I should have been more clear: I call it a viable alternative because the workflow and quality is certainly no worse, and it is far less expensive. I agree tha

I should have been more clear: I call it a viable alternative because the workflow and quality is certainly no worse, and it is far less expensive. I agree that it's not ideal, and I only use it perhaps a dozen times a year. When I need a good digital format I do what everyone else does: use a computer or tablet. 95-99% of the stuff in my journal is already in its appropriate target medium: my journal. That's why it's in my journal.