Why print?

[RedFox88]

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.

After a while of having loads of digital images on your computer you may ask yourself what you are doing all this for.

When I take photos of people I like to give them prints of those photos.

Last chrismass I made a photo book of 70 photos of our kids, for the family, it went down well.

But with a book it's likely that book will go on a shelf viewed as often as one of 100s of shooting events on a computer.

I like printing but it's far easier for me to share photos with family on facebook than to make prints to share when family gets together. And the OP has an ipud3 that he can pass around to people, which in itself makes it "tactile" as you put it.

Prints are tactile, you can share them.

Mark

 

[RedFox88]

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

So you compare the price of a low resolution 32 inch screen/TV (2 MP or so) to a 32 inch print properly framed? How much would it cost to have those 130 framed photos around your house be even 27 inch TV screens? That's a much more comparable cost!

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.

Such insults. Digital screens have their place, but they are generally for the quick and dirty which means portable. But remember, this website is for the gearheads not the artists.

 

[wb2trf]

The point was that there is no necessary relationship between pixel resolution and artistic quality. The relationship is certainly not determined by the material, "a highly detailed subject" but only the the artistic intent. The impressionists painted many "highly detailed subjects." A more detailed photo of a detailed subject may be better or worse, depending on what the photographer wants to do and how it is perceived. There are no rules for art. Certainly higher resolution does not imply higher artistic quality. The two are orthogonal judgments.

One might note that only the defenders of prints here seem to need to make absolute claims for the medium. Those of us who mostly prefer electronic presentation seem to limit our emphatic claims to the notion that those of you who like prints aren't any better photographers, don't ipso facto have better judgment or skill, that the rest of us. Prints aren't uniformly superior. They just have a set of advantages and disadvantages that, depending on one's preferences may be desirable to invoke, on this occasion or that, or not, or never.

 

[Mark_A]

But with a book it's likely that book will go on a shelf viewed as often as one of 100s of shooting events on a computer.

I like printing but it's far easier for me to share photos with family on facebook than to make prints to share when family gets together. And the OP has an ipud3 that he can pass around to people, which in itself makes it "tactile" as you put it.

A book is a lasting store of memories, it does not need a 12v socket to be looked at or batteries to be recharged before it can be used.

A relative knowing I was into photography bought me a digital picture frame for xmas, thinking I would use it to display my pics in the house. On reading the packet I realised this gizmo required a power socket to work. I want to be more not less green - it has remained in its packaging - I didn't even open it.

Mark

 

[RedFox88]

But with a book it's likely that book will go on a shelf viewed as often as one of 100s of shooting events on a computer.

I like printing but it's far easier for me to share photos with family on facebook than to make prints to share when family gets together. And the OP has an ipud3 that he can pass around to people, which in itself makes it "tactile" as you put it.

A book is a lasting store of memories, it does not need a 12v socket to be looked at or batteries to be recharged before it can be used.

A relative knowing I was into photography bought me a digital picture frame for xmas, thinking I would use it to display my pics in the house. On reading the packet I realised this gizmo required a power socket to work. I want to be more not less green - it has remained in its packaging - I didn't even open it.

So you're going to waste the $70 or so that the item cost because of some power? And waste the energy and materials that when into producing the digital frame and delivering it to your relative and then to you?? Put it on a cord with a switch or on a timer. Prints use up resources too, ink components, paper (trees) gas to ship said items to the store then you to pick up from the store or have it delivered. So you're really under a false premise of being "more green". Everything uses resources and energy. Saying you're "being" green is only to make yourself feel good in the end.

And you leave your TV plugged in when off? It's likely drawing more power when OFF than your digital frame would used when on!

 

[jonrobertp]

You sound a bit like an amateur, sorry to say. Guess you haven't sold prints. Just today...at my local best-in-city spot/business....sold prints...made me quite happy !!

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.

 

[Kmccarthy]

You sound a bit like an amateur, sorry to say. Guess you haven't sold prints. Just today...at my local best-in-city spot/business....sold prints...made me quite happy !!

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.

I'm absolutely an amateur. I love photography but I'm glad I don't have to do it for a living. Congratulations on selling some prints.

 

[mike703]

The point was that there is no necessary relationship between pixel resolution and artistic quality. The relationship is certainly not determined by the material, "a highly detailed subject" but only the the artistic intent. The impressionists painted many "highly detailed subjects." A more detailed photo of a detailed subject may be better or worse, depending on what the photographer wants to do and how it is perceived. There are no rules for art. Certainly higher resolution does not imply higher artistic quality. The two are orthogonal judgments.

Agreed - mostly. But you are arguing about claims that I did not make. I never said or implied anything about 'artistic' quality, or raised the issue of 'rules' for art. It's rather a cheap debating trick to ascribe to me something silly that I did not say (i.e. 'more pixels - higher artistic quality' - duh) and then call me out for it. I just want the option to have a picture that I like displayed as accurately as possible, and at the moment print is superior to screen in that respect (300 ppi vs. 100 ppi). That's a simple fact however much you argue about 'artistic intent'.

If I take a macro photo of a bee I'm not necessarily trying to make a timeless work of art; but I do want the image to retain as much of the amazing detail as possible that made this an interesting subject in the first place. In different subjects - portraits for example - clinical detail can be too much of a good thing. Horses for courses. How is that controversial?

One might note that only the defenders of prints here seem to need to make absolute claims for the medium. Those of us who mostly prefer electronic presentation seem to limit our emphatic claims to the notion that those of you who like prints aren't any better photographers, don't ipso facto have better judgment or skill, that the rest of us.

One might, but one would be wrong. You asserted rather dogmatically in your first post that the higher resolution offered by a print compared to a screen image of the same size had nothing to do with the 'quality' of the image (you called it a 'myth') which is a fairly 'absolute' claim, in your words. Should sensor development have stopped at around 2MP just because you don't need more? Sometimes the fine detail will make an image better (as in, 'closer to what the photographer wanted'), sometimes it's not necessary. Again - is that controversial? If so, how?

I'm not particularly a 'defender' of prints (and your choice of language is immediately antagonistic, as though it can only be either / or... which makes you come across as rather defensive yourself). Like most people here I use both media. I appreciate electronic display media very much. I can take my family pics with me on an ipad when I travel and enjoy them wherever I am; I make slide-show presentations on DVD of my travels so that anyone who cares to can enjoy them from the sofa with a drink; and I have distributed countless pictures by email to friends or relatives who wanted copies. Enjoyment of photographs and participation in photography has never been easier or more widespread.

But there is still something special about a good print of a favourite picture in a frame occupying pride of place on a wall somewhere. I do that with a handful of pictures a year (single figures) compared to the hundreds that I will keep for electronic viewing, but I derive a great deal of pleasure from them. As somebody else pointed out - until you can get a 12 x 18 inch screen with 300 ppi resolution that costs a few $, prints still have the advantage here.

Prints aren't uniformly superior. They just have a set of advantages and disadvantages that, depending on one's preferences may be desirable to invoke, on this occasion or that, or not, or never.

There, I completely agree with you... and I did not claim anything different.

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

 

[Mark_A]

So you're going to waste the $70 or so that the item cost because of some power? And waste the energy and materials that when into producing the digital frame and delivering it to your relative and then to you?? Put it on a cord with a switch or on a timer. Prints use up resources too, ink components, paper (trees) gas to ship said items to the store then you to pick up from the store or have it delivered. So you're really under a false premise of being "more green". Everything uses resources and energy. Saying you're "being" green is only to make yourself feel good in the end.

But a print only costs money once, once you have printed it and mounted it if you wish it costs no more. And I only make a book or print out of special photos the majority of my photos remain as bytes on my hard disk.

The plug in digital photo frame is no less than the work of the devil!!

And you leave your TV plugged in when off? It's likely drawing more power when OFF than your digital frame would used when on!

I switch my TV off at the plug, it uses no energy when I am not watching it.

Mark

 

[Mark_A]

Plus, I like to make massive collages on my walls of 6x4 prints of my better images, friends and places and what have you. They are often a talking point when people come to visit. No electronic ipad can compete with that.

Mark

 

[jrtrent]

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.

That's been my experience, too. In my film days, I shot slide film because a projected slide looks far better to me than any print. I enjoy going to art galleries and seeing photo exhibits, but these pale in comparison to pictures that are either projected or seen on a monitor.

This topic comes out every so often, and some years back I tried to search for reasons why I liked monitor viewing better. What follows is a cut-and-paste from an old thread. Maybe the information is out of date, and the last two links no longer work, but I haven't looked into it much since then; I've just enjoyed my monitor viewing. I start with the post by WBirch to which I was responding.

WBirch wrote:
Wow.

You actually said that looking at images on a computer monitor or
TV screen is better than seeing them properly printed and in your own
hand.

I give up.

I hadn't tried to analyze what made projected slides and even monitor viewing better for me than prints; they always just seemed more lifelike to me. Size is one issue, of course. Projected slides are huge compared to any print I'll ever make or have made, and even the approximate 10 1/4 X 13 3/4 inch viewing area of my computer monitor is larger than I would ever print regularly.

In searching for a way to describe the quality of the viewing experience, I came across the parameters of dynamic range (or luminance ratio or contrast, terms varying by article and author, but referring to the same idea--the difference between brightest and darkest parts of an image), color gamut and color accuracy. With respect to dynamic range, one author wrote, "One clear conclusion from this chart is that the experience of seeing the original scene, then capturing it, to reproducing it for others to see, is one of progressively losing DR." The chart referred to shows our eyes being capable of a 10,000:1 ratio; a digital camera about 400:1; computer monitors ranging from 500:1 to 1000:1; and prints ranging from 100:1 to 250:1 (film was up around 2000:1). One conclusion is that a computer monitor can display more of the captured dynamic range than a print can.

Another aspect was differences in color gamut and accuracy between the RGB color space of the monitor and the CMYK world of prints. One author said that because of the way our eyes see, the real world is RGB, and that RGB devices are more capable of reproducing color fairly accurately. Also, because CMYK has a different and more limited color gamut than RGB, the conversion to print always results in some inaccuracies of color rendition. Another author put it this way, "The net effect of these different color spaces is a mismatch between the color that can be represented in RGB but not CMYK. Many of the brilliant colors that are displayed on a monitor are not reproducible using printer’s inks." As an aside, slide film has an even broader color gamut than computer monitors.

Cost and convenience are other factors. Slide film and processing was less costly than than having prints made, and storage less bulky than photo albums. Monitor viewing of digital images is even easier, with files on the hard drive and some back-up disks, and cheaper as there are virtually no running costs (no film, processing, or printing expenses).

The bottom line for me is still what I started with--projected slides and monitor viewing are more lifelike for me than prints, a closer representation of what I actually saw. In this post I've tried to find some reasons for this. That doesn't mean you or anyone else has to agree, but I'm surprised by your dismissive attitude ("I give up"). So what is it you find so satisfying in prints? You mentioned being able to have them in hand. Is it the tactile pleasure of holding the image that makes it compelling for you?

http://www.naturescapes.net/072006/rh0706_2.htm
http://jura.wi.mit.edu/bio/graphics/photoshop/colman.htm
http://www.biophysj.org/cgi/reprint/88/2/761.pdf
http://www.techcolor.com/help/rgb.html

 

[jrtrent]

You sound a bit like an amateur, sorry to say.

Is it your impression that most people on a forum like this are professionals, or aspire to be? Maybe you're right. Unless confronted by evidence to the contrary, I think it's normal for people to assume that others are like themselves. I'm strictly an amateur hobbyist when it comes to photography (or music, bowling, boating, firearms, etc.), and tend to think that most people I see with a camera, or who visit a photography forum, are also amateurs just enjoying a hobby that gives them pleasure. Maybe there's more of you pros around than I think!

 

[Mark B.]

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.

After a while of having loads of digital images on your computer you may ask yourself what you are doing all this for.

When I take photos of people I like to give them prints of those photos.

Last chrismass I made a photo book of 70 photos of our kids, for the family, it went down well.

Prints are tactile, you can share them.

Mark

Several years ago I made a photo book of family photos for my Mom, it brought tears to her eyes. Photos on Facebook will never do that.

 

[jeffcpix]

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.

Interesting that not a single response brought up the issue of proper
viewing distance. Here's a good article on how size matters when it comes to
resolution:

http://photo.net/columns/mjohnston/photo-print-size-and-viewing-distance/

and another:

http://www.photokaboom.com/photography/learn/printing/resolution/1_which_resolution_print_size_viewing_distance.htm

though neither considers the relationship of focal length to viewing distance!

Here's a good discussion:

http://www.apug.org/forums/archive/index.php/t-42809.html

"Adams is talking about the viewing distance at which the perspective would look natural"

The real issue comes up with wide angle shots where the impact of

the image is greatest (and the perspective 'natural') when the viewer is located so that the entire field of vision (and more) is filled.

The general rule of thumb is that the viewing distance should be the
focal length of the lens used multiplied by the degree of enlargement.
For example, a print from a FF camera using a lens with a focal length
of 1" and enlarged to 20x30 should be viewed 20" from the print.
I guess you could use a monitor for this, but the resolution of the
monitor is so much lower than the print, you'd probably reject the
result. One could use a big, flat screen TV, but I don't think
we'd enjoy sitting that close.

Last year, one of the museums in Munich made enormous wall

mounted prints of exterior shots of their building taken a hundred years earlier on
glass plates. Some of the images had very strong perspective using
wide angle lenses. It was interesting to be able to immerse oneself
in the image -- as was the 3D effect.

Printing is an old and noble endeavor -- it's part of the craft of image making.
Or just another hurdle in the way of getting your vision in front of other
people's eyes. Showing images on a screen has its advantages,
but no one will ever say "What a great print."

 

[apaflo]

This seems to be a discussion with an unnecessary and useless dichotomy.

Binary Group 01: My apples are better tasting than your oranges! Neaner neaner!

Binary Group 10: My oranges have more flavor than your apples! Neaner neaner!

The idea that I or you or any single person or group of persons like apples or oranges better doesn't make apples or oranges better... it just makes us different . That is also true of people liking printed or digitally displayed images.

Which is to say almost all of the discussion here has been an illogical waste of time! There are technical differences between various display methods, and those are the only areas where a discussion is actually useful. If you want to grade an image for a particular use , there are only two methods for display that are valid are 1) the specific way it will be displayed, or secondarily 2) as a large enough print.

 

[jrtrent]

Interesting that not a single response brought up the issue of proper viewing distance. . . The general rule of thumb is that the viewing distance should be the focal length of the lens used multiplied by the degree of enlargement.

I think no one brought it up because, as one of the articles you mentioned points out, people tend to view a picture from a distance that's based on the physical size of the image (bigger images from further away; smaller ones closer up), not focal lengths and degrees of enlargement. When looking at images projected on a screen or viewed on a monitor or television, various images in the "slide show" may have been taken with wide angle, normal, or telephoto lenses, but the physical size of the image and the viewing distance remain fixed. The same is generally true when viewing prints; whether you hand a person a stack of 4 X 6's or a stack of 8 X 10's, he will find a comfortable viewing distance for the size and hold each picture at about the same distance, irrespective of the focal length used.

 

[Brad99]

Inkjet is the way to go for longevity these days, at least if you compare them to all the popular online photo print shops. I saw some shockingly poor accelerated fade tests in a magazine recently, basically there weren't any good print shop ones but the Epson dye inkjet in the comparison was fine with no visible deterioration at all.

I've got plenty of 10yr old inkjet prints with no fade, unlike most prints kept in a box that aren't much older than that.

 

[W T Jensen]

http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/05/hiding-and-seeking-a-photo-book/

 

[jeffcpix]

The same is generally true when viewing prints; whether you hand a person a stack of 4 X 6's or a stack of 8 X 10's, he will find a comfortable viewing distance for the size and hold each picture at about the same distance, irrespective of the focal length used.

His loss.
Some people aren't aware of the impact proper viewing distance can have
on the viewer's perception of a photo. Many of us have big screen TVs which
make it possible to experience it without going to print -- it's just
that sitting so close to the screen (with resolution far below that of a
print) one might get a headache. It was pretty much impossible when
using a slide projector (unless one used rear projection). Making
a print, hanging it and properly lighting it allows the viewer to
decide how close to get -- and someone might actually suggest
the proper distance. Getting up close to a monitor only reveals
the monitor's lack of resolution.

As for going through a stack of 4x6 or 8x10 prints,
I believe that's what one does in the editing process.

 

[sandy]

Oh, what a diversity of opinion?

This is what makes this world so interesting!

As one can see, each has his / her own reason for choosing one or the other way of viewing & each one seems to be perfectly happy with his / her choice.

Why to loose your happiness over other's choice?