Jay - I obviously have not seen anything that's being marketed at this moment, but have
seen various digital restrikes (technically the wrong term, I know...) of older work. The shoe just doesn't fit. This is my subjective opinion, of course. But Eggleston's classic work
was off-the-cuff snapshooting. The better reproductions were dye transfer, which landed
the color and matched the relatively low quantity of detail present - it pretty much kept the rough edginess of the work intact. Lightjet C prints (which I have seen) just respond
with a "thud" for me. Too much capacity for detail which simply isn't there - and significant enlargement just creates a cheap decor look. Not like a mystical little image in
a portfolio box. And C prints have no real permanence advantage over dye transfer unless
open display is involved, which pretty much discounts the "investment" value of either.
Maybe a really good inkjet printer could keep the general look intact, but it depends on the
specific hues. I found Eggleston's medium format work especially disappointing - neither
fish nor fowl. He really needed zero onto something simple and arcane to hit the nail on the head. 35mm was ideal.