Do prints look better?

fatboy999 · July 11, 2009

I have been into photography about 3 years and for the most part I have made very few prints of my photos. I have always been content to look at my photos on the computer and make the occasional 5X7 for my desk at my office. I believe I have made significant progress as in the quality of my photography in the last year and I decided to make buy some collage style picture frames to display some of the 120 gigabytes of photos I have of my children and family. I was completely stunned how much nicer the prints look than the same photos look on the computer. The colors are beautiful and I couldn’t be happier with the results.

Has anybody else noticed a similar improvements in the appearance of their work when prints where made or am I full of it?

unangelino · July 11, 2009

No doubt. Photos on monitors don't really work for me. Prints relax my eyes where images on a screen tend to tire my eyes out. One's actually a light source where the other works with reflected ambient light. That lack of light output means a lot: We see the world through reflected light but a monitor reveals images by direct light. Prints also seem to reveal shading more gradually. Short answer? I also very much enjoy looking at prints rather than monitors. Enjoy...

Tim_Lookingbill · July 11, 2009

You're not full of it as you are uninformed about color management technology.

I've experienced the same as you printing to a cheap 3 in 1 Epson printer choosing AdobeRGB space in the printer driver. The colors on the print are more vivid but inaccurate due to an increase in yellow ink while maintaining neutrals from the printer making greens and reds very vibrant.

If I profiled this cheap printer I'ld get more exact match to what I see in a color managed app like Photoshop on my calibrated display.

sattler123 · July 11, 2009

For me a photograph only qualifies when I see it in print - up until then it is just a computer display. It is sad that most people do not print their pictures anymore - they have no idea what they are missing!

bob-c · July 11, 2009

What am I doing wrong? I have to disagree. My shots look much better on my monitor than in print. I do have a fairly good monitor on my MacBook Pro laptop. I have seen my pics on other (mostly pc) monitors and they look terrible. When I print them out they always look darker than on my monitor. I've learned to compensate for the difference but I still say they look better on the monitor. I have a very good Canon printer (pro 9000) but I must say I am often disappointed in the prints. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks

unangelino · July 11, 2009

Juergen

I agree with you completely...by the way, I really like your photo:

Oxbow Bend / Grand Tetons

Superb! I haven't seen a Rowell that has anything on that one...

Cheers.

Paul

fatboy999 · July 11, 2009

I may have been misleading when I said I had prints made. I had the prints made at a Walgreens. I don't know for sure but I imagine that the printer cost on the order of $100,000, definatly not a cheap printer.

waltflanagan · July 11, 2009

Robert, you need to calibrate your monitor. Also, I've never seen a laptop screen (even a Macbook Pro) that could match a good desktop monitor.

Richard, the employee at Walgreens could be a 16 year old making minimum wage. They haven't been properly trained on how to use the machine. Pro photo labs buy the same $100K Fuji Frontier or Noritsu minilab equipment but their employees generally know how to use them. That said I get pretty good prints from my local Walgreens as long as I give them digital files. They do a horrible job with negatives because negatives have to be scanned and usually adjusted. With digital you can do all the adjustments at home on your computer and have them print as is with no corrections. The adjustments or "corrections" performed by the employee are often what destroys otherwise good images.

waltflanagan · July 11, 2009

I look at photos on a monitor and prints and I view them as different mediums. They are both enjoyable in different ways. For decades I shot slides and I still enjoy looking at slides on a light table. I also enjoy looking at my 20x30 prints nicely framed.

randall ellis · July 11, 2009

I've always felt that a viewing a physical print was more rewarding viewing than an image on a monitor, but I'm not into a lot of the technical stuff that's around these days so keep that in mind when you read my comments.

Technical point of view: If you have a monitor that is calibrated properly and you are using the profile of the exact model of device that will be use to make the print you should see exactly what will come out of that device (so long as it too is properly calibrated and operated). When you send prints off to someone to print and do not include any special instructions, the technician will often adjust the colors so that they appear correctly to their eye, thereby changing the image appearance. If your monitor is not calibrated, and you are not using the profile of the printing device, the print will likely appear better looking than the image on the monitor because of those adjustments made in the printing process by the technician...

Aesthetic point of view: As stated above, I'm not enamored with the latest technology, so I tend to really appreciate prints far more than the same image displayed on a monitor. There is something more tactile, more personal, for me when I view a physical print in person rather than on a monitor. They are two totally different mediums really, and they have very different characteristics. Even when the image on the screen is so much the same that my eye cannot perceive any difference, I still prefer the print to the monitor...

- Randy

Norma Desmond · July 11, 2009

Prints and monitor viewing are two different media.

When I fine tune a photo, I have one version that I know people will see on monitors, like PN and friends to whom I conveniently send them over the internet, and I have another version for printing.

I think as we get used to the new technology and we start seeing more and more monitor display viewing in museums and galleries, which is already being done, we will realize that we have a new viewing medium with its own unique qualities. We will not continue to compare prints and monitors, we will simply embrace each for what it's worth. We will even start making photographs designed to be viewed on monitors and considering the backlighting and energy difference both in the photos we take and in how we process them. And we will still appreciate the uniqueness of a fine print and what it means to hang it on a wall for years and years. That print can easily reside right next to a monitor display that changes the image every 2 hours and we don't have to have a competition between them. We can respect each and tailor our work toward each.

beartooth1 · July 11, 2009

I'm with Fred....When I finish an image for print...It's like a huge level of excitement for it to come rolling off....to hold it and look at the final product is very personal.... Monitors are another story..I have large one set up in the front of my Gallery that rolls thru a slide show of various images.....People stop and admire them...you can hear the comments...and I always think how much better the prints are....but I think the general public is now so tuned into seeing images on a monitor that prints might be taking a bit of a backseat.

sandysocks · July 11, 2009

I agree mostly with Fred and Walt. You are comparing apples to oranges. Prints are reflected and screens are lit from within. To get the full potential from an image, you have to see what you can get out of it both ways. Also, printing is not a blanket subject. A good image may be best printed matte, glossy, or etc. and displayed various ways.

jtk · July 11, 2009

Although I've been pleased with some gallery monitor exhibitions (and bought a DVD of one), I think monitors are a doomed technology for expressive photography. Why doomed?

Because digital projection is so much superior to monitors already. The only thing that stands in its way is that projection demands a more controlled, theatre-like environment. And lamps burn out.

For now, the best digital display is the giant TV monitor, not the best computer monitor, but that won't be the case for long.

IMO photography's traditions are more aesthetically relevant than method of exhibition...IMO print, whether in book, the traditional press, or hung on a wall, will hold sway unless we (humanity) continue to be dumbed down (ie unless we continue to pay for TV).

I think it's obvious that we have zero appreciation for online exhibition because so few of us are taking advantage of the most minimal technology (eg soundslides.com). Somehow some of us think a still image on Flickr is more significant than its erased space on an SD card...and they're right...by a whisper.

jpo3136b · July 11, 2009

Framing. A lot of times, some basic framing can bring people around to regard the photos more. There's nothing wrong with web page displays or monitor showings, but a framed photo can bring in some additional regard. Show someone a loose print; show someone the same print mounted, matted and framed; chances are they'll notice the additional preparation.

If it was prepared and shown on a cinema screen, wouldn't they notice that, too? Of course they would.

For the question of do they look better printed or on the monitor; really, I think that most images will have to be setup to be successful in whatever method is used to display them. The monitor is an incident light source; the print will be a reflected viewing of the image; it'd stand to reason that there would be some minor differences in adjusting the image or coordinating the image to display well with different kinds of technologies.

Hey, proceed with confidence and put up a few prints!

joe_jackson4 · July 11, 2009

Physical protection issues aside, I've often thought that framing a photo is much like serving up a TV dinner on a fancy plate... It may help with the presentation but the machine-made convenience food is still the same... :)

I guess many galleries are like fancy restaurants... Nice lighting, and plenty of "feel-good" factor to ease the wallet opening process... :) But OK, at least in some galleries you can let your mind chew on a more substantial, skillfully-prepared picture/meal, in the form of a drawing or painting. (All a matter of taste, of course...)

Online snaps...? Just two-second snacks, mostly. Click another link and they're gone. They go well with a beer or two, but they're hardly the basis of a healthy diet... :)

peter_ferling · July 11, 2009

Printing is not just the printer, it's an system and everything has to be calibrated in order achieve a real close approximation of what you are seeing on screen. I have a Lacie CRT (much higher contrast ratio over LCD by the order of 10x). I also use a Huey Pro and run custom profiles. I use the CRT for print matching and the LCD for how things should look online, and believe me, there is a difference.

That said, there is something about holding a print, and not a cheap glossy from a $80 desktop. I'm talking about a heavily textured paper, like Hahnemuhle Museum Etch 350g, printed by an epson 9800. Such paper lends well to heavily textured and detailed images, such as wood and rough surfaces. It looks and feels real. Comments go from "nice shot" when on screen, to "This is absolutely beutiful."

Alas, the desire for prints is slowly fading, as we become an instant, push button, connect world, our desire to switch from prints to cycling images on LCD screens is a reality. Even at my day job we print less and less in favor of using "digital posters". It's simply cheaper to rent an HD LCD for booth/ad display over the cost of ink, paper, and having to overnight posters and banners.

In my local area our billboards are being replaced with LCDs, which do not require stitching together canvas prints from wide format solvent printers.

The day will come when newbies will be as clueless as to what a print is, as some are today whom never loaded a roll of film in their life. (Case in point: My seventeen year old son, whom picks up my Canon T90, stares at the back, and then casually asks, "Dad, where's the screen?").

stp · July 12, 2009

I'm in the process of moving, and I'm discovering prints of many images that I've enjoyed over the years. The most stunning prints, IMO, are R-prints made by a professional photo lab. That lab has since gone out of business, but man, were they good! A computer display doesn't begin to compare.

joseph_leotta · July 12, 2009

I'll spend about $1000 a year on printing supplies. Nothing like a framed print on a wall.

Batteries not necessary.

orias · July 12, 2009

Between prints and monitor displays, I enjoy looking at prints more. Between monitor displays and not looking at photography, monitor displays are better than nothing. As was pointed out, they really are two different mediums.

edgreene · July 12, 2009

<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=3873232">robert</a>: What am I doing wrong? I have to disagree. My shots look much better on my monitor than in print.

Prints at least only have one "palette": srcreens from various makers, even if they are "Spidered", still suck regarding reality.

Remember, screens mimic overcolor saturated slides and trannies which them selves mimic the film they were shot on.

"Real" Color sux with trannies and slides, as does color screens, be they CRTs, LCDs, or HDTV.

*Have you ever noted that 15 side-by-side screens at COTSCO look different, even screens from the same maker? That no screen (of any type) can or does define "color" in the same way, evne form the smae maker? Your monitor may look perfect FOR YOU, but besides another it simply looks... lousy?

I do have a fairly good monitor on my MacBook Pro laptop.

"Laptop"?

"Errrr"_ _ _ "Ummm"_ _ _

I have seen my pics on other (mostly pc) monitors and they look terrible.

You already know this but here goes: prints are viewed by reflected light; your laptop and onther screens are backlit;

Now do you get it? Prints only have reflected light to guide you whereas screens have that perfect light behind the display or as part of the image and so a print from that gorgeous tree which in a print has textture, depth and "ambience" in/on a monitor/screen with "enhanced" color and PSed to death willl lokk brilliant by comparison.

Walk your laptop out to the tree with an A4 print of the tree and compare them: the tree appears before your eyes in medium contrast; your "image" of the tree on the other hand will look_ _ _ phony_ _ _and it is.

When I print them out they always look darker than on my monitor. I've learned to compensate for the difference but I still say they look better on the monitor. I have a very good Canon printer (pro 9000) but I must say I am often disappointed in the prints. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Thanks

Do yourself a favor: make two images next time: make the print look exactly ike the tree; then make your monitor look_ _ _ exactly like the tree.

Do yourself another favor: look around at the world you live in: as long as you don't live in a cartoon world where everything, especially your ordinary surrondings-are medium contrast venues with limited colors; exactly the way the world is.

Try shooting what you live in and see every day and then notice how much your photography improves.

alvinyap · July 13, 2009

Has anybody else noticed a similar improvements in the appearance of their work when prints where made or am I full of it?

Richard, I don't think you are full of it. Though I have a different experience. Generally when I print the colors I get to my crapo lcd are pretty close (I am color managed, as best I can), however why I really like to print stuff is noise and physically holding a print. I recently shot a pygmy tamarin in the zoo, indoors, at ISO800 on my D200 and it truly looks quite crappy on the screen. Whats worse, is that the critter occupies only a small area of the actual image. I thought I'd sent it off for prints for a test and it came back pretty good. (8x12 btw) Print, and worry less about noise :)

BTW, my lcd screen has horrid viewing angles anyways. Prints rock so much.

Alvin

(That said, I still wish I had a D700 and 400/2.8vr)

steve_swinehart · July 13, 2009

If you're not using a quality, calibrated monitor AND a calibrated reproduction system..then there is no doubt that you'll find one media better than another. However, prints do have a completely different aesthetic and a tactile feel about them that no electronic display can reproduce. That's all part of the difference in looking at a monitor versus a print. But, if you have a calibrated system from input through output, the final print should look like the monitor - given that the image is being viewed with transmitted light on the monitor; and the print by reflected light. But, this is no different than looking at a tranparency projected onto a screen via a slide projector, and seeing the same image made into a photographic print.

While John is quite sure that prints will be supplanted by electronic displays, the point today is - who cares about futuristic predictions? The history of art shows that each reproduction method has its own intrinisic value - and that won't change. Lithography didn't lead to the demise of etching and monoblock printing, likewise, photography didn't lead to the death of painting anymore than television eliminated motion pictures. Every media has its own strengths and unique aesthetics and while some will gravitate towards using one method of self expression, others will use a different type of expression - as each artist chooses the method that best expresses their personal vision.

I'm a long time print maker - including photographs, lithographs, and etchings. I like the aesthetics of a print, and especially ink on paper. For me, nothing has been as liberating as being able to transition photographic images from photographic papers to ink on paper.

So, no - you're not "full of it" - you may be responding to the aesthetics of the print. But, I would recommend that if you really want to be able to have full control of what you're doing; that you take the time and make the investment in a quality monitor, and color calibration system. In doing this, you will have far more control of the final results.

alan_ginman · July 14, 2009

Two points:

"prints are viewed by reflected light; your laptop and onther screens are backlit

It's worth pointing out that real life is largely viewed by reflected life, so prints match reality a lot better.

Whatever any quality differences between print and electronic viewing, in general I find prints much easier to view. It's so much easier to grab a box off the shelf and sit down with family and friends to look at them, than to go into the computer, find the pictures, blah, blah, blah. It's the difference between setting up a slide projector and opening a box. Prints are easier to view, unless of course you want to share the images with someone on the other side of the world.

regards

Alan

dried_squid · July 15, 2009

I believe in a print. I think a photographier's final choices are crop and image size.

I just returned to photography after 25 years of approximately ten rolls. Just June 2008.

Because I'm a transparency die-hard, as in Kodachrome or Ektachrome, I have three frames in my office cubicle. I change the prints every week or two. The prints are 6x9 and 8x12. The prints are glossy, either inkjet Vivera on premium plus paper or glossies from Fuji machines. The prints are displayed in glassless frames. There are B&W as well.

The prints are varied in subject and age. Some images are 25 years old, but recently scanned then printed. Some were downloaded from the web, and I note the photographer's username, the website, and their title.

Many of the pictures are not technically spectacular, but a pleasure for me to view. I don't care, it's my desk and my frames.

I wouldn't say prints are better, but I think a print is important. To me, it means more to give a print. More than a email link to a web address. As it means more to write a letter by hand, than email ASCII.

I have pictures of my family readily accessible, so I can reach out and touch them. Without batteries. In natural light.

Sign In

Do prints look better?

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

Create an account

Sign in