Image Borders

Why are we still printing images?

Screens are now rather relatively inexpensive for high resolution. Why not just sell the digital image so one can display them on a thin screen hung on the wall? a well adjusted screen could display the image very well. maybe have some proprietary s/w that only allows the image displayed on a screen with the proper decryption.

Why are we still printing images?

 

Screens are now rather relatively inexpensive for high resolution. Why not just sell the digital image so one can display them on a thin screen hung on the wall? a well adjusted screen could display the image very well. maybe have some proprietary s/w that only allows the image displayed on a screen with the proper decryption.

Why not?

Why are we still printing images?

 

Screens are now rather relatively inexpensive for high resolution. Why not just sell the digital image so one can display them on a thin screen hung on the wall? a well adjusted screen could display the image very well. maybe have some proprietary s/w that only allows the image displayed on a screen with the proper decryption.

Innovative, but I don’t think electronic displays can substitute for large photo frames, yet. First of all, screens may have become cheaper, but a large (eg. 20x30) display at a minimum 200/250 ppi resolution (to compete with print resolution) is still quite expensive. Large screens are expensive to manufacture without defect. They are cumbersome to mount on the wall, specially when multiple such pictures are displayed. They have to be powered on, so need outlets to be installed, or if run on batteries, need to be recharged regularly.

Most importantly, I cannot stare at a photo displayed on an electronic display for a long while due to the glare. I feel more at home with prints that way. Also, I like the texture of print surfaces.

...First of all, screens may have become cheaper, but a large (eg. 20x30) display at a minimum 200/250 ppi resolution (to compete with print resolution) is still quite expensive. Large screens are expensive to manufacture without defect....

Hmm... but... but... digital is

supposed to be free...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Hmm... but... but... digital is

supposed to be free...

http://bayouline.com/o2.gif

Get over it. Digital is not supposed to be free and no one but straw men and red herrings . . . and an occasional ape . . . claims it is.

Innovative, but I don’t think electronic displays can substitute for large photo frames, yet. First of all, screens may have become cheaper, but a large (eg. 20x30) display at a minimum 200/250 ppi resolution (to compete with print resolution) is still quite expensive. Large screens are expensive to manufacture without defect. They are cumbersome to mount on the wall, specially when multiple such pictures are displayed. They have to be powered on, so need outlets to be installed, or if run on batteries, need to be recharged regularly.

 

Most importantly, I cannot stare at a photo displayed on an electronic display for a long while due to the glare. I feel more at home with prints that way. Also, I like the texture of print surfaces.

Also, backlighting has a strong influence which doesn’t always seem as desirable a way to view an image. Tradition may be taken into consideration. Some galleries get a lot of great, natural light which could render screens less than ideal. Prints can in some cases show subtleties that screens don’t (though screens can have some effects that prints don’t).

David, screen images may often seem simply to substitute for each other, but I think of them as two different mediums, each with a set of characteristics, often affecting the images they bear in some subtle and some more blatant ways.

Prints can in some cases show subtleties that screens don’t (though screens can have some effects that prints don’t).

I want to give a wholehearted "huzza!" to Fred's general position regarding print versus screen, and a further +1 to the idea of the media being integral to the art. The medium by which an piece of art is presented, whether granite or marble, acrylic on paper or oil on canvas, palette knife or brush, and silver print or Retina Display, the medium is inseparable from the art. If we accept this truism, and also that the consummate artist wants to fully control his output, then the idea of displaying one's art via a medium which is uncontrolled by the artist creates a disconnect in the artistic process. For example, my mother painted landscapes and still lifes. She used both brush and palette knife. While her paintings with brush are nice, those executed with the knife are vibrant and literally three dimensional. The leaves and bark of the trees have physical, palpable texture (but don't touch!), while the clouds billow across the canvas in overlapping folds. This texture is integral to the experience of the art. In like manner, the medium by which a photograph is presented can have a significant impact on our experience of that photograph. I find myself processing images for sharing electronically differently than what I do for those to be printed. I'm not going to say that one is "better" than the other. Each has its place. But they are different.

When one adds the impact of a frame and matting, the entire issue becomes that much more complex. The recent popularity of frameless canvas gallery wraps suggests divergent tastes from traditional framing, but, still, the choice to present electronically or as a print, to frame or not to frame, choice of mat, etc., all impact the viewers' experience of the photograph.

the consummate artist wants to fully control his output, then the idea of displaying one's art via a medium which is uncontrolled by the artist creates a disconnect in the artistic process

David, while we’re in basic agreement and I think there’s merit in what you say, it may be important to consider where some exceptions take us. Art often is NOT just a “one-man show.” These “disconnects” can sometimes be as important a part of the process as is sole authorship by a single artist. A playwright, for example, like a musical composer, often relies on others for control of the presentation.

Mozart likely never dreamed (though he of all people may have!) of the way a contemporary orchestra would sound. He very likely tailored his composing to the very sounds produced by instruments of his day. Nevertheless, most of us know Mozart via the sound of today’s instruments. While some listeners swear that the only “true” way to listen to Mozart is on original instruments, I’d maintain that our connection to Mozart is as strong when we listen on today’s instruments, due to a variety of factors, especially that our ears are more accustomed to today’s instruments so his music sounds more familiar and less eccentric on instruments we're more accustomed to hearing. I’d be surprised if Mozart wouldn’t be thrilled by how his music sounds several centuries after he wrote it for what was then a very different medium. And he might very well feel more connected to it because of its ability to traverse mediums rather than less connected to it for that reason.

There are great photos being restored, sometimes more in keeping with today’s norms rather than with an eye toward exactly what the medium would have been like decades ago. Some are being scanned for renewed viewings by a generation that is more comfortable with screen than print viewing, and I don’t see it as a disconnect, but rather a very rich tapestry of interconnections, in the viewing of art.

Maybe the moral of the story can be summed up by listening to Whitney Houston’s cover of Dolly Parton’s I Will Always Love You. It’s a case where the original artist didn’t have full control of presentation and yet much of the world would probably agree that Houston brought things to that song that Parton’s performance and interpretation never did. Is Houston’s cover a disconnect? I’d say, no. I’d say it’s just the kind of artistic shared energy that can be vital to many great works of art, one artist building on another’s work. I’m thinking art is more like connection in various links that create a great chain than it is like the chain itself which divides one thing from another.

Interestingly, this example also makes David’s point about how the presentation and medium can’t be separated from the art. The medium through which we hear the song, voice and interpretation, physical sound and emotional context, is as much the song as what the composer wrote down on the page or devised with her own voice and musical gifts.

I want to give a wholehearted "huzza!" to Fred's general position regarding print versus screen, and a further +1 to the idea of the media being integral to the art. The medium by which an piece of art is presented, whether granite or marble, acrylic on paper or oil on canvas, palette knife or brush.....

 

 

Yes I agree that the medium is part of the art. For many people though using a digital display may be acceptable or preferred.

 

This is similar to the audiophiles that go to great lengths including building the perfect sound rooms to create "their" preferred environment.

 

So maybe not a substitute for printing but a companion for it?

David, while we’re in basic agreement and I think there’s merit in what you say, it may be important to consider where some exceptions take us. Art often is NOT just a “one-man show.” These “disconnects” can sometimes be as important a part of the process as is sole authorship by a single artist. A playwright, for example, like a musical composer, often relies on others for control of the presentation.

 

Mozart likely never dreamed (though he of all people may have!) of the way a contemporary orchestra would sound. He very likely tailored his composing to the very sounds produced by instruments of his day. Nevertheless, most of us know Mozart via the sound of today’s instruments. While some listeners swear that the only “true” way to listen to Mozart is on original instruments, I’d maintain that our connection to Mozart is as strong when we listen on today’s instruments, due to a variety of factors, especially that our ears are more accustomed to today’s instruments so his music sounds more familiar and less eccentric on instruments we're more accustomed to hearing. I’d be surprised if Mozart wouldn’t be thrilled by how his music sounds several centuries after he wrote it for what was then a very different medium. And he might very well feel more connected to it because of its ability to traverse mediums rather than less connected to it for that reason.

 

There are great photos being restored, sometimes more in keeping with today’s norms rather than with an eye toward exactly what the medium would have been like decades ago. Some are being scanned for renewed viewings by a generation that is more comfortable with screen than print viewing, and I don’t see it as a disconnect, but rather a very rich tapestry of interconnections, in the viewing of art.

 

Maybe the moral of the story can be summed up by listening to Whitney Houston’s cover of Dolly Parton’s I Will Always Love You. It’s a case where the original artist didn’t have full control of presentation and yet much of the world would probably agree that Houston brought things to that song that Parton’s performance and interpretation never did. Is Houston’s cover a disconnect? I’d say, no. I’d say it’s just the kind of artistic shared energy that can be vital to many great works of art, one artist building on another’s work. I’m thinking art is more like connection in various links that create a great chain than it is like the chain itself which divides one thing from another.

https://ovo.fyi/chaturbate/ https://ovo.fyi/xnxx/ https://ovo.fyi/tubegalore/

Interestingly, this example also makes David’s point about how the presentation and medium can’t be separated from the art. The medium through which we hear the song, voice and interpretation, physical sound and emotional context, is as much the song as what the composer wrote down on the page or devised with her own voice and musical gifts.

Can't recall when / where - saw something similar on handmade paper with untrimmed edges. Etchings or woodcut, can't recall which, but powerful. There are special clips and hangers, or homemade with relative ease. An excellent idea IMO.

Perhaps I'm on the wrong page here.

Massive post about borders.

Sad me. I look at the photograph.