Monitors are Superior to Prints

[Frank Petronio]

Ironic that there is so much discussion about printing photos on paper but hardly a word about how to best present photos online, on screen. Especially since a quality display will project a far greater tonal and color range than any print medium. And for the vast majority of us, we are introduced to and inspired by the images we see on our monitors far more often than we manage to get to a gallery to see "fine prints".

So if you're tired of how photo sharing sites crunch and "enhance" our images, or how poorly tiny jpgs represent our best work, how about sharing some tips for displaying images on screen in their best possible form? As final art itself....

 

[Lauffray]

That's an interesting question. The problem with monitors is that there are no two truly alike in how they are set up, calibrated, temperature etc. Then there's how you're viewing them, ambient light, varying luminosity (think iOS and OSX) etc
One should not assume the same care or time is spent on monitors by our viewers as ourselves

That said, are you talking essentially about the web ? or just presenting work on your own screen to someone ?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

I have made fewer and fewer prints as time has gone on. However, I have no tips on sharing, other than to say, make the picture look the way you want it, shrink it to whatever size you feel best and, patting it metaphorically on the back, send it out into the world for others to make of it what they wish.

🙂

 

[DominikDUK]

Mat or glossy screen, what color temp etc...., what color management system and what resolution. Most of these things are unfortunately not controlled by you or me but the viewer(s). In a Gallery environment you can adjust the monitor to your liking on the web it's a bit hard. What would be needed is a new image standard that can control the monitor (twilight zone).

I would say you can only control the monitors and look of your image in a controlled environment. The light from a desk lamp already changes the look of your image. One could of course ad a disclaimer best viewed under the following conditions, necessary monitor adjustments + greyscale and macbeth chart. A html5 or other code that automatically adjust the image and takes the monitor settings into account would be a solution. Maybe there is such a thing.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Ironic that there is so much discussion about printing photos on paper ....

Are you saying nobody wants to see and keep your images? 😱
I hope it isn't the reason to enjoy the final art just for yourself. 😕
Luckily, my prints at the walls not just in my house. 🙂

 

[Lauffray]

Beyond the technical issues there's also the question of presentation. Contrary to a book or with prints, online you're often presented with more than one picture at a time and a nonlinear way of navigating between sets.

 

[f16sunshine]

Recently I've crossed paths with this very issue. A client was stunned at how poorly their images looked on their home screen vs mine when viewing "full size" images on a thumb drive .
Most people who are using (or rather still using) a poor quality/poorly calibrated monitor are very well aware of the fact. Little needs to be said to remind these folks.

I agree with the OP sentiment though. Monitors/tablets are much more often the focus of image viewing versus prints yet... they are taken for granted.

I'm not sure anything can be done about how images are degraded via social media sharing sites.
Again I think most people are aware of the situation and don't judge images for their image quality as much as their photographic content.

Bandwidth and server storage being the true limiting factors and reason for the compression, It seems we will be dealing with lesser quality when viewing online for the time to come.

How many folks would sit and wait for high definition still images to load onto their iPad with home download speeds still quite slow in most neighborhoods?

 

[jesse1dog]

It isn't just the monitor that matters.

RFF for instance decides for us how our photos are presented on the screen - as an example, colour background. Nevertheless look at the work of petern1 and biomed, to name just two, who present their photos with borders etc. To my way of thinking this begins to set their work apart from most of the rest of us - they care more about how their photos appear.
To some extent a partial answer isto set up our own individual website where we can exert greater control on the appearance and attractiveness of our 'work'!
But then RFF and individual websites don't serve the same purpose.

jesse

 

[Ranchu]

Superior to inkjets. Mine anyway. Bleh.

 

[redisburning]

I mean most people think "retina" is something special, and not just an IPS panel. And then when they find out they could have gotten one of these panels at any time in the last 10 years, they want one. Then they see the price. People who spend thousands of dollars on cameras wont spend several hundred on a monitor where they will view, proof and probably show them?

"you cant see anything in a web jpeg" is mostly true because 1. people's monitors suck and 2. people suck at sharpening on downsize.

a lot of people think their bundled TN lcd with no contrast is a fine monitor. a lot of people think that you can just downsize and sharpen after. neither works. a lot of people don't want to play with color. a lot of people shoot jpeg and try to "get it right in the camera" even though that destroys their ability to push the image towards their aethestic (not that such people have a well developed one).

want to make your images look good on a screen? find some courage and learn photoshop.

 

[Roger Hicks]

And apples are superior to oranges.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Frank Petronio]

Viewing prints seems at least as problematic as online images... for example, when I visited the Weston Gallery in Carmel I saw a vintage Edward Weston 8x10 contact in full sunlight and it was stunning. However here in Rochester, if you go visit the George Eastman House to look at their famous/historic photos, they exhibit them with such dim viewing lamps that everything becomes mush, even a dramatic Weston print.

I see fine prints displayed in all kinds of light, where not only the tone but the color is affected dramatically.

Monitors may in fact less of a variable than we think since most reasonable people adjust their monitors to suit their environment, or at least make the mental adjustments required to see grey roads, green grass, and blue skies. Even if they get the gamma "wrong" then everything else looks equally wrong, so I would expect most semi-serious photo viewers to reach over a tweak the controls.

Seems like it should merit more attention... after all, I may never be able to afford to buy a Roger Hicks print but I may go check out an online gallery of his work ;-p

 

[RichC]

Get the best of both worlds! An alternative to printing worth thinking about is lightboxes.

Commercial ones are horribly expensive, but you can make your own fairly cheaply today. Many lightboxes today use LEDs - which are cheaper, safer and longer lived than fluorescent tubes.

I don't have a link to hand showing how to build a lightbox - but there are forums for movie poster collectors, and these have some excellent posts with photos and instructions. Google "DIY light box" or similar phrases.

Lightboxes won't suit all photographs, but will definitely work with some. My "Digital Archaeology" project will be presented on lightboxes in an exhibition I have this autumn.

 

[daveleo]

At some point in the future, calibration data will be tagged onto the image file.
A viewer may opt for "view image as calibrated", at which point the external server will use the tagged image data to temporarily re-calibrate the viewers monitor as best it can.

Some bright people will figure out how to do that and then will make millions when Adobe or someone buys them out.

 

[Photo_Smith]

At some point in the future, calibration data will be tagged onto the image file.
A viewer may opt for "view image as calibrated", at which point the external server will use the tagged image data to temporarily re-calibrate the viewers monitor as best it can.

Some bright people will figure out how to do that and then will make millions when Adobe or someone buys them out.

The problem is calibration is just setting a device to a known standard, we will have to all have the same monitor panels with the same gamut set at the optimum brightness for the viewing conditions.

what you describe though happens to a degree with people who embed a profile and the viewer has a browser that respects profiles.

I personally don't think monitors are superior to prints, they both have a different look and although the gamuts of some monitors exceed prints I'm not sure the average pixel array can always display tones in an even and long scale manner.

Its sometimes nice to own a print you actually have something, monitors require power also and you don't really have the image in the same way (that's personal).

 

[Michael Markey]

Interestingly there is a feature on monitors in this months BW magazine.
I would like to hear a few tips and recommendations ... so far its been a list of problems. 🙂

 

[Bob Michaels]

The problem is calibration is just setting a device to a known standard, we will have to all have the same monitor panels with the same gamut set at the optimum brightness for the viewing conditions.

what you describe though happens to a degree with people who embed a profile and the viewer has a browser that respects profiles.
....................

I use a full color managed workflow and a frequently calibrated monitor using the ANSI standards. I know if you do the same, my photos will look the same to you as they do to me.

I must simply accept that there is no way I can help you if you do not respect color management and do not have a properly calibrated monitor. Same as if you need corrective lenses for you vision but refuse to use them.

Having said all that, I remain a print guy and still view a monitor image as only a step in producing a print.

 

[redisburning]

Interestingly there is a feature on monitors in this months BW magazine.
I would like to hear a few tips and recommendations ... so far its been a list of problems. 🙂

buy an NEC and be done with it.

 

[daveleo]

The problem is calibration is just setting a device to a known standard, we will have to all have the same monitor panels with the same gamut set at the optimum brightness for the viewing conditions.

what you describe though happens to a degree with people who embed a profile and the viewer has a browser that respects profiles.
. . . . .

Its sometimes nice to own a print you actually have something, monitors require power also and you don't really have the image in the same way (that's personal).

I don't want to carry this too far, but . . . expensive, professional monitors of the future could be made to some ??? standard of color interpretation. When the color calibration data is tagged to an image, all monitors that adhere to the standard will display the colors as the standard says to interpret them. (or something along that technology path 🙂 )

Your comments on prints being "personal" is ever so true.

 

[Photo_Smith]

I use a full color managed workflow and a frequently calibrated monitor using the ANSI standards. I know if you do the same, my photos will look the same to you as they do to me.

Unfortunately not, similar possibly; but not the same. We have a fully colour managed workflow here at college, even with the monitors calibrated the various different panel types will mean the photos look different. I am viewing pictures on an Eizo, an older Apple Cinema display, a Macbook and a Samsung LED. The Macbook is an older one, being off axis will make a huge difference as does the glossy screen, the Eizo is an expensive monitor and good the Cinema display also OK for it's age the Samsung less so.

Line them up side by side, use the same calibration device, and you'll have four different renderings of the same tagged image in CMM aware browsers.