Pages: [1] 2   Go Down

Author Topic: Printer quality  (Read 5064 times)

wmchauncey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 793
Printer quality
« on: August 23, 2016, 07:22:43 am »

Televisions/monitors are improving on a daily basis in terms of HDR/4K/whatnot...why are we not seeing a comparable improvement in printers?
Logged
The things you do for yourself die with

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #1 on: August 23, 2016, 08:53:22 am »

I'm not sure what kind of improvements you're looking for.

I only print for my own work but over the last 15 years I've seen tremendous improvements. From my Epson 2200 to my HP Z3100 to my Epson SC P800 I think the advances in printers, inks and paper have been very significant.
Logged
Regards,
Ron

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #2 on: August 23, 2016, 11:42:08 am »

I'm not sure what kind of improvements you're looking for.

I only print for my own work but over the last 15 years I've seen tremendous improvements. From my Epson 2200 to my HP Z3100 to my Epson SC P800 I think the advances in printers, inks and paper have been very significant.

I'd agree with that. I'd also mention that the latest 4K monitors in the 27-30 inch size range still lag behind 15 year old printers in terms of maximum possible resolution. At the same time, given human sight capabilities there's not much point in increasing printer resolution, so they have improved in other areas like color gamut and things like gloss differential and bronzing that apply exclusively to reflective media.
Logged
- Dean

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #3 on: August 23, 2016, 12:00:58 pm »

Once you've seen an 80" 4K monitor, you might wonder about the future necessity of printers.  8)
Logged

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #4 on: August 23, 2016, 12:17:55 pm »

Once you've seen an 80" 4K monitor, you might wonder about the future necessity of printers.  8)

For certain things perhaps. 

From my perspective my prints will last much longer and be viewed by my surviving relatives and friends much longer than a monitor. 
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Benny Profane

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 357
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #5 on: August 23, 2016, 12:36:53 pm »

Once you've seen an 80" 4K monitor, you might wonder about the future necessity of printers.  8)

I don't get the point. Was I supposed to think print was dead when I first saw a jumbotron at the stadium?

The printer will become more valuable, or, at least the ability to produce a fine print, as the screen becomes more and more ubiquitous. Millions are taking pictures and viewing them on small screens, and losing the experience of seeing photos on a piece of paper.
Remember that little device that one could buy and display a little 5x7 digital slideshow of your snapshots, framed, on a desk or side table? You would think that thing would have sold millions, and would be everywhere these days, if you follow the logic that printing is dead. Funny, though, haven't seen one in a few years, but, still see framed photos everywhere.
Logged

ralfe89

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 13
  • Software engineer and photographer with print-love
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #6 on: August 23, 2016, 01:49:47 pm »

Current printers are awesome devices and produces high quality results with incredible detail and color gamut. A print has it's own characteristics and flair which is, for me, not reached by any display.
A print is a valuable presentation of an image and differs completely from any display. The message is different you transport with a print - it's well decided which image gets presented on which media etc and not arbitrary.

Besides prints can be an awesome present and I haven't seen anybody who wasn't impressed getting a bigger print :)

From a technical perspective the most displays may be impressive in resolution. But color wise only a few devices (compared to all displays) are capable to show much more than sRGB which isn't much compared many good printers can print. With 4K a bigger color space comes along and this is awesome, because proper color management will come more important and gets better. Besides some exceptions the most programs aren't capable of current color management and the complete Windows Universal Apps stack is broken in this regard. But that's a different topic.
Logged
Nothing better as own printed gallery images :)

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #7 on: August 23, 2016, 01:51:40 pm »

Unlike image files displayed on a monitor, prints are a physical thing. Each has individual physical properties like surface sheen and texture, and display choices like matting, framing, glazing (or not), face mounting on plexi, and the like. With visual properties independent of everything except a light source and a person's eyes they can be held, passed down through decades or centuries, and viewed as the author intended without regard for calibrations, the monitor resolution of the day, and the viability of a given electronic storage media type and file format. Prints also cannot be produced instantaneously in thousands or millions. Their individual physical uniqueness and greater immutability give prints a value, whether sentimental or monetary, that images on electronic media cannot have. It's a bit similar to the first edition of a rare book complete with dust jacket being worth gobs more than an e-book of the same title, or a note written on a slip of paper by your late mother being sentimentally more valuable than a picture of it on your iPad.

edit: Just to be clear, I think electronic display of images has its place and there are obviously countless applications. I just don't think either type of display supplants the other. I think each will continue to have its place for a very long time.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2016, 01:55:45 pm by DeanChriss »
Logged
- Dean

rdonson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3263
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #8 on: August 23, 2016, 06:58:05 pm »

edit: Just to be clear, I think electronic display of images has its place and there are obviously countless applications. I just don't think either type of display supplants the other. I think each will continue to have its place for a very long time.

I'm with you, Dean. 

There is a very significant difference in viewing a print and viewing a monitor.  Reflected light vs emitted light.

I'm happy to see a restaurant's menu on a monitor or watch a movie on my 4K TV but I doubt I'd ever go to a museum or gallery to view still photographs on a monitor on a wall. 
Logged
Regards,
Ron

Peter McLennan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4690
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #9 on: August 23, 2016, 09:35:00 pm »

Wow.  A firestorm I've created.   :'(

Of course, the print will never die.  I just spent $2K to ensure that my Epson 9800 continues to satisfy that requirement.

I merely suggested that prints might find their display space a little more crowded nowadays and in the future.

Monitors can display an ever-changing print-like viewing experience. I have one that does exactly that and it's every bit as enjoyable as the 60" canvas prints in the next room. Not the same, but just as enjoyable.  Especially for visitors, who see far more of my work than just a few prints.
Logged

shadowblade

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2839
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #10 on: August 24, 2016, 12:02:00 am »

Wait for this stuff to become cheap enough to made into printer ink (given that inkjet pigment costs about as much as gold, it doesn't have to be that cheap).

http://mentalfloss.com/article/77190/6-facts-about-vantablack-darkest-material-ever-made

It'll give you a Dmax of 5 or 6 even on matte paper and make the best monitors - or even reality itself - look washed out and low-DR.

I've seen a sphere coated in the stuff. It's so dark it looks unnatural - more like a hole in the universe than a simple black sphere.
Logged

wmchauncey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 793
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #11 on: August 24, 2016, 12:48:52 pm »

Let's talk "Wow" factor...let's say that you've got 6-8 of your bestest prints hanging in your living room and a group of friends are visiting, sipping beers or whatever.
Are they going to be more impressed with those prints or...fifty or so images scrolling across that big screen HDR television.
Logged
The things you do for yourself die with

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #12 on: August 24, 2016, 06:52:34 pm »

Depends how big you can print.  Also, for a lasting impression, the print is likely to make more impact.  Things on a screen tend to be received as far more temporary and passing and also tend to be associated with less impact or "I could do that" thinking.  Large prints, not so much.
Logged
Phil Brown

wmchauncey

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 793
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #13 on: August 25, 2016, 05:40:41 am »

Quote
tend to be associated with less impact or "I could do that" thinking.
The beliefs of those plebeians, that wouldn't be allowed in my LR, concern me not a whit.
Logged
The things you do for yourself die with

Farmer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2848
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #14 on: August 25, 2016, 05:57:42 am »

Restricting the discussion to only those people you deem worthy of viewing the images does limit the field somewhat.

As a broad discussion, my points stands.
Logged
Phil Brown

N80

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 621
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #15 on: August 25, 2016, 10:39:57 am »

I think that Jeff Schewe indicated in his book "The Digital Print" that inkjet technology had just about reached its physical limits. (Apologies if it was not Jeff!)

But, I'm not sure that is a problem. I'm not sure what there is left to be desired in high end, large format printers that use light fast inks that won't fade for many decades.

It seems to me that the technology breakthrough would be that inks become cheaper (they are astronomically expensive) and that the high end print process becomes more approachable. I've had an Epson R2400 (not pro level) printer for years and I've still not mastered the whole beginning to end process of making a fine print. I'm not saying that it needs to be easy or simple to make a fine art print, that's part of the craft.................but it certainly does not need to be as expensive or complex as it is now. If you consider a high end camera and lens combo, a high end printer, high end software, high end computer and monitor, expensive inks, expensive papers, multi thousand dollar calibration and measuring equipment it can take 10s of thousands of dollars just to reach the baseline of making fine art prints. It would be nice, but probably unrealistic, to see the cost and complexity come down.
Logged
George

"What is truth?" Pontius  Pilate

Chris Kern

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2034
    • Chris Kern's Eponymous Website
Re: Large Transmissive Photo Display Devices (Was: Printer quality)
« Reply #16 on: August 25, 2016, 03:40:45 pm »

Monitors can display an ever-changing print-like viewing experience. I have one that does exactly that and it's every bit as enjoyable as the 60" canvas prints in the next room. Not the same, but just as enjoyable.

Certainly the much greater dynamic range available from a transmissive display device offers a different viewing experience than a print.

I was looking at a collection of still images on a 60-inch, 4K ultra-high-definition TV in a big-box store recently and I must say the monitor technology is getting pretty good at the high end.  Still, some things I'd like to see in a dedicated transmissive display device for photography:
  • More resolution.  I don't know what the appropriate metric is: 128 px/inch? 256? ... 1440?  But the 60-inch TV in the store didn't have enough pixels.  Maybe an 8K monitor of that size would be sufficient, but even there I have my doubts.
  • Square form-factor to accommodate both horizontal and vertical formats.
  • Wide gamut.  I think this is important.  Maybe it's just that most sRGB devices are used without color calibration.  The colors in photos displayed on my wife's iMac monitor look pretty good after I calibrate it, as long as I don't compare them with the same images on my wide-gamut NECs.  (The samples in the store mostly looked over-saturated to me, but I suspect they were processed that way intentionally.)
  • Color stability.  Apropos of calibration, if I hang a large monitor on a wall it really would be nice if it could retain its colors for at least six months and preferably a year between calibrations.  Again, I'm not certain this is a requirement since I wouldn't be using the wall-mounted monitor for soft-proofing; maybe the color slew wouldn't be objectionable as long as the monitor was used just for display purposes.
I'm inclined to add a fifth point, which is that such a device should be affordable.  But that's more of a wish than a requirement.

DeanChriss

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 592
    • http://www.dmcphoto.com
Re: Large Transmissive Photo Display Devices (Was: Printer quality)
« Reply #17 on: August 25, 2016, 04:35:03 pm »

Certainly the much greater dynamic range available from a transmissive display device offers a different viewing experience than a print.

I was looking at a collection of still images on a 60-inch, 4K ultra-high-definition TV in a big-box store recently and I must say the monitor technology is getting pretty good at the high end.  Still, some things I'd like to see in a dedicated transmissive display device for photography:
  • More resolution.  I don't know what the appropriate metric is: 128 px/inch? 256? ... 1440?  But the 60-inch TV in the store didn't have enough pixels.  Maybe an 8K monitor of that size would be sufficient, but even there I have my doubts.
  • Square form-factor to accommodate both horizontal and vertical formats.
  • Wide gamut.  I think this is important.  Maybe it's just that most sRGB devices are used without color calibration.  The colors in photos displayed on my wife's iMac monitor look pretty good after I calibrate it, as long as I don't compare them with the same images on my wide-gamut NECs.  (The samples in the store mostly looked over-saturated to me, but I suspect they were processed that way intentionally.)
  • Color stability.  Apropos of calibration, if I hang a large monitor on a wall it really would be nice if it could retain its colors for at least six months and preferably a year between calibrations.  Again, I'm not certain this is a requirement since I wouldn't be using the wall-mounted monitor for soft-proofing; maybe the color slew wouldn't be objectionable as long as the monitor was used just for display purposes.
I'm inclined to add a fifth point, which is that such a device should be affordable.  But that's more of a wish than a requirement.

Unless I screwed something up, 4K UHD has a resolution of 3840 pixels × 2160 lines, which makes a pixel density of only 73.4 ppi on a 60" diagonal monitor. 8K UHD has a resolution of 7680 pixels × 4320 lines, which gets the pixel density up to 146.9 ppi on a 60" monitor. Both are far short of typical printer resolutions. If you view the monitor from a far enough distance the angular displacement between pixels gets too small to see and they look great, but a monitor that large will not stand up to close up inspection. To get print-like resolution with current technologies the monitor has to be smaller. 8K resolution on a 30" diagonal monitor gives you 293.7 ppi. That's quite respectable but still short of the maximum resolution of a typical printer.

I totally agree with your comment on square form factor. The wide (16:9, I think) aspect ratio of HD/UHD screens makes them best suited to display horizontal images with a panoramic aspect ratio. They are fairly useless for vertical images. Even common horizontal still image formats like 3:2 waste lots of of pixels unless you want your images stretched or cropped to fit the display area.
Logged
- Dean

JRSmit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 922
    • Jan R. Smit Fine Art Printing Specialist
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #18 on: August 26, 2016, 08:10:58 am »

An inkjet printer has a max resolution of 2880 dots per inch. The resilution of the digital file needed is then 730 pixels per inch.
How to relateren this with displays? Is the dots per inch the measure or the pixels per inch?
Logged
Fine art photography: janrsmit.com
Fine Art Printing Specialist: www.fineartprintingspecialist.nl


Jan R. Smit

chez

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2501
Re: Printer quality
« Reply #19 on: August 26, 2016, 08:22:47 am »

One thing that needs to be mentioned with displaying prints is proper lighting...makes a huge difference.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2   Go Up