[Leica] Is lithography dead?

[Alexey Merz <alexey@webcom.com>]

Anthony wrote that a computer monitor is 
"vastly superior to prints". This is true 
only in specific and limited technical senses. 
While a monitor is capable of reproducing a 
greater brightness range (>200:1 for a good one),
most monitors do not reach this optimum, and few 
monitors are calibrated to consistent gamma. In
fact, they vary wildly, and the most prominent
form of digital image distribution, HTML, does not
even include a provision for gamma specification. 

And don't even think about color synchronization. 

Also: the best monitors around have only about a
0.2 dot pitch - and a final raster of not a 
lot more than ~1200X1600. This will improve but
a good photographic print is still much better.

Also: a print doesn't flicker.

Also: most of us can't yet put 5 or more ultra high
quality monitors on our walls. We can't choose
the surface texture (glossy, pearl, matte) of the 
monitor.

Also: the very character of luminant vs. reflected
light displays differ. 

Neither is "superior" (not even in a *general* technical
sense); they are just different, like painting versus 
lithography. 

I'm glad that we have new technical options,
and I am pleased that I will be able to continue
to use archaic techniques like block printing, 
lithography, photogravure, and silver emulsion
photography should I wish to. Each medium has its
own limitations & character.

For an insightful essay on this topic, see:

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/7.01/eno_pr.html


- -Alexey