Why print?

[Ed Rizk]

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.

The look of a high quality print is amazing. The combination of detail, color, and composition can't be achieved on a monitor.

Look at a really good print of a shot that you like on your monitor. When I do, I always like it much better or much worse. You only see the fine detail on the monitor when you zoom in. You may not zoom into an area with a problem. Conversely you may not see how some excellent fine detail compliments the overall composition.

--
Ed Rizk

 

[YoHahnMD]

Because the only way to see the actual image quality that your camera is or isn't capable of is to print them.

Looking at the on computer monitors will never show you the total amount of quality that comes from any camera.
--

 

[Alleg1]

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.

Print the only option?

Many people in those days shot slide film such as Kodachrome or Ektachrome, to be viewed by projecton..I suppose using digital viewing devices is the progression from that.

 

[Barry Pearson]

Why do some photographers make such a big deal about printing?

A number of reasons:

• I have many of my prints, mounted (at 50cm x 40cm) and framed, on my walls. And I can rotate them among the frames for a change.

• I enter competitions and exhibitions, especially (but not only) at my local photo club, (where I was "Print Worker of the Year" 2006-07 season).

http://www.ncps.org.uk/pages/Members/MembersComp/archive20062007.html
http://www.barrypearson.co.uk/galleries2009/lrps2001/index.html

• I show them to friends and relatives.

For interest, I use 2 sizes of paper: A4 for test prints and handing around, and A3+ for mounting. (Epson R3000 printer).

I don't just print. I also create and upload galleries for the web, and enter PDIs (Projected Digital Images) at 1400x1050 pixels in competitions and exhibitions.

I do it for the pleasure (mine, and I hope other people's) of looking at prints. It is nothing to do with testing image quality.

 

[jon lake]

+1. Excellent post that really explains "why print"? Suprised the op doesn't get it.

Please find a way of making this a sticky !
--

 

[SirLataxe]

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:

the aim of 'photography' is to produce a 'photograph', i.e., a print

This poster thinks they can tell the rest of us what the aim of photography is!

It comes down to respecting an image

This poster thinks he can sustain a claim, by implication, that we lack respect for our work.

A photograph needs to be printed ... to be properly appreciated

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.

Mr Trf,

Just a note in praise of your comments on this subject.

Personally I feel a bit sorry for the print-fans who place blinkers upon their own eyes, presumably out of some feeling that they need to deny reality in order to preserve the "superiority" of their own preference. They merely deny themselves the opportunity to have some valuable photo-viewing experiences of alternative kinds.

The fact is that none of the media for looking at a photo are inherently better or worse. Each medium has its own characteristics which may or may not be ideal for a particular viewing purpose in a particular context. Not to say that there are some badly-rendered screens; but there are some very poor prints also.

Personally I enjoy some 130+ prints of many sizes framed, displayed and lit in various ways around the house. I also enjoy regular slide shows of my own pics on a 30" 2560 X 1600 calibrated NEC monitor. It is also a pleasure to view web images made by others, even if the technical qualities (colour, tone and so forth) are not up to the capabilities of the monitor or a well-made large print rendered from a 14bit RAW file.

And let us not forget the high cost of making good quality prints compared to rendering on to a good quality screen.

Well, silly snob-men are everywhere, are they not? No doubt they feel it important also to establish that eating peas with a fork is superior to slurping soup with a spoon. The strange human obsession with "correct behaviours" and the associated need to diss the tastes and behaviours of others.

SirLataxe, probably just a peasant.

 

[happysnapper62]

Draek. That pretty much sums it up for me. I am new to this photography lark & have never printed any of my [dubious] efforts yet. It is, however an ambition of mine, to take that one special shot that will cause me to shout "eurika- I have got it" It will then be framed as a memorial to my less than lofty ambitions in life, then I will get back to the more important [to me] business of enjoying taking pictures. When the next "eurika" moment comes, that sucker is going in a frame & onto my wall, or a friends wall, whatever. I can then delete the bad stuff, & view the [few] remaining images on my monitor at will. I say, do your own thing & let others do theirs. There is room for us all. lee uk

 

[carl english]

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!

Theres is a Photographer in London who's gone a step beyond that and simply visualises everything in his head and doesn't actually take the picture, perhaps thats your next step, would save a lot of storage.

 

[JulesJ]

How sad that you have to ask such a question. Do you really think that the best way to view a photograph is on a computer screen? A print is the only way to truly see a photograph as the photographer wants it to be viewed. Everyone's screen is different, calibrated or not. The size varies according to how the user views it and is not necessarily the size the photographer wants it viewed at. When the casual viewer sees an image on a screen it's like hearing a well recorded stereo orchestra on a £5 transistor radio instead of a decent Hi Fi. It's like watching Avatar on an iPhone instead of in an up to date 3D Imax cinema. It's like viewing Van Gogh's and Picasso and Rembrandt's work on tv instead of going to the gallery and seeing the real paintings.

We are spoiled by the internet and fool ourselves that we are seeing the real thing. We are not and if we don't appreciate that then it is a sad state of affairs.

In our business we only sell prints (and digital images only as a second copy. We have been selling only prints for over twenty five years now. We know a bit about prints and printing and our customers appreciate them too. Long live the print.
Jules

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.

--
Julesarnia on twitter

 

[mike703]

I agre that for 99.9% of photos electronic viewing is appropriate and fine. but think about what you're throwing away. At the moment a high-res computer monitor is - what, 2MP? (An HD TV is 1920×1080, which is 2.1 MP).

So why did you buy a 12MP camera (or whatever it is that you have)? Once in a while that resolution is needed to capture all the fine detail in a landscape, or a macro shot where you can see all the fuzz on the bee, or whatever. if you view all your pictures at 2MP resolution you're losing this and might as well stick with a basic compact.

Try looking at an image containing a lot of fine detail on a computer screen, and the same image well printed at the same size, side by side. And see how much better the print in terms of fine detail.

As to the longevity issue: my sister has just complied a family history album using old photos, some going back over a century. Some of them have been scanned and digitally enhanced but the original prints are still with us. How many of your jpegs will survive 100 years? I print out each year a photo-book of the best family pics from the year (around 100 or so) - I hope I will enjoy looking at those albums in my dotage.

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

 

[ZorSy]

The reason I print (dye-sub up to 13x18") as I want whoeverlooks at my photos to see them I wanted them to look. I don't want them to look at the pixels, zooming in or out - I already did that when I took photo and printed it.Seeing pixels means missing the content. Yes, they look great on the big and bright screen. Yet, prints just hang on the wall - even with the lights out and in total darkness, they live, quietly.

 

[Mark B.]

I can't take my monitor with me, nor can I hang it on my wall. If I want to sell an image, it's usually a print.

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.

 

[carl english]

If you shoot a Landscape thats miles wide at horizon the only way to fully appreciate your capture is to print it. If however you shoot images from someones Monitor then yes, stick to viewing them on screen.

 

[apaflo]

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.

Wow, lots of judgmental arguments being toss around!

It's actually pretty simple, and need not be taken so emotionally either! Despite several people claiming there is no greater or lesser merit to any given way of viewing an image (which is true as far as the emotional impact on the viewer), in fact there are technical differences in viewing technologies that make it a "big deal" about printing.

That is, an image that can be made into a high quality large print absolutely can also be displayed virtually any other way and look good. But the opposite is not true! Just because one can get a 1024x768 image to look very nice on a computer monitor (or on a cell phone, or a digital frame, or whatever) does not mean it can be printed at 24x30 and look even reasonable!

Hence, on a technical basis (as opposed to an emotional one), if you want to analyze the quality of an image today the best technology available for viewing is to have it printed on an appropriate paper and have it hung where the light is designed for proper illumination of a print. If it looks good that way, you know it can look good with any form of display.

I do expect that within the next 10 or 20 years that will no longer be true. I certainly hope that electronic displays will soon enough be the equal of a large print. It will be just extremely nice when we can hang a Digital Frame on the wall and be able to view images at 4'x6' using 400 pixels per inch technology that provides a dynamic range of 60 dB or even more! (I want to live forever, just so I can see this stuff!!!)

 

[Don Fraser]

Because a print's meaning and values slowly change over time as you look at it again and again. That slow development is important to some people. Not everyone, of course.

Think of a painting on a wall, which you only may appreciate after seeing it many times.

That doesn't happen too often with pictures viewed electronically.

 

[LightRoom]

If you don't want to, there is no need to print. But still having prints is nice, more photographic I'd say.

Prints are also easier to show. You tend to think more if it's worth printing. Always better to show 20 nice photographs than 2000 very similar photographs.

I fail to see the controversy.

 

[tex]

First of all, I agree with some of what has been written above about what makes a print a valuable end product. There is also a valuable point made about the longevity of prints (properly done!) vs. various sorts of electronic media. FYI, librarians/archivists have been making a big deal about this point for almost 3 decades, gaining in intensity as time has moved forward. Now add museum curators.

But I'll jump in here to point out the following:

While the print remains and will remain a superb method to display and preserve photographic images, and has and will always have wonderful qualities unique to it, today we finally have other viable and practical means of displaying such imagery, more so than just a few years ago. This is because electronic displays have finally crossed the thresholds of combined size, quality, and price to become truly excellent ways to display photographs.

I couldn't say this a few years ago. But over the last year+ I have had the privilege of working on the installations staff at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden. The museum somewhat specializes now(in its special exhibitions) in media and new media works of all sorts. I have seen first hand how well photographic imagery can be displayed on large monitors viably and practically. And the prices of large, excellent monitors/TV's are now such that a home monitor/TV viewing situation is more cost effective than printing and framing(properly for both) even 1/2 dozen prints.

I encourage you, the OP, and others, to explore what fine printing can do for a photographic object. It's a different thing altogether. But the question raised is an excellent one for thinking about end-product viewing of photography today. You are right to raise it.

--
tex_andrews

"Photography is the product of complete alienation" Marcel Proust

"I would like to see photography make people despise painting until something else will make photography unbearable." Marcel Duchamp

 

[DuaneV]

I have absolutely no interest in viewing images on any electronic devices. When I have to sit, sort, edit my photos on my PC, its work. When I used to spend time in a dark room developing my images, it was fun!

I LOVE to hold a print and look at it. Its tangible. I hate the kindle, Netflix, ITunes, etc. I WANT that item I paid for in my hand. Simple as that. I enjoy looking at the art of it. For some reason, sitting in front of a monitor, scrolling through endless images just doesnt interest me. I like to see the best of the best in print. THAT gives me a great feeling.

Its like looking at a picture of the Mona Lisa, an elephant, a tiger, a whale, etc., on line or actually seeing it in person. Can you imagine going to a museum and seeing a bunch of huge computer screens with pictures of dinosaur bones, air planes, American Indian artifacts, paintings, etc.? If once cannot discern the difference, then there is no reason to try and explain it. They just dont get it. And thats not snobby at all, thats the truth. There is a feeling one gets from seeing something person that cannot be matched by seeing it on a computer screen. I still believe the majority of people today would rather hold something in their hands as it was intended rather than look at it on a PC.

Case in point: My MIL, FIL and my mother all have no interest in the internet at all. My wife and I both have facebook and photo sharing sites with TONS of pictures of our 4 year old son. My mother sees our son every other month. My FIL, every 4-6 months an my MIL, once a year at the most. They are always asking for photos, but NONE of them have ANY interest in going on line to look at our photo sharing sites with pics of him. Even if we email pics to them they complain and ask why we couldnt have just printed the pics and mailed them. And Im not mentioning all his aunts and uncles OR his great grandparents, of which neither set even owns a computer.

I hope, Hope, HOPE that as long as I live we still are able to buy tangible items, because if it all goes digital, Ill have no interest. And its clear that the majority of consumers feel the same way, as music CD's, books, art, photography, etc., are still in high demand.

--
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/3317198770/albums

 

[Mark Smith145430]

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).

I can only speak personally, I exhibit my images sometimes I print quite large they are presented on different surfaces depending on the subject normally on aluminium.

People won't pay so much for digital files on a DVD a one off print signed will generate me more money, film shots have the negative taped on the back-an original.

I think 'snobbery' is probably you felling slightly inferior, ipod pads are nice but you have too smaller image to see detail in large files while viewing the whole canvas.

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.

Its not because of film or any legacy reasons just that a wonderful well presented print is a thing to behold a physical entity that can be used as a gift–its a real object in its own right.

I get the whole view online thing, Flickr is great and its nice to share photos, I see iPhone or tablets as similar to those wallets of 4x6 prints you used to get only easier to access and of course I share images that way, they just have more impact when printed.
YMMV

 

[Don Karner]

To me a photograph becomes a photograph when it is printed. Also, I sell photographs on a variety of surfaces (canvas, paper, metal), so I like the cash! ;-)
--
Ol' Don in Broken Arrow