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). 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.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why print?
- Thread starter Kmccarthy
- Start date
Skipper494
Forum Pro
You can look at yours wherever you want, but the aim of 'photography' is to produce a 'photograph', i.e., a print.
This is the kind of attitude I'm trying to understand. Prints were the only option at one point, but today we have so many better ways to view, store, catalog and share photos. I'm in my 40's so I remember the film/print days well. I just don't get the fixation with printing at this point.
It comes down to respecting an image.
Photos look good on a computer screen and you can view any 1 or 10,000s of your photos within a few moments. How often are you at your computer screen? Usually you'll probably be doing something other than looking at older photos you've taken. Have it as wallpaper? Sure but then you're always staring at it, with things ontop of it or it's hidden behind the program that is running.
Photos on a phone? Sure but if you put a lot on there it will be harder to find certain ones and of course a very small viewing size, usually about 4 inches on the long side so even smaller than a 4" x 6" print.
When you print an image and put it in a frame, on the wall or on a some sort of top surface, you'll see that image a few times a day for a few moments. That image will then because more special to you than the other 10,000s because of seeing it daily for brief moments. It'll also be something visitors will see and possibly ask about. That's respecting an image.
I know people who keep portraits of the kids on their walls for years after it was taken. Just like people should create physical printed photo albums that show just a handful of the most interesting photos from throughout the year. It's easy to take 300 photos of Billy's birthday party, but who is going to want to look through 300 photos? Learn to weed out the average, the similar, and the dull photos and choose the ones that help tell the story of the day. I'll look through a photo album that has 200 photos of an entire year but not of one party, unless it's a wedding.
Lastly, it's my opinion that when we finally pass away only printed photos in our possession will get the consideration of being kept. In 40 years will digital photos of today be readable by a modern computer or modern software? Put external hard drives in your attic after you put photography down in your later years and it's unlikely anyone's going to be able to access the drives or will want to. But if there's something physical to look through, they will be looked through.
sshoihet
Senior Member
Because most electronic display devices are currently quite low resolution and poor at reproducing the proper luminance and colour.
Scott Spain
Well-known member
It all comes down to the individual. I absolutely recognize some people's desire for prints, but for me, personally, I'm with the OP.
I dont' remember the last time I printed an image, outside of a photo book.
At work I have photos streaming on my iPad. At home I have them streaming on my AppleTV. Both are very passive methods of viewing photos, like like having pictures on your desk or wall.
But that's just me. Different people have different desires.
--
Scott
I dont' remember the last time I printed an image, outside of a photo book.
At work I have photos streaming on my iPad. At home I have them streaming on my AppleTV. Both are very passive methods of viewing photos, like like having pictures on your desk or wall.
But that's just me. Different people have different desires.
--
Scott
Ron Poelman
Veteran Member
Please find a way of making this a sticky !
--
--
I certainly understand this sentiment. 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.
By the way, I no longer buy paper books or physical music CDs. I don't rent DVDs or send paper letters. I've digitized all my my home movies and arcived the tapes. I've got nothing against people that want to hang on to "the old way", but it is diffiult to understand the appeal, other than nostalgia. I love being able to quickly find, view and share all my digital media, without having to dig through boxes in the attic. It also looks so much better on my high res screens!
If you are taking so many 1000s of photos, are they all needed or are most of them cluttering up your catalog and hard drive? you may think every photo holds a value to you, even the average bland ones, but think about it from the perspective of a viewer of your photos. Would they look through 300 photos from the 4th of July or would they get bored after 50 and walk away or ask to see different photos? Keep and Present the best of the best, delete the rest.
I'm not suggesting you print 1000s of photos, though I will, but are most of the 1000s of photos really worth keeping? In 5 years will you look back at all the photos you kept and wonder why you kept them? Food for thought.
Les Berkley
Senior Member
So I can sell them.
Huh? I thought I was making a photograph, not 'Evaluating IQ', whatever that means. I will note, however, that I usually send a 240 or 300 ppi print to the printer, while most current monitors are about 100 ppi
Yeah. A photograph needs to be printed on the right paper and put in the right mat and frame to be properly appreciated.
How does Eye-Cue LOOK anyway? "Wow! The corners are sharp!"?
I agree that this is a problem, but it's not unique to digital. I have hundreds of old photgraphs in envelops and boxes that I never look at because it takes too much effort. Today I have all my digital pictures in Lightroom. I delete the bad ones, rate and tag the best ones and just keep the rest. Everything is organized chrnonologically and I can find almost anything within seconds. I can definitely appreciate printing and framing a few that have special sentimental value, but that only applies to a very small minority of my pictures. There are many others that I treasure and am glad that I can access digitally , at any time.
It's an individual matter. I like prints for several reasons:
1. I find that prints look better than electronic images
2. I give them to friends and family
3. They can be hung on a wall or put on a table or whatever
My wife also likes prints, but she also uploads them to her iPad.
One of the nice things about photography is that it can be enjoyed many ways. This an example of that.
1. I find that prints look better than electronic images
2. I give them to friends and family
3. They can be hung on a wall or put on a table or whatever
My wife also likes prints, but she also uploads them to her iPad.
One of the nice things about photography is that it can be enjoyed many ways. This an example of that.
Apparently on dpr people who make prints feel authorized to make emphatic statements to the rest of us, while we cheerfully enjoy our preferences oblivious to their claims of authority. Here's a sample from this thread:
Note that there are no assertions from people who almost only look at photos on monitors that imply they are somehow authorized to make such declarations of superiority for others.
I have nothing against printing by others. Although my own preferences are with electronic presentation I won't say that any view entitles one to speak from on high.
In fact believing that photos need to be printed is part of a creed here at dpr that, if you assert it, grants you faux status to adopt this authoritative tone. I say this emperor has no clothes. I laugh at such claims of authority while I enjoy the technology change.
This poster thinks they can tell the rest of us what the aim of photography is!
This poster thinks he can sustain a claim, by implication, that we lack respect for our work.
This poster thinks he can declaim on "proper appreciation" apparently for everyone.
Note that there are no assertions from people who almost only look at photos on monitors that imply they are somehow authorized to make such declarations of superiority for others.
I have nothing against printing by others. Although my own preferences are with electronic presentation I won't say that any view entitles one to speak from on high.
In fact believing that photos need to be printed is part of a creed here at dpr that, if you assert it, grants you faux status to adopt this authoritative tone. I say this emperor has no clothes. I laugh at such claims of authority while I enjoy the technology change.
Deleted1929
Forum Pro
None of my Aunts will touch any form of technology to view images. They demand prints ( OK, they demand very politely, often with cake, but I know who's boss ).
--
StephenG
--
StephenG
Draek
Senior Member
Because most commercial work ends up either as a print or a web-sized image, and even medium-sized prints are a harsher test than resizing for the web.
You might argue that if you're an amateur or enthusiast you don't have to care about standards for commercial photography, and you'd be right, but then for amateurs and enthusiasts the basic rule has always been "as long as it makes you happy, it doesn't matter". People suggest printing only when enthusiasts get a bit... enthusiastic, ify'knowwhatImean, about comparing image files at 100% magnification in Photoshop side by side. Yes, is an even harsher test than comparing similar prints, but unlike prints it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever outside of satisfying the peeper's own pettiness.
Do try to make prints of your best photos every once in a while, though, and the larger the better; it helps develop your editing sense, which in turn makes you a better photographer, I believe. Plus there's the proudness inherent on having your work, your work, adorning the walls of your home and not clashing with everything as if it were a stain on your wall.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Draek
You might argue that if you're an amateur or enthusiast you don't have to care about standards for commercial photography, and you'd be right, but then for amateurs and enthusiasts the basic rule has always been "as long as it makes you happy, it doesn't matter". People suggest printing only when enthusiasts get a bit... enthusiastic, ify'knowwhatImean, about comparing image files at 100% magnification in Photoshop side by side. Yes, is an even harsher test than comparing similar prints, but unlike prints it has absolutely no relevance whatsoever outside of satisfying the peeper's own pettiness.
Do try to make prints of your best photos every once in a while, though, and the larger the better; it helps develop your editing sense, which in turn makes you a better photographer, I believe. Plus there's the proudness inherent on having your work, your work, adorning the walls of your home and not clashing with everything as if it were a stain on your wall.
--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/Draek
My original intent was actually just to ask a technical question. Whenever there is a discussion about a particular camera's Image Quality (IQ) on DPR, there is always some guy that chimes in and states that the only thing that matters is how it looks on print. I'm just trying to understand if there is any technical merit to that. Your comment about ppi makes some sense.
I personally prefer digital 99% of the time. I also think that digital pictures can be every bit as special and memorable as prints.
I have friend that only has an iPhone, no SLR. I recently took some pictures of his kids for him with my 5DII and 70-300L and gave him full resolution copies on a CD. This guy could not have been happier! He was so amazed that he could zoom in and see every detail on his 6 month old son's face and even the reflections in his eye. I'm pretty sure those high resolution digital pictures will be much more valuable to him than if I had just given him a print.
Robert Cohen
Veteran Member
For a number of years I didn't bother with enlargements of my digital photos. They looked good on my monitor, they looked good when published.
Then I had a good printer make some nice enlargements of a few of my recent images. Remarkable. I could see much more in those photos than I'd known was there from just viewing them on a computer screen.
I've learned that if I haven't seen good enlargements of my images I really haven't seen those photos.
--
--Bob
Then I had a good printer make some nice enlargements of a few of my recent images. Remarkable. I could see much more in those photos than I'd known was there from just viewing them on a computer screen.
I've learned that if I haven't seen good enlargements of my images I really haven't seen those photos.
--
--Bob
MaxTux
Forum Enthusiast
As the time goes on, more and more images are viewed on some electronic display device and fewer on paper. There are still two good reasons to make a print:
1) Share an image with someone who is not equipped or inclined to view them on an electronic display.
2) Use an image as decoration, with no electronic display present or convenient.
Appreciation of art and image quality are not, by themselves, good reasons to print a photograph. If someone wants to communicate an artistic idea or message, he has to use whatever the recipient is most prepared to absorb: if he is prepared to spend time and visit an art gallery (as things stand right now) the photograph will be displayed in form of a print, but if the communication between the creator and the consumer of art is electronic, so will be the displayed photograph.
Image quality issues cut both ways: printed photograph can still be presented with higher resolution (but this advantage of the print might evaporate in the near future). On the other hand, a print only reflects ambient light, while an electronic device creates light. The electronic device is thus less dependent on the intensity and colour of the light of viewer's surroundings and, very important to photography, it is capable of a much higher tonal range.
MaxTux
1) Share an image with someone who is not equipped or inclined to view them on an electronic display.
2) Use an image as decoration, with no electronic display present or convenient.
Appreciation of art and image quality are not, by themselves, good reasons to print a photograph. If someone wants to communicate an artistic idea or message, he has to use whatever the recipient is most prepared to absorb: if he is prepared to spend time and visit an art gallery (as things stand right now) the photograph will be displayed in form of a print, but if the communication between the creator and the consumer of art is electronic, so will be the displayed photograph.
Image quality issues cut both ways: printed photograph can still be presented with higher resolution (but this advantage of the print might evaporate in the near future). On the other hand, a print only reflects ambient light, while an electronic device creates light. The electronic device is thus less dependent on the intensity and colour of the light of viewer's surroundings and, very important to photography, it is capable of a much higher tonal range.
MaxTux
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum