Why print?

[VadymA]

I think you need to re-read the OP.

Nothing about limiting the discussion to 4x6 amateur prints I can see! I guess you'd just like to apply you 'spin' to the discussion in order to validate your own opinions.

Well, unlike you I actually read the entire thread and all OP's responses before "opening my mouth". Here is one to "validate my point":

I have printed and framed quite a few of my favorite shots. But the bulk of my favorite pictures are on my my IPad 3 (which is amazing for pictures) and backed up on two hard drives. I take so many thousands of pictures today that it doesn't make sense to print 99.9% of them, even if they are great.

In other words, do I really need to print 99.9% of my pictures? Not Art, not Work, just hobby and family shots.

And of course it would be crazy to assume that the OP meant printing all of them in A3 size. Most likely in 4x6 max.

So the only person who is trying to put his own spin here is the one reflected in your monitor. If you really want to add value to this discussion, why don't you answer the OP's question - do we really need to print all our family/hobby shots these days (in 2012 that is)?

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Trusting but factually incorrect, read the paper technological Quicksand
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/cyber/overview.php

Wow, seriously? You base your argument on an article from 2003? Hmm, sad.

Reading that article what do you think has changed?

Prints...no such problems.

There is no problem for digital either. So it's a tie.

Educate yourself or lose your work!

Thanks, any other links to studies from the Stone Ages?

That is the CURRENT state of digital image conservation, and the questions it raises (even 9 years ago) have yet to be answered.

And again, we are not talking about Art Work in this thread; just family snaps.

No that is incorrect–please re-read the OP, no-where does he talk of 'family snaps'

Is it really worth printing hundreds and hundreds of pictures strictly for private use? I have six fat albums and four shoe boxes filled with family prints. Nobody opened them for years. How much more I would have if I didn't stop printing in 2006?

You don't set the agenda of what 'we' (meaning you of course) are talking about in this thread.

Please re read the OP this isn't about 4x6 prints or your shoeboxes, it (to me at least) was a question as to why anyone would want to print. Not why print enprints as iPads are better to show snaps but a really generic question about printing and why some people prefer prints to screen.

I thought we were talking about today? or possibly 10 years time?

I thought so too until I saw your link...

What was relevant in the past can also be today, we can learn from our experience and history that is how we can plan for the future!.

We have no idea what display mediums will be in use in 20 years, try to keep your posts on topic.

 

[JulesJ]

1. Imagine a large picture-frame type lcd hung on a wall. No wires, no user-interface. It has storage for one single image file, and is always on. Do I respect my pictures any less if I use such technology instead of prints? Does it run counter to the aim of photography? of course not, making such a general claim would be silly. At the technology level, there will be some differences that some will find significant:

a)LCD is transmissive, paper is reflective. This leads to a significantly different feel, dependency on ambient lighting etc. A reflective (e-book) display would perhaps be more "paper-like", but I am aware of no suitable products

b)LCDs will have significantly better contrast than paper (lcd may be 1000:1, while paper may be 50:1). This means more realistic reproduction of large DR scenes (prints will have to have more tonemapping/dodging/burning in order to bring out the details)

c)Unless you are using "retina" type lcds, the lcd will have lower resolution than most prints. Comparing ppi and dpi for very different tech is difficult, and is of little irrelevance as absolute limits. We need to know the image size, target viewing distance and medium resolution so as to compare to the minimum perceivable angular resolution of 20/20 vision. VGA resolution may be plenty if the image is shown as a stamp-size at 70cm distance.

I think you have lost the plot. A screen is emmitted light, whereas a print is viewed by reflected light. You are comparing chalk with cheese and they have very little to do with each other.

2. Most lcd displays are not used like a static printed image hanging on the wall. They are used more like a large library of printed images, where single images can be easily searched, tagged, etc. I see this as a big advantage, but I see how "print fundamentalists" might disagree. I have ripped all of my CDs to my computer and enjoy my music more as a result. Many younger people just stream their music from the net, while many older people hang on to their vinyl with nice cover art. Each generation have their tools, but the content is what matter.

-h

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Well, unlike you I actually read the entire thread and all OP's responses before "opening my mouth". Here is one to "validate my point":

Please read the OP, I'll post it again for you.

Why do some photographers make such a big deal about printing? They usually seem to imply that the only way to truly evaluate IQ is by printing (and they are usually a bit snobby about it).

Here I'm taking the question to be:
Who do some photographers think printing is so superior?
Who do they feel it is the best way to see the quality of an image.

Is this just because they are used to the film days or is there a real technical reason? Granted I don't have a super high end printer, but I think the colors and IQ of my digital pictures look better on my monitor

Is there any technical reason to print in order to judge IQ?
I think images look higher in IQ on my iPad.

That's what I take the OP to mean, I didn't see any qualifier about snap shots, but rather a broader question based on IQ.

I have taken the use of IQ to mean 'ultimate quality' the whole discussion was based upon this premise of IQ, not purely about 'snaps'

A better argument might be why do you need a 30mp camera if you never print and view your images on a low res monitor.

 

[VadymA]

I guess we have to leave it at that and maybe the OP will tell us who was right. I certainly don't want to argue that monitors are better than prints for Art, Commercial Work, or Professional-Grade Family Portraits. And I think the OP wouldn't either. At some point I wanted to buy an LCD picture frame but I didn't like the look of the pictures on it. Apart from resolution issues, they have a feel of light coming through them and I don't appreciate that. I like calm and reflective nature of the prints without that radiating and "cartoonish" luminance. So if I wanted to put something on the wall or my desk, that would be print. Yet again, I don't think anyone would argue against that. But for hundreds of family prints though I can live with that luminance as the benefits of digital copies outweigh the subtle difference in image quality. We look at family pictures for sentimental reasons, not for how sharp or color-correct they are. Ups, I am drifting back to my point; and that reminds me it's time to stop...

Cheers

 

[Kmccarthy]

Hi,

As the OP, I regret and apologize for not stating my question more clearly. I had no idea it was going to turn into such a passionate and philosophical discussion.

I'm not a professional or an artist. I'm a hobbyist who takes mostly family shots. Image quality and fidelity is important to me because I like to take natural and high resolution pictures of my kids, under many lighting conditions.

My question was simple: What medium (print or monitor) is the best for viewing and appreciating the full quality of a high resolution digital image. I like the iPad3 because of the bright, high resolution display, with easy "zoom" capabilities. To me, the images and colors look very "life like". However, there are clearly many people that passionately prefer prints. I just wanted to understand if there was a technical reason for it.

By the way, I can certainly appreciate a large, high quality print hanging on the wall, particularly if the image is very special or beautiful. However, I just can’t see myself printing hundreds of 4x6 prints and putting them in photo albums anymore. I enjoy them more digitally.

 

[JulesJ]

I think you need to re-read the OP.

Nothing about limiting the discussion to 4x6 amateur prints I can see! I guess you'd just like to apply you 'spin' to the discussion in order to validate your own opinions.

Well, unlike you I actually read the entire thread and all OP's responses before "opening my mouth". Here is one to "validate my point":

I have printed and framed quite a few of my favorite shots. But the bulk of my favorite pictures are on my my IPad 3 (which is amazing for pictures) and backed up on two hard drives. I take so many thousands of pictures today that it doesn't make sense to print 99.9% of them, even if they are great.

In other words, do I really need to print 99.9% of my pictures? Not Art, not Work, just hobby and family shots.

And of course it would be crazy to assume that the OP meant printing all of them in A3 size. Most likely in 4x6 max.

So the only person who is trying to put his own spin here is the one reflected in your monitor. If you really want to add value to this discussion, why don't you answer the OP's question - do we really need to print all our family/hobby shots these days (in 2012 that is

Yes. Everyone talks about haningbtheirbiages on an iPad. But this is only forvtheirvsefush viewing. Few people hand heirviPads aroundcandvtheybare not designed for mass viewing. Prints are.

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[mike703]

Trusting but factually incorrect, read the paper technological Quicksand
http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/cyber/overview.php

Wow, seriously? You base your argument on an article from 2003? Hmm, sad.

Why is it 'sad' just because it was written in 2003? It's true. I've just upgraded the software on my office PC to the latest version of MS office - and I can no longer open Word files written version 5.1 in the late 1990's. And that is with a descendant of the same program that you might expect to retain backwards compatibility. Any idea how many proprietary RAW formats there are out there that change from one camera model to the next? How many of those will supported in a few decades?

And again, we are not talking about Art Work in this thread; just family snaps.

Says who? Re-read the OP.

--
Mike
http://www.pentaxphotogallery.com/artists/mikeward

 

[hjulenissen]

There is nothing like a high end enlargement (16x24, 20x24 or larger) and of course it's salable at a decent mark-up.

There is nothing like trying to present rational arguments, then being countered statements such as that.

-h

 

[hjulenissen]

I think you have lost the plot.

I think not, but feel free to contribute to the discussion

You are comparing chalk with cheese and they have very little to do with each other.

This very discussion shows that they have very much to do with each other. Some prefer display, some print, and some feel the need to talk bad about those who have different preferences.

-h

 

[JulesJ]

I think you have lost the plot.

I think not, but feel free to contribute to the discussion

You are comparing chalk with cheese and they have very little to do with each other.

This very discussion shows that they have very much to do with each other. Some prefer display, some print, and some feel the need to talk bad about those who have different preferences.

You miss my point.

-h

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[MaxTux]

Reading that article what do you think has changed?

I'll try to answer the question:

Today, not even an organization as arrogant and as ignorant as the British Broadcasting Corporation is (or was at the time of conception of their BBC Domesday Book Project) would dream of producing their own hardware and their own software just in order to compose and deliver some content. Today, any project similar to that one would be put together using mainstream hardware, running mainstream software, to compose and deliver the content in the form of the most common contemporary file formats. And I strongly suggest that any content in the form of simple .html and .jpg files will be capable of being ingested by the future hardware and software systems for many years to come.

MaxTux

 

[Kmccarthy]

idea how many proprietary RAW formats there are out there that change from one camera model to the next? How many of those will supported in a few decades?

I agree, this is a real concern. Proprietary RAW files may not be supported over the long run. This is the main reason I shoot mostly JPEG, or RAW+JPEG. As an open standard with billions of images out there, I'm confident there will always be at least a converter that can convert JPEGs to some new standard. The key is to just keep copying them to the latest hard drive/ storage media ( with backups) every time you upgrade your PC, every few years. Backing them up to a mainstream cloud provider is also starting to look like a good alternative.

 

[John Smith 2011]

There is nothing like a high end enlargement (16x24, 20x24 or larger) and of course it's salable at a decent mark-up.

There is nothing like trying to present rational arguments, then being countered statements such as that.

-h

What's your point? Please try again.

 

[John Smith 2011]

Prints are archival

Wrong - try again. Fuji Crystal archive prints I sold about 14 years ago, displayed under museum glass and nowhere near direct window light have already degraded well beyond 25%. I've already had to remake prints for former clients printed on so called 'archival' RA-4 paper barely more than 10 years old. At least the ones I made in my own commercial lab I ran through a stabilizer, and are faring a bit better. I'm praying the metal prints I'm selling now are good for 25 years, but right now I really only trust pigment. A Cibachrome made 30years ago likely still has the same blown highlights and garish colors it did 30 years ago.

Scott Eaton is correct .

Fuji Crystal archive prints have noticeable deterioration, when on display, after 15-30 years (depends on light intensity).

Archival prints printed (on archival paper) with pigments inks will last 100-200 years.

Digital scans I made on my drum 14 years ago of those same files look just as good, and holy crap, they open just fine on Windows 7 as they did on NT 3.51. Who'd of thought. No idea where the negs went.

No one will be able to read your digital files 50 years from now

Pretty arrogant assuming that somebody 50years from now will actually care about your photographic work. But even if they do, online electronic piracy and storage is becoming so prevelant it's likely impossible, save for the earth falling into the sun that you'll ever be able to totally delete digital content from the web. Equally arrogant to assume that your digital files are so precious they need bank vault storage while movie studios can't delete their pirated movies from the web. A bit is a bit, and digital storage is an issue between keyboard and chair, not technology. Movie vaults are full of rotting films awaiting digital transfer because there's no budget to digitize them. Claiming a digital file is less archival than a chemical print based on 1970's computer horror stories (or bad web site management) is too stupid to quantify.

Making a print makes it art / Instagrams are crap.

Chemical paper sales (RA-4) are down. Online printing volume is down (ask the labs). Ink-jet is not making up the difference. Matting and framing is a royal pain, expensive, and the price I have to sell a 'fine-art' mounted and framed image for is daunting. Biggest reason I switched to metal - no matting and framing costs. If people would rather share images via Facebook than be told by a bunch of photo snobs what is and isn't art god bless em'. Video was/is/will be the superior medium anyways and we don't have discussions about dead cinematographers making up standards.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Reading that article what do you think has changed?

I'll try to answer the question:

Today, not even an organization as arrogant and as ignorant as the British Broadcasting Corporation is (or was at the time of conception of their BBC Domesday Book Project) would dream of producing their own hardware and their own software just in order to compose and deliver some content. Today, any project similar to that one would be put together using mainstream hardware, running mainstream software, to compose and deliver the content in the form of the most common contemporary file formats. And I strongly suggest that any content in the form of simple .html and .jpg files will be capable of being ingested by the future hardware and software systems for many years to come.

MaxTux

Sadly that's not the case I can tell you from the small amount of work I do in this area individual people, corporations and government bodies fall foul of using what is now considered 'mainstream hardware' like USB disk drives, DVD's CD's etc without a thought of how these will be accessible in the future.

The Laser vision disks and BBC micro computers were mainstream at the time just as USB is now–do you think there will be USB devices in 10-20 years?

We are currently trying to access files on a Jazz disk for a client. These were 1GB magnetic storage disks from 1996-2002 timeframe.

Problem is finding the drives on e-bay, then a working Mac from pre OS X days that can use a SCSI interface, then we need to see if the files are OK. All this from achieved work from this century.
One government body has tried to address this:
http://www.dpconline.org/

Strangely enough most people don't take a blind notice of the advice, I've seen several people here that say things like:

"No matter which technology or format will emerge in the future, there will be converters for the legacy formats just like today analog is converted to digital. Nothing will be lost"

Or

"I store all my files on USB removable hard-disks, USB is ubiquitous and will always be around"

I'm not sure why but I think its because digital offers the potential for perfect copies people feel technology will save them, rather than software/hardware companies building in obsolescence to drive sales. We can try to use lowest common denominators but we have no real idea what they will be, .jpg may well be OK Raw will not people need to be aware of this, possibly storing archived Raw files in an open format like DNG

We can't afford to be complacent, unfortunately that complacency is more common than most people would like to admit.

The lesson from both the BBC and NASA losing data should be obvious to invidual users, but as a parting thought I'll leave you with the government task forces take:

"Perhaps the most immediate lesson to be drawn from the BBC Domesday Project is that, while digital information can be endlessly copied and in principle will never deteriorate, there is danger in assuming that once created it is eternal. Jeff Rothenberg, a powerful advocate of emulation techniques, likes to say: Digital documents last forever or five years, whichever comes first".

 

[MaxTux]

I believe we both agree completely with the following two points:

1) If you store your digital material with little or no thought given to the hardware, software and file formats used to archive it, you are very likely to loose it much sooner than you believe will be the case.

2) Most amateur photographers lack the understanding of information technology issues involved, and are not prepared to research the subject of archival storage of digital files to the degree that would give them any certainty that their digital files will be usable longer than contemporary consumer-grade prints.

Do you, however, agree with me in what follows:

If the digital-file version of your photographs is in the form of .jpg files and the "metadata" is in the .html files, and if you ensure that the files are migrated to the then-current storage devices and file-systems (for the purpose of this discussion, file-systems might be equated to "operating systems"), your digital archives will outlast your prints. Furthermore, it is easy to create multiple copies of digital files, and difficult (or costly and impractical) to create multiple archives of photographs in the print form. Consequently, properly constructed digital archives in multiple copies in different locations are much less likely to be lost due to either neglect or physical disasters.

MaxTux

 

[iMac therefore iAm]

put a 3 foot x 5 foot digital image on your wall.

 

[Mark Smith145430]

Do you, however, agree with me in what follows:

If the digital-file version of your photographs is in the form of .jpg files and the "metadata" is in the .html files, and if you ensure that the files are migrated to the then-current storage devices and file-systems (for the purpose of this discussion, file-systems might be equated to "operating systems"), your digital archives will outlast your prints. Furthermore, it is easy to create multiple copies of digital files, and difficult (or costly and impractical) to create multiple archives of photographs in the print form. Consequently, properly constructed digital archives in multiple copies in different locations are much less likely to be lost due to either neglect or physical disasters.

In part. I think jpgs although common and will probably be considered 'archival' as a format are poor carriers of information compared to say Raw and its archive cousin the DNG file.

The biggest issue I find is migrating files needs to be backed up with a file verification program, jpegs seem to be less robust than other formats.

I find that the header info for jpg will sometimes cause a fail, despite the low res embedded file sometimes being visible the actual file will not open and is often 'truncated' or corrupt.

I think we are entering into a phase where large organisations are beginning to grasp the idea that digital media needs more management than traditional media, books, film, prints are low tech access and the barrier to data recovery is very low.

I have hope for some of the cloud services and online storage for 'Joe Public' because data will be the providers problem. If companies would only guarantee that your cloud files are safe (I'm looking at you .Mac) and can be trusted all should improve slightly as people start to use web based services.

Hopeful, but not assured then– I think most archivists would echo the sentiments of government studies in that although digital may have the potential for being archival the issues behind making it so still mean that very few if anyone can guarantee long tern survival of digital files.

 

[wb2trf]

Why do some photographers make such a big deal about printing? They usually seem to imply that the only way to truly evaluate IQ is by printing (and they are usually a bit snobby about it).

It is fascinating that most of the emphatic statements on this, and the energy for these zillion posts, originate in those advocates of printing who need to sustain the claim that it is not merely an alternative way to see pictures but the objectively the best way, the real way. As the OP said "a bit snobby about it." This is typical of people clinging to an old technology who recognize that it is threatened by a newer one.

One other topic that has come up here is the archiving value of digital files vs paper. I think that the archivist's advice on this topic is about to be swamped and is ultimately all wrong. It is being swamped because society cannot remotely in any possible imagination print all the information it wants to preserve going forward. Impossible. Ultimately wrong because, in the deep contest between replication based preservation (keep it by making new copies every few years) and recording on inherently stable media, replication is the only possible long term winner. The oldest preserved "stable media" information are the cave paintings, about 40000 years old. The oldest preserved information are certain central dna sequences that are 75000 times older and in their early existence had to be replicated every few minutes. Humanity has no choice but to step up to replication based preservation that has been used by nature to preserve specific information for 3 billion years.