Viewing Digital Photos

Anyone have thoughts on LCD vs. OLED? OLED is what many newer smartphones use.

 

Many projectors now use DLP, which is a silicon chip with tiny movable mirrors. When down,

they reflect light out the lens, when up they reflect it somewhere else. They are very tiny,

and can move fast enough to allow for intensity modulation by variable duty-cycle.

 

I believe it is three such for color, but I haven't thought about that. They seem to work well.

You can examine details on an iPad using simple gestures. Dots on a Retina display are far to small to distinguish with the eye, so you can see everything the image has to offer, down to the pixel level.

 

Digital projectors work very well when used in the intended environment. 4K projectors are now relatively affordable. Simple ones use LCD filters to modulate the light. Industrial strength projectors use scanning lasers, starting at about $4K.

The simpler ones might still be LCD, but DLP are pretty popular.

I already have a plan chest full of prints from my MF film days, plus quite a few storage boxes for the B&W fibre prints. So printing my digital output from the last 13/14 years is something I could really live without. Its not the printer or the ink or whatever, its that I really want to avoid adding to the vast pile of prints I already have, so printing is something strictly reserved for when I or someone else wants to hang something, in which case I send them out as the quality &fidelity these days is great and it avoids having to own a suitable printer & ink with the angst that goes with it.

 

What I do have, and strictly for viewing pleasure is a series of large (12" sq) Blurb books , sometimes thematic, sometimes location based. They're not cheap at c £50 for a book of say 100 pictures but the quality and size are good for viewing, and they're portable if you're only carrying one or two. I no longer have any real difficulty in getting my books to look decently close to my computer screen.

 

Otherwise I use entirely screen based viewing mechanisms. If its just for me I'll use the same PC I'm typing on now with a 27" display, and maybe a slideshow., If I need portable, or to show someone something remotely I maintain a website with about 50 collections of the themes/locations that interest me most for the moment, though I change them. I can view this on anything from phone via tablet to PC display depending on where I want to view and who with. I can tailor-make a presentation for others to load via WeTransfer is I can't just refer to a website album.

 

Finally a good friend has a decent digital projector and screen and probably each of my "keepers" will make a large scale appearance on that not long after I've processed and edited .

I barely print enough to keep it from clogging. But a few years ago, I got a big bag of ink cartridges so I don't worry so much about that.

 

I buy really cheap refill dye cartridges and use them to unclog the nozzles. Then I switch in pigment-based inks.

 

Viewing on a large, accurate monitor is probably generally superior to any printed image. Though the click,click of the projector, the smell of the hot lamp, and the snores of Uncle Wilbur are sometimes missed.

I buy really cheap refill dye cartridges and use them to unclog the nozzles. Then I switch in pigment-based inks.

 

this isn't practical for some printers. Some printers, including mine, draw a sizeable share of each cartridge's ink into tubes connecting to the head. In addition, I doubt anyone makes dye-ink cartridges for mine.

 

Viewing on a large, accurate monitor is probably generally superior to any printed image.

 

You must have an exceptionally good monitor or an exceptionally bad printer. Or very different taste from mine.

Or very different taste from mine.

This is so often the case. Recognizing it can be so crucial to understanding life.

You must have an exceptionally good monitor or an exceptionally bad printer.

I do have an exceptionally fine monitor, but I also have a very fine photo-quality printer, and I don't think it is purely a matter of "taste"

Viewing on a large, accurate monitor is probably generally superior to any printed image.

If this is not purely a matter of taste, what is it?

I did say not "purely a matter of taste" of course, but there is an odd additional factor called objective reality, if you believe in that sort of thing.

there is an odd additional factor called objective reality

I, too, think there is a factor (I don't think of it as "odd") called objective reality.

 

But statements of the form "this is better than that" generally don't fit the objective reality bill. (A doctor declaring it's better not to smoke is more founded in objective reality than your taste about prints and monitors.) Your statement fits the opinion bill quite well, whatever protestations to the contrary you want to muster.

 

"The sky is blue" or "the earth revolves around the sun" are matters of objective reality. "Viewing on a large, accurate monitor is probably generally superior to any printed image" is not a matter of objective reality. It's JDM's opinion, which doesn't make it invalid, it just makes it a matter of taste, purely or otherwise.

 

I, for example, find it much superior to view good quality prints than screen images and I know that's just my opinion.

I, too, think there is a factor (I don't think of it as "odd") called objective reality.

 

But statements of the form "this is better than that" generally don't fit the objective reality bill. (A doctor declaring it's better not to smoke is more founded in objective reality than your taste about prints and monitors.) Your statement fits the opinion bill quite well, whatever protestations to the contrary you want to muster.

 

"The sky is blue" or "the earth revolves around the sun" are matters of objective reality. "Viewing on a large, accurate monitor is probably generally superior to any printed image" is not a matter of objective reality. It's JDM's opinion, which doesn't make it invalid, it just makes it a matter of taste, purely or otherwise.

 

I, for example, find it much superior to view good quality prints than screen images and I know that's just my opinion.

The thing to understand, Sam, is that it never is an either-or thing. You judge objective reality (whatever that is). Always. There is no "not fitting the objective reality bill", unless you are one of those who suppose that it is a matter that is up to them to decide. Then you might think that "this is better than that" does not fit the bill, yes. The objective reality involved in that however is that that is a quite delusional opinion.

The thing to understand, Sam, is that it never is an either-or thing. You judge objective reality (whatever that is). Always. There is no "not fitting the objective reality bill", unless you are one of those who suppose that it is a matter that is up to them to decide.

 

So Bernoulli's principle is a matter of my judgment? So airplanes don't objectively stay in the sky because of that principle, only because of my judgment? And water freezes at zero Celsius at sea level only because of my judgment? Optical diffraction must be a matter of judgment too. I'll have to remove it from my images by changing my judgment.

So Bernoulli's principle is a matter of my judgment? So airplanes don't objectively stay in the sky because of that principle, only because of my judgment? And water freezes at zero Celsius at sea level only because of my judgment? Optical diffraction must be a matter of judgment too. I'll have to remove it from my images by changing my judgment.

Reading too, it appears, is very difficult. Nearly as difficult as deciding what the best way to view photos is.

But is not reading, really, but understanding what the objective reality of what is being read is, and not confusing that with what you judge it to be that is really difficult. Really very difficult...

Dynamic range and color accuracy are objective measures of images. If you actually look at the numbers, I suspect you will be surprised at how far from reality most are, and yet we are happy with them.

 

As well as I know it, color slides viewed in a dark room have more dynamic range than prints viewed in roomlight.

I am less sure about monitors, digital projectors (of each technology) and modern printing methods.

Most of my image viewing is on the screen. But I think both for viewing and as a photographer I believe prints whether in book form or otherwise are the best way. I notice when I get a photo printed that I've put effort into, there's another dimension to how I see the print and a feel of completion of the process I don't get from digital viewing. I don't know why, but I get a return on the energy I put into a print when I actually see the tangible print.

Digital displays can have a contrast ration of 1000:1 or more compared to about 100:1 for a glossy print (6 stops). Kodachrome 25 has a Dmax of about 3.8, which translates to about 12 stops, or 4096:1 contrast. This is what you would observe, viewed directly against a light source. The maximum contrast when viewed on a projection screen would be much less, due to diffusion and scattering inherent in the projection process. In short, a digital display is about as good as it gets, and your guests can't run for the door or snooze during the show.

Digital displays can have a contrast ration of 1000:1 or more compared to about 100:1 for a glossy print (6 stops). Kodachrome 25 has a Dmax of about 3.8, which translates to about 12 stops, or 4096:1 contrast. This is what you would observe, viewed directly against a light source. The maximum contrast when viewed on a projection screen would be much less, due to diffusion and scattering inherent in the projection process. In short, a digital display is about as good as it gets, and your guests can't run for the door or snooze during the show.

 

But to use the 1000:1 you probably need a darkened room, like with the slide projector.

 

So, how about digital projectors, such as DLP?

But to use the 1000:1 you probably need a darkened room, like with the slide projector.

The contrast ratio is what it is, and is probably much higher in a modern iPad. The key detractor to apparent contrast is reflectance from the screen's surface. While matte screen protectors have less problem with reflections, there remains a diffuse reflectance which lowers contrast. I prefer polished screens, which are more reflective, but can almost always be oriented to reflect a dimmer background.

 

For a practical comparison, I can read my iPhone in sunlight, whereas a the image on a projection screen, used outdoors, cannot be seen until late twilight.

Edited June 28, 2021 by Ed_Ingold

Digital displays can have a contrast ration of 1000:1 or more compared to about 100:1 for a glossy print (6 stops). Kodachrome 25 has a Dmax of about 3.8, which translates to about 12 stops, or 4096:1 contrast. This is what you would observe, viewed directly against a light source. The maximum contrast when viewed on a projection screen would be much less, due to diffusion and scattering inherent in the projection process. In short, a digital display is about as good as it gets, and your guests can't run for the door or snooze during the show.

You can also add narration and music as well as titles and credits. Also annotations, maps for vacation shows, etc. I really enjoy doing video slide shows that way.

Interesting discussion, wow this thread grew legs. SO... I typically view photos digitally (however the originals were generated IE film or digital) on my Mac desktop monitor, Then again since I'm on the move rather a lot, I also view them on my iphone 11 quite often.

 

On one hand I'm in the camp of those who think printing is a lovely way to view photos and on the other hand I would much prefer to have darkroom prints of my B&W shots, or some sort of alternative, in whatever iteration, process prints for my color photos. Which, would also probably work out well for ANY photo.

 

I've looked many times at having prints made and actually had prints made only once. And that became "prints" plural simply because the nice person at the lab made me 2 when I paid for and requested only one. BUT to have a series printed, say a run of 5 of just one photo could easily cost 1000.00 and more, for any of the alternative printing processes- at least at the labs I'm looking at.

If you have your monitor set up to match printing then it will have a contrast ratio more akin to a print than a 1000:1 monitor. A well displayed print is a very nice thing (framing + matting, reflection free, good lighting), but not so easy to obtain unless you pay the $$$. A good photo book is a good option, but for most of us this is not a casual undertaking. Perhaps an old-style portfolio works, but I get the feeling most people/professionals show these on a tablet. I don't blame them.

I use several slideshow screensavers on a hw calibrated display, one each for landscape, street, portraits etc for the shots I consider my best. New ones are added and the casual and continual viewing of them in the context of what I consider "personal best" sometimes reveals flaws and process errors I hadn't noticed (and sometimes the new ones put to shame the ones I had thought were really good). In a way, it is the last stage of my post workflow.

Every few weeks, I get an offer from Shutterfly for a free 16x20 print, just pay $7 shipping.

 

I am not sure which technology they use. The smaller prints say "Crystal Archive" on the back,

but not the 16x20.

 

I won't claim that they are as nice as your $1000 prints, but often they are good enough.

I have sent my parents some, with pictures of our kids. I wouldn't send them $1000 prints,

even though our kids are worth more than $1000.

 

I am always amazed at the low prices now for prints, compared to years ago.

 

I do remember when I first got into darkroom printing, 54 years ago, that the price at a nearby

store for 3x5 reprints was $.07 for black and white, $0.22 for color. With 54 years of

inflation, you can now often get 4x6 prints for about $0.22 each.

BUT to have a series printed, say a run of 5 of just one photo could easily cost 1000.00 and more

And a Mercedes-Maybach Exelero costs about 8 million while my Subaru, which does the job, cost about 24,000. :)

 

For prints, I want better than a Subaru but will accept less than a million dollar extravagance. So I go to a nearby lab where I pay anywhere from $40 for an 8x10 to a couple of hundred for larger sizes. Occasionally, I've splurged and gone for piezography b/w prints, but haven't spent more than $200 for a single print and have been happy with what I get. When I started, they did a bunch of test prints on different papers, etc. and worked individually with me to get what I was after. I did a complete gallery show of prints for right around that $1000 dollar mark, maybe $1500 when all was said and done.

 

The advantages of showing prints, for me, are many. There's a tangible quality and sense of permanence to them when matted, framed, and well lit. I know that every viewer is looking at the same rendering of the photo at the size I want rather than being dependent on their monitors, which are mostly non-calibrated and mostly small iPhone screens. People are much more used to viewing screen images, so a show of gallery prints is a special/different experience. There's often a subtlety in the quality of prints that I find lacking when back lighting comes into play.

 

Don't get me wrong. I do plenty of screen viewing and share my photos via screen a lot. And there are some advantages to that, especially in terms of cost and practicality. And, some photos do better with back lighting, especially when the back lighting is part of my consideration in taking the pics and processing them. I generally have two files, one for screen and one for print, which allows for the differences in viewing medium.