Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: dreed on December 21, 2016, 07:19:40 am
-
With the latest HDR10 screens becoming available it makes me wonder, will paper ever be able to catch video screens when it comes to the range of colours able to be displayed?
I suppose this seems a bit like trolling or an invitation or inflamatory, but are there new techniques (printers/inks/papers) that allow for the same visible range as a 4K TV?
Why would they be required? I look at some of my sunset pics and I can already see the difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB. When HDR10 monitors become more available and programs support that, I'm expecting to see just as big of a difference between AdobeRGB and HDR10. So where does that leave paper?
-
These are different media and each should be appreciated for what they offer. No matter the proliferation of electronic viewing devices, there is still something special that cannot be replicated about a well-made photograph on paper. That is why on this website we have a special focus on "Back to the Print". It is not simply nostalgia. Over the past decade the rate of improvement in inkjet technologies has been incremental - improving bit by bit year after year into what is now a mature group of technologies; doubtless this will continue along its own path, as will other vehicles for viewing photographs. I do not see it as a horse-race.
-
I read an article recently about the demise of the once hot small digital displays. Sales fell drastically after the first couple of years.
When they came out they were a hot sell this time of year and now the retailers are saying they cannot give them away.
I am on the road in Indy and stopped by Roberts Camera to see and touch some of the new gear. (Hasselblad X1D looks amazing)
They had one of the Memento 35" Smart Frames for $900. It looks really cool but $900? Not sure they will sell very well.
It always comes full circle back to the print, always!
-
So where does that leave paper?
On the wall without a power cord.... :)
-
On the wall without a power cord.... :)
+1
-
Like Mark I see no competition between prints and electronic displays. Prints can be held and passed down through decades or centuries looking the same as they did when created. Their look does not change with mat or glossy monitor surfaces, calibrations, or monitor resolution of the day. The ability to view a print does not depend on the viability of a given electronic storage media type, file format, or electricity (except at night). Prints cannot be produced instantaneously in thousands or millions of copies all around the world. The fact that a print is a unique physical thing gives it a value that the same image on a monitor cannot have.
-
With the latest HDR10 screens becoming available it makes me wonder, will paper ever be able to catch video screens when it comes to the range of colours able to be displayed?
I suppose this seems a bit like trolling or an invitation or inflamatory, but are there new techniques (printers/inks/papers) that allow for the same visible range as a 4K TV?
Why would they be required? I look at some of my sunset pics and I can already see the difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB. When HDR10 monitors become more available and programs support that, I'm expecting to see just as big of a difference between AdobeRGB and HDR10. So where does that leave paper?
I do fine art prints for a living. I have a 4k monitor and 4k television.
Television 4k (i have a 10bit HDR10 compliant sony) is quite inferieur to an 4k eizo monitor, in image quality when it comes to still images.
Even the eizo monitor falls short in getting the emotions the experience across to the observer.
So prints are still superior.
-
Why would they be required? I look at some of my sunset pics and I can already see the difference between AdobeRGB and sRGB. When HDR10 monitors become more available and programs support that, I'm expecting to see just as big of a difference between AdobeRGB and HDR10. So where does that leave paper?
Paper, AdobeRGB and sRGB are all apporx. in SDR range (8 stops). In the beginning new displays may have 1-2 stops of additional HDR effect:
(https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/19059944/ZakresHDR.png)
Computer displays must become brighter and more contrast to take advantage of HDR technology potential, but then it will be difficult to get that look on paper. I guess we will nee some carbon nanotubes based vantablack inks :D
-
The Frame mentioned above I just took delivery of. While anyone that knows me knows I am a big advocate for prints. But here as a dilemea and we'll see if this digital frame can help with it. I have so many images and so little wall space. This may be a solution to show a wide variety of my images in good quality playback. The jury (me) is out but I'll explore this and and other manufacturers frame over the coming month. The quality from what I see is pretty darn good though. It impressed me enough to purchase it and try it. I got the 35'' model with a black frame. More as I get into it. I see this as a way to compliment the prints I have and share more of my work.
-
The Frame mentioned above I just took delivery of. While anyone that knows me knows I am a big advocate for prints. But here as a dilemea and we'll see if this digital frame can help with it. I have so many images and so little wall space. This may be a solution to show a wide variety of my images in good quality playback. The jury (me) is out but I'll explore this and and other manufacturers frame over the coming month. The quality from what I see is pretty darn good though. It impressed me enough to purchase it and try it. I got the 35'' model with a black frame. More as I get into it. I see this as a way to compliment the prints I have and share more of my work.
Please report your thoughts after you get it up and running.
It is a beautiful piece of hardware with a great picture.
-
Computer displays must become brighter and more contrast to take advantage of HDR technology potential, but then it will be difficult to get that look on paper. I guess we will nee some carbon nanotubes based vantablack inks :D
What about the cameras....are they already up to the challenge of capturing 18 stops?
-
What about the cameras....are they already up to the challenge of capturing 18 stops?
You can capture as many stops as you want using bracketing. A modern digital camera with 14bit A/D converter can capture up to 14EV (up tu as many stops as bits), from which 11-12EV are practically usable
-
Television are primarely used for film/video. Are the video cameras capable of 18 stops?
Or is the whole HDR10 a postprocessing of original video material to meet this HDR10 standard?
-
Television are primarely used for film/video. Are the video cameras capable of 18 stops?
Or is the whole HDR10 a postprocessing of original video material to meet this HDR10 standard?
AFAIK present HDR standards are limited to 14 stops (that can be utilised dynamically, according to the technical limitations of the display), up to 6 stops more than omnipresent SDR standard. Camera with 16 bit A/D converter can possibly record 14 stops of usable DR, you can probably record such DR using two cameras, or - hypothetically - some tricks like electronic shutter interlaced bracketing or something alike.
A 14 stops HDR panel, with 4000cd/m^2 brightness and CR equal or bigger than 8000:1 (like HDR47ES4MB) displaying HDR recorded and rendered content may be potentially mind-blowing, 3D-spacious-reality-like looking. The difference might be way more significant than wide gamut or 4K UHD.
-
Just wondering. How many stops are there in a typical scene (not counting such instances as taking a straight picture of the noon sun with a black object in front of it.) In other words, if one has a monitor capable of displaying 18 stops, what fraction of the time the everyday pictures will take advantage of the whole space.
-
Like Mark I see no competition between prints and electronic displays. Prints can be held and passed down through decades or centuries looking the same as they did when created. Their look does not change with mat or glossy monitor surfaces, calibrations, or monitor resolution of the day. The ability to view a print does not depend on the viability of a given electronic storage media type, file format, or electricity (except at night). Prints cannot be produced instantaneously in thousands or millions of copies all around the world. The fact that a print is a unique physical thing gives it a value that the same image on a monitor cannot have.
Well said! The physical print is also unique in that its reflected light rather than emitted. A good print will also outlast any display made today. Displays have their place but are NOT a substitute for a print in my work.
Not sure why this question keeps popping up. Too much eggnog this time of year? ;D
-
Just wondering. How many stops are there in a typical scene (not counting such instances as taking a straight picture of the noon sun with a black object in front of it.)
Virtually each outdoor scene exceeds typical SDR range (8EV):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value#/media/File:Exposure_Value_Scale_Visualized_as_Circles.png
-
Virtually each outdoor scene exceeds typical SDR range (8EV):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exposure_value#/media/File:Exposure_Value_Scale_Visualized_as_Circles.png
Excellent...thanks for the link. Learning a lot on this thread even though it started seemingly with a provocative question.
-
...
Not sure why this question keeps popping up. Too much eggnog this time of year? ;D
I've got nothing against eggnog, but seriously... I think the question arises so often because there's a tendency to look at things in purely technical terms. In those terms newer generally means better - more DR, wider gamut, better d-max, etc.. That neglects the role of art in the mix. There are old silver gelatin, platinum, and palladium prints made in darkrooms of days past that are gorgeous. Some still make them. If I always wanted the best possible technical qualities I'd always use a gloss or semi-glossy paper, but some images need a more subtle look, perhaps on a warm mat finished paper instead of a bright glossy one. Technically the d-max and gamut may not be as good but that very fact may make the mat paper "best", depending on the way one wants to visually interpret the scene. For me the visual interpretation is what printing and photography in general is about. If I could duplicate the brightness levels of an actual sunset I wouldn't do it anyway. I'm not sure it's a good thing to make people squint when they look at a print or a display. OTOH if duplicating reality rather than interpreting it is the goal then full speed ahead!
-
8K TV sets will mark the return of the good old slide projector in homes. It was about time! As much as I like prints, I missed a large, high resolution & wide gamut transparency rendering of photos.
As for prints, there will certainly be a few of them in every home for the foreseable future. What worries me, though, is that entry level photo printers such as 13" and 17" models might be relegated to a niche product and will become too expensive for hobby photographers. High volume printers will likely not be affected by this trend.
This would be like finding a dedicated film scanner in the present market. Ten years ago, they were ubiquitous and there were many models to choose from, even middle range models. Now only a few high-end Imacons and drum scanners survive in pro processing facilities.
Cheers,
Fabien
-
What worries me, though, is that entry level photo printers such as 13" and 17" models might be relegated to a niche product and will become too expensive for hobby photographers. High volume printers will likely not be affected by this trend.
I'm not worried about this - I don't believe we are anywhere near this point with desktop inkjet printers. Epson and Canon have both recently released their new desktop models and from all I hear they are selling pretty well, despite the fact that a great many of the previous generation are still in operation. From all I've heard, these companies are making considerable investments of resources in what they believe to be an expanding or expandable market. In any case, let's hope so.
-
I've got nothing against eggnog, but seriously... I think the question arises so often because there's a tendency to look at things in purely technical terms. In those terms newer generally means better - more DR, wider gamut, better d-max, etc.. That neglects the role of art in the mix. There are old silver gelatin, platinum, and palladium prints made in darkrooms of days past that are gorgeous. Some still make them. If I always wanted the best possible technical qualities I'd always use a gloss or semi-glossy paper, but some images need a more subtle look, perhaps on a warm mat finished paper instead of a bright glossy one. Technically the d-max and gamut may not be as good but that very fact may make the mat paper "best", depending on the way one wants to visually interpret the scene. For me the visual interpretation is what printing and photography in general is about. If I could duplicate the brightness levels of an actual sunset I wouldn't do it anyway. I'm not sure it's a good thing to make people squint when they look at a print or a display. OTOH if duplicating reality rather than interpreting it is the goal then full speed ahead!
New technology will break the immemorial SDR 8 stops limit and give us new forms of expression. Think of the difference between an image printed on less than 50:1 (5,5EV) newspaper, and 250:1 (8EV) high quality print magazine - the difference between FullHD 120cd/m^2 8EV SDR display and 4000cd/m^2 14EV HDR display is much higher...
-
Hi,
Interesting question… For me, screens have the advantage of variable content and high luminance ratio, so less tonal compression is needed. This is a bit like slide film that looked very good in projection.
Prints also need illumination, it is just that they are illuminated front side and not back side. I guess that we would need something like 100W of illumination with full spectrum (incandescent) light on a reasonably sized print.
Where screens are behind is resolution. Full HD is about 2 MP while 4K is around 8MP.
A great image on a good screen looks great. With printing there is always a compromise. You need an awful lot of illumination on a print to make best of dark detail.
Yes, a good question. I would mostly lean towards screens, but I am not sure 4K is enough.
Best regards
Erik
-
"As for prints, there will certainly be a few of them in every home for the foreseable future."
A few, 69 in my house and 137 in the studio. Then again I am in the printing business.
Like my grandkids say when they see me coming, lock the doors it's pop pop and he has more pictures. :)
-
Not sure why this question keeps popping up.
In this case you can blame the pre-CES floating of new products which is inexorably linked to advances in technology.
I look at the same image on an Adobe RGB screen and next to it, on sRGB. Whilst most of it is similar in colour, there are some parts that the sRGB cannot do. Both Adobe RGB and sRGB exist within the 24bit (8bit per colour) space. Printers typically receive an 8bit "file" which has matched what screens could do. Now screens are becoming available that support a color channel width of 10bits. My expectation is that there will be a very visible difference in what newer screens can do.
So what's happening in the "video" space is widely talked about and know.
What's happening with inks/paper/printers?
Are they also evolving or are they stuck forever in the 8bit bog?
-
Hi,
8-bits are plenty for a finished image, but I always use 16-bit mode when I print. So the data sent to printer is 16 bit wide.
The area where screens have advantage, IMHO, is luminance range which can be quite a bit more than the density range in prints.
Best regards
Erik
In this case you can blame the pre-CES floating of new products which is inexorably linked to advances in technology.
I look at the same image on an Adobe RGB screen and next to it, on sRGB. Whilst most of it is similar in colour, there are some parts that the sRGB cannot do. Both Adobe RGB and sRGB exist within the 24bit (8bit per colour) space. Printers typically receive an 8bit "file" which has matched what screens could do. Now screens are becoming available that support a color channel width of 10bits. My expectation is that there will be a very visible difference in what newer screens can do.
So what's happening in the "video" space is widely talked about and know.
What's happening with inks/paper/printers?
Are they also evolving or are they stuck forever in the 8bit bog?
-
I admit little knowledge in that area. But I'm afraid that the effective dynamic range of prints is already limited by regular illumination rather than technology. At least in usual venues and homes.
The brighter tones (white point) in a print largely depends on the light available. Quality and characteristics can only bring that down, unless abuse of OBAs). And, at some point blacks are not distinguishable by eye (even if there are measurable by photometers). In some cases i've to back illuminate to see diferences. At home I've a hard time to have enough light to properly evaluate a print. I need to stay directly under a lamp or wait for a fully sunny day. Even so: Belgium is not precisely known for the number of sunny hours.
And certainly, most prints are not done for exhibition in open spaces. And dedicated booths are good for comparison and/or evaluation, but not for permanent exhibition.
And I've a question. Is image software prepared to use the full dynamic range of top monitors, or do they pack images in a standard range, clipping the rest if it's not compressed in that range? If the answer is not, the result can be still spectacular, but a partial waste of resources; original areas above and under this standard range are still not displaydd. Not to say that it can severely compromise still 8 bit images (jpg) in areas of smooth gradations.
Regards,
Santiago
-
I admit little knowledge in that area. But I'm afraid that the effective dynamic range of prints is already limited by regular illumination rather than technology. At least in usual venues and homes.
The blackest black available to-date is Vantablack, brought up earlier in the thread by Czornyj, that has a absorbance of 99.965%, which comes to a reflectance of 0.035%. Consider you are illuminating with a full bright sun at 50000 lux, then the darkest will be 17.5 lux - the stop 0. With those numbers the DR, by my calculations, will be be between 11 and 12 stops. Still short of the 18 for what human eye is able to do or what is proposed in the HDR standard. So the paper is not going to compete based on that.
The larger question is what would you do if you had such a wide DR. Most landscape photographers make an effort NOT to have such a large variation in their pictures. That's why we get up at 5 o'clock in the morning to catch that golden light. Or wish for a cloudy day or fog etc. At least that's what I try to do.
-
It would seem that the "golden hour" is maybe an invention of the photographer so that what is captured can fit within their means to provide output.
I'm aware that there has been a focus on "back to the print" for LuLa but if HDR10 becomes common (and cameras can capture color beyond that) then what place does paper have as a destination beyond "archival"?
Someone earlier mentioned slides - are there any products that will "print" a slide negative using (for example) a TIFF file? (The point of relevance here is that Kodak film used in movies is consistently reviewed as have a very wide dynamic range.)
-
...I think the question arises so often because there's a tendency to look at things in purely technical terms. In those terms newer generally means better....
That nails it for me.
Horses for courses, because there are different uses/media for images, and there's no universal media or capture that covers the gamut. Some are better for one job and not the next.
Subject matter can affect which combo works best, too. The very best street photography I've seen was done with a standard Polaroid instant print camera, the final display consisting of those puny little prints mounted and framed on large mats. The approach almost certainly wouldn't work for other subjects, but for the kind of gritty street scenes it knocked the socks off any other electronic or fine print display of street life I've seen.
Similarly, prints taken from computer generated action-sequences in contemporary movies simply don't get the job done. The industry needs "trailers" to sell movie seats, both because still images don't work and because the contemporary movie-goer is tuned to movement in their media.
-
It would seem that the "golden hour" is maybe an invention of the photographer so that what is captured can fit within their means to provide output.
I'm aware that there has been a focus on "back to the print" for LuLa but if HDR10 becomes common (and cameras can capture color beyond that) then what place does paper have as a destination beyond "archival"?
Someone earlier mentioned slides - are there any products that will "print" a slide negative using (for example) a TIFF file? (The point of relevance here is that Kodak film used in movies is consistently reviewed as have a very wide dynamic range.)
About "golden hour," it did occur to me that it might be what is going on but on a second thought the issue seems a a little more complicated. Why are we attracted to sunrises and sunsets? There is probably some anthropological reason for that independent of photography.
Regarding the slide films, the DR there was vastly inferior to the B&W film and the color negative film, less than 7 stops if I understand/remember correctly.
-
...
Similarly, prints taken from computer generated action-sequences in contemporary movies simply don't get the job done. The industry needs "trailers" to sell movie seats, both because still images don't work and because the contemporary movie-goer is tuned to movement in their media.
Trailers are used to sell movies for the same reason that extracts of a book are published to sell a book or samples of a cheese given away at a market: it's about supplying the consumer with a sample of what is being (or will be) sold.
I regularly shoot sunsets and for whatever reason, I've only recently started to notice that the gamut for sRGB falls noticably short of Adobe RGB. Maybe this is due to recently discovering what it means to calibrate a display and use a proper color profile. With HDR10 displays coming, I'm now wondering if I'll find even better reproduction of color with those screens and if I do, where does that leave paper/printing?
-
It would seem that the "golden hour" is maybe an invention of the photographer so that what is captured can fit within their means to provide output.
...
Or it may be what, generally speaking, looks most pleasing to most viewers. When watching a landscape as the sun rises I've always noticed a peak in the quality of the light that fades long before the ability of a given camera to capture it. Sunset, of course, is similar but in reverse. I use the word "quality" here to mean many things, like the texture of objects that is emphasized by the angle of the light, the color temperature, the "belt of venus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belt_of_Venus)" before sunrise and after sunset, sky color and texture, etc.. Relative to the "golden hours" of morning and evening most scenes in cloudless midday light are not even that pleasant to look at, much less photograph. As with all things there are exceptions, but I find morning and evening are the most pleasant times to be out looking at things, even without a camera. Likewise, fog and other atypical weather conditions add drama and uniqueness to otherwise typical scenes. I can't say I've ever considered the capabilities of an output device when taking photos, but maybe that's just me.
Edit: In the end the gamut of the capture is just mapped to the gamut of the output device. They don't need to match. For instance, people still make black and white images. The medium didn't go away because color was invented.
-
For me the color of the light is only part of the effect, and for my tastes a minor player.
The light also is highly directional, helping lend lots of form to subjects. The combination of directional light and color can be quite effective, but it also brings into play the ability of the camera and medium to render detail from bright highlights into deep shadow.
-
"As for prints, there will certainly be a few of them in every home for the foreseable future."
A few, 69 in my house and 137 in the studio. Then again I am in the printing business.
Like my grandkids say when they see me coming, lock the doors it's pop pop and he has more pictures. :)
LoL
With my grandkids, it's the opposite: I arrive, take out my iPad and they compete to get the best view of the pictures from their birthday parties and other family gatherings - this year, last year, the year before, whatever. Heaven forbid I try and show them a so-called fine art image that I am especially proud of ...
-
Like Mark I see no competition between prints and electronic displays. Prints can be held and passed down through decades or centuries looking the same as they did when created. Their look does not change with mat or glossy monitor surfaces, calibrations, or monitor resolution of the day. The ability to view a print does not depend on the viability of a given electronic storage media type, file format, or electricity (except at night). Prints cannot be produced instantaneously in thousands or millions of copies all around the world. The fact that a print is a unique physical thing gives it a value that the same image on a monitor cannot have.
There is no nothing to replace a fine print in the hand or framed. However, as BrownBear says...
Horses for courses, because there are different uses/media for images, and there's no universal media or capture that covers the gamut. Some are better for one job and not the next.
While framing can be cheap, you will only get 3, maybe 4, prints framed well for $900. I look forward to Kevin's report.
-
Screens are cold grotesque robotic objects. I used to have the argument with the Epson print genus" that hung out here who were really ad photographer computer geeks who were pretending to be master printmakers. They claimed you could "soft proof" a great masterfully done monochrome print in Photoshop and Lightroom with good icc profiling and a good display. I said you couldn't, and all my colleagues backed me up. We spend time looking at paper objects, not glues to our displays because we know they are two completely different things. Yes you can save a lot of time with good soft proofing in color when you use gloss type papers, but when it comes the subtle art of printmaking on matt rag media, soft proofing is a joke. The only thing that really matters is the physical object.
These are two completely different mediums, prints and screens and it is shame that we confuse them as being even remotely related. Billl Gates was trying to convince that prints as objects were dead and all he needed to do was show people reproductions of Ansel Adams and Renaissance painters scrolling through super high-res displays through his house. I bet even Gates gave up on the idea. Screens are just TV, and have nothing to do with printmaking whatsoever. Thank God.
john
-
Screens are cold grotesque robotic objects. I used to have the argument with the Epson print genus" that hung out here who were really ad photographer computer geeks who were pretending to be master printmakers. They claimed you could "soft proof" a great masterfully done monochrome print in Photoshop and Lightroom with good icc profiling and a good display. I said you couldn't, and all my colleagues backed me up. We spend time looking at paper objects, not glues to our displays because we know they are two completely different things. Yes you can save a lot of time with good soft proofing in color when you use gloss type papers, but when it comes the subtle art of printmaking on matt rag media, soft proofing is a joke. The only thing that really matters is the physical object.
These are two completely different mediums, prints and screens and it is shame that we confuse them as being even remotely related. Billl Gates was trying to convince that prints as objects were dead and all he needed to do was show people reproductions of Ansel Adams and Renaissance painters scrolling through super high-res displays through his house. I bet even Gates gave up on the idea. Screens are just TV, and have nothing to do with printmaking whatsoever. Thank God.
john
Yes...just like digital had nothing to do with photography until it steamrolled over film.
-
.............when it comes the subtle art of printmaking on matt rag media, soft proofing is a joke. The only thing that really matters is the physical object.
...................
john
I find properly set-up softproofing very helpful to produce the end result on matte media that I am looking for, regardless that it isn't a perfect predictor of outcomes. It is still much better, more economical of time and materials than no softproofing. Not to confuse means and ends, the print is the physical object that is the end point of the process and in the final analysis is all that matters over the long run, but the manner in which one gets there is still important to the person doing the work.
-
Yea, forget kozo, silk, uncoated media, linen, etc, carefully profiled with I1 and soft proofed on an NEC pro display, even standard Canson Rag Photographique looks like shit on the display, just a flat muddy misleading mess when "simulate paper color" is checked. It's not even remotely representative of a well crafted print that comes out the other end. And when it comes to black and white, that's worse, forgetaboutit.
I find properly set-up softproofing very helpful to produce the end result on matte media that I am looking for, regardless that it isn't a perfect predictor of outcomes. It is still much better, more economical of time and materials than no softproofing. Not to confuse means and ends, the print is the physical object that is the end point of the process and in the final analysis is all that matters over the long run, but the manner in which one gets there is still important to the person doing the work.
-
Yea, forget kozo, silk, uncoated media, linen, etc, carefully profiled with I1 and soft proofed on an NEC pro display, even standard Canson Rag Photographique looks like shit on the display, just a flat muddy misleading mess when "simulate paper color" is checked. It's not even remotely representative of a well crafted print that comes out the other end. And when it comes to black and white, that's worse, forgetaboutit.
So what's your alternative? How do you get to a "well crafted print"?
I make "well crafted prints" too, and I find the softproofing useful when evaluated knowingly.
-
It would seem that the "golden hour" is maybe an invention of the photographer so that what is captured can fit within their means to provide output.
I would say that HDR was invented for guys with cameras that arrive at the car carpark for a "sunrise" shot as the photographers are leaving.
-
AFAIK present HDR standards are limited to 14 stops (that can be utilised dynamically, according to the technical limitations of the display), up to 6 stops more than omnipresent SDR standard. Camera with 16 bit A/D converter can possibly record 14 stops of usable DR, you can probably record such DR using two cameras, or - hypothetically - some tricks like electronic shutter interlaced bracketing or something alike.
A 14 stops HDR panel, with 4000cd/m^2 brightness and CR equal or bigger than 8000:1 (like HDR47ES4MB) displaying HDR recorded and rendered content may be potentially mind-blowing, 3D-spacious-reality-like looking. The difference might be way more significant than wide gamut or 4K UHD.
The question remains how many stops the human vision can really see, that is process as visible information from 0 to 100. To my limited knowledge of the human vision it masks a lot to turn high contrast scenes into something " visible" . In other words it is not linear, and scene dependent.
I am trying to visualise looking at a " real" contrast scene on a rectangular display in an environment which not even close as contrasty, such as a room in a house. Cannot see how that can be natural, mindblowing yes, but is not like the real thing.
-
Screens are cold grotesque robotic objects. I used to have the argument with the Epson print genus" that hung out here who were really ad photographer computer geeks who were pretending to be master printmakers. They claimed you could "soft proof" a great masterfully done monochrome print in Photoshop and Lightroom with good icc profiling and a good display. I said you couldn't, and all my colleagues backed me up. We spend time looking at paper objects, not glues to our displays because we know they are two completely different things. Yes you can save a lot of time with good soft proofing in color when you use gloss type papers, but when it comes the subtle art of printmaking on matt rag media, soft proofing is a joke. The only thing that really matters is the physical object.
These are two completely different mediums, prints and screens and it is shame that we confuse them as being even remotely related. Billl Gates was trying to convince that prints as objects were dead and all he needed to do was show people reproductions of Ansel Adams and Renaissance painters scrolling through super high-res displays through his house. I bet even Gates gave up on the idea. Screens are just TV, and have nothing to do with printmaking whatsoever. Thank God.
john
Soft-proofing is not about simulating the real physical object, ie a print, but is limited to simulating color and contrast/transitions from light to dark(ie the black & white portion of the image) of the print .
So yes screen (display) and print are completely different mediums for visualising images. It is not only the visual stimulus, it is also the touch in terms of holding/feeling something physical , the smell, the associations one has with these multiple stimuli.
That is why just looking at numbers means completely missing the whole point.
-
Late in to this thread.
I think this is a non-question really.
Paper does not need to "catch" screens.
Despite the fact that we can view the same (supposedly) image on both media there is no competition here.
At a dinner party trying to compare the red wine to the pheasant (we do taste both) is likely to elicit a strange response from fellow diners.
IMHO comparing prints with screen projections of images is a similar type of comparison.
Both media can look great with same image but a particular image may look a bit better projected or it could look better printed.
The debate about softproofing, to me anyway, betrays a misunderstanding, and therefore a mistrust of softproofing by those who seek to minimise its value.
Softproofing was never implemented to exactly represent a print - softproofing could never achieve this and was never mean't to.
Properly used it remains an immensely useful tool.
I can appreciate images in either medium and I also appreciate that the differences in the two mediums make a direct comparison moot.
Tony Jay
-
It hasn't come up yet (Or if it has and I read right over it, I apologize), but the "luminance" of screens has become a big part of the viewing experience for most folks when comparing paper and screens. It's somehow "better" if it glows back at you. I'm certainly susceptible, and I think most of us are. If you doubt, next time you're viewing an appealing on-screen image, just reach up there and start pushing around the brightness setting on your screen. Or try it from the other end and enjoy a really good print, then view the same image onscreen. With changes in luminance come changes in how we see.
-
It hasn't come up yet (Or if it has and I read right over it, I apologize), but the "luminance" of screens has become a big part of the viewing experience for most folks when comparing paper and screens. It's somehow "better" if it glows back at you. I'm certainly susceptible, and I think most of us are. If you doubt, next time you're viewing an appealing on-screen image, just reach up there and start pushing around the brightness setting on your screen. Or try it from the other end and enjoy a really good print, then view the same image onscreen. With changes in luminance come changes in how we see.
This is true of prints as well as in galleries like LIK's, lighting is used to create that luminance look.
-
This is true of prints as well as in galleries like LIK's, lighting is used to create that luminance look.
Yup. I have experimented with this and the effects can be amazing. You can create the impression of a emissive device like a monitor screen on a print properly illuminated. The trick is to create an adjacent "white point" that is actually neutral gray and control the lighting so that observers are unaware of what you are doing. It thoroughly baffles folks when you turn off the illumination leaving the lower room lighting. Reactions are "how do you do that?"
-
Yup. I have experimented with this and the effects can be amazing. You can create the impression of a emissive device like a monitor screen on a print properly illuminated. The trick is to create an adjacent "white point" that is actually neutral gray and control the lighting so that observers are unaware of what you are doing. It thoroughly baffles folks when you turn off the illumination leaving the lower room lighting. Reactions are "how do you do that?"
This is interesting, can you elaborate? Do we have a thread here about how to display prints for the best effect? If not maybe we could start one.
-
This is true of prints as well as in galleries like LIK's, lighting is used to create that luminance look.
They also play such games with lighting in the fancier supermarkets so the fruits and vegetables look more warm and inviting than they do once you get them to the cash register. :-)
-
They also play such games with lighting in the fancier supermarkets so the fruits and vegetables look more warm and inviting than they do once you get them to the cash register. :-)
Mark, they play all sorts of games with the produce. I grow a garden and produce such as strawberries might last a couple days after picking before they start to soften up. Strawberries from the supermarket are always bright red and last for more than a week...in fact I've never had a strawberry go soft that was bought.
Additives including one's to make the produce look appealing are the norm these days. That is why I grow my own.
-
I'm afraid you're right - goodness knows what we're ingesting these days, so growing your own, or the farmers' market is probably the surest way to eat healthier. Like softproofing, there's no perfect fix, but some things are more helpful than others. Happy New Year to One and All.
-
This is interesting, can you elaborate? Do we have a thread here about how to display prints for the best effect? If not maybe we could start one.
+1, I'd like to learn more about this. ( Possibly an article as part of the 'Back to the Print' series Kevin? )
I saw an exhibition of this painter's work a few years ago at a gallery in Harrogate ( UK ):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Atkinson_Grimshaw
The paintings seemed luminous. A couple of weeks later I saw one of his paintings in another gallery, still enjoyable to look at but lacking the 'glow' that the Harrogate exhibition seemed to have.
-
This is interesting, can you elaborate? Do we have a thread here about how to display prints for the best effect? If not maybe we could start one.
Well, I can describe what I have experimented with.
I start with a floor standing pole that has a floating plexiglass area for image display of 12"x16" prints and attached flood lamp above. The pole and smaller support areas are blackened. The flood lamp is about 2' above and in front of the image. The lamp is a 3000K incandescent with a beam such that it illuminates the central part of an image at about 4x higher lux than the periphery.
Then I put unprinted paper in the floating holder and take a picture of it stopped down enough to eliminate vignetting. I extract the luminance info in linear space with dcraw and create a matrix of the same size as an image I wish to print. The inverse of this is used to scale against the luminance of the image when printed. The XYZ values from the unprinted, illuminated image are also adjusted to the higher color temp of 5000K. I use Matlab for this as it is quite easy and fast and understands colorspace and tif images.
The photo itself is rendered inside a physically gray (which will look "white") border with an L value of somewhere between 40 and 70 depending on other factors. The illuminated print will appear to have a "white" border yet with a glowing centered area (which can go well above the luminance of the "white" borders. The new, 12x16 image, which includes this border is then manipulated.
The image to be printed is converted to XYZ space then adjusted by the unprinted, illuminated XYZ. Finally, I crosscheck the result to make sure it is within Rel. Col. gamut. This is iterative and a tricky part where a really good dynamic range, particularly very low min L values, pay off and give flexibility.
The final result is a floating image that appears on a white border but has inexplicable, glowing, like features. It also looks perfectly flatly illuminated with none of the floodlight like effect one gets from just illuminating a print with a flood.
This particular setup can produce stunning sunsets where the warmer colors can really take advantage of the large amount or red in the incandescent illuminant.
People ooh and awe when they first see this but I have to make sure they don't see it with the flood turned off first. When you turn off the flood and people see what the print looks like illuminated by diffuse room light they can't believe it's the same thing. It really is somewhat startling to me and I understand the math and physics behind it. To most it just looks like some kind of magic.
It's really just something I just experimented on the side out of curiosity.
-
Yea the title of this post is so funny to me. I couldn't help but think my problem is just the opposite.
My alternative is to expect nothing from soft proofing matte prints. Right it can get you in the ball park for hue and contrast but it's often misleading. My real reference was about the "simulate media" button which is so far off as to be completely unusable for matt rag prints or anything subtle for that matter.
My solution is to look at prints, not screens, something that I see students hardly doing at all. They have often been trained to make their prints look like their screens rather than the other way around.
I think we as humans, not just printers have been conditioned to think of screens as where the world exists.
We just got the Chromecast app last week for viewing movies and youtube and such. Loaded on it are all these great nature photographs from around the world. For the first hour or so I thought they were so beautiful, so saturated and high-res and all. Then after a little time I realized they had no character at all, everything looked the same. That is the problem with screens and our conditioning of imagery through them.
Digital photo is so far behind audio for instance. I have a guitar am that is solid state the reproduces analog tube amps exactly, even the old timer jazz musicians are amazed. They also have digital guitar emulation software that makes my Stratocaster sound like my Gibson archtop or an acoustic guitar or a bass. We are so far from doing that in printmaking, it is so crude when it comes to emulating fine are media it's not funny. So, for matte media I pay very little attention to the screen. I look at prints very carefully and ignore the screen for the most part completely for monochrome.
-
Thanks Doug, that's really fascinating. As far as I understand it there are two things going on there - 1) using a gray border to boost the perception of lighter colors in the image and 2) evening out the illumination of the lamp based on the blank paper photograph. Have you tried them separately - i.e. only gray border or only compensating for the illumination? If so what were the results? How large is the gray border compared to the actual photograph?
-
Thanks Doug, that's really fascinating. As far as I understand it there are two things going on there - 1) using a gray border to boost the perception of lighter colors in the image and 2) evening out the illumination of the lamp based on the blank paper photograph. Have you tried them separately - i.e. only gray border or only compensating for the illumination? If so what were the results? How large is the gray border compared to the actual photograph?
I've found evening out the illumination is helpful. Otherwise it is immediately apparent that the print is illuminated by a spotlight and then people see the brighter areas as resulting from illumination rather than the print appearing self luminous. So having a border that appears "white" and is quite even adds to the effect.
I haven't done any extensive work w/o removing the illuminant's uneven effects. I think others have had some luck doing so. I'm kind of a perfectionist.
-
I'm thinking of dusting this stuff off. My experiments with this are about 4 years old now and I've learned quite a bit more about color science in the meantime.
It turns out prints are excellent at this because the chromaticity of ink (a subtractive tech) gets larger as the print gets darker. At least up to a point. If you look at the xy chromaticity instead of a*b*, which is independent of brightness, you get far more colorful results using hyper-illumination. Look at a gamut cross section at L=25 on a good glossy printer.
Also, look at the Mac Adam limits of reflective surfaces to see how the gamut could expand using super-luminance techniques.
-
These are two completely different mediums, prints and screens and it is shame that we confuse them as being even remotely related. Billl Gates was trying to convince that prints as objects were dead and all he needed to do was show people reproductions of Ansel Adams and Renaissance painters scrolling through super high-res displays through his house. I bet even Gates gave up on the idea. Screens are just TV, and have nothing to do with printmaking whatsoever. Thank God.
I don't think anyone is confused about the two media. However, you are correct in screens having nothing to do with printmaking. But, just for a moment, think back 20 years to remember how awful inkjet prints were compared to gelatine silver prints. Maybe in 20 years we will have paper-like display screens.
-
............My alternative is to expect nothing from soft proofing matte prints. ............
My solution is to look at prints, So, for matte media I pay very little attention to the screen. I look at prints very carefully and ignore the screen for the most part completely for monochrome.
So this must mean that you have fined-tuned your mind so that when you look at the screen unaided by softproofing you kind of know what adjustments need to be made to obtain the printed result you are expecting, and/or it may require several trial runs before you've crafted the perfect end result.
I know exactly what you mean by the effect of triggering "Simulate Paper White". Depending on the quality of the reverse table in the profile it can exaggerate the extent of dulling down to be expected from the printer. But knowing that, I find it easier to trigger it anyhow and slightly under-adjust relative to what it would otherwise have me do to eliminate the muddiness completely. I find this a more reliable approach to minimizing paper waste than using no softproof. But we all have our various approaches that work for us.
-
It hasn't come up yet (Or if it has and I read right over it, I apologize), but the "luminance" of screens has become a big part of the viewing experience for most folks when comparing paper and screens. It's somehow "better" if it glows back at you. I'm certainly susceptible, and I think most of us are. If you doubt, next time you're viewing an appealing on-screen image, just reach up there and start pushing around the brightness setting on your screen. Or try it from the other end and enjoy a really good print, then view the same image onscreen. With changes in luminance come changes in how we see.
May be someone will invent a set of electroluminescent inks that you can put in your pigment printer, print your image and then attach to a little battery to make it glow back at you. Best of both worlds? Crazy?
-
I wonder if there will be a bifurcation in the photography world as a result of this competition, perceived or not. All digital becomes the "Traditional" photography where the end product is pixels and the other being the "Print" photography where the end product is as the name suggests something you can hold, hang and pass it to the next generation. May be a vast majority of people will simply not have any incentive to print, being satisfied as they are with the speed and the quantity and immediacy of being able to share their work in the digital realm. That will make the prints rare and perhaps more in demand in the "art" world, particularly hand made hybrid prints (digital origin, analog end.) Does that give one all the more reason to focus on the print?
Just thinking out loud....
-
I wonder if there will be a bifurcation in the photography world as a result of this competition, perceived or not. All digital becomes the "Traditional" photography where the end product is pixels and the other being the "Print" photography where the end product is as the name suggests something you can hold, hang and pass it to the next generation. May be a vast majority of people will simply not have any incentive to print, being satisfied as they are with the speed and the quantity and immediacy of being able to share their work in the digital realm. That will make the prints rare and perhaps more in demand in the "art" world, particularly hand made hybrid prints (digital origin, analog end.) Does that give one all the more reason to focus on the print?
Just thinking out loud....
You have a point. The world is swamped with images on computer screens and hand-held devices; those of the good photographers remain good however they are conveyed; but good photographs that are well-printed on paper do have a special appeal that all kinds of people - not only in the "art" world - still appreciate and I think will continue to do so. Printing is not going away. Canon and Epson are still putting big bucks into the development of new machines, new inks and new papers; they only commit those resources after careful market research indicates the should, because they have shareholders to satisfy. And let us not ignore that gallery shows of photographs for the most part still consist of prints hanging on walls.
-
May be someone will invent a set of electroluminescent inks that you can put in your pigment printer, print your image and then attach to a little battery to make it glow back at you. Best of both worlds? Crazy?
http://www.oled-info.com/oled-inkjet-printing?page=0%2C1
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2016 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Wonder if "catching up" would have unintended consequences?
If we forget colour for a moment, the issue becomes one of dynamic range, as pointed out earlier by Marcin. You can get the high end by shining brighter light on the print, while the low end is a question of blacker inks... but in any case, you're going to need to use special lighting to get high DR, maybe with compensation for non-flat lighting, as per Doug. The eventual logic of this is that the print becomes a sort of virtual image until it is placed under the specified lighting... a less extreme version of a digital image being displayed on a screen.
The same issues arise: cost of the viewing station vs cost of the screen, lack of portability, the need to "show" the images rather than just let the viewer wander from print to print. Do you remember how bad it was to be caught up in an enthusiastic photographer's bad slide show?
A question re the large digital frames/screens: do you have one for portrait and one for landscape, or do you compromise on showing one format in reduced size... or do you spin the display on the wall :D