With all due respect, there was a lot of simplistic thinking and overly-simplistic generalizations in said article, if not outright falshoods and self-mockery.
For starters, as has been suggested above, if the physical printed image is the end-all, be-all judge of the value of any given camera, then pray tell what is the point of Michael's own page-after-page, year-after-year articles and posts on the web ... all of which are replete with "digital, internet" images being used as 'proof' for his own voluminous takes and positions on said products? If this new article isn't self-mockery, then I don't see what is.
That being said, this entire tirade begs the question as to "on what" physical printers may a camera's quality be accurately judged? All of them? Or only a few? After all, if the printed image is the 'only' image on which a camera may be judged, then does this statement hold true for every photo printer available---or does this statement hold true for only just a hand-selected few? After all, can anyone seriously declare that the print quality produced on a cheesy multi-function devise, printed-out on cheesy paper, gives a better inclination of 'camera quality' than does the highest-resolution, color-calibrated monitor available today? I doubt that very much.
So aside from the problems with reality that the above scenarios represent, is another fact, which is simply that MORE images are seen, evaluated, and judged online, via the internet, than are seen, evaluated, and judged in person on fine art paper. Further, more images are seen, evaluated, and judged in simple magazines and books, too, than are done so on fine art paper. If anything, fine art photos are actually the LEAST-purchased, LEAST-used applications to which the majority of photos are in fact put and judged. There are more photos in books, in any one major city, than there are photos in all of the collections of the world put together.
Further, notwithstanding the additional simple-minded posit that 'all' Flicker contributors put out the same-quality images, captured on the same-quality cameras, there is the point to be reckoned with that the value of any image isn't in it's 'absolute pixel (or printed) detail and quality, but on the overall impact (or significance) that the image conveys. There are too many 'technically-great' mediocre images to mention, and too many fabulous images that have technical problems to resolve.
There are simply too many variables to consider, to be able to completely dismiss the value and power of the online internet image. Moreover, I would say the future suggests, if anything, that the physical medium of 'paper and ink' are in fact the "dying dinosaurs" on the decline, not the digital image. If anything, all evidence suggests it is the digital image that is ever-growing in importance overall, in most people's lives, than is the physical printed image. For example, my girlfriend and I are in a quandary as to which of our images we would like to display in our own home. Thus the question becomes 'which one' makes for the best presentation? Ray alluded to this also. My girlfriend and I decided that we would rather purchase a 40" x 30" LCD monitor, on which we could 'flash' a thousand of our very best photos ... each flashing every few seconds ... than we would to "print and display" any one of our images on paper. I mean, let's be real, which presentation would ultimately prove to be the greatest "display" in one's home?
Thus, in the end, I think the printed image will ultimately be the least-used, least-desired form of display for the majority of people in the not-too-distant future. This is not to say that the digital print has no value; it is simply to suggest that digitized, computer-monitor-viewed images are more ubiquitous and important to most people than what is being acknowledged in this article.
Jack
.
