lcd photo display versus fine art prints

[Harry]

Are there digital display screens that rival high quaky ink jet prints of digital files? B&H suggested the Meural Winslow Digital Art Canvas. My Chat expert said that these displays preserve more detail than prints even with high mega pixel files. And the color is supposed to be wonderful.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... these displays preserve more detail than prints...

I wonder how. At best, its resolution is 66 ppi, vs. 180-300 ppi for a print.

[Alan Klein]

Why not a 4k UHDTV? They're double the size on each side or 4x pixels in area larger than these displays?

[Joe Towner]

There are products like The Frame from Samsung, but remember, all these lcd's are direct light, where as prints are reflected light.  It's not for all clients, nor for all types of work. 

[Alan Klein]

Are there programs or apps that you can add to regular 4K UHDTV's that allow the running of "art" pictures?

[rdonson]

There's also the risk that the minute you buy a display or UHDTV, 8K will become mainstream and what you've got will look like crap.

I use my UHDTV (Samsung) and drive it from my Apple TV 4K at times.  It looks ok and great when friends come by and we're all sharing/critiquing our work.

On the other hand its not a substitute a great print.

I think many people now think of large TVs as decor and want something to be on it when guests come by. 

[Alan Klein]

You also have power to consider and electric bills.  I don't know what the latest TV's and art displays use in KWH.  But there is that to consider as well.  On the other hand, prints framed nicely are costly too.  Plus I need my wife's approval to hang additional prints.   

[Joe Towner]

Are there programs or apps that you can add to regular 4K UHDTV's that allow the running of "art" pictures?

Yes, but which one depends on where your photo slides will be pulled from.  Some TV's will work just fine pulling jpeg images from a usb drive and shuffling them, while other would use either an AppleTV (Apple Photos Cloud Library) or FireStick (Amazon Photos) to show.

[armand]

The newest 4K monitors should draw around 20-40W when in use, much less if set to sleep.

I looked into this few weeks ago, with an articulated VESA support. My wife is not convinced yet so I'll keep looking. I just have too many pictures to hang, including from my portfolio or with the family.

[BernardLanguillier]

I would think that a small OLED 4K screen is the way to go until 8K ships, but I am afraid that 8K will only be available in larger sizes in OLED TVs.

The Dell 31.5 inch 8K monitor is pretty spectacular but still costs 4,500 US$. The Apple 6K high end screen announced back in June is another option, but is pricey also.

I often use my iPad and its screen is excellent for smaller print reviews.

Cheers,
Bernard

[ErikKaffehr]

Are there digital display screens that rival high quaky ink jet prints of digital files? B&H suggested the Meural Winslow Digital Art Canvas. My Chat expert said that these displays preserve more detail than prints even with high mega pixel files. And the color is supposed to be wonderful.

Regarding detail, 8K is about 40 MP. So, an 8K screen will about do present high resolution 24x36 mm justice.

Where monitors may win is luminance range and color gamut. Prints can have great gamut for midtones, but gamut gets limited for dark and light parts.

It's a bit like chromogenic prints compared to a projected image.

Except screens are in focus and don’t pop...

 Best regards
Erik

[BernardLanguillier]

Regarding detail, 8K is about 40 MP. So, an 8K screen will about do present high resolution 24x36 mm justice.

On the other hand a screen is perfectly sharp while a sensor/lens system is always affected by some level of diffraction,... that prevents pixels from being perfectly sharp.

I would think you need at least 80 megapixels to render justice to the detail potential of an 8k screen.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Alan Klein]

Can the eye distinguish 4k vs 8k or for that matter from 2k?  Or is it just hype?

[degrub]

depends on the viewing distance.
but, yes.

[Alan Klein]

What viewing distances make a difference?

[Joe Towner]

If you're staying a few feet away, the pixel spacing won't be noticed.  But if you get closer, such as to see finer details, that pixel spacing will become noticeable.  Granted younger eyes are better at it than older ones.  4K is more or less where things are at, and better quality panels are worth it if you're going to use it as an art display.

[BernardLanguillier]

If you're staying a few feet away, the pixel spacing won't be noticed.  But if you get closer, such as to see finer details, that pixel spacing will become noticeable.  Granted younger eyes are better at it than older ones.  4K is more or less where things are at, and better quality panels are worth it if you're going to use it as an art display.

Indeed.

There is a major difference btwn motion and still. Personally I find my 2K 46 Pana plasma TV amazing from a normal viewing distance (2+ meters) from good motion sources such as well recorded Bluray.

But I find it way too coarse for high quality still images that I tend to look at much closer up.

I would probably find 4K clearly overkill for motion at 46 inch but still a bit coarse for stills.

Cheers,
Bernard

[smthopr]

I was just today reviewing some of my prints for an upcoming gallery show... and I have a couple observations...

I am a cinematographer in my day job, and I'm used to viewing images on backlit screens.  At first glance they seem punchy and contrasty and full of life vs a paper print as they self illuminated.

But, today, looking at the prints from my old Epson, despite having a lower contrast ratio than an LCD display, the detail and color reproduction leave a far superior impression.  Especially the color.  Ok, there are some colors of red that I can't print as vividly as I can view them on a screen, but, overall, the print wins almost every time.  And the impression of detail in the prints also won me over.

OLED displays can show much more contrast than LCD displays and deeper dark colors as well.  But, in the end, may be a poor choice for still photograph display as they tend to burn in and also dim down when the image has too much white or near white in them.  I think they would be a poor choice for a still image display device unless you are showing a slide show and not a single image.

And that's my 2 cents

And lastly, if you are in the Los Angeles area, please join me for the opening reception of my show, "Comrade Photographer". A collection of photographs from my travels in the former Soviet Union.  I would love to meet any fellow LL fans!

October 26, 6-9pm at The Perfect Exposure Gallery
http://www.theperfectexposuregallery.com/upcoming

[luxborealis]

I'm. a print guy. I don't even own a TV. However, my guess is, based on my use of monitors, laptop and tablet screens, one area where a TV would be superior is in lighting. The light is always even and of constant colour. The lighting (colour, amounts, direction) on my prints hanging on a wall changes as light from windows changes from dawn to dusk. After dusk, the lighting is most consistent with room lighting and spots, but without spending a lot more on lighting, it is not quite as even and consistent as it might be with a TV, I expect.

With respect to contrast and colour, it's just a matter opt tailoring processing to the final product: print or screen or OLED TV.

Thoughts?