Reading mode: Light Dark

Anyone display their photos on an LCD TV?

Go to last post
I shoot all my travel photos in 16 X 9 format, and show them on a 50" Pioneer HDTV via Apple TV, with some appropriate music added. The results are superb. I often get requests from my guests, "Can we see some more?" That never happened in the old slide projectors days.

I've found Picasa to be very handy for sorting and doing some minor PP. After you drag and drop the pictures in the order you want, you can use "Picture> Batch Edit> Rename" to ensure the pictures stay in the desired order when you upload them to the Apple TV, but be sure to use the numbering convention of "picturename.1001" as a starting point. If you use "picturename.1" to start, the picture order will be jumbled.
 
Let's rename this thread......

"I've got a bigger display than you!!!"

Groan

Get printing!

Jules

--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
 
JulesJ said:
Nothing bea5s a print. Seeing an image on a screen is not what photography was invented for. Sure it's fun, but a beautifully printed print, especially b&W is unbeatable. it's the difference between a chef's cooked french meal and a macdonalds.
jules
Click to expand...
It's hard to take a man with a pigeon on his head too seriously but I do agree.
 
Photography was not invented for any particular type of display media. It was "invented" to produce an image with light (photo-graph). We don't all have the space to display 42" or even lots of 8x12" prints.

Nothing beats what works for you.

HJ
 
Humboldt Jim said:
Photography was not invented for any particular type of display media. It was "invented" to produce an image with light (photo-graph). We don't all have the space to display 42" or even lots of 8x12" prints.
Click to expand...
A 42" wide print is rather different than a 42" wide LCD screen. The 42" screen is only going to be 1920 pixels resolution at most, while the print will be much higher quality. So your 42" display will be OK if you are 6 feet away, but the closer you go the worse it will be (just like watching HD TV on a big TV from too close).
 
RedFox88 said:
So your 42" display will be OK if you are 6 feet away, but the closer you go the worse it will be (just like watching HD TV on a big TV from too close).
Click to expand...
Do you have a 42 inch 1080 p LCD ? I disagree with you that getting closer to a 1080 p display makes the appearance of the image worse.

Now that WAS the case with 720 p and 1080 i and lower resolution screens, but you can NOT see the pixels on a 1080 p display and the closer you are to it the larger a percentage of your visual field it envelops and the MORE impressive it becomes. (That is, of course, if you are looking at GOOD HD source material. Poor SD programing is almost unwatchable on a big screen TV, and you may soon start to ONLY watch HD and find low res 4 x 3 programs just unpleasant to watch.)

--
Bill,

http://www.pbase.com/billmcintyre

 
Hi Spanner
Sorry for the delay in responding.

There are a couple of approaches for preparing your photos for the LCD TV. The first is where you want the image to fill the entire screen:
1 Open the image file in PS

2 Select the crop tool and change the settings to "fixed ratio" using the values 192 and 108 for the horizontal and vertical (for landscape orientation). This will give you the right aspect for a 1920x1080 display.

3 Crop the image to give the most pleasing result. This can take a few tries to get right (use undo).
4 Select the "Save for web and devices" menu item (File menu).
5 Choose the highest quality JPEG settings.
6 Under the resize tab, enter the size as 1920x1080 (for landscape orientation).

7 When the image has resized, save the result to a different folder! Do not overwrite the original .
8 Back at the cropped original image, close the file without saving changes .

If you don't want to crop the image, follow steps 4 through 8. At step 6 you will need to set either the horizontal or vertical resize resolution, such that the other value does not exceed the size of the screen. For example, if your original image is 2500x1875, set the vertical resolution to 1080 - the horizontal will change to 1440 (and the image will fit on the screen).
Spanner said:
Gregg, I also have a WD Media player and a Sony 1080p lcd, can you tell how to pre-scale my photos using PS CS3 or whatever you recommend? If you have the time, thanks!
--
http://www.pbase.com/ddrake
Click to expand...
--
Warning: Do not stare into laser with remaining eye!
 
The only similar thing about a print image and one on screen is that you might be seeing the same image. BUT EVERYTHING else is different like chalk and cheese.

A screen image has not substance and is throwaway. It will look different on every screen even if calibrated. It glows and flickers, even though you might not think you are aware of it. We use this way to see images because it is instant, cheap, transmittable and easy to get away with murder. But it is no replacement for a print. Sadly a lot of the new breed of DSLR users have never held a great print let alone done one of their own work. Most people have no idea how to create one. They just stick their images on screen and thing the job is done. It's sad really because you can't beat a good print.
Our business sells only prints.
Jules

Jules
RedFox88 said:
Humboldt Jim said:
Photography was not invented for any particular type of display media. It was "invented" to produce an image with light (photo-graph). We don't all have the space to display 42" or even lots of 8x12" prints.
Click to expand...
A 42" wide print is rather different than a 42" wide LCD screen. The 42" screen is only going to be 1920 pixels resolution at most, while the print will be much higher quality. So your 42" display will be OK if you are 6 feet away, but the closer you go the worse it will be (just like watching HD TV on a big TV from too close).
Click to expand...
--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
 
Why would it invented be just for print?
Most inventors want expansion, not limitations on the future of their work.
It only was invented for photo paper and slides?
Why even have digital cameras at all then?

What if ship builders only made 20 person boats,
then what would Columbus used to get to the USA.

-Steve
JulesJ said:
Humboldt Jim said:
Photography was not invented for any particular type of display media
HJ
Click to expand...
How do you know that?
Jules
Click to expand...
--
-Steve

Check out my photo galleries:
http://iqfanatic.smugmug.com
 
I guess you will be selling your digital camera then too, since analog to analog is the way it was intended to be used and may give the best results that way.

Get back into your chemical dark room and give away your Adobe software in a yard sale.

Just Joking a bit with you brother.

-Steve
Stephen Christie said:
What if ship builders only made 20 person boats,
then what would Columbus used to get to the USA.

-Steve
JulesJ said:
Humboldt Jim said:
Photography was not invented for any particular type of display media
HJ
Click to expand...
How do you know that?
Jules
Click to expand...
--
-Steve

Check out my photo galleries:
http://iqfanatic.smugmug.com
Click to expand...
--
-Steve

Check out my photo galleries:
http://iqfanatic.smugmug.com
 
JulesJ said:
But it is no replacement for a print. Sadly a lot of the new breed of DSLR users have never held a great print let alone done one of their own work. Most people have no idea how to create one. They just stick their images on screen and thing the job is done. It's sad really because you can't beat a good print.
Our business sells only prints.
Click to expand...
Very true, but things are really changing. My niece who just started college, resizes all her photos from either her phone or digital camera to 600 pixels on the long side (facebook size) and does not save the original version. That is the generation that is in college now. Who needs a print when I can see it on my phone or on my facebook? The other issue is are they even "saving" or archiving their digital photos or just delete the old and "post" the new? It's really scary how the upcoming generation views images and photography.
 
You miss the point completely. you ask who needs a beautiful print? I could ask you who needs a persion rug on your floor when you can have an old sack. Who needs a silk shirt when you can where a string vest. Who needs a great meal when you can eat a Macdonalds. For myself I love those things of quality in this life if they are attainable. A good print is attainable.
Your niece is the loser.
Jules
RedFox88 said:
Very true, but things are really changing. My niece who just started college, resizes all her photos from either her phone or digital camera to 600 pixels on the long side (facebook size) and does not save the original version. That is the generation that is in college now. Who needs a print when I can see it on my phone or on my facebook? The other issue is are they even "saving" or archiving their digital photos or just delete the old and "post" the new? It's really scary how the upcoming generation views images and photography.
Click to expand...
--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
 
Large prints are difficult to display in quantity, LCD screens allow many photos to be viewed that would not find enough wall space to be hung.

Also, for the print to be fully appreciated, it has to be properly illuminated. Ordinary room light will not be gallery quality. The LCD provides a beautiful "backlight" effect, it is almost like viewing large format backlit transparencies.

My ideal "TV" display for prints would be 2000 x 2000 pixels to do justice to the vertical photos.
 
Oh dear. i can see i won't win this arguement. If you want a screen with pictures on and are happy with that, that's fine. Any old monitir will show your lovely pictures to a sort of quality, one after one, fading in and out and you can all stand there and 'Oooh and aah' at them until the cows come home. every monitior will show you something different, but quality here is not of an issue is it as any old screen will produce a viewable and enjoyable image.

Not having room for lots of prints is no excuse to demeen their quality, it is an excuse.
jules
luxor2 said:
Large prints are difficult to display in quantity, LCD screens allow many photos to be viewed that would not find enough wall space to be hung.

Also, for the print to be fully appreciated, it has to be properly illuminated. Ordinary room light will not be gallery quality. The LCD provides a beautiful "backlight" effect, it is almost like viewing large format backlit transparencies.

My ideal "TV" display for prints would be 2000 x 2000 pixels to do justice to the vertical photos.
Click to expand...
--
Wouldn't it be great is the ESC key on PCs did something?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

L
Seeking a digital photo frame that can display the file name
Replies
1
Views
2
ManuelEscrig
M
R
  • User review User review
From Synology to UGREEN: My Journey to a Smarter, Faster NAS with OMV7
Replies
3
Views
653
New Wrycuda
N
Dick Dastardly
Obsession with brands and lack of features
Replies
9
Views
98
M SN
M
M
OM-3 Demo Day - Indianapolis (photos and thoughts)
Replies
19
Views
74
the bluesman
the bluesman
S
Display on LCD and TV at Same Time
Replies
3
Views
44
CC88
C

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top