Quote Originally Posted by batwister View Post
I just wonder, if in 20 years, looking at their soft C-prints will be like watching a classic film on VHS is now. As artists whose work sells for great sums, I don't see any excuse for them not to make optical prints. I know for a fact Nadav Kander and Mark Power shoot 4x5 colour neg.

I really think this is an issue that needs to be discussed (however controversial), especially in relation to some of the biggest names in art photography. Why are they compromising (technologically) with their prints? How will they hold up to posterity, if in my eyes, they don't today? [/I]
If their prints are less than sharp, this has nothing to do with whether or not they were exposed optically or digitally. Anyone working with laser light or led exposures knows that resolution is not the weak point of this process.

Furthermore, if one were to compare a traditional c-print to a digital c-print that was matched by a skilled operator they would have a very difficult time distinguishing one from the other let alone identifying which was the analogue print and which was the digital print.

I believe the letdown you experienced has more to do with the glut of large c-prints and the dumbing down of content - two negative aspects of the current marketplace mentality of contemporary photography.