This technology looks quite promising. I can imagine “portfolios” of the future using this thin flexible screen technology, along with some microprocessor reading a network. A creative receiving the “book” would access a program specifically created for their needs. “Books” (if they are still delivered/used) could be produced to fit any personal style the creator wishes (as long as it’s slick n techy :) )

OTOH – MUCHO time investment on custom content.
ROI -ROI -ROI???!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaqnfRjxPpA

” I think you bring up a good point. For the last couple of years, LCD manufacturers have been focusing mainly on reducing the cost of manufacturing. A side effect of that is that most of the LCDs manufactured are lower-quality TN panels. I think what you are looking for are already being manufactured: medical LCDs. These LCDs are high-performance and the level of quality must be extremely high to meet medical standards. You might want to look at some NEC models that make use of my favorite LCD technology, IPS.”

;op

Now that *would* be interesting.

Have you considered the footprint of “digital technology”? The ease of use and widespread acceptance of digital media requires a huge amount of electricity to view, store, and transfer. How many Mbs of images are uploaded viewed, and transfered on flickr and facebook alone in a day? How much energy does that draw? The speed of obsolescence, along with the current trend of product production (consumables) designed to be used and thrown away is also a big hit to resources both in manufacture and disposal. Back in the day an F1, Hassy, or F-Line would last forever and still be very useful. They are all still useful for photography decades later.

Certainly it is important to consider the footprint of 40×50 inch high end LCDs produced for limited edition collections – or even advertising. I’d make a guess this footprint will pale next to the widespread adoption of consumer digital technology.

What I was trying to say is that if you are only selling the photograph as an object of aesthetic appreciation (as in the subscription model) then you will most likely not be able to demand much more money than a Roy Lichtenstein poster costs. Actually, even less because you are not paying for high quality printing so we’re ultimately in the neighborhood of something like $5. Is that’s the future of fine art photography?

PS: I will disregard that non sequitur in your last sentence. Just because something is not worth anything unless it’s rare it does not follow that everything rare is worth something.

Nitrogen Trifluoride!

finally found it.

“HD takes still life to next level for artist Robert Wilson…”

article here: http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/hd_still_life_artist_wilson_1227/

videos of his work here:
http://www.voom.com/voom-portraits

these are brilliant and quite lovely.

Agreed.

Anyways, I don’t doubt that it can and will be done but unless there are some serious advantages or conceptual reasons for using an lcd people are still going to ask “Why not just print”? Or why not just use a light box? Not only easier but also much higher resolution.

The one thing I absolutely don’t buy in to is that this way of presenting ones work is any easier than printing. That’s just not true.