doughowk said:If your image is digital, why print it? A digital print is a paper replica of a graphic emulation bit stream. We already have enough mass produced, disposable products. A potential million sheets of paper as a temporary repository of a digital image seems so archaic. It should take advantage of what it is - a bit stream that can be transmitted via wire or even thru the air to wherever, and can then be displayed on devices like wall screens, cell phones, etc.. The creators of digital images - call them whatever - need to think outside the box and use the power of their medium.
On the other hand, for those of us who still use film, a print is a necessary corollary of a negative. It is not part of the throw-away economy, rather we make every effort to ensure its relative permanence. Back to the original topic - it is a unique medium, worthy of collection.
If Fox Talbot and other early photographers who helped develop the medium of photography had taken this view we would never of had the ability to fix the image on film or paper and make it permanent. Digital imaging is in it's infancy and there are issues relating to permanence but I've no doubt that they will be resolved in the passage of time. Give the medium a chance to progress and come back in 20 or 30 years and see if your comments are valid then. That, IMO, will be a fair test.