Can paper catch screens?

[Mark D Segal]

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.   

[Czornyj]

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...

[ErikKaffehr]

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

[dgberg]

"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.

[dreed]

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?

[ErikKaffehr]

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?

[Sbarroso]

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

[nirpat89]

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. 

[dreed]

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.)

[BrownBear]

...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.

[nirpat89]

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.   

[dreed]

...
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?

[DeanChriss]

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" 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.

[BrownBear]

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.

[bassman51]

"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 ...

[luxborealis]

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.

[deanwork]

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

[chez]

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.

[Mark D Segal]

.............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.

[deanwork]

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.