Idiot?

[Bill Pierce]

Here’s a simple question - and it may show that I am an idiot. Why do I think black-and-white prints on paper, silver or inkjet, look good and black-and-white images on a computer screen don’t? Any other idiots out there? Any wise people with a solution?

 

[Timmyjoe]

I don't have a solution Bill, but I think when you are raised with looking at beautiful silver gelatin Black & White prints, by many of the masters, and equate that with fine photographic art, it is natural to still see things that way. And no matter how cool it would be if otherwise, backlit LED pixels on a computer screen will never look like silver crystals on fine photographic paper. Just accept it.

No idiots here.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Pál_K]

Could it be ambient light on a surface versus illumination from behind? Not that I’ve seen it, but I think a projected B&W transparency wouldn’t be as satisfying as a print is either. To me, a good B&W print has a “depth” that isn’t there when viewed on a screen.

 

[Hari]

Translated to COLOR, a projected slide looks better than a color print.

 

[shawn]

ANSI contrast ratio.

Shawn

 

[ptpdprinter]

I don't know. There's no accounting for taste. I don't think a photograph is finished until it has been printed, but that is a view fast falling out of favor.

 

[nikon_sam]

I agree with Timmyjoe and will add that while holding a silver gelatin print you get to see and feel the texture of the paper...computer screens cannot give you that...

 

[Dogman]

Another idiot here, Bill. My posted B&W photos never look as good as the prints I make on my inkjet Epson. I'm awestruck sometimes when I see how good a print looks after viewing it on the computer screen while post processing it. I think, "Damn, I'm good!" 🙄

But, seriously, Timmyjoe probably had the answer first thing out of the gate. We're from the paper generation--books, magazines, snapshots. We measure quality by what we're used to.

 

[boojum]

Here’s a simple question - and it may show that I am an idiot. Why do I think black-and-white prints on paper, silver or inkjet, look good and black-and-white images on a computer screen don’t? Any other idiots out there? Any wise people with a solution?

What are you viewing the images on and can it be adjusted for B&W? Additionally the printed medium will affect the printed image. I wonder if a 100% trabslation from screen to paper is possible, color or B&W.

 

[Franko]

The difference in transmitted versus reflected light? That's why watercolor paintings seem to "glow" when displayed beside other media. And it always seems to be much more pronounced in color - Kodachrome anyone?

 

[farlymac]

I have an opposite issue, whereas my inkjet prints look like crap, and the screen version looks great. But then that's mostly the printer at fault, as I didn't have that problem with the previous model.

PF

 

[Erik van Straten]

I don't like B+W shots on my computer screen, but I love them on my Samsung tablet. The computer screen needs high contrast images, but the Samsung tablet turns normally made split grade prints (gelatin silver) into small wonders. Are there computer screens available with the same technology as a tablet? Would make me happy.

Erik.

 

[xayraa33]

Maybe it is a tactile physicality thing like reading a real to life physical book versus an E book on a tablet like Kindle? Electronic displays take a lot out of us without us being aware that they do, and it is not for the better.

 

[Richard G]

Idiot savant.

 

[raydm6]

Love looking at B&W prints but they (scanned prints) also look good on Apple Retina displays. I like both.

 

[ABrosig]

I have a little bit different take on this: Computer screens (really any digital output device) have a limited tonal range in terms of shades of gray where a silver or other print will have a much broader spectrum allowing for much subtler gradations. That can be duplicated more accurately in a digital print, but not precisely. Either, while perhaps not consciously noticeable, is probably more pleasing to the subconscious because, as has been said before, most of us grew up in the wet darkroom ages and are used to seeing that full range of grays. It's also why images reproduced in books, no matter how well, never live up to the original. Just my thought.

 

[Erik van Straten]

"Most of us grew up in the wet darkroom ages and are used to seeing that full range of grays. It's also why images reproduced in books, no matter how well, never live up to the original."

I remember that around 1980 the first B+W photo books appeared that were printed in "duotone". I was stunned by the superb quality of the reproductions in these books. While these prints were not particularly contrasty, they were extremely satisfying. I wonder whether the "duotone" technology can also be realized on computer screens, of course only for black and white.

Erik.

 

[Rayt]

It would be a good idea to calibrate your monitor when editing photos. A huge variable is you don’t know if the device other people are using to view photos are too bright too dim or too contrasty etc. Especially with black and white photography the success of a photo might hang on subtlety of tones. At least for black and white I do believe a traditional print on #2 fiber paper looks the best. A cool or warm toned paper like Portiga Rapid vs Ilford Galleria can make a difference. For color if you like slides then maybe you preferred a projected or backlit image and for color negatives a Cibachrome image both are more akin to the computer screen than on matte or glossy.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

It is up to individuals for how to identify themselves.

Boris Kireev, he was Winogrand of this century. And he printed a lot of his daily bw film exposures.
Lots of his on Flickr are scans of prints.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rodinabob/
His book:
https://www.blurb.com/bookstore/invited/8501840/a2cf46e93e72bea609583471d5c1de5e7c78b66e


To me it feels just most natural if under enlarger. Good negative could also be printed via scan and I have good examples.
And bw negtative scan is still different on rich bw comparing to digital, even on the screen.

 

[kbb]

Yeah, prints are better. IF they are properly illuminated. That means correct CCT and brightness, even for B&W prints.
Cheap consumer LCD displays usually have, in addition to uncalibrated or off-drifted contrast and brightness, a subtle yellowish green tint that is just plain ugly.
Projected film is somewhat analogous to the LCD display in that the tech specs of the presentation matter a lot. The American movie industry, going back 100 years, had strict standards [not always followed] about display brightness, registration, and sharpness that were instituted so that unscrupulous theater operators using junk projection equipment wouldn't spoil the cinema experience for the customers. Apparently, there is no such control for common LCD and similar displays.