Stop Looking at my Photos on your Phone!

It takes a lot of time, effort and expense to get a photograph to look presentable on a 21" monitor. You send someone a photo they have requested or you think they might enjoy looking at and all they ever see is a tiny tiny version.

ok.

It may be you who has to adapt and accept. Otherwise you'll be fighting some mighty strong headwinds. Consider that before phones, people were seeing your photos on mostly non-calibrated monitors, probably not seeing the colors as you intended or the contrast you may have assumed they were. The only way you can assure controlling as much as possible is by presenting your photos as prints. So, I would say to you just as you're saying to them, if you want them to stop viewing your photos on tiny little screens, "Stop sending them files!" That's probably unlikely, so the alternative would be to let it go, do your best, and be satisfied with the work you're doing, knowing that people will view, respond, and care in a variety of ways. Few viewers are likely to care in the same way you do. Or you could send instructions along with your files on just how you'd like people to view them. That would be somewhat awkward, no?

It takes a lot of time, effort and expense to get a photograph to look presentable on a 21" monitor. You send someone a photo they have requested or you think they might enjoy looking at and all they ever see is a tiny tiny version.

 

That's why I don't send people photos when I have no control over viewing conditions. I would rather sit with them and go through my portfolio. In the worst situation when that's not happening, I would send them photos that look attractive (may be flashy) on a variety of displays.

IDK if size matters. - My 21" screen displays just HD an iPhone 7 resolves higher and does the same. - Where is the big difference in the best case, where the spectator has maybe significantly younger eyes than us or is spherically nearsighted with glasses to ditch or has watchmaking glasses at hand?

To me it is sadder when a whole load of pictures gets downsized for WLANing to the family TV.

Anyhow: A good image should be noticable in a 4x6" print and its just us shutterbugs fuzzing over resolution and peepable megapixels.

I don't want to disagree with Sanford, so: If the image receiver were just too lazy to let my masterpiece shine on their 5K iMac, I'd pout too.

In the country of the blind the one eyed man is king.

In the H.G. Wells story of course, the opposite was actually true. People always quote this line (which is what the travelers expected), but it was not the way it turned out- that is the genius of the story.

I'm reminded of all these YouTube content creators spending tons of money on gear and untold numbers of hours making 4K videos, and I view them in 360p, IF I even look at them at all.

 

It's even worse on photography sites; I can tell within milliseconds if I want to even bother to view the photos, let alone viewing them in full res.; that's the reason I only send people images no larger than VGA.

In Sanford's story, I'm not even sure who's blind and who can see! Presumably, some photographers will assume the masses using cell phones are blind and the photographer who thinks he/she knows better is the one-eyed king. I think, often, though they deal in visuals, photographers can be much more blind than their audiences.

I wish I had used my cell phone more on a recent vacation. The images are geotagged within about 12 feet, complete with local place names, a feature sadly lacking in Sony cameras.

 

Although you speed with authority. Sandy, i will ignore you in this regard ;)

 

@MichaelChang - you shoot 4K video to produce high quality HD (aka 2K), and HD to produce high quality 720p or SD (480i).

What an absurd expectation. That's like requiring anyone who purchases a print from you to install perfect viewing lighting.

 

Produce a quality image on a calibrated monitor in a color-controlled workflow, then let the viewer get what they get. You don't really have much choice in the matter!

I watched an episode of Gunsmoke on my phone yesterday.

i don't spend much time post processing so I do not prize the output on someone's device of choice. What I can't control does not bother me that much. I think that is part of the Serenity Prayer Sanford. But actually, you know that in film days the 4X6 print was the norm for most viewers. Now, having said that, would a shot of someone's breakfast hashed potato recipe look better on my 27" Retina? Actually I say that backlit devices in themselves show off images better than small prints. But I can appreciate a large print. And am about to consider ordering some new ones for the living room. My standards are meager but higher than the mean out there, Sanford. You have a point though. I can't read anything except on my iPAD and that is a strain at times.

I rarely look at on-line photos but I do participate in the Classic Camera weekly photo thread. I view everything with my phone. It's very handy and the camera is great. It replaced larger digital camera's a few years ago and the Ipad. However for a hobby I shoot 120 film these days. I am a recent convert from 35mm. On June 8th I am going to hike Half Dome and am not going to carry my medium format on the hike. I will take photos with my cell phone and shoot some video.

My phone had a 4K screen and a better color reproduction than my deasktop PC.

 

And after transferring images from my camera, the touch screen lets me zoom into details to check focus.

 

They are getting better all the time.

I listened to a record producer complain how they produce music and songs with stereo, fully presented with 20-20K etc, and then people listen to the songs with the crummy speakers on their cellphones or cheap ear buds. Truth is, if the music is good, or your pictures are good, people's brains will be able to appreciate better music or better pictures. The brain adapts.

I listened to a record producer complain how they produce music and songs with stereo, fully presented with 20-20K etc, and then people listen to the songs with the crummy speakers on their cellphones or cheap ear buds. Truth is, if the music is good, or your pictures are good, people's brains will be able to appreciate better music or better pictures. The brain adapts.

 

That is true enough. We fill in the missing pieces or bits in music. I even used to think VHS was not bad, and now I cannot stand it. But I still get immersed in the performance most of all. We may be reaching a saturation point. Super Audio CDs are not selling well at all. MP3 and AAC seem to do the job well enough. For many.

For me, there's nothing wrong with recognizing that looking at pics on a phone has its advantages for a lot of people—in terms of ease and convenience, and they're going to do it whether I like it or not, so I adapt—while also recognizing that for myself, when I care about a photo enough, I will look at it when I get home on a bigger monitor at what I consider a more readable size. And, I also love looking at prints in books and at museums, a different sort of experience. It's like being happy to grab a quick salad and a smoothie sometimes and other times enjoying some fine cuisine at a nice restaurant. I have room and desire for a lot of different ways of doing things.

My wife opts for Alisa instead f our stereo system.

Send physical prints next time?

It takes a lot of time, effort and expense to get a photograph to look presentable on a 21" monitor. You send someone a photo they have requested or you think they might enjoy looking at and all they ever see is a tiny tiny version.

 

True, but people will tend to hold their phone closer to their eye than they will a 21" monitor. People tend to adjust their viewing distance to a comfortable field of view (do you look at a billboard from 3 feet away?), so assuming the phone screen has sufficient resolution, they could see more detail than you would think. I agree that the smaller phone image may be more susceptible to the effects of ambient viewing conditions, and have inherently less impact than the larger image.

This thread somehow stays current despite its vein having been mined out a long time ago. Has the OP ever been back?

 

If you don't want people to view your work on their own devices, then don't post images on-line. PERIOD!

 

Just like I can't stop anybody from doing more posts in this thread. The poster does not control the responders.

Sure I've been back, I read every response...

If you post work, you can't control that Sanford. You know that.

It takes a lot of time, effort and expense to get a photograph to look presentable on a 21" monitor. You send someone a photo they have requested or you think they might enjoy looking at and all they ever see is a tiny tiny version.

I doubt that your 21" monitor has higher resolution than 1920x1080.. My cell phone resolution is 2960x1440 and my TV is 3840x2160 so what quality is lost. Young people can see fine details in a small display especially at close distance.