4 ms·

Agreed. Also anecdotally, but I feel the same way with photographs. While digital photos are amazing and I never want to go back, I also really, really enjoy pr

Agreed. Also anecdotally, but I feel the same way with photographs. While digital photos are amazing and I never want to go back, I also really, really enjoy printed albums. Especially for photos of a trip or special event. I find it way easier to capture, remember, and re-tell the story by flipping through a book.

marvindanig 7y ago
Have you tried the book on Ladakh by Satie Sharma on the iPad? I loved it for exactly these reasons. https://bubblin.io/book/ladakh-by-satie-sharma/1 https://bubblin.io/book/ladakh-by-satie-sharma/1
detaro 7y ago
That's something I often tell people a bit unmotivated with their photography: Go and get some of your images printed! It's surprising how much of a difference it can make.
- marvindanig 7y ago
  But isn't that sending them towards pulping and effectively killing the very nature that inspires their photography in the first place?
  - bradstewart 7y ago
    Paper is not effectively killing nature. Especially in the US, which is home to one of the largest paper-producing regions in the world. Nearly (if not actually) all of the pulp required for paper comes from managed forests grown and harvested specifically to produce wood products over time. These tree farms are stable, not shrinking.
    - marvindanig 7y ago
      well, that’s not true. “managed forests” produce high amounts of waste and take away arable land and natural habitat quite aggressively [1]. what you have said here is a common propaganda perpetrated by industry advocates on the web and is often passed on as gyan without any scientific basis or authentic study or source to back it up. hell, even critical thinking is missing when people write comments like this! kind of like lobsters were cheap prison food in 1800s story: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/emcx69/the_history_of_lobster_canning_aka_lobsters_were/ https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/emcx69/the_history... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_pape...

marvindanig 7y ago

Have you tried the book on Ladakh by Satie Sharma on the iPad? I loved it for exactly these reasons. https://bubblin.io/book/ladakh-by-satie-sharma/1 https://bubblin.io/book/ladakh-by-satie-sharma/1

detaro 7y ago

That's something I often tell people a bit unmotivated with their photography: Go and get some of your images printed! It's surprising how much of a difference it can make.

marvindanig 7y ago
But isn't that sending them towards pulping and effectively killing the very nature that inspires their photography in the first place?
- bradstewart 7y ago
  Paper is not effectively killing nature. Especially in the US, which is home to one of the largest paper-producing regions in the world. Nearly (if not actually) all of the pulp required for paper comes from managed forests grown and harvested specifically to produce wood products over time. These tree farms are stable, not shrinking.
  - marvindanig 7y ago
    well, that’s not true. “managed forests” produce high amounts of waste and take away arable land and natural habitat quite aggressively [1]. what you have said here is a common propaganda perpetrated by industry advocates on the web and is often passed on as gyan without any scientific basis or authentic study or source to back it up. hell, even critical thinking is missing when people write comments like this! kind of like lobsters were cheap prison food in 1800s story: https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/emcx69/the_history_of_lobster_canning_aka_lobsters_were/ https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/emcx69/the_history... [1]https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_paper https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_pape...