"I don't have ANY prints to share! I haven't had access to a printer for about 6 months, so work prints have become a thing of the past. I've been working from scans and the computer, and only occasional prints for a specific show... I'm not sure how I could participate right now, but if I do start printing again I would definitely love to come."
I think this statement neatly encapsulates the age we're living in. Prints are dinosaurs. I suspect that over 99.9% all photographs being made today never make it into print form.
So what does that mean? On one hand, it's great. Via the web I can encounter a universe of photos that would be logistically impossible to see as prints, and indeed my computer is the inteface for the vast majority of fine art photography I encounter. On my monitor I can get the basic idea of the photo and usually a general sense if the work appeals or not. So for browsing work, screen images are wonderful.
But to really see what's in a photograph, it has to be a print. I have yet to see an image which looks better at 72 dpi on a monitor than in optimal print form. A print is always better. When making photographs, you don't imagine what it will look like on a screen. You envision the print. That's the end result, the thing you fine tune around. Even people who say they aim toward a book as the final form --Friedlander or Gossage, e.g.-- would probably concede that a well made print beats a book image in quality. In photography The Print is the standard.
So what does it mean that prints are disappearing? I have no idea but I welcome any comments.
For me the situation is reversed and I've been cranking out prints like crazy the past few months, meaning I have extras. An 8 x 10 C-print of this image goes to the first person to request it via email (Sorry, no longer available):