On 12/27/17 1:39 PM, RichA wrote:
Most images where people have paid (in one case, over $4 million) huge prices have been from film, printed on photosensitive paper. Some are not old as might be expected either. So is it the perceived exclusivity of the film-based print that makes it worth so much more than the output of digital cameras? After all, once a digital printer is set-up, it can output any number of identical prints whereas it is much harder to do that with a colour or especially a black and white print on photo-paper.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ve_photographs


This is a long bunch of maybes ...

Besides "named colors" or "scene referred systems", there are centuries
of research on what "look and feel" particular market segments prefer
built into AgX systems.

"Look and feel" effects can be implemented in ICC color management as
"abstract" profiles. But centuries of research aren't going to come
without a price. That price will likely not come without a transition of
consumables, like existing AgX film/paper to high gamut ink/substrate
systems or toner/substrates.

This might not only be a consideration of consumable manufacturers but
their downstream customers who have existing systems investment and
customers of the consumables too. These downstream customers are viable
customers to transition mentioned above. Timing of development being vital.

Film also plays a role in ICC color management as an ideal reference
input and output. These typically involve additive color systems like
projection filtered by dyes in film. Ideal reflective/subtractive print
systems have a dynamic range of 2.5 density. Whereas additive systems
can achieve over 3.0 range.

--
Not a professional opinion unless specified.
dale - http://www.dalekelly.org/