Something I think most people don't realize is that digital reproduction oh photos, digital printmaking, etc. is actually very similar to traditional printmaking and this is why: the narrative that usually emerges in class is that printmaking is beautiful because of the fact that it is nearly impossible to get a perfect reproduction, that there is no sure way to know how the print will turn out, and that the slight variation in editions is part of what makes printmaking special. Hito Steyerl's essay In Defense of the Poorer Image negates the idea that digital imagery is a perfect reproduction as images flow from device to device, become flattened and compressed, showing a passage of time(corny, but the best way to think about this is a deep-fried meme, which is a meme that has been screenshot, cropped, and shared from so many devices that it becomes barely legible or fried.) In terms of printing directly from an original file, I think there is room for variation in printer ink running out, smudged ink, bleeding, or paper jams, but usually those are just considered errors instead of variation but I don't think they are necessarily an error. I think she's arguing in principle, they're similar meaning an idea or concept being widely dispersed, but in digital media it's one source or platform that many people are accessing. But then again going back to Hito's ideas, different devices will display images differently. Also there is a classist aspect to this because certain devices may not to receive images at all.