Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: ErikKaffehr on November 04, 2015, 02:29:20 pm
-
Hi,
It is sort of funny, I was thinking about this stuff today. I have my new A7rII and I love it. Well it has it's foibles but it mostly delivers on what I want foremost, image quality. It is nice camera, well made and capable and it does sort of packs MFD quality in a smaller package.
On the other hand, my gear still consists of a 12-24/4.5-5.6 Sigma, 28-70/2.8 and 70-400/4-5.6G, 28-70/4.5-5.6 kit lens and the 90/2.8G macro. Almost the same kit I have used for 3-4 years with my DSLR kit. It is 10 kg+, even without the tripod. Image quality is great, better than what I ever had from 135 format.
Adding some nice primes would/will be nice, but even those primes being small, weight still will go up.
Fact is, if we want to reduce weight and travel with less gear we need to look at smaller format. Will APS-C from Fuji be good enough? Can 4/3" fill the bill? These are very valid questions to ask. Full frame 35mm will always be heavy, especially with large aperture zooms and large aperture primes.
But, in many cases, high quality medium aperture lenses paired with smaller lenses may be the way to go.
Best regards
Erik
-
Michael and Kevin
Thank you for an interesting and perceptive interview. You made several good points and in a very positive fashion. I totally agree that, for me, the photographic process is only complete when I can look at the finished print. Not enough people (never mind photographers) are committing their work to print. With digital obsolescence occurring with an alarming frequency in both software and hardware terms a vast reservoir of imagery, recording how we are today, risks being lost. I keep saying to my family members "please make prints - for your children and their children". Do they listen? Well maybe.
Another aspect of the improvement in photography as a result of digital imaging is the high and rising percentage success rate of the images which are actually in focus. Improvements in sensor technology and camera electronics are a big part of that but a step function has occurred, in my opinion, with the latest mirrorless systems and that is the much higher success rate in terms of accurately focussed images. This is a real benefit which should prompt all photographers to take a close look at these new systems. How many times have we all taken a great image only to discover that they have been let down by focussing flaws?
-
It's been 'good enough' for some considerable time.
It was good enough with the Nikon F, the Hasselblad 500 Series, Kodachrome and Ektachrome, TXP and FP3/4.
It only began to feel not good enough when I stopped working at it for a living, and got into listening to other people too much.
Maybe Michael and Kevin have really reached the same conclusion, and will start to push a slighty more art-oriented image for the website; but as they said, it's more difficult to get people into talking, never mind writing, about art, because art forces people into emotional nakedness, and most can't go there very happily.
But we can hope, not for nakedness but for enlightenment.
Rob C
-
There is also the question of "too good". Michael & Kevin make the point that any decent camera now goes a couple of stops beyond the 10-stop zone framework. Software has also made it easy to stack a couple of images and get 15 stops or more. What hasn't changed is the ability of our eyes to see more than 7-8 stops on a front-lit print. So in many cases when I see a 15-stop HDR image shrunk onto 6 stops of colour inkjet print, it doesn't look real: my eyes would never see the scene like that... and so we have "real" photos that look like CGI.
I'd say it's a similar situation to using shutter speed to freeze motion: with a fast lens and a good sensor, it's pretty easy to freeze all motion now, but it looks false. My brain wants to see blur, because it can't accept that a motorcycle moving at 250km/h will have individually visible frozen spokes... So, we don't push to the limit of the technology, we turn down the ISO and we pan to get some blur... or we deliberately blow some highlights and leave blocked up shadows to show that it was in fact night...
-
I really enjoyed the emphasis on the print as being the logical (and more importantly, the artistic) endpoint of photography.
This really resonated with me.
In my evolution as a photographer (I am a child of the digital era really) whenever I had my images up on a monitor even with the ones that looked great I always had a nagging doubt as to how good they really were.
Obviously many (most) were not that good, but it wasn't until I started printing that I realized how good, or conversely, how bad, my images were.
I am strongly of the opinion that any progress that I have made as a photographer has been due to being able to review my prints, usually A2 or larger.
I really do not feel that I would have made as much (or any) real progress as a photographer without having access to my images in print.
Tony Jay
-
Yes, all good points and thanks for the video.
On the one hand I want to be satisfied with the gear I have and just concentrate on the pictures, but on the other I want a new A7000 with twin card slots and a few tiny but awesome lenses. Or maybe a new Fuji XT-2 with 28 MP and and and...
Oh well, there could be worse problems to have... lol
-
It only began to feel not good enough when I stopped working at it for a living, and got into listening to other people too much.
Carve that in stone. Well said.
Rand
-
A similar thought occurred to me last week. I am using an Olympus E-M10, and had been using my 4/3s DSLR lens, the 14-54 as my primary lens because it is so darned GOOD; and it IS good optically, one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I have a deep and abiding love for that lens.
However, the allure of that tiny, light kit lens, is pretty strong, IT is pretty darned convenient, especially as a walk around lens. And I am finding, that as I learn that lens and really start to use it to its best advantage, there really isn't a huge difference between the two. The difference is pretty much an incremental improvement.
The 14-54 is still better, and I use it for my planned shots; but none the less, I am getting some REALLY good photos from that cheap OLYMPUS M.14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II R. Maybe I'm just lucky, and I've gotten one of those mythical, one in a million accidentally great kit lenses, but I'm pretty happy with the lens, and I haven't had that sort of luck in the rest of my life, so what are the odds of it happening now? (Besides if I'm going to get THAT lucky, I'd rather win the state lottery )
I was planning to replace the kit lens with the 12-40 Pro, but I wonder if the kit really IS 'good enough'?
-
The phrase 'Good enough' has little meaning without a specific reference to the end purpose. If the purpose is to make a print, then 'good enough' will vary in accordance with the size of the print that one might decide to make.
If one's printer is A3+ size, for example, and one has no intention or ambition to print larger, then one might consider almost any modern compact camera with walk-around zoom lens, to be good enough. However, some of us might consider such a view to be short-sighted.
What about the future? Even if one has no intention to buy a large, professional printer, there is still the advantage of the greater scope for cropping that a high-megapixel camera affords, whilst still maintaining that 'good enough' standard.
One of the attractions of photography is the surprise one sometimes encounters when later viewing detail on the monitor that one didn't notice at the time of the shot. Within one single capture of a broad scene, there might sometimes be a number of different crops that could make a more interesting photo than a print of the over all scene.
Quite often, when one reviews one's photos taken many years ago, one sees new processing and cropping opportunities to make the image simply a better image in the light of one's greater experience. In such circumstances one doesn't want to be discouraged as a result of noisy shadows and mid-tones, and poor resolution.
Then there's the consideration of the future of large-screen TV displays. I'm waiting for the price of (at least 80") 4k TVs to fall. An 80 inch diagonal print or display is quite large and will reveal any flaws in the image. In another few years, 8k displays will probably become the new standard. An 8k display in 16:9 aspect ratio requires a 32 megapixel image. Those of us who upgraded to a Nikon D810, or Sony A7R2, or Canon 5DRS, will be laughing. ;)
-
Hi Ray,
I would agree on the 8K, but I also see that it takes a big screen to make use of 8K television. Or, you need to sit very close. For me, 8K is most viable in projection. But 8K is a bit beyond the horizon. I did consider buying a 4K projector, about same amount of money as my new A7rII based kit. That would give me worth of say 10 MP on screen.
Best regards
Erik
Then there's the consideration of the future of large-screen TV displays. I'm waiting for the price of (at least 80") 4k TVs to fall. An 80 inch diagonal print or display is quite large and will reveal any flaws in the image. In another few years, 8k displays will probably become the new standard. An 8k display in 16:9 aspect ratio requires a 32 megapixel image. Those of us who upgraded to a Nikon D810, or Sony A7R2, or Canon 5DRS, will be laughing. ;)
-
An 8k display in 16:9 aspect ratio requires a 32 megapixel image. Those of us who upgraded to a Nikon D810, or Sony A7R2, or Canon 5DRS, will be laughing.
This is true - but its also true that the uprezzing algorithms continue to improve. The current uprez capabilities of PS are pretty incredible and give pretty amazing results (especially in print). I imagine in the future lower mega pixel captures might be uprezzed to suit 8k or more displays with extremely good results.
-
A similar thought occurred to me last week. I am using an Olympus E-M10, and had been using my 4/3s DSLR lens, the 14-54 as my primary lens because it is so darned GOOD; and it IS good optically, one of the best lenses I have ever owned. I have a deep and abiding love for that lens.
However, the allure of that tiny, light kit lens, is pretty strong, IT is pretty darned convenient, especially as a walk around lens. And I am finding, that as I learn that lens and really start to use it to its best advantage, there really isn't a huge difference between the two. The difference is pretty much an incremental improvement.
The 14-54 is still better, and I use it for my planned shots; but none the less, I am getting some REALLY good photos from that cheap OLYMPUS M.14-42mm F3.5-5.6 II R. Maybe I'm just lucky, and I've gotten one of those mythical, one in a million accidentally great kit lenses, but I'm pretty happy with the lens, and I haven't had that sort of luck in the rest of my life, so what are the odds of it happening now? (Besides if I'm going to get THAT lucky, I'd rather win the state lottery )
I was planning to replace the kit lens with the 12-40 Pro, but I wonder if the kit really IS 'good enough'?
The 12-40mm Pro may be worth it just because it feels like a solid piece of kit. I am tired of the cheap feeling stuff that Olympus sometimes puts out, even on lenses that aren't inexpensive (specifically the 9-18mm feels like drek).
-
What do you guys do with all these super-sized prints?
Also, while I can understand the satisfaction in getting up close and seeing the detail, for me the main interest in an image, on screen or on paper, is the overall image. Bigger images do not mean more detail for everyone, and getting within a few cm of a 1m diagonal print is as artificial as pixel peeping on screen imho. Others will function differently, of course.
-
Good discussion.
For me, it was for sure good enough with my EOS 1V and 24-70 and 70-200 zooms 15 years ago.
Fast forward to today, and for sure my A7 with both Batis, plus the 55 f1.8, is good enough, and will be more than good enough, until it breaks down.
-
The 12-40mm Pro may be worth it just because it feels like a solid piece of kit. I am tired of the cheap feeling stuff that Olympus sometimes puts out, even on lenses that aren't inexpensive (specifically the 9-18mm feels like drek).
Well, if you mean you like the 12-40 because it's heavy, I'd agree there's a lot to like! But I don't think the use of modern, lighter materials automatically means cheaper.
So far, I haven't felt that I've gotten anything from Olympus that has felt cheaply made. I'm one of those rare birds that bought their gear from a brick and mortar shop and before I bought, I tried just about everything made by Olympus befor I bought into the E-M10. None of it felt cheap to me.
-
Hi Ray,
I would agree on the 8K, but I also see that it takes a big screen to make use of 8K television. Or, you need to sit very close. For me, 8K is most viable in projection. But 8K is a bit beyond the horizon. I did consider buying a 4K projector, about same amount of money as my new A7rII based kit. That would give me worth of say 10 MP on screen.
Best regards
Erik
Hi Erik,
Whilst projectors have the advantage of allowing one to sit further away, they have significant disadvantages regarding image quality. The contrast ratio tends to be lacking and the viewing room needs to be darkened if one wants a reasonably vibrant image, as in a cinema.
If one intends to use an electronic display method as a substitute for paper prints on the wall, I think it's preferable to be able to view one's photos in a normally lit room, as one does with prints.
One of the advantages of the new OLED 4k displays, in addition to their phenomenal contrast ratio and color gamut, is that they are very thin and can be fixed to a wall like a picture frame.
As you know, the price of new technology has a habit of falling significantly as time progresses, as was the case with digital cameras. At the moment a 55" LG 4k OLED TV costs around AU$5,500, and a 65" around AU$10,000. Too small and too expensive for me at present, although I might consider the 65" at half the price. ;)
-
This is true - but its also true that the uprezzing algorithms continue to improve. The current uprez capabilities of PS are pretty incredible and give pretty amazing results (especially in print). I imagine in the future lower mega pixel captures might be uprezzed to suit 8k or more displays with extremely good results.
I'd need to see some direct comparisons of the same scenes before I could comment. My understanding is that down-sampling an image always results in a sharper and less noisy image than the same scene shot with fewer pixels of the same quality, which is another advantage of having more pixels than you might think you need. Those excess pixels have the effect of upgrading all the lenses you use with the camera.
-
Thank you very much for this video. I'm looking forward to your video on the Olympus system, if you decide to do it. That is "good enough" for me at the mo, especially the 12-40mm others have mentioned.
I'd guess the only answer is "good enough is good enough - until it isn't". We change, the world changes, equipment changes or simply starts to fall apart. There's a lot to be said for travelling by means of plateaux, and sticking with what works for a few years or until it absolutely doesn't work anymore, rather than navigating the constant steep valley sides of upgrades and system swapping.
Does everyone print at home? I use a lab. It is far more cost-effective and less hassle since I don't print all the time. If I showed my friends a lab print and one made at home side by side, I wonder how many would notice any difference. Maybe printing is subject to good enough is good enough too. TBH, the guys and gals in my local Snappy Snaps can produce killer 8x10s if they are in the mood :)
-
The one thing I've learned from Luminous Landscape is that good enough is only good enough until the next new camera comes out. It is rather funny reading the posts here in this thread where people are all pleased with their good enough cameras which just happen to be the latest models.
Ken
-
What do you guys do with all these super-sized prints?
Also, while I can understand the satisfaction in getting up close and seeing the detail, for me the main interest in an image, on screen or on paper, is the overall image. Bigger images do not mean more detail for everyone, and getting within a few cm of a 1m diagonal print is as artificial as pixel peeping on screen imho. Others will function differently, of course.
I thumbtack them to the wall in my workshop. If someone makes a big deal about it, I'll sell it to them.
But the print IS the thing. I have an HD (1440) monitor and it can't begin to show the detail a large print can.
Remember when we were saying 12 mp was enough? Then 24? Then 36? Hell, there will never be enough mp's to satisfy some people. And there's always bragging rights ;D.
-
Hey people bemoaning the weight of all that kit - consider it exercise! Plus, you can't wimp out and throw it away if it gets too heavy mid-trip, unlike the traditional weights system (water bottles).
"Good enough" can be defined as "the camera and lens in my hands when the opportunity for a great photo arises". If you are sitting around not seeing good photos, no equipment is "good enough".
-
My newest camera is a Moto X phone. The next oldest is a Nikon D3100. Next up we go back quite a few more years.
They're all good enough.
-
Not that long ago there was this review https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/
that if I remember well didn't make it to the forum. Maybe the message was too inconvenient, but it was on par with my own experience.
Having said that the naked truth is that I love those new toys too, dive into them, and make an effort to rationalize why I should buy them anyway. My more pragmatic inner voice says that next years new model will sure be the better one to buy, so maybe last years model has the better price quality relation.. it's just less sexy.
-
I firmly believe "Good is good enough" is right up there in cosmic intellectual and emotional value with "the best camera is the one you have with you". Of course, there are real truths in both axioms. Yet there is also a lot to be said for choosing the "right" camera and lens for any specific photographic endeavor. Would you really haul out an old 8x10 view camera to take pictures at a sporting event? But that heavy old 8x10 View camera might very well inspire you to create one amazing image on a day trek along the Appalachian Trail. And that's why we all want to know about other photographers' experiences with new photographic gear :). New product reviews help us refine our ever-changing assessment of what is the best camera to choose at the right time and the right place. Keep up the the good work Michael and Kevin.
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
I would agree on the 8K, but I also see that it takes a big screen to make use of 8K television. Or, you need to sit very close. For me, 8K is most viable in projection. But 8K is a bit beyond the horizon.
Yep. I've now owned a 42.5" 4K TV for about a month. This is really about as large as I want to go…no interest in a home theater installation and definitely no interest in allowing the TV to dominate my rec room. (There are often consecutive days when the thing never gets turned on.) Anyway I've used it to view lots of photos taken at or cropped to 16:9 and then down-resed to both 3840x2160 and 1920x1080 pixels. From my normal viewing distance of ~2.5 meters it's sometimes hard to tell the higher- & lower-res versions apart. Usually I can tell but in no case does the lower-res version look subpar. It's just not—in direct comparison—quite as crisp or vibrant. Viewed on their own all the photos look fine & dandy from a technical standpoint. This suggests to me that 8K, whenever it comes, will be great for large-scale projection, like in a theater, but mostly unnecessary for home display. Thus I've abandoned any thoughts of "future proofing" for 8K…IMO not necessary.
-Dave-
-
Not that long ago there was this review https://luminous-landscape.com/canon-5ds-review-through-print-performance/
that if I remember well didn't make it to the forum. Maybe the message was too inconvenient, but it was on par with my own experience.
Ta for the link Hans as I missed that article. A typically thorough and real world write up from Keith.
-
Yep. I've now owned a 42.5" 4K TV for about a month. This is really about as large as I want to go…no interest in a home theater installation and definitely no interest in allowing the TV to dominate my rec room. (There are often consecutive days when the thing never gets turned on.)
I can also go a week or so without watching TV, but I went from an 28" SD CRT to a projector than produces an 80" image. With a decent input it is wonderful and is far more immersive than a smaller screen. Size really does matter and is why cinema can be so impressive. I never saw a flat screen TV that I wanted to buy as the image always looked too digital for my taste. The projector has a far more natural 'filmic' look. With a decent input that is, like with Netflix or Amazon Prime. My expensive cable provider Virgin Media however has recently done something to their encoding and picture quality is now shocking. Really, really shocking. May be binning them and save some money.
I only go in that room to watch TV and do not faff on computer, eat my tea or read a newspaper if watching a programme. So having room set up like a cinema is just fine for me. Though girlfriend will have side light on and computer on lap when she's watching her stuff, but then she's oblivious to good quality images or good sound. The cliched female disinterest in hifi/AV.
-
The phrase 'Good enough' has little meaning without a specific reference to the end purpose. If the purpose is to make a print, then 'good enough' will vary in accordance with the size of the print that one might decide to make.
If one's printer is A3+ size, for example, and one has no intention or ambition to print larger, then one might consider almost any modern compact camera with walk-around zoom lens, to be good enough. However, some of us might consider such a view to be short-sighted.
I can only make a 24" x 16" print at 300dpi without manufacturing pixels and my mamiya 7 can deliver more resolution
The eye is estimated to deal with 20 stops of DR (albeit not simultaneously) and my camera has 14
I get out of focus pictures due to the focus errors by the af system
No accurate exposure preview is available in any viewfinder
I can still only sync with flash at 1/250s
etc.
We are a long way from 'good enough' but the future is promising with the advantages of ditching the mirror becoming available but we really need electronic shutters like the nikon 1-series to go with it though. Focus systems and EVFs also have some way to go.
I can't help but feel there is a pervasive laziness in photography these days: too heavy, can't be bothered, just use my iphone image quality be damned.
-
I can only make a 24" x 16" print at 300dpi without manufacturing pixels and my mamiya 7 can deliver more resolution
You simply do not need 300dpi for very large prints because you tend to view them from much further away than say a magazine or smaller prints. A double truck image in a magazine at about normal reading distance equates [field of view wise] to an image about 4.5 foot wide on wall of my office at 5 foot viewing distance, which would also be sensible/comfortable distance for such a big print. You only need very high res for folk who like to look at images from a few inches away. Magazines, especially larger format ones are where you need the highest quality dpi as that's when you tend to view images up the closest.
Apple are using very large shots taken on the recent iPhone to advertise the camera and they are nowhere near 300dpi. There's been some very careful selection of imagery it has to be said and some upscaling must have been done. But they do look pretty good considering the camera shots tend to look pretty mushy on a 26" monitor if you zoomit at all or are not taken in amazing lighting at it's lowest ISO.
-
Yep. I've now owned a 42.5" 4K TV for about a month. This is really about as large as I want to go…no interest in a home theater installation and definitely no interest in allowing the TV to dominate my rec room.
I could have advised you, Dave, that a 42 inch TV screen would be unsatisfyingly small for 4K.
My standard HDTV plasma screen is 65", and I've tested the required viewing distance for discerning the maximum detail in my downsized photographic images of 5-6mp. It's around 2 to 2.5 metres.
However, when viewing prints on a wall, they are usually viewed from a variety of distances. Those who are interested will often get closer to appreciate the finer detail, as one does with any object of interest, such as a wooden carving, decorative plate or vase sitting on a shelf.
Of course, if an image doesn't contain any fine detail, texture or small objects of interest, there's less motive to view from a closer distance.
The attraction of a large print, or a large viewing screen, is basically the opportunity to appreciate the image from a variety of perspectives and distances, and to be able to view subsets of the scene, as one does in the real world.
Another issue is this concept of the TV dominating the room. I hear this objection often and I assume it is a hangover from the days when TVs were big boxes that took up floor space. A modern OLED screen can be just a few millimetres thick and fixed to the wall. One does need wall space, of course, as one does to hang up any print. However, if you think the presence of a large screen on the wall is too dominating or obtrusive, try being a bit creative. Paint the wall a similar shade or color to the screen. ;)
-
I could have advised you, Dave, that a 42 inch TV screen would be unsatisfyingly small for 4K.
Oh no, it's not unsatisfyingly small at all. What it is…is high enough in res for its size that the res is no longer a factor. When it's on I'm watching the program or looking at the image, with no awareness of the screen. Which IMO is at it should be.
Another issue is this concept of the TV dominating the room. I hear this objection often and I assume it is a hangover from the days when TVs were big boxes that took up floor space. A modern OLED screen can be just a few millimetres thick and fixed to the wall. One does need wall space, of course, as one does to hang up any print. However, if you think the presence of a large screen on the wall is too dominating or obtrusive, try being a bit creative. Paint the wall a similar shade or color to the screen. ;)
No way. The TV is an adjunct object in my rec room, not at all the center of it. My walls contain a few (oft changed) prints of mine, paintings by my friend Kirsten, a couple music-related posters and some guitars. Amps and more guitars take up much of the floor space. The TV sits atop a table in a corner, where it belongs. :)
-Dave-
-
Good enough is 6 KG and a pair of M43 cameras shooting still and video versus 19 KG shooting still better and video better but at 3 times the weight and trouble. When the ink hits the paper, it's hard to tell the difference when good craft is used throughout the process. As I age, I want to pack that 19 KG boat anchor less and less when the 6 KG system is one third the weight and 1/4 the bulk. Best of all, I'm more mobile, and less conspicuous and can work longer hours with less exertion. Now, if only my iPhone had a 15-300mm f/2.8 lens and raw with ISO 6400. That would be ideal for the road!
-
Another issue is this concept of the TV dominating the room.
why it is an issue - don't you have enough rooms to have one dedicated to TV actually ? unless you are in, sorry, Europe.
-
why it is an issue - don't you have enough rooms to have one dedicated to TV actually ? unless you are in, sorry, Europe.
It's not an issue for me, and I see no reason to have a dedicated room for the TV. I watch the news fairly regularly on TV, as well as discussion programs, comedy programs, historical programs, nature programs, operas from Blu-Ray discs, and slide presentations of my own photos.
I prefer to have the TV in the largest room in the house where I spend most of my time, awake that is.
When the price is right, I'll probably stick an 84" OLED 4k screen to a wall in that largest room. When the TV is switched off, it'll look like a closed window. When it's on, it'll be like an open window to a vast variety of scenery. ;)
-
Hey people bemoaning the weight of all that kit - consider it exercise! Plus, you can't wimp out and throw it away if it gets too heavy mid-trip, unlike the traditional weights system (water bottles).
"Good enough" can be defined as "the camera and lens in my hands when the opportunity for a great photo arises". If you are sitting around not seeing good photos, no equipment is "good enough".
I prefer other types of exercise. The point is, for many of us, there is no pint in continuing to carry heavy gear, when you can carry lighter gear without any compromise in image quality.
As for "good enough", I have seen opportunities for great photos, but I only had my smartphone with me. It happens, and I have learned to move on. And on those occasions, the camera and lens I had with me (said smartphone) was certainly not good enough...
-
Good enough for what? It's certainly true that technical standards are very high with today's cameras and lenses. I think the vexed 'is it good enough' question boils down to a couple of questions that're more subtle though: can you see the difference, and if you can, does it matter?
I print up to A3+ size, and I can see the difference between the 16MP output of my Ricoh GR and X-Pro1, and the 36MP output of my D810. That said, the difference isn't mind blowing, and you it could be argued that if you're looking closely enough to see the difference, then you're too close to the image. On a computer screen, and 100%, of course you can see the difference, although in that case, it can CERTAINLY be argued that you're looking too closely.
All things being equal, though, why wouldn't you achieve the highest technical standard possible? The question really comes down to purchasing and upgrade decisions; there's no denying that 16MP APS-C is plenty good enough for most purposes, so unless you've got some specific requirement or money to burn, why buy new cameras?
-
You simply do not need 300dpi for very large prints because you tend to view them from much further away than say a magazine or smaller prints. A double truck image in a magazine at about normal reading distance equates [field of view wise] to an image about 4.5 foot wide on wall of my office at 5 foot viewing distance, which would also be sensible/comfortable distance for such a big print. You only need very high res for folk who like to look at images from a few inches away.
I'm the latter :) and so don't describe to the viewing distance argument. Unless people are physically stopped from viewing a print anywhere near up-close many get drawn in and the magic quickly goes when the image falls apart even at exhibition viewing distances. The vast majority of prints I see at exhibition are way over enlarged for the quality of the file which is a major distraction imo and loses the sense of immersion.
At A3 size I can easily tell 36MP from 12MP and when I shot a D700 I'd stitch 9-12 frames together to get anything like adequate resolution. When we get to 100MP then perhaps I'd say resolution-wise it is good enough.
-
I'm the latter :) and so don't describe to the viewing distance argument. Unless people are physically stopped from viewing a print anywhere near up-close many get drawn in and the magic quickly goes when the image falls apart even at exhibition viewing distances. The vast majority of prints I see at exhibition are way over enlarged for the quality of the file which is a major distraction imo and loses the sense of immersion.
At A3 size I can easily tell 36MP from 12MP and when I shot a D700 I'd stitch 9-12 frames together to get anything like adequate resolution. When we get to 100MP then perhaps I'd say resolution-wise it is good enough.
Am in complete agreement. My usual print is 40 X 30 or 48 X 27 mostly shot with an IQ180 or Leaf Credo 50. I have lots of wall space in my large home and I have yet to have a single person simply view at a distance...... they all want to walk into the print. So..... I need and want the most DPI I can get my hands on.
Victor
-
Am in complete agreement. My usual print is 40 X 30 or 48 X 27 mostly shot with an IQ180 or Leaf Credo 50. I have lots of wall space in my large home and I have yet to have a single person simply view at a distance...... they all want to walk into the print. So..... I need and want the most DPI I can get my hands on.
Victor
Fair enough, but it could still be argued that people are looking too closely [because if you're looking closely enough to see the pixels, then you can't take in the whole composition/image].
Appropriate scales of analysis need to come into this. Take audio DAC performance. If you play a recorded pianissimo passage, then crank the gain up such that it's deafening, then DAC noise may be a problem, as might other artefacts or distortions that would be inaudible at an appropriate gain. But they're only audible because the gain (volume) is inappropriate. At such a gain setting, a full scale ff would be deafening and might damage the equipment!
Ask yourself, what is the point of huge prints? The reason is, so that the image can be viewed from a considerable distance. If you're viewing from a considerable distance, then you won't be able to see the pixels. If you stand very close to such a print, then of course you'll see technical 'problems' that would be invisible at more appropriate print sizes/viewing distances.
All that aside, I would make two points. First, I don't see how any professional photographer could really justify living in ignorance of technical image quality. I'll grant that the number of scenarios in which ultimate image quality might matter may be limited; but if you hire a pro, then you have a right to expect the practitioner to be capable of the best technical standards of the time. Second, and in contradiction to my last point, how many times have you heard of people standing with their noses pressed up against a great painting and moaned that they can see the brushstrokes?
In sum, I don't really see how anyone could complain that camera manufacturers and photographers are trying to do better with respect of technical image quality; but at the same time, it's clear to a pig that such technical quality doesn't make a photo worth seeing. If you look too closely at ANYTHING you'll find 'problems'; but they're only problems if you can perceive them at appropriate levels of analysis.
-
Nicely said Alex.
People on here unsurprisingly tend to be pixel peepers and are the sort who do want to view images from a few centimeters away.
I prefer to look at the whole image myself.
-
Ask yourself, what is the point of huge prints? The reason is, so that the image can be viewed from a considerable distance. If you're viewing from a considerable distance, then you won't be able to see the pixels. If you stand very close to such a print, then of course you'll see technical 'problems' that would be invisible at more appropriate print sizes/viewing distances.
All that aside, I would make two points. First, I don't see how any professional photographer could really justify living in ignorance of technical image quality. I'll grant that the number of scenarios in which ultimate image quality might matter may be limited; but if you hire a pro, then you have a right to expect the practitioner to be capable of the best technical standards of the time. Second, and in contradiction to my last point, how many times have you heard of people standing with their noses pressed up against a great painting and moaned that they can see the brushstrokes?
In my own case, I find my A3+ black/whites from both the D200 and the D700 as well as from many more 135 Kodachromes perfectly good at that size.
In fact, when I have an image up on the monitor, I always tend to reduce it to about A5 when I make the initial adjustments to overall contrast, tone etc. Making the image larger makes my eyes wander around and lose the overall sense of the thing.
If people want huge prints, good for them; if not, no problem with that either.
As with most comparisons between photographs and paintings, they hold no water and are usually best not made. Brush strokes are very much part of the painter's identity, and though you could argue that grain is also a part of a photographer's identity, it's not, really, it's part of the film's identity, and zillions of photographers have used identical films.
Rob C
-
If people want huge prints, good for them; if not, no problem with that either.
Quite so. I think what I was trying to tease out, though, is why print so big? If the actual image is what is of interest, then one can print quite big enough in a book. I sometimes wonder if really huge prints cause us to appreciate the wrong things, like music played too loudly. The superficial aspects of the presentation, the size, or loudness, brightness etc., distract from what it actually says. Not very much in a lot of cases!
I dunno. Scale means something. Dali's Christ of St John of the Cross is big, Rembrandt’s Entombment Sketch just across the road in the Hunterian is small. Is either of those masterpieces misrepresented by the smaller print? I don't think so, although I would never argue that they aren't at their best in their original sizes, large or small. Photographers should think twice before they try to argue that the biggest print must be the best!
-
Nicely said Alex.
People on here unsurprisingly tend to be pixel peepers and are the sort who do want to view images from a few centimeters away.
I prefer to look at the whole image myself.
I don't think it has anything to do with pixel peeping. When people look at an interesting object they will take in the whole of it first but then also get drawn into the details of the various elements. What you are suggesting is effectively putting a barrier Xft away to deliberately deny people this experience. Why shouldn't people experience prints from all sorts of distances?
Anyway, the viewing distance argument falls into the same unfortunate category as 'the camera doesn't matter' and the myriad of other topics no one can agree on.
-
There are some strange concepts being expressd here. 'Good enough' only applies to situations where discernibly better results are not apparent from a particular viewing distance.
A large print made from a 12mp image, from a certain distance, may appear just as satisfying as the same size print from a 36mp image, from the same distance, if that distance is great.
If the viewing distance is close, then the 36mp image provides more satisfying results.
If the print is small, then 12mp may be good enough.
What's the problem?
-
There are some strange concepts being expressd here. 'Good enough' only applies to situations where discernibly better results are not apparent from a particular viewing distance.
A large print made from a 12mp image, from a certain distance, may appear just as satisfying as the same size print from a 36mp image, from the same distance, if that distance is great.
If the viewing distance is close, then the 36mp image provides more satisfying results.
If the print is small, then 12mp may be good enough.
What's the problem?
I agree. In the past 2-3 weeks I've looked at exhibition prints at maybe 14" or 18" on the long side of images taken taken by Sebastião Salgado and Harry Gruyaert, presumably on 35mm film and dating from a good 20-30 years ago in both cases, and I can't see what the problem is with lower resolutions like 16 mpx in today's digital cameras. Unless someone wants to print pretty darn big, in which case I suspect one is into a different ballgame anyway. I think many images work better as images at smaller sizes; other need more expansive treatment - and maybe that is in the mind of the photographer at the time? As for viewing distances, don't we each find our own? Mine isn't 6" away. Besides, viewing distance varies with the kind of image one is looking at. Sometimes you have to step back, or forward, to "see" the whole picture.
-
I don't think it has anything to do with pixel peeping. When people look at an interesting object they will take in the whole of it first but then also get drawn into the details of the various elements. What you are suggesting is effectively putting a barrier Xft away to deliberately deny people this experience. Why shouldn't people experience prints from all sorts of distances?
By all means look closely. At a certain distance/magnification, you'll start to see the aberrations, pixels, paper weave... molecules and atoms eventually! Is it necessarily a problem that you can see these things if you're looking so closely you can't see the whole image, i.e, what you're supposed to be looking at?
I'll have the best resolution possible please, all other things being equal, to make my images as scrutiny-proof as possible; but I'm still not sure they necessarily SHOULD withstand such scrutiny. Does anyone complain that they can see Picasso's brushstrokes if they stand 10cm from the canvass? Thought not!
-
As for viewing distances, don't we each find our own?
Sort of. I think the idea is that you stand as close as you can so that you can view the entire image without having to move your eyes or head around.
-
Quite so. I think what I was trying to tease out, though, is why print so big? If the actual image is what is of interest, then one can print quite big enough in a book. I sometimes wonder if really huge prints cause us to appreciate the wrong things, like music played too loudly. The superficial aspects of the presentation, the size, or loudness, brightness etc., distract from what it actually says. Not very much in a lot of cases!
I dunno. Scale means something. Dali's Christ of St John of the Cross is big, Rembrandt’s Entombment Sketch just across the road in the Hunterian is small. Is either of those masterpieces misrepresented by the smaller print? I don't think so, although I would never argue that they aren't at their best in their original sizes, large or small. Photographers should think twice before they try to argue that the biggest print must be the best!
That was funny: I remember standing in front of it quite often during my stay in Glasgow and trying to paint the damned thing at home from postcards bought at the Kelvingrove art gallery. It looked far better in life than on my titchy copies, but that's probably more to do with Dali than Rob C!
Some crazy attacked it there, as far as I remember.
Strange how memories come back... never imagined this type would be from a pixel-peepin' eyrie on the Internet!
Rob C
-
By all means look closely. At a certain distance/magnification, you'll start to see the aberrations, pixels, paper weave... molecules and atoms eventually! Is it necessarily a problem that you can see these things if you're looking so closely you can't see the whole image, i.e, what you're supposed to be looking at?
I'll have the best resolution possible please, all other things being equal, to make my images as scrutiny-proof as possible; but I'm still not sure they necessarily SHOULD withstand such scrutiny. Does anyone complain that they can see Picasso's brushstrokes if they stand 10cm from the canvass? Thought not!
I still don't understand why anyone thinks an audience isn't 'supposed' to look at areas of an image as well as the whole of it the same way as enjoying looking at anything else in the world but we each cater to our own for our own purposes.
Brush strokes in painting are hardly the same thing
-
I still don't understand why anyone thinks an audience isn't 'supposed' to look at areas of an image as well as the whole of it the same way as enjoying looking at anything else in the world but we each cater to our own for our own purposes.
Brush strokes in painting are hardly the same thing
You are being informed about 'how to view an image' by an expert! Obviously everything you have done up to now has been incorrect. I don't know how you're going to make it through life.
Victor
-
…I would make two points. First, I don't see how any professional photographer could really justify living in ignorance of technical image quality. I'll grant that the number of scenarios in which ultimate image quality might matter may be limited; but if you hire a pro, then you have a right to expect the practitioner to be capable of the best technical standards of the time. Second, and in contradiction to my last point, how many times have you heard of people standing with their noses pressed up against a great painting and moaned that they can see the brushstrokes?
Both good points IMO. If I were ever to have a gallery showing I'd have barriers put up to keep people at my prefered viewing distance. After all, it's my show…you'll damn well look at my work the way I want you to.
OTOH when it comes to paintings I love getting up close and studying the brushstroke patterns and the texture of the canvas or board or even the paint itself. There's a particular van Gogh painting at the Detroit Institute of Arts, boats on the river Oise, that invites close study as he used a heavy impasto technique when creating it. Seeing the 3D nature of the paint along with fine brushstroke (and fingerprint!) details from just a few inches away is an emotional experience. These things say: A human being made this! Different medium, different way(s) of appreciation.
On a related note, some years ago there was a Winogrand exhibit—mainly color photos—at the International Center of Photography in New York. Many of the photos were printed quite large, large enough to easily see the grain textures & patterns of the films he was using. This I enjoyed very much. The key IMO is that there was no pixelating (the prints were photochemical/analog anyway)…the image detail blended seamlessly into the grain. OTOH when I look up close at a large, highly-detailed print from a high-res digital file I don't get much enjoyment from it. There's no visible substrate there, only the image itself. It wants to pretend it's showing me reality rather than an interpretation thereof, but I know better…and am put off. You could say it's too good for its own good. YMMV, of course.
-Dave-
-
On a related note, some years ago there was a Winogrand exhibit—mainly color photos—at the International Center of Photography in New York. Many of the photos were printed quite large, large enough to easily see the grain textures & patterns of the films he was using. This I enjoyed very much. The key IMO is that there was no pixelating (the prints were photochemical/analog anyway)…the image detail blended seamlessly into the grain. OTOH when I look up close at a large, highly-detailed print from a high-res digital file I don't get much enjoyment from it. There's no visible substrate there, only the image itself. It wants to pretend it's showing me reality rather than an interpretation thereof, but I know better…and am put off. You could say it's too good for its own good. YMMV, of course.
-Dave-
That's the 'fine art' related problem with digital: it's still trying to pretend to be something that it's not. It just isn't visceral, organic; it's an illusion, a failure compounded by the knowledge that at the end of the day, you can't even hold an original in your hot little human hand. It belongs to the wrong end of science fiction. Or to professional end-user's output, where what you are given is all you must ever expect; hope for nothing beyond the present you are handed on a screen or on the printed page; think of owning it as you own a movie.
Remove the expectation of art, and digital is fine: it suits my modest, personally directed and internally motivated uses perfectly: if I like what I get, that's all that matters today when I no longer even print, just gaze in awe at my website and wonder why...
Should there be more if I am not hoping for a gallery?
Rob C
-
Quite so. I think what I was trying to tease out, though, is why print so big? If the actual image is what is of interest, then one can print quite big enough in a book. I sometimes wonder if really huge prints cause us to appreciate the wrong things, like music played too loudly. The superficial aspects of the presentation, the size, or loudness, brightness etc., distract from what it actually says. Not very much in a lot of cases!
I dunno. Scale means something. Dali's Christ of St John of the Cross is big, Rembrandt’s Entombment Sketch just across the road in the Hunterian is small. Is either of those masterpieces misrepresented by the smaller print? I don't think so, although I would never argue that they aren't at their best in their original sizes, large or small. Photographers should think twice before they try to argue that the biggest print must be the best!
Size does matter. An image or film on your phone/tablet at close range may take up the same angle of view as looking at a much larger print at several feet away, but the smaller prints still look smaller [because they literally are] and less impressive as a result.
Have you ever seen Gursky or Gregory Crewdson's work in the flesh, they are so much better for seeing them as large prints or very large prints in Gursky's case. As opposed to looking at them in coffee table books or magazines. Let alone as small images on screens.
However some images work better as small images that demand you stand close to the print. Whatever suits the subject or artist's intent as your two examples illustrate nicely.
I also do not like to pass final judgement on artwork unless I've seen it in the flesh as the artist intended. One reason is that I sold posters around Universities for a while. Which was very educational regarding people's tastes and fashion in imagery. We sold a lot of very good quality reproductions of famous art works, but they paled when compared to times when I saw the real thing.
Another reason was that I'd seen this Philip Jones Griffiths photo of a napalm victim in magazines numerous times before I saw a print of it in Manchester Art Gallery. A good photo, but in the flesh it was a great shot as it was so much more powerful and moving. Surprisingly so.
(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NJlfLoCbdGE/UwhohUa_c5I/AAAAAAAAQko/gqR6N77X3L0/s1600/33)+.JPG)
-
One thing mentioned in the video is that with all the dynamic range available with digial you can make a better print than you could have from black & white film.
I don't think this is true. I've never seen an inkjet print that came close to a GOOD black & white analogue print, and I've looked and tried a lot!
-
That's the 'fine art' related problem with digital: it's still trying to pretend to be something that it's not. It just isn't visceral, organic; it's an illusion, a failure compounded by the knowledge that at the end of the day, you can't even hold an original in your hot little human hand.
A print skilfully made from a B+W negative is no more 'original' than a print rof a raw file carefully crafted and then printed by your digital darkroom.
I've fooled film purists on here with digital images, that according to them proved how much better film was than digital. Why? Apparently they had a certain something that digital lacked. ;D
-
One thing mentioned in the video is that with all the dynamic range available with digial you can make a better print than you could have from black & white film.
I don't think this is true. I've never seen an inkjet print that came close to a GOOD black & white analogue print, and I've looked and tried a lot!
An interesting point. I often look at prints made at trade shows to demo how good the latest printers are and too often they look digital/video like.
However I recall seeing a B+W print some years back and thinking how very difficult that shot would have been to capture with film.
A good digital print is in fact as rare as a good darkroom print.
Now if you look at prints that paper manufacturers display at shows, as opposed to ones printer manufacturers put up they are far usually far, far better.
The impressive B+W print I mentioned above was done by a paper producer IIRC.
-
A print skilfully made from a B+W negative is no more 'original' than a print of a raw file carefully crafted and then printed by your digital darkroom.
Yes, I agree with this. You could even say the neg print is more "artificial" as it's more likely to contain at least some grain texture, whereas the digital file is likely to be relatively texture-less. I personally feel the texture is a plus but I know plenty of people who feel otherwise…and their æsthetic is likely to prevail long-term given the direction imaging tech is headed in. At least this gives me something to be a cranky old man about…once I'm an old man. ;D
-Dave-
-
Yes, I agree with this. You could even say the neg print is more "artificial" as it's more likely to contain at least some grain texture, whereas the digital file is likely to be relatively texture-less. I personally feel the texture is a plus but I know plenty of people who feel otherwise…and their æsthetic is likely to prevail long-term given the direction imaging tech is headed in. At least this gives me something to be a cranky old man about…once I'm an old man. ;D
-Dave-
That's the point I was trying to get across above, Dave: grain is part of the thing, can actually be a specific part of its visual identity; pixels are not. Not to use any of my own stuff as examples - just take a look at some of the very different pictures from Robert Frank, where grain plays a very large rôle in creating identity and emotional content, thus adding a huge part of the visual tension. The same applies in many other cases too. This doesn't make the film-derived image more artificial: it makes it more a photograph. What it means is what I originally indicated: the two are different mediums and can't really be compared beyond their specific function - commerce, and the final commercial use of the image suiting digital very well, and art being better served with film.
Rob C
-
There's another issue which hasn't been mentioned so far, and that's the effect that increased pixel quality and quantity has on lens performance and effective focal length range.
Let's take the example of someone who thinks that the 8 megapixels of the Canon 20D is good enough. That's a camera that I was very impressed with a few years ago. The pixel quality and high-ISO performance was a major upgrade from my 6mp D60, and the 8mp were certainly good enough for A3+ size prints.
Let's consider the case of someone who is still using the 20D today. He can afford to buy a 50mp 5DSR but sees no point. He thinks he doesn't need the extra resolution, and he's not interested in video, but he is interested in various type of photography, and has a variety of Canon lenses ranging from wide-angle primes to telephoto primes and zooms.
Now it so happens that the pixel quality of the 5DSR, according to DXOMark, is approximately as good as the 20D pixel, despite being smaller. Dynamic range at all ISOs is identical for both cameras at the pixel level. SNR at 18%, Tonal Range and Color Sensitivity are just slightly worse for the 5DSR pixel, but not to a significant degree that would be of concern to someone who considers 8mp to be good enough.
The advantages of the 50mp 5DSR in relation to either a downsampled 8mp image or a crop to 8mp are just amazing. For example, a 50/f1.4 lens on the 20D is effectively a fixed 80/F1.4. You can't get wider without taking multiple shots for stitching, and you can't get narrower without sacrificing pixels. However, on the 5DSR, that same lens becomes a 50-125mm zoom with a constant maximum aperture of F1.4, in relation to that 'good enough' 8mp standard.
The 100-400mm zoom becomes a 160-640 zoom on the 20D, taking into consideration the crop factor. On the 5DSR the crop factor of 8mp taken from the centre of the frame is 2.5x. In relation to the 8mp standard, the 100-400 zoom becomes a 100-1000mm zoom. Wow! What a lens! ;D
Which would you rather have? The extra weight is a mere 100gms or so, and if you're worried about being able to see the subject through a 400mm lens which is effectively 1000mm, there's the LiveView facility which the 20D doesn't have.
-
That's the point I was trying to get across above, Dave: grain is part of the thing, can actually be a specific part of its visual identity; pixels are not. Not to use any of my own stuff as examples - just take a look at some of the very different pictures from Robert Frank, where grain plays a very large rôle in creating identity and emotional content, thus adding a huge part of the visual tension. The same applies in many other cases too. This doesn't make the film-derived image more artificial: it makes it more a photograph. What it means is what I originally indicated: the two are different mediums and can't really be compared beyond their specific function - commerce, and the final commercial use of the image suiting digital very well, and art being better served with film.
Nonsense.
Grain can be also found in digital imagery, just as it can with film. It's called noise instead, which is what grain is too.
The fact that those who claim film is somehow intrinsically superior can be fooled by digital images undermines that whole argument.
B+W film and colour slide are also different mediums as are prints and slide shows.
-
Cats and Pigeons
http://leicaphilia.com/film-photography-and-the-revival-of-the-imperfect/
-
More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is.
-
More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is.
:-)
Rob C
-
More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is.
I like. :) The question that emerges is: What quality do YOU need to create what you want, or is your aim. Somewhere there must be the answer if good is good enough..
-
Nonsense.
Grain can be also found in digital imagery, just as it can with film. It's called noise instead, which is what grain is too.
The fact that those who claim film is somehow intrinsically superior can be fooled by digital images undermines that whole argument.
Not really. Grain and noise are not the same. It's not a question of one medium being superior to the other, it's just that they are different.
Grain has over 100 years of history behind it that shapes our expectations and shapes the way we read an image. That shaping can't be avoided any more than we can avoid being influenced by the choice of instuments for a piece of music. It's become part of our culture, for want of a better expression.
Sure, I can make a digital image look like film, and vice versa. Doing so is a bit bizarre though.
I use film for some projects and digital for others. I'd rather have the effect I want done at the point of capture than show off my Photoshop skills (or lack of them).
Cats and Pigeons
http://leicaphilia.com/film-photography-and-the-revival-of-the-imperfect/
Interesting link. He's correct about serendipity. Many photographers today don't want that as part of their work, but allowing for that at every stage of a workflow opens doors artistically that the crowd miss. It's part of film's dna. But I don't go along with him with his comment on perfection and what we all "should do". Each to his own.
D
-
More silly naive nonsense -> The medium is irrelevant.
-
Well, are you saying that it doesn't matter whether an artist's work is carved in stone or written on a score? There may be an element of truth in that but for many of us the medium does matter. Our emotional and intellectual response changes. If your experience is different, fine. But don't expect others to agree.
D
-
Well, are you saying that it doesn't matter whether an artist's work is carved in stone or written on a score? There may be an element of truth in that but for many of us the medium does matter. Our emotional and intellectual response changes. If your experience is different, fine. But don't expect others to agree.
D
David, I think that's a response to the jjj post (below) that's being quoted, not an agreement with it:
"More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is."
Of course, I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I don't think so.
Rob
-
David, I think that's a response to the jjj post (below) that's being quoted, not an agreement with it:
"More silly naive nonsense.
The medium is irrelevant, the person taking the photo, wielding the brush, chiseling the stone etc is what makes the end result what it is."
Of course, I could be wrong in my interpretation, but I don't think so.
Rob
Oh. Okay. Thank heavens I wasn't wearing steel caps today.
-
More silly naive nonsense -> The medium is irrelevant.
Yes it is - to the point being made.
Not in and of itself. Do try and keep up dear boy.
-
Not really. Grain and noise are not the same.
And neither are Tri-X and Kodachrome. The differences as such do not matter to the Rob's point.
It's not a question of one medium being superior to the other, it's just that they are different.
Which is my point.
Grain has over 100 years of history behind it that shapes our expectations and shapes the way we read an image. That shaping can't be avoided any more than we can avoid being influenced by the choice of instuments for a piece of music. It's become part of our culture, for want of a better expression.
Sure, I can make a digital image look like film, and vice versa. Doing so is a bit bizarre though.
Not really, I used to choose specific film and developer used in unusual ways to get the grainy look I wanted from film. If I can do the same thing with digital and it's easier to do, how is that bizarre? More efficient I'd say. My old Ricoh compact is technically rubbish quality, but it produced nicely grainy imagery with little effort on my part. People have thought images captured by it were taken using film.
I use film for some projects and digital for others. I'd rather have the effect I want done at the point of capture than show off my Photoshop skills (or lack of them).
No-one else cares how you did something, the only thing that matters is the end result. PS skills are also not needed to make digital look filmic. Though it is telling that you allude to a lack of PS skills. People who spurn things done via PS usually cannot use it and that is the real cause of their objection to the method/process.
Interesting link. He's correct about serendipity. Many photographers today don't want that as part of their work, but allowing for that at every stage of a workflow opens doors artistically that the crowd miss. It's part of film's dna. But I don't go along with him with his comment on perfection and what we all "should do". Each to his own.
. There's this enormous myth about doing things digitally and perfection. If people think mistakes are not made and the results are always as expected with digital they've deluded. You just get kinds of mistakes which open different doors. Plus ça change.
Also many artists want things to come out exactly as they intended at some point regardless of mistakes being made along the way. Which is why they practice their technique to be able to do just that.
-
Ray
It's all relative. Maybe it depends on the size of your house. Here in the UK there are, of course, houses and flats of all sizes and proportions but the housing stock is largely dominated by the mass of ubiquitous pre and post war suburban estate semi-detached house builds. And the largest room typically in those houses (if unaltered) is often something between 12 feet by 12 feet to about 15 feet by 13 feet. My 1950s house has a living room that is 18' x 13' so is slightly above average. 21st century houses are often tiny.
We have a 27" LCD TV in our living room and I happen to think it dominates the room far too much. I look out of the window here and can watch TV on my neighbour's TV across the road as their TV appears to span half their living room hanging on the wall like a huge mirror. They seem to have turned their living room into a private cinema. Why? Surely there are better things in life than working all day just so you can watch TV. My TV gets switched on maybe 4 times a year, so I'd prefer it to be invisible most of the time. Frankly, a 65" TV would probably require me to knock down a wall... ;-)
What's the best print size? Who can say. I find I'm most happy with prints that are around 9" or 10" wide matted in nice big mats. Typically I'd use an A3 mat for a 9" print. Framed on the wall it is big enough to have substance while the print is small enough to reward close up viewing. And of course prints of that size are small enough to allow several to be hung at the same time - and for me a series of good pictures is superior to one huge hero shot.
I could have advised you, Dave, that a 42 inch TV screen would be unsatisfyingly small for 4K.
My standard HDTV plasma screen is 65", and I've tested the required viewing distance for discerning the maximum detail in my downsized photographic images of 5-6mp. It's around 2 to 2.5 metres.
However, when viewing prints on a wall, they are usually viewed from a variety of distances. Those who are interested will often get closer to appreciate the finer detail, as one does with any object of interest, such as a wooden carving, decorative plate or vase sitting on a shelf.
Of course, if an image doesn't contain any fine detail, texture or small objects of interest, there's less motive to view from a closer distance.
The attraction of a large print, or a large viewing screen, is basically the opportunity to appreciate the image from a variety of perspectives and distances, and to be able to view subsets of the scene, as one does in the real world.
Another issue is this concept of the TV dominating the room. I hear this objection often and I assume it is a hangover from the days when TVs were big boxes that took up floor space. A modern OLED screen can be just a few millimetres thick and fixed to the wall. One does need wall space, of course, as one does to hang up any print. However, if you think the presence of a large screen on the wall is too dominating or obtrusive, try being a bit creative. Paint the wall a similar shade or color to the screen. ;)
-
I'm pleased that Michael's and Kevin's discussion included, "it's the experience that counts". I was very happy with my Nikormat camera and Agfa ISO 80 colour slide film, waiting a week for the results and showing them to friends and family on a slide projector; all very sociable. Then digital came along.
The upside for digital is I delete most, retaining only a few keepers. I post them on Flickr to share with my photo friends. The downside is we don't sit around a projector any more enjoying our photo-time together.
On the odd occasion I need a print, I send it to a lab as the trial and error of home printing became too expensive of time and money.
For me the good experience is getting out, looking carefully at subjects, checking the light direction, composition etc., imagining the result, making the camera settings and hopefully achieving the result I hoped for. My experience has been greatly improved by selling all my Nikon DX gear, replacing it with a manual setting friendly Fuji XT-1 and Fuji wide angle primes. I don't like taking grab shots. I don't think I like zooms really, I'd prefer to change the lens. I want to slow down, use a tripod, take my time and revel in the process.
My latest desire to improve the experience is to 'see' from an artist's perspective and create better pictures. I don't need pixel peeper's detail any higher than that of a master's oil painting. I want to evoke emotion for the viewer. Each to their own.
Thank you Michael and Kevin for your honest and open discussion. :-))
-
Best or cutting edge cameras only represent a current state of technique. At moment of presentation the bar is already raised for next model, people bash even minor shortcomings. Base quality cameras are also constantly improved. A cutting edge camera of a decade ago is probably not a much desired one among the readers here anymore, and probably even outperformed by current base cameras, but are the shots (you) made with it irrelevant now?
-
I'm pleased that Michael's and Kevin's discussion included, "it's the experience that counts". I was very happy with my Nikormat camera and Agfa ISO 80 colour slide film, waiting a week for the results and showing them to friends and family on a slide projector; all very sociable. Then digital came along.
The upside for digital is I delete most, retaining only a few keepers. I post them on Flickr to share with my photo friends. The downside is we don't sit around a projector any more enjoying our photo-time together.
On the odd occasion I need a print, I send it to a lab as the trial and error of home printing became too expensive of time and money.
For me the good experience is getting out, looking carefully at subjects, checking the light direction, composition etc., imagining the result, making the camera settings and hopefully achieving the result I hoped for. My experience has been greatly improved by selling all my Nikon DX gear, replacing it with a manual setting friendly Fuji XT-1 and Fuji wide angle primes. I don't like taking grab shots. I don't think I like zooms really, I'd prefer to change the lens. I want to slow down, use a tripod, take my time and revel in the process.
My latest desire to improve the experience is to 'see' from an artist's perspective and create better pictures. I don't need pixel peeper's detail any higher than that of a master's oil painting. I want to evoke emotion for the viewer. Each to their own.
Thank you Michael and Kevin for your honest and open discussion. :-))
Indeed, if you enjoy doing what you are doing it's more than good enough.
-
Hi,
This thread has degenerated and has no relevance to the original posting whatsoever. Being the OP I exercise the option I have to lock it.
Best regards
Erik
-
Spoilsport, Erik! ;)
-
We have a 27" LCD TV in our living room and I happen to think it dominates the room far too much. I look out of the window here and can watch TV on my neighbour's TV across the road as their TV appears to span half their living room hanging on the wall like a huge mirror. They seem to have turned their living room into a private cinema. Why? Surely there are better things in life than working all day just so you can watch TV. My TV gets switched on maybe 4 times a year, so I'd prefer it to be invisible most of the time. Frankly, a 65" TV would probably require me to knock down a wall... ;-)
Dave,
Prints have a rather low contrast ratio. If you want your images to sparkle and show the full quality of the DR and color gamut that your modern DSLR actually captured, you need a modern 4k OLED display.
Standard LCD TVs are generally second rate. It's why I insisted on a plasma TV when I bought my 65" Panasonic. They behave more like the old Cathode Ray Tube TVs, with good contrast ratio, viewable from any angle.
I only watch TV when there's something interesting on, such as a display of my photos, or one of the many educational programs that are broadcast in Australia. Whatever I'm watching, a technically good picture quality at an impressive size increases my enjoyment.
-
... The upside for digital is I delete most, retaining only a few keepers...
-
Thing is, we can all elect to give up shooting for 'fun'.
I'm sure it must be good for the planet if we do... think of all the electricity we'd save, not to mention all the waste from manufacture, obsolete toys, dead trees etc. etc. Photography, when not an essential service, is a self-indugence that may be one too many, in the wider perspective of causes and effects. I remember even in the film days of the late seventies, that it had become a requirment for pro darkrooms to make 'proper' arrangements for silver waste disposal.
Rob C
-
I'm pleased that Michael's and Kevin's discussion included, "it's the experience that counts". I was very happy with my Nikormat camera and Agfa ISO 80 colour slide film, waiting a week for the results and showing them to friends and family on a slide projector; all very sociable. Then digital came along.
The upside for digital is I delete most, retaining only a few keepers. I post them on Flickr to share with my photo friends. The downside is we don't sit around a projector any more enjoying our photo-time together...
In the days of slide projectors, most guests would make up an excuse why they had to go home when they saw me pulling out my projector. They didn't want to see another 40 minutes of slides of my last vacation to the mountains. With digital photos, and scanning film slides, I've created slide shows using video program (Adobe Premiere) where I can add narration, music, titles, etc and burn a DVD. Then I just turn the HDTV on and play the show before they can bail out and go home.
Here's two I downloaded to the web. They're short only 5 minutes or so each. The Scuba show is from old film slides I scanned; the other Coney Island show is from digital photos.
https://www.youtube.com/user/AlanClips/videos
-
We have a 27" LCD TV in our living room and I happen to think it dominates the room far too much. I look out of the window here and can watch TV on my neighbour's TV across the road as their TV appears to span half their living room hanging on the wall like a huge mirror. They seem to have turned their living room into a private cinema. Why? Surely there are better things in life than working all day just so you can watch TV.
If they enjoy watching TV, what's the problem with that. Should they be doing something they dislike instead? They made think you waste your time playing with photos on computer or chatting on here rather than relaxing in front of a good drama. If people enjoy what they are doing and it doesn't impact on anyone else, what's the issue?
My TV gets switched on maybe 4 times a year, so I'd prefer it to be invisible most of the time. Frankly, a 65" TV would probably require me to knock down a wall... ;-)
Why even have a TV if it gets used that little.
My projector will shortly be hanging out of the way on ceiling and the wall it projects onto is painted white, so it takes up zero space when not being used and when it is it produces a great image that it far superior to a flat screen TV and makes for a far more enjoyable experience too. No downsides in my book.
-
I remember even in the film days of the late seventies, that it had become a requirment for pro darkrooms to make 'proper' arrangements for silver waste disposal.
I was never entirely keen on film processing because of all the chucking icky chemical waste down the sink.
Not sure if all the electronic kit used for digital photography is any better all told though.
-
That high contrast ratio and brightness is what I dislike about screens. Prints (especially matte prints) are gentle and subtle, a screen is like staring at a car headlight. I spend 9 hours a day staring at an LCD screen and a lot more leisure time too, I don't want to display my pictures the same way. For me it's like the film era - enjoy a relaxed examination of a print vs sitting in the dark staring at a slide show. Never liked the latter, it's all bombast and "loudness". I appreciate that many people do like to view this way, just not for me.
Dave,
Prints have a rather low contrast ratio. If you want your images to sparkle and show the full quality of the DR and color gamut that your modern DSLR actually captured, you need a modern 4k OLED display.
Standard LCD TVs are generally second rate. It's why I insisted on a plasma TV when I bought my 65" Panasonic. They behave more like the old Cathode Ray Tube TVs, with good contrast ratio, viewable from any angle.
I only watch TV when there's something interesting on, such as a display of my photos, or one of the many educational programs that are broadcast in Australia. Whatever I'm watching, a technically good picture quality at an impressive size increases my enjoyment.
-
That high contrast ratio and brightness is what I dislike about screens. Prints (especially matte prints) are gentle and subtle, a screen is like staring at a car headlight. I spend 9 hours a day staring at an LCD screen and a lot more leisure time too, I don't want to display my pictures the same way. For me it's like the film era - enjoy a relaxed examination of a print vs sitting in the dark staring at a slide show. Never liked the latter, it's all bombast and "loudness". I appreciate that many people do like to view this way, just not for me.
For similar reasons I also tend to prefer matt prints to glossy and cannot bear to watch flat screen TVs with their over cooked and plastic rendering of skin tones. A TV projector on a matt painted wall is so much nicer than lurid flat screen TVs.
-
That high contrast ratio and brightness is what I dislike about screens. Prints (especially matte prints) are gentle and subtle, a screen is like staring at a car headlight. I spend 9 hours a day staring at an LCD screen and a lot more leisure time too, I don't want to display my pictures the same way. For me it's like the film era - enjoy a relaxed examination of a print vs sitting in the dark staring at a slide show. Never liked the latter, it's all bombast and "loudness". I appreciate that many people do like to view this way, just not for me.
Goodness, gracious me! If viewing your LCD screen is like staring at a car headlight, then it's obviously much too bright. Turn down the brightness. What? You can't see detail in the shadows when you do that?
Well, that's the disadvantage of the 'el cheapo', LCD TV. It has poor contrast ratio. However, an expensive LCD monitor designed for photography might be a different kettle of fish.
The OLED type of display currently provides the best image quality available, with a contrast ratio that is sometimes, misleadingly, described as infinite, because individual pixels can be completely turned off to portray the blackest blacks..
When one produces prints, it's advisable to calibrate one's monitor so that the general impression of the print matches as closely as possible what you saw on the monitor, taking into consideration the general differences between the emissive nature of a monitor and the reflective nature of the print.
Likewise, if one intends to use a large-screen TV as a substitute for making prints, one should have the TV calibrated so that the displayed photos match as closely as possible the appearance of the prints that you might have made if your printer had been big enough. ;)
-
I don't think I could turn down the brightness on my screens any lower - short of wearing sunglasses - which I have actually done at work!
There is nothing that can be done to significantly change the result - it's simply the difference in viewing extremely even reflected light vs direct transmissive light. One has an intrinsically low contrast of around 1:100 and is easy on the eye, the other is looking straight at a bright white light with some dimmer bits with a contrast range of 1:10000 or whatever.
It's similar to reading an e-ink kindle vs a tablet. One you can read for 2 weeks straight, the only is exhausting after a couple of hours. The advantage of the screen is punch and impact, the advantage of prints is gentle subtlety.
I didn't arrive at this personal preferance from theory but simply from experience. When I started photography, my colour work was always slides viewed in a dark room on a projector, B&W was home processed prints on glossy paper, hot glazed. When I went digital everything was high gloss inkjet. Then I started using matte paper (for economy reasons) and was amazed at much better images look without specular reflections. Now I detest glossy images with their horrible hotspots; and rear illuminated LCD screens are tolerated simply because there is nothing else. Perhaps one day we will have high quality reflected light e-ink display of images. You never know.
Anyway, I'm fully aware that 9 out of 10 cats prefer intense contrast and saturation in their images; just not me. Hurts my eyes.
p.s.
Re: big screens as a substitute for big prints. I still don't get this. Recently, Rick Decker over on the DPreview Sigma forum organised a "big print tour" - basically a bunch of large prints from Sigma Merrill and Quattro cameras sent from person to person through the post in a cardboard tube. Quiet a fun way for a dispersed community to share prints. These were 48" wide prints, unmounted. A 48" print is HUGE. My living room is not large enough to stand back far enough to view it properly and matted and framed it would be as big as a window. Those sorts of prints are for galleries and New Mexico range houses IMO. I have some 24 x16 and 30 x 20 shots made of Iceland landscapes but they are rolled up in tubes. Where could I put them? 10" x 10" square prints in a 23" x 23" black frames is the biggest I have in my house. Most of my images are printed 9"x 6" in A3 frames. If it's good enough for Michael Kenna...
Goodness, gracious me! If viewing your LCD screen is like staring at a car headlight, then it's obviously much too bright. Turn down the brightness. What? You can't see detail in the shadows when you do that?
Well, that's the disadvantage of the 'el cheapo', LCD TV. It has poor contrast ratio. However, an expensive LCD monitor designed for photography might be a different kettle of fish.
The OLED type of display currently provides the best image quality available, with a contrast ratio that is sometimes, misleadingly, described as infinite, because individual pixels can be completely turned off to portray the blackest blacks..
When one produces prints, it's advisable to calibrate one's monitor so that the general impression of the print matches as closely as possible what you saw on the monitor, taking into consideration the general differences between the emissive nature of a monitor and the reflective nature of the print.
Likewise, if one intends to use a large-screen TV as a substitute for making prints, one should have the TV calibrated so that the displayed photos match as closely as possible the appearance of the prints that you might have made if your printer had been big enough. ;)
-
Re: big screens as a substitute for big prints. I still don't get this.
The obvious benefit over a print is you can have it to change the image every so often. So you can display say 25 favourite shots, rather than just one.
Another benefit is that when images change over they catch your eye and you then look at them. I find that framed pictures/art can disappear into the background and I cease to notice them after a while. But when staying at my Mum's I often end up looking at shots she has cycling though on a small frame as they catch my eye. Oddly enough she didn't want the frame at first [it was a present] as she prefered real prints, but now quite likes it as it is like an album on constant display.
Still not a fan of then myself [yet], but I did use a 60" TV to display photos in a shop window in my city centre rather than 3 or 4 big prints that the space otherwise permitted. Attracted more attention than usual I was told. When they do less glossy displays I may be more interested.
-
I don't think I could turn down the brightness on my screens any lower - short of wearing sunglasses - which I have actually done at work!
There is nothing that can be done to significantly change the result - it's simply the difference in viewing extremely even reflected light vs direct transmissive light. One has an intrinsically low contrast of around 1:100 and is easy on the eye, the other is looking straight at a bright white light with some dimmer bits with a contrast range of 1:10000 or whatever.
It sounds to me that something is very wrong here in your setup. There should be no reason why a photo of a landscape, for example, displayed on a calibrated TV screen, should be any brighter, or even as bright, as the original scene that you photographed. Are you in the habit of photographing scenes that hurt your eyes?
When calibrating a monitor for display of photographic images, the usual recommendation is a maximum brightness of 100 cd/m2.
As regards reflections, I believe the new OLED TV designs have reduced this to a minimum. Following is a comment from a review of LG's OLED screens.
"The LG OLED TV has the lowest screen Reflectance of any display that we have ever measured, just 2.2 percent, which is half of the previous 4.4 percent record – an impressive achievement. LG accomplished this by using both an anti-reflection screen treatment together with circular polarizers that suppress light reflections."
Re: big screens as a substitute for big prints. I still don't get this.
A 48" print is HUGE. My living room is not large enough to stand back far enough to view it properly and matted and framed it would be as big as a window.
Didn't realise you have such a small living room, Dave. ;)
As I mentioned before, to appreciate all the detail present in a standard HD image (1080p vertical) on my 65" plasma TV, I need to sit no further than 2.5 metres. Since I'm not fanatical about seeing all the detail, any viewing distance between 2.5 metres and 4 metres is fine.
The advantage of using a TV screen in place of large prints is that you need only one 4ft wide space on your wall.
-
One has an intrinsically low contrast of around 1:100 and is easy on the eye, the other is looking straight at a bright white light with some dimmer bits with a contrast range of 1:10000 or whatever.
No, not really. Those huge contrast ratios are marketing BS: a typical display has a real range of about 8bits (you're only sending it an 8-bit signal), ie from d+0 to d+255, where d is minimum the screen can achieve in normal controlled state (ie not switched off, which is what is done to obtain the silly advertising numbers). So at best the ratio will be 256:1, which happens to be a Dmax of log(256)=2.4, about the same as a gloss print under ideal conditions.
If the white on your screen requires sunglasses, you have a rather large d, and so in fact your contrast ratio will be rather a lot less than 8 bits...
-
If the white on your screen requires sunglasses, you have a rather large d, and so in fact your contrast ratio will be rather a lot less than 8 bits...
If the bolded is true, then TV is either rubbish or very poorly set up. The latter is nearly always the case for displays seen in shops as they are usually put in shop mode - i.e. overcooked and oversharpened to stand out in a showroom, so ghastly looking.
-
I'm sitting 18" away from a large flat panel screen lit by a flourescent tube for 10 hours a day. I don't sit in front of a print like this for obvious reasons but if I were to do so, it would be a lot gentler an experience. The screen I'm typing at is a Dell 23" LCD. I have the brightness set to 0 and the contrast to 75. These settings are significantly duller than those recommended by my Spyder calibrator and it's pleasantly dim compared to almost any other screen I see but it's still several times brighter than putting a print next to it.
A rather important point seems to be missed in all this discussion of numbers and the like - like consumption of Naga Ghost chillies, no one can really decide for another when hot is too hot...
It sounds to me that something is very wrong here in your setup. There should be no reason why a photo of a landscape, for example, displayed on a calibrated TV screen, should be any brighter, or even as bright, as the original scene that you photographed. Are you in the habit of photographing scenes that hurt your eyes?
When calibrating a monitor for display of photographic images, the usual recommendation is a maximum brightness of 100 cd/m2.
As regards reflections, I believe the new OLED TV designs have reduced this to a minimum. Following is a comment from a review of LG's OLED screens.
"The LG OLED TV has the lowest screen Reflectance of any display that we have ever measured, just 2.2 percent, which is half of the previous 4.4 percent record – an impressive achievement. LG accomplished this by using both an anti-reflection screen treatment together with circular polarizers that suppress light reflections."
Didn't realise you have such a small living room, Dave. ;)
As I mentioned before, to appreciate all the detail present in a standard HD image (1080p vertical) on my 65" plasma TV, I need to sit no further than 2.5 metres. Since I'm not fanatical about seeing all the detail, any viewing distance between 2.5 metres and 4 metres is fine.
The advantage of using a TV screen in place of large prints is that you need only one 4ft wide space on your wall.
-
I'm sitting 18" away from a large flat panel screen lit by a flourescent tube for 10 hours a day. I don't sit in front of a print like this for obvious reasons but if I were to do so, it would be a lot gentler an experience. The screen I'm typing at is a Dell 23" LCD. I have the brightness set to 0 and the contrast to 75. These settings are significantly duller than those recommended by my Spyder calibrator and it's pleasantly dim compared to almost any other screen I see but it's still several times brighter than putting a print next to it.
You should look into getting some bias lighting (http://www.howtogeek.com/213464/how-to-decrease-eye-fatigue-while-watching-tv-and-gaming-with-bias-lighting/).
-
I'm sitting 18" away from a large flat panel screen lit by a flourescent tube for 10 hours a day. I don't sit in front of a print like this for obvious reasons but if I were to do so, it would be a lot gentler an experience. The screen I'm typing at is a Dell 23" LCD. I have the brightness set to 0 and the contrast to 75. These settings are significantly duller than those recommended by my Spyder calibrator and it's pleasantly dim compared to almost any other screen I see but it's still several times brighter than putting a print next to it.
If you were looking at your print in a dark room, next to your Dell monitor, you would hardly be able to see the print at all. Is that how you prefer to view your prints? ;)
The emissive display is a much more flexible way to view your images. It can tolerate a variety of lighting conditions whilst still delivering a reasonably accurate presentation of your image.
As you know, photography is all about lighting, and that includes the viewing of a print on the wall. Different lighting conditions in any room, throughout the day and evening, will significantly affect the impression that a print creates. Ideally, a print on a wall should have its own constant light source for the best viewing experience.
If you dedicate just one space on your wall, or corner of the room, for viewing all your images, you can make sure that the large TV display occupying that space has been ideally placed to minimize reflections from windows and lights, in relation to the seating arrangements.
Jeremy's suggestion of bias lighting placed behind the TV seems a great idea. I might try that myself, even though I do not suffer from eye strain. ;)
-
"I don't like monitors"
"You ought to! Monitors are awesome! You should spend all kinds of money and effort until you agree with me!"
-
Jeremy's suggestion of bias lighting placed behind the TV seems a great idea. I might try that myself, even though I do not suffer from eye strain. ;)
It's not just for TVs but any kind of monitor. I have lighting behind my computer screens for that reason.
I never used to watch the TV in a dark room as it wasn't nice and had some sort of bias lighting [though I didn't know there was such a thing then], but I do watch my projector in a dark room just one does in the cinema and it's lovely to watch.
-
It's not just for TVs but any kind of monitor. I have lighting behind my computer screens for that reason.
I never used to watch the TV in a dark room as it wasn't nice and had some sort of bias lighting [though I didn't know there was such a thing then], but I do watch my projector in a dark room just one does in the cinema and it's lovely to watch.
I thank everyone for their suggestions and the time taken to consider them. But the truth is similar to whether you like your tea black or with milk or with sugar or without. I don't want 3 spoonfuls of sugar in my tea because that is the way experience has taught me I respond. It's not a theory or some particular number but experience. It doesn't matter that other people like 3 spoonfuls or think I'm silly for prefering one (or none), that's just the way my body responds.
Likewise it doesn't help me that other people think a monitor is great or that the numbers say it is or that there are ways of finessing the environment to improve things. It is obvious to me after one second in a completely unsophisticated and untutored instant natural physical reaction that monitors are horrible and prints are lovely. For me. If the opposite is true for you, wonderful, life will be more convenient. But my reaction to display medium is mine, personal and not shareable. That's it really. It's an interesting reaction to logically argue against personal preferance - it makes no sense because you are you and everyone else is everyone else. By all means debate facts, but leave personal preference out of it because even if someone's tastes are wrong, they are what they are for that person...
-
I thank everyone for their suggestions and the time taken to consider them. But the truth is similar to whether you like your tea black or with milk or with sugar or without. I don't want 3 spoonfuls of sugar in my tea because that is the way experience has taught me I respond. It's not a theory or some particular number but experience. It doesn't matter that other people like 3 spoonfuls or think I'm silly for prefering one (or none), that's just the way my body responds.
I don't think your analogies make much sense. If you have such an aversion towards viewing images on a monitor, one wonders how you manage to process images for printing. It can't be a particularly enjoyable experience for you.
Perhaps you've misunderstood my argument. You seem to be confusing the experience of closely viewing a small monitor for many hours of the day, with the experience of viewing for short periods, an image on a large monitor from an appropriate distance.
I also like prints. I like them so much that I bought a professional, 24" wide printer a few years ago, even though I'm not a professional photographer. However, I've experienced a number of difficulties. First it takes time and expense to properly mount a print. Secondly, unless I make a diptych, or triptych or polyptych, I'm limited in size to 24". Thirdly, I have limited wall space on which to hang large prints, especially taking into consideration that not all wall space is ideally suited for viewing prints; and fourthly, having gone to the trouble of mounting a particular print, there is a tendency to leave it on the wall forever more, rather than replacing it with another print, perhaps storing the previous one in the garage, or giving it away, or hopefully selling it.
A large, high quality, UHD TV display is simply an option to address these difficulties. It's a much more efficient way to view one's images, especially if one has thousands of images, as I do, and it also allows one to get the experience of effectively viewing a much larger print than one could produce on one's printer.
-
You don't have to love standing up for hours in the dark with trays of bad smelling chemicals to make wet prints, do you?
Do you have to love getting up early and being cold in order to shoot landscapes?
Isn't it enough that you're willing to put up with the negatives in order to accomplish things you would like to do?
-
You don't have to love standing up for hours in the dark with trays of bad smelling chemicals to make wet prints, do you?
Do you have to love getting up early and being cold in order to shoot landscapes?
Isn't it enough that you're willing to put up with the negatives in order to accomplish things you would like to do?
These are false analogies. The question should be, 'Why stand up for hours in the dark with trays of bad-smelling chemicals, when you can sit in a pleasant environment in the daylight, and process images with far greater ease and greater flexibility than was ever possible in the darkroom?'
As for getting up early and being cold in order to shoot landscapes, that would only be necessary if one wanted to shoot a dawn scene in winter. Even then, if you have the option of sleeping in a heated room, and you have adequate, warm clothing, why should one feel cold, or why should one choose the more uncomfortable option of being cold when it's not necessary?
-
But the truth is similar to whether you like your tea black or with milk or with sugar or without.
I think the point some of are trying to make is that if you claim not to like coffee because you've only tried it with 3 spoons of sugar, it may be that your decision was not based on reliable data... no matter how "obvious" it was to you that coffee is horribly sweet, compared to the tea that you normally drink unsweetened.
-
I think the point some of are trying to make is that if you claim not to like coffee because you've only tried it with 3 spoons of sugar, it may be that your decision was not based on reliable data... no matter how "obvious" it was to you that coffee is horribly sweet, compared to the tea that you normally drink unsweetened.
Quite true! And, if you don't like chili sauce, that may because you applied too much of it, causing a burning sensation. And, if your TV or monitor is a cheap 6 or 8 bit type with inaccurate color rendition and poor contrast, don't blame the entire medium of electronic displays. ;)
-
You should look into getting some bias lighting (http://www.howtogeek.com/213464/how-to-decrease-eye-fatigue-while-watching-tv-and-gaming-with-bias-lighting/).
Interesting, thanks.
It was easy enough to reposition a nearby lamp behind the TV, with the support of a cardboard box (painted black, of course).
-
These are false analogies. The question should be, 'Why stand up for hours in the dark with trays of bad-smelling chemicals, when you can sit in a pleasant environment in the daylight, and process images with far greater ease and greater flexibility than was ever possible in the darkroom?'
As for getting up early and being cold in order to shoot landscapes, that would only be necessary if one wanted to shoot a dawn scene in winter. Even then, if you have the option of sleeping in a heated room, and you have adequate, warm clothing, why should one feel cold, or why should one choose the more uncomfortable option of being cold when it's not necessary?
Ray, do you really process your images in daylight? A darkened room is what most photographers use.
-
Ray, do you really process your images in daylight? A darkened room is what most photographers use.
Yes, Stamper. I have a very vibrant and high-quality monitor, the 27" NEC PA272W. It boasts 99.3% of the Adobe RGB color gamut and uses 14 bit color processing. Resolution is 2560x1440.
When I click 'proof colors' in Photoshop (having selected my printer profile, and ticked 'simulate paper color' in 'Proof Setup/Custom') I find that my processed images now require very little further adjustment before sending them to the printer.
This was not the case with the lower quality monitors I'd used in the past. After selecting 'proof colors', the images would invariably dull quite significantly, requiring significant boosts to contrast and vibrancy, sometimes selectively to avoid out-of-gamut colors occurring.
-
Yes, Stamper. I have a very vibrant and high-quality monitor, the 27" NEC PA272W. It boasts 99.3% of the Adobe RGB color gamut and uses 14 bit color processing. Resolution is 2560x1440.
When I click 'proof colors' in Photoshop (having selected my printer profile, and ticked 'simulate paper color' in 'Proof Setup/Custom') I find that my processed images now require very little further adjustment before sending them to the printer.
This was not the case with the lower quality monitors I'd used in the past. After selecting 'proof colors', the images would invariably dull quite significantly, requiring significant boosts to contrast and vibrancy, sometimes selectively to avoid out-of-gamut colors occurring.
Ray I wasn't talking about your monitor. You implied that you edited your images in a room that had daylight in it. Not a good idea, imo
-
Ray, do you really process your images in daylight? A darkened room is what most photographers use.
Stamper,
I distinctly remember processing prints outdoors, probably at least 60 years ago.
I took a negative, a sheet of cardboard, and a sheet of Printing-out Paper out into our backyard on a sunny day, with cardboard on top and negative in the middle. I set it down on a picnic table in bright sunlight and removed the cardboard for several minutes (I forget how long it took). And eventually there was an image on the P-O-Paper! No nasty chemicals at all. Unless, of course, you wanted your print to last for more than a day. :D
Eric
P.S. Eventually I had a darkroom in my parents' basement, by covering up the windows. But it was always safer to do processing at night, when there was "free dark."
And now I still do most of my digital processing at night, for the "free dark."
-
Ray I wasn't talking about your monitor. You implied that you edited your images in a room that had daylight in it. Not a good idea, imo
Why is it not a good idea? I enjoy sitting in daylight. I also sometimes process my images in artificial light. My purposes are fulfilled, and the prints I occasionally make match what I see on the monitor closely enough. Perhaps the AmbiBright ambient light sensor which automatically adjusts the display's brightness based on lighting conditions, has something to do with it. ;)
-
Ray, do you really process your images in daylight? A darkened room is what most photographers use.
Never seen one do that. Those who know what they are doing in fact use a room with correct [day] lighting. Look at the link regarding bias lighting I posted above for how to make a more pleasant workspace for example and check out bulbs that are correctly balanced and have a good CRI - a full spectrum of light.
-
I thank everyone for their suggestions and the time taken to consider them. But the truth is similar to whether you like your tea black or with milk or with sugar or without. I don't want 3 spoonfuls of sugar in my tea because that is the way experience has taught me I respond. It's not a theory or some particular number but experience. It doesn't matter that other people like 3 spoonfuls or think I'm silly for prefering one (or none), that's just the way my body responds.
Poor analogy.
A bit like you tasted coffee at Starbucks and decided no coffee shops can make a nice coffee.
Maybe if you tried coffee from a shop that has fancy coffee beans eaten and then pooped out by a Civet cat [not made up that bit], you may change your mind. ;)
Most flat screen monitors I've seen people use are horrid and I wouldn't want to sit in front of them myself. However a good screen that is set up well and with the correct bias lighting is worlds apart. Screens that are glossy/relfective are also ghastly to use and hard on one's eyes.
-
Never seen one do that. Those who know what they are doing in fact use a room with correct [day] lighting. Look at the link regarding bias lighting I posted above for how to make a more pleasant workspace for example and check out bulbs that are correctly balanced and have a good CRI - a full spectrum of light.
Jeremy read this. A google search brought up a lot of similar articles about a darkened room. The only light in my room is the monitor.
http://www.tedsimages.com/text/calibrat.htm
and this.
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=79654.0
As usual no consensus of opinion but Jeff's post seems the best. What is the point of using balanced daylight bulbs when most of the time the viewing of an image on a wall will be with a light source other than daylight?