, artists, collectors, etc. Uline [top] has metal ones, and old wooden ones can be found near you from sources such as Facebook Marketplace. Most are stackable, and sometimes have a variety of bases and tops available. Amish or Mennonite woodworkers either have or can make wooden ones [bottom]. Warning: they are hell to ship and move. New ones are often packed inadequately, and old ones can be beat up and have tape and so forth applied to the outside, or one drawer missing or sticking or what have you. And they do take up a significant amount of room. A headache to acquire but, as Stephanie says, great to have.

Timothy Gray: "Look, I ran an Epson Stylus Pro 7800 for 13 years, made many beautiful prints with it, and spend an embarrassing amount of time and money learning to print well. Don’t even get me started on paper jams, wasted ink from PK/MK swap routines and head clogs, trying consumables at up to $12/sheet in search of some 'holy grail' of printing. In the end, when it gave up the ghost, I had a helluva time finding anyone local that would haul it away. Even in death it was a major pain in the you know what. If you’re really dead set on buying a printer, start by gathering $50 bills. Better get 10 of them. Now take a look at one of the files you want to print, walk over to your fireplace and light that first fifty note on fire. Watch it burn and think about what that money could have gone towards instead. Repeat this process until you either come to your senses or run out of money. Sure it may seem foolish, but so is blowing your retirement hunched over a computer only to then watch as each print, full of ink that costs more per gallon than crude oil, slowly comes out of the printer."

Les von Pongracz: "Congratulations on breaking 10,000 posts. I think I've probably read more than 9,600 of such. Always looked forward to the latest from TOP and Steve's Digicams. I'm likely an 'advanced amatuer' in both photography and printing. The fly in the ointment is that I have several hobbies that I enjoy intensely. Problem is that I can't seem to distribute this fervor equally, so activity for each has peaks and valleys (maybe you can relate). Subsequently, there are prolonged periods of time when the printer may sit idle. I've had three wonderful Epsons over the years and each one cost me many dollars of ink clearing clogs, often occurring in as little as three weeks of being idle. Decided to go with a Canon PRO-100. (I know, it's dye ink, but I like it!) Have not had clog issue (unlike one of my arteries) in just under 10 years, and I've been using Precision Colors ink for the past five years. YMMV. There's an interesting, if somewhat pedantic, reviewer/tester on Youtube—Jose Rodriguez—check him out. I wish you luck with whatever choice you make, but do dive in, as printing is a very satisfying engagement."

Bill Poole: "Photo jargon! My least favorite innovation is 'capture' as a substitute for 'exposure,' or even 'shot' (of which I was never a fan, either.) 'Capture' seemed to come in with digital technology, to emphasize that the image was made digitally. Now we seem to be stuck with it."

louis mccullough: "Car manufacturers have been using graphics software for many years instead of actual photography to create images of their cars, etc. This is also happening in many other areas which used to be the mainstay of professional photographers."

Søren Engelbrecht: "To me, the difference between a 'photograph' and a 'digital image' is that a photograph must (to a very high degree of accuracy) show a representation of what was in front of a lens when a shutter was released. In those terms, you can take a photograph (say, a landscape picture will a dull sky) and click 'sky replacement' on the computer—after which it will no longer be a photograph, but a digital image. By extension, if there is no lens or shutter involved, only AI, it is not a photograph. After all, the Greek meaning of photography is 'writing with light,' so if the image was not created using light, it's not a photograph. At least in my book.  :-)  "

Mike replies: Yes. A photograph respects the lens image, is how I usually say it.

Joseph Vavak: "I have a Canon Pro-1000 and have been very happy with it. I don’t print a lot on a regular basis—most of my usage is in short bursts around exhibitions—but I try to print something every other week to avoid anything drying up. So far, so good. The B&W mode works well on a variety of papers. I generally reduce contrast on-screen to get results more along the lines of what I want. Printing on Canon papers in color is nearly foolproof without dealing with paper profiles, but it’s not hard to utilize paper profiles if you choose. A calibrated monitor is a must, as much for brightness as for color balance.

"It’s a big, heavy machine, just a warning."

Dave Millier: "On the ink costs thing, although it really galls emotionally, in practice, if you run the sums it's a minor component of the cost of hanging a print on your wall. I did my own rough costing and if you include ink, paper, mount card, foam core backing and an Amazon basics frame, the cost of a framed A4 print on the wall is about £20. Of this £20, £15 is the frame, 50p the paper. The extra cost of the ink and an amortised sum for printer depreciation is minor. And that doesn't include the camera, lens, time spent travelling and shooting and various other indirect costs. The ink costs rankles because it seems a rip-off and looms large because we get excited buying a new camera but not a new ink cartridge. Try and see beyond these irritations and put the ink cost into perspective."

Comments

[Freddy S]

Here is a picture of a computer:

From a time when a "computer" was a person, usually female

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

[Richard Parkin]

The ‘photo’ looked OK to me but then I was bugged by the lack of support for the figures rather than the things you mention.
I guess the anachronisms like the window will be the hardest thing for machines to beat. Maybe we’ll have train birds, with their greater visual acuity, to detect the fakes like humans did with dogs in The Terminator.

[Nah, 'cuz birds, sadly, are not good at seeing windows either. :-( --Mike]

[Craig Beyers]

I’m amused that you lump images from digital cameras and images from AI software under “digital imagery” but don’t lump images from film (and I assume glass plates, paper negatives, etc.) and from digital sensors under “photography”. Are the images from scanned negatives no longer photography because they’re now digital? I’m not intending to restart the flame wars, just commenting. Following similar logic, are images created in Adobe Illustrator and other drawing programs not “art” (although they, I suppose, would be included in “digital imagery”)? Confusing terms these; see below…

On the other point about language, in my career I’ve noted that each subject area has its own terminology that sounds just like the everyday words we use. It’s jargon or slanguage that conveys meaning to those involved in the subject area and confuses those who aren’t. Consider “code” to programmers vs. “code” to spies as an example…

To me the AI-generated images aren’t photography; they’re just images created in a computer, even if they draw on “digital imagery” for their content...

Good luck with your printer quandary. I’ve used both Canon and Epson but have only purchased Epson. My latest is a P700. Have you checked into Digital Silver Imaging for your B&W printing? Highly recommended from experience.

[Peter Komar]

Hello Mike, I can’t speak to the Pro 1000 printer from CANON as I only recently purchased the 600 version which uses dye based inks. My model definitely does a great job for B&W printing on all high grade inkjet papers. One great feature on the CANON printers is that the user installs the print head during the initial setup process. This means I’m sure you can purchase a new CANON printhead if it ever has an issue. This is huge since if anything goes wrong with EPSON printers, (printheads) you are dead in the water. EPSON has to repair it and shipping a 40 lb printer is very costly. I also don’t like a new printer getting partially filled cartridges, what a rip-off.

[Jeff]

Yes, I covered the cartridge size differences between the Epson P900 and Canon Pro 1000 in my comment for your initial printing post. But I also mentioned another important distinction. Epson relies on the user to trigger cleaning cycles. Canon machines AUTOMATICALLY trigger cleaning cycles, whether the user wants them or not, so clogging might be reduced, but the cost per print is higher unless one frequently prints. This video explains the Canon approach…

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc4p7pyQdoQ

There are of course other differences in the Canon vs Epson approach: user replaceable print heads (Canon) or not (Epson); feed mechanisms; ink sets and number of inks, etc.

The Pro 1000 is also much bigger and heavier than the P900, if that matters. The smaller Epson footprint unfortunately translates to smaller capacity ink cartridges. That’s one reason I haven’t sold my P800, still using 80ml cartridges.

Both are fine machines for b&w printing. Each can support ImagePrint, which I find very useful, including superb paper profiles for virtually all papers and lighting conditions. But that’s another discussion.

By the way, you’re actually better than most people at coining photo terminology, intentionally or not, for better or worse. See ‘bokeh’ and ‘bokeh king.”

[Dave]

I hope the young people refrain from calling a human printer an "old-timey printer". "Old-timey" anything makes me cringe when I see it in print, never mind hearing it uttered. (Yes, I saw that Mike used "old-tymey" later in the post.)

Film and digital photography is basically the same (disregarding the usual output form) until you run into the alternations or fictional digital photos. With film, you always have a negative to back up the photo and solve arguments. Digital has no equivalent that I'm aware of.

That Midjourney v4 is scary enough. Wait a decade and it'll have most of the bugs fixed.

[Robert Roaldi]

Those AI apps are going to be used a lot for propaganda, publish fake but convenient histories of things that didn't happen. Your linguistic issues will be the least important issue.

But how about this for a working definition: Photography is the recording of things in the real world using whatever technology you prefer. Digital imaging is the creation of images, whole or in part, that existed in the mind(s) of the creator(s). I'm sure that is full of holes but so what.

[Frank Gorga]

I find the hoopla about these AI-generated pictures a bit strange.

One hears some folks refer to them as 'photographs' when clearly they are not. By definition photographs are made by light focused on a photosensitive sensor (film or digital). These AI-generated pictures/images are made by a completely new and distinct technology.

I acknowledge that language does in fact evolve, but note that the evolution of language sometimes leads to devolution. (Don't get me started on 'gifted' used as a verb!) I truly hope that the moniker "photograph" does not come to include AI-generated pictures. That would be a travesty.

Also, the idea that realistic-looking pictures are a solely the realm of photography or that they are somehow new is not correct. Talented folks have been making trompe-l'œil paintings for a very long time.

As the example you cite shows, there is currently often an element of AS (that is, automated stupidity!) in the output of AI systems. And, I agree that the AI generation of images will only get better as it matures.

If I were in the business of supplying commercial art or photography to corporations I would be worried about how to adapt in the face of this new (and inexpensive) source of imagery.

However, as an 'artist' working in photography, the AI-driven production of pictures has no bearing on my practice.

[Brad Dow]

I’m also super-sensitive to the cost of ink, and consider it carefully as I shop for a replacement for my aging Epson 4900, and I agree that the razor blade model is annoying. But I decided not to let ink cost distract me, because the cost of high-quality paper is on average about five times the cost of ink. Here’s the average ink cost for a letter-sized print with an 6x9 inch image:

Epson P900: $.26
Canon 1000-Pro: $.21

The cost of a letter-sized sheet of Canson Infinity Platine Fibre Rag is about $1.44.

(The per 9x6 ink costs in my aging Epson 4900, with its 200 ml carts is only $.17. But there’s a downside to large carts for a low-volume printer. The ink in several little-used positions, especially for someone who prints mostly b/w, expires before I can use it up, and replacement cost is higher. I’d still prefer bigger carts, but this factor closes the gap somewhat.)

In any event it’s a bit like the cost of darkroom print chemistry. It’s not trivial, but it’s dwarfed by the cost of paper.

But by a large margin the most significant way to save media and ink costs is to reduce the number of prints necessary to get to a final. I use an EIZO CG247X, self-calibrated automatically every 500 hours to a brightness of 75 cd/m(2), contrast of 635:1 for matt papers or 1500:1 for glossy, and a color temperature of 5000° for warm-toned papers and 6500° neutral-toned papers. And I use ImagePrint, which has excellent profiles and a print preview that is much more faithful to the final print than the Lightroom preview. Together, these enable me most of the time to reach a final print in one-pass. I often export from Lightroom to TIFF and preview in ImagePrint several times before I click Print, but I’m rarely surprised by the printer output.

Finally, one thing to consider in comparing Canon to Epson: Canon heads change more over time than Epson heads, so the window within which a given profile is accurate on your machine is shorter. That’s why ImagePrint prefers Epson. Canon heads are by comparison a moving profile target.

[DavidB]

I did some comparison shopping between the Canon Pro 1000 and the Epson P900. Based on specs I lean towards the Canon. But I used to print with an Epson 2200 (until the ink cartridges were discontinued) and I have many boxes of Epson paper. A quick search online suggests that using Epson paper in a Canon printer is not going to produce good results unless you can find a printer profile that matches these two together. Certainly neither Canon nor Epson will provide such a profile.

I certainly enjoyed printing when I could -- but do not miss it now that I can not.

[John Krumm]

My P800 will do for a while, as long as I don't switch too often between matte and photo black. I think it has larger tanks than the 900.

I think Brooks Jensen uses a term like digital imaging. I still call it photography. We call driving a car "driving" no matter the design, road style, tires, fuel and purpose. The term Photography works the same way for me.

Sometimes I wonder if we will ever have photographers who are looked at as masters, people collected, who have only used digital cameras. But there are a number of film masters who made the transition untarnished, people like Sam Abel. Are there new Sam Abels? I hope so, and I hope we get to see them.

[Adam]

Used Epsons through the 90's to 2015 when I switched to canon. Love the user replaceable heads. Every Epson I had eventually died of a unclearable head and when you find out how much it costs to replace you just buy a new one. I've only had my canon 5 years so I'm still on the first head but it will be very satisfying to drop a head in like an ink cart.

[Greg]

The cost of ink per volume may be misleading. My basic, now out of use Epson, used lots (precision metric quantity) of ink for head cleaning (or whatever rituals it went through). In fact in our moderate humid environment, the reservoir for the cleaning ink would get too full leading to streaks.

Modem

Photo/computer/printing terminology pixel per whatever mixed with size and resolution.

Good luck with printing, but I'd recommend getting some padded walls for banging your head against or the four letter words won't be heard too far away.

[robert e]

The fake "photograph" is disturbing enough, but people are hard at work applying similar principles to generate, for example, fake scientific literature:

https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2022/11/after-controversy-meta-pulls-demo-of-ai-model-that-writes-scientific-papers/

Ages ago I went with that generation's Canon "prosumer" photo printer (Pro9500II) as the most sensible bundle of compromises for occasional fine printing at home (and only after factoring in one of Canon's rounds of big rebates). I thought Epson's IQ was a hair better, but their printers were flakier, and Canon's printers and inks were cheaper and their printheads were replaceable (Epson's were not). The big disappointment and frustration was paper options and handling. I assume this has improved in later models.

Some time before that, I'd reluctantly turned down a free large format Epson printer that hadn't been used in a while because I couldn't afford to buy a set of ink cartridges just to find out if it still worked and that I'd possibly use up unclogging the heads!

If I had it to do over again, I'd look for a smaller printer. I thought I wanted to print large, but after the initial infatuation I rarely did. On the other hand, smaller usually means smaller cartridges, which makes ink more expensive. It's always something!

[Kenneth Wajda]

Mike, I question as more deep fakes and altered photographs come to light whether film photography and the proof of an unaltered negative will become valuable in the quest by the news industry to maintain trust and deliver authenticity. It may create a new viability for film photographers.

[Christer Almqvist]

Not only are the Epson cartridges that come with the printer just one quarter full, a substantial part of that quarter is needed to "prime the pump", i.e. to initially fill the tubes between the tanks and the printer head.

Still I bought an Epson P700 when it first came out to replace my old one P600 (?) and I am very pleased with it. UI has been very much improved. And what did I learn using the old Epson? Do not mess around with cheap inks in any form of packaging. Almost ruined both me and the machine.

Re "printer machines", a typewriter is called skrivmaskin/Schreibmaschine in Swedish/German.

[Rob de Loe]

Freddy S beat me to it, but I still chuckle when I recall reading the report of a 19th century survey expedition to southern Alberta, Canada. They included the packing list which involved tents, cans of beans, shovels, rope, etc. And because this was an important mission, they brought a computer.

A what I thought?

Yes, they brought a computer. But he got sick and they had to send him home and finish the work without a computer!

P.S. The Canon Pro-1000 is very heavy, and as you may have learned from your research Mike, once it's setup up it Does. Not. Want. To. Be. Moved. If you tip it too much, it does an emergency ink dump. So pick your location and leave it there.

[Kye Wood]

AI will be able to spot AI. It takes one to know one.

And experts can still spot master forgers best attempts to deceive.

The real worry will be the written word. And AI's ability to sway opinion through a mass of media from a non existent mass of people.

[Mike Ferron]

My take on AI. There is nothing really artificial about this term as it is collective human intelligence installed on to a chip which provides computers, bots and other devices with information. Just programming really.

[Mark B]

$3,000 per gallon for ink? Yikes! That makes $16.29 per gallon for Dektol a screaming bargin.

[Bill S.]

Personally I don't use ink by the gallon. Using Red River's ink used per square inch (printing the Outback test image), ink cost for the p900 is slightly lower than for the pro-1000. Not to take sides in the Canon v. Epson debate, I'm somewhat embarrassed to say I have both.

[Ronny A Nilsen]

Your distinction between "photography" and "digital imaging" doesn't work for me at all, so I would like to politely differ. This is because your emphasis is on the technology, not the important part for me: the image produced that I can view bases on the recording of the lens image. If the technology used to render the image is what makes something "photography", what technology during the last 180+ years should have the photography label, and what is best referred to as "X imaging"?

- Hole in a box imaging
- bitumen-coated plate imaging
- Collodion wet plate imaging
- Large format film imaging
- Polaroid imaging
- Positive film imaging
- Digital imaging

To me all of the above is a photograph (even if someone used dodging and burning in the darkroom or Photoshop on a scanned negative), and to me a "digital image" is more likely to be something that started in the computer and never existed as photons at any point in time, like the AI digital image.

So I think you get push back on the definition because you focus on the technology, not the photograph. We cant keep coming up with new names for a photograph every time we have a new technology. To me photography is about seeing the world and capturing the light, not the means of capturing the photons.

From an image provenance perspective, I think it's better to just record and document what process, film or camera that was used, not invent a new word. :-)

[Rip Smith]

Seems to me that the “digital Image” and “photograph” question is simple. A “digital image” is just that. A bunch of 1s and 0s. It becomes a “photograph” when it is printed. At least that’s the way I look at it.

[Jeff]

Re: print storage files….one could also buy and assemble inexpensive, small and moveable portfolio drawers like these…

https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/alex-drawer-unit-on-casters-white-80485423/?gbraid=0AAAAAD27g7zK4oOhGabuNSikzrrGgat8r&gclid=EAIaIQobChMIgtT7wOTd-wIV1cfICh1f6gySEAQYASABEgK7fvD_BwE

Other companies make variations.

[I wouldn't recommend that, actually. Those handle openings look like they would invite dust in, and there's really no reason to store small prints flat in drawers. Flat files are specifically for very large sheets that can't be stored any other way. For 20x24 prints and smaller that would fit in that thing, I'd just get a few archival drop-front boxes and store the boxes on open shelves. There's no reason to have a drawer. For really small prints, letter size and smaller, you can get archival film boxes or Century boxes and store them upright on bookshelves, like books. As long as they're reasonably full and the prints won't slump, they're fine being stored upright. Just my take on it. --Mike]

[John Rodriguez]

My second 3880 just died. I wound up going with a P900 over the Pro 1000 due to the age of the Pro 1000, with the logic that the Canon will soon be replaced and the countdown to lack of driver support will begin. I'm done trying to keep old peripherals with no driver support alive.

Still learning the P900, but I have discovered an issue with bronzing on some images that wasn't there with the 3880.

[Bruce Bordner]

I have hesitated to say this, but I miss Costco machine printing. $1 for 8x12, $10 for 20x30. I could get printer profiles for their machines, do the file my way and ask them not to mess with it. Color or B&W prints matched my monitor. The B&W prints cannot be distinguished from my old chemical prints except by touch. Maybe I'm not that good, but don't discount "drugstore" printers. IFF someone there wants it to work properly...
Of course, your local one is probably 2 hours away, sorry.

[Costco still does printing, just online only and no longer in store.

https://www.costcophotocenter.com/prints

--Mike]

[Mark Hespenheide]

I will agree with Bruce Bordner here. Unless you’re printing regularly, the issues of cost and space make it more effective (for most of us?) to work with an agency that handles the hardware costs and upkeep. Sure, your cost per print looks higher. But if you factor in the investment in the printer, inks lost to head cleaning, and replacement costs for clogged heads, I suspect I’m coming out ahead. And I don’t have to have a giant machine taking up space that I can’t move around and eventually have to pay to dispose of. And that says nothing about your time to manage all of those things.

If you print often, of course you should go for it. But if you’re printing Ansel’s apocryphal “10 good images per year”, you might be better off outsourcing that aspect of your photography. Just like some people used to do to a Printer that they worked with and trusted.

[David Keenan]

I have been a user of Epson printers for ~20 years. My current printer is a P800 and I have a 3880 in mothballs for some reason. When I had a place in Brooklyn recently, I needed a "cheap" printer. I went with a Canon Pro-200. I have to say that I was VERY impressed. B&W prints looked graat. With the very low volume of printing I do at home in Austin these days, the P800 is overkill and likely could be replaced by a Pro-200 (or maybe Pro-300) and I wouldn't know the difference. Might be a good choice for you too if you can live without pigment inks.

[robert e]

Regarding flat files, IKEA "ALEX" drawers served my modest needs for years and also made a nice rolling stand for the Canon 13" printer. It can accommodate up to 17x22 photo papers.

https://www.ikea.com/us/en/p/alex-drawer-unit-on-casters-gray-turquoise-50483449/#content

Pros vs flat files: Cheap. Smaller. Has wheels. Pre-assembly will fit in (or on) most any car; cheaper to ship.

Cons: Cheap. Smaller. Assembly required. Has openings that admit dust (though that can be remedied).

[Richard Parkin]

I’m a bit surprised to see wood recommended for print storage. Especially anything from IKEA as most of their stuff is made from composites so apart from any natural gases from the wood there are ‘glues’ of some sort used in the construction.

[Jeff]

The portable cabinets serve me well for discreetly storing archival boxes for small prints, open storage for work prints, some small framing supplies, etc.. In that same workroom (separate from my office, which has computer and printer), I have a wall mounted mat cutter, a flat file cabinet, a work table on top of the flat file cabinet, and various other storage for larger matting and framing supplies, etc. My bookshelves are elsewhere in the house, with the ‘library’ room holding my photo book collection. Don’t even ask about wall space and storage space for framed prints, including my vintage silver print collection. Let’s just say that photography occupies considerable space in my home. Audio/music is another space eater. At least I gave up my darkrooms.

[Chris]

How to eliminate head clogs on the Epson P600.
Have had my P600 several years now, and every summer here in the south of France was clog time - until I tried putting a dampened sponge on top of the heads (not forgetting, of course, to remove it before using the machine). No clogs now for 2 years.