This, for me, is not an idle question, although for some it may smack of heresy.
Most (if not all) of us strive very hard to get the final edited image on our computer monitors to be reasonably duplicated in our ink-jet prints. With the options these days of various sizes and qualities of LCD photoframes, why is the display of our edited photos on such photoframes not becoming more of a preferred method for displaying our photographs?
I work in black-and-white "miniatures" (prints on matte paper the maximum size obtainable on half a sheet of 8.5- by 11-inch Epson Hot Press Natural paper). As discussed in another previous thread in this forum,
the limitations of ink-jet printing work against the attainment of great detail and gradation in prints of such relatively small size. However, on the LCD screen of a good-quality photoframe of comparable screen size to my prints, the image seems to fairly precisely match the image I have edited in Lightroom and/or Photoshop. And this in recognition of the fact that most LCD photoframes accept only the JPEG format (although a few also accept other formats, such as TIF). And also, since such photoframes are obtainable in sizes as large as 15-inch in diagonal, they can be comparable in size to the computer monitor on which I actually do my editing. And no matter what their size, they can be easel- or wall-mounted for ease of display.
As we have allowed over recent years our photographic impulses to proceed with digital technology quite with a vengeance, are we perhaps stumbling (inexplicably?) somewhat over this last hurdle regarding digital display of our work. If we're not so bound to tradition regarding film and the wet darkroom, why may we be still bound to the paper print? I myself also am conflicted over this issue. I would welcome, of course (otherwise I wouldn't have initiated this posting), other thoughts on the subject.
