Dogman
Veteran
I've never posted photos online until recently. I tried posting here but the whole process was too involved for my lazy ass to ever learn. Then I joined another forum and their process was simple: resize, drag and drop. So I started posting a few pictures.
And they look like crap.
See, I've always been a photographer who photographs for printing. When I was a kid, living in the country, we mailed our film to Fox Photo and waited for prints. Later, living in town, we dropped it off at the drugstore and waited on prints. When photography became more than a few snapshots to me, I had a darkroom and I made my own prints. Worked for a newspaper for a while, printing photos daily so they could be printed on a press (which usually made them look like crap too but that's another story).
Along comes digital. Prints are passe. Posting online is The Thing. So I look at a lot of photos online and here's The Thing I see: They all look like crap. Even when they look good, they look like crap. I browse through Flickr or some other site and see someone's really excellent work but when I look at it for more than a few seconds all the limitations of the medium overload the excellence of the work. And I wish I could see that picture carefully printed on a sheet of paper because that screen image....Looks. Like. Crap.
Despite all the technological explanations of how much better the image translates on a backlit Retina screen (or whatever), pictures don't look as good as they can look until they're printed on a piece of paper. Hang it on the wall, hold it in the hand or tack it to a tree somewhere in the "back forty"--any which way you do it. I can even accept a well done reproduction of a photo printed in a book. Print it in the darkroom on fiber, print it on an Epson on Arches, just as long as it's printed and it doesn't look like crap.
Okay, I know this is a rant. While I feel very unsatisfied about seeing one of my carefully printed photos turned to crap online, most people are thrilled at being able to post their pictures even when they look like crap.
Am I really the only one who feels this way?
And they look like crap.
See, I've always been a photographer who photographs for printing. When I was a kid, living in the country, we mailed our film to Fox Photo and waited for prints. Later, living in town, we dropped it off at the drugstore and waited on prints. When photography became more than a few snapshots to me, I had a darkroom and I made my own prints. Worked for a newspaper for a while, printing photos daily so they could be printed on a press (which usually made them look like crap too but that's another story).
Along comes digital. Prints are passe. Posting online is The Thing. So I look at a lot of photos online and here's The Thing I see: They all look like crap. Even when they look good, they look like crap. I browse through Flickr or some other site and see someone's really excellent work but when I look at it for more than a few seconds all the limitations of the medium overload the excellence of the work. And I wish I could see that picture carefully printed on a sheet of paper because that screen image....Looks. Like. Crap.
Despite all the technological explanations of how much better the image translates on a backlit Retina screen (or whatever), pictures don't look as good as they can look until they're printed on a piece of paper. Hang it on the wall, hold it in the hand or tack it to a tree somewhere in the "back forty"--any which way you do it. I can even accept a well done reproduction of a photo printed in a book. Print it in the darkroom on fiber, print it on an Epson on Arches, just as long as it's printed and it doesn't look like crap.
Okay, I know this is a rant. While I feel very unsatisfied about seeing one of my carefully printed photos turned to crap online, most people are thrilled at being able to post their pictures even when they look like crap.
Am I really the only one who feels this way?
CharlesDAMorgan
Veteran
I hate seeing my compressed images on screen. They look horrible in comparison to a print. However, a print (unless scanned) reduces the potential to share to irrelevance. Having sat through a 3 hour slide show of a German General's camping trip to Sweden 40 years ago, (I think there must have been close to 100 slides of the midnight sun, or perhaps it just felt that way) the old methods had limited appeal either.
I take photos few people wish to consume, and don't have a darkroom. So, I tolerate it.
I take photos few people wish to consume, and don't have a darkroom. So, I tolerate it.
Erik van Straten
Veteran
No, you are not, I feel the same way. I put my pictures on Flickr only to have a summary, a survey of what I have done.
I put my scanned negatives - my best shots - on one account on Flickr and scans of my prints on another.
Of course the original prints are much more beautiful than the scans on Flickr, but, again, to have a survey of them on Flickr is super handy.
I keep my prints at home in a box. Nobody but me sees them. On Flickr they are seen by other people too.
Most people don't know how good an original print can be. It takes years to learn to make them. Printing paper is expensive and nobody sees the prints. It is not surprising that most people are satisfied with the pictures online.
Erik.
I put my scanned negatives - my best shots - on one account on Flickr and scans of my prints on another.
Of course the original prints are much more beautiful than the scans on Flickr, but, again, to have a survey of them on Flickr is super handy.
I keep my prints at home in a box. Nobody but me sees them. On Flickr they are seen by other people too.
Most people don't know how good an original print can be. It takes years to learn to make them. Printing paper is expensive and nobody sees the prints. It is not surprising that most people are satisfied with the pictures online.
Erik.
ptpdprinter
Veteran
Are you scanning and posting from negative or prints? Scanning always involves a reduction in quality. If you think they look like crap, don't post them. Then you can sit alone in your room and enjoy your prints.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
BW film pictures only valuable on prints. IMO.
I also like to print from digital cameras, in color on glossy 4x6.
I also like to print from digital cameras, in color on glossy 4x6.
davidnewtonguitars
Family Snaps
I like to give prints to people of whom I have taken photographs. Even the 4x6 and 5x7 inkjet prints look better than the things that I can post online.
But as a person who wears a camera as jewelry, I have to maintain online credibility.
But as a person who wears a camera as jewelry, I have to maintain online credibility.
willie_901
Veteran
Screen images are vulnerable to several technical and practical issues. A detailed discussion of these issues can be found here.
Of all these issues, the first one is responsible for most online viewing problems. However, color management problems can occasionally cause significant losses in color quality and can even cause image banding.
- Images are compressed to minimize data transmission costs and server resources.
- Many people don't use calibrated displays when during post-production rendering.
- Many people don't use calibrated displays for internet viewing. People also view images in different ambient light conditions. When the ambient light changes, the screen color calibration will change. Mixed ambient light sources also cause problems.
- Many people don't use the sRGB color space for uploaded images.
- When viewing on-line images color and tonal perception can be OS and browser dependent. Color management in newer browser applications is better than older versions. But it remains an issue. Different browsers still use different rendering intents – perceptual intent vs colorimetric intent. These intents are used to estimate out-of-gamut colors.
Of all these issues, the first one is responsible for most online viewing problems. However, color management problems can occasionally cause significant losses in color quality and can even cause image banding.
Out to Lunch
Ventor
To a very large extent, it all depends on where you live and what you want to do with your pics. Where I live today, developing and printing pictures is very expensive and cumbersome. The process of it all would interfere with my other hobbies, one of which is taking pictures. I'm sure that printed pictures look better than their digital renditions but I'm making the best of the situation and I am trying to be happy with what I have. I am selecting some pics -very few, and bring them to a professional printer in Saigon and hang them on my wall and the others I post online, warts and all. Also consider the alternative: having lots of unseen prints in a sock drawer, knowing that they'll be thrown away when you meet your maker.
Pherdinand
the snow must go on
I sort of agree. Only porn looks better on a screen, than printed on paper.
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
With the exception of large-format, museum-quality printing, uncompressed digital almost always looks better to me, especially on an iPad Pro. And when you don't live in a city, it's rare to actually get to see well made prints. My main mode of viewing good art photos would probably have to be in books, and I think uncompressed digital beats them by a mile.
olifaunt
Well-known
Yes and no.
I have compared my own B&W scans to my darkroom wet prints and the prints definitely look more beautiful to me.
But screens can be good for B&W. If you watch that recent Winogrand film, they show many of his B&W pictures in the film where you can see more detail in the images than in the printed books of his images that I have. But one thing I had to do for his pictures to look "right" on-screen was to turn down the brightness.
But scans of my color negatives, if done well, are a different story. Many of these look very beautiful on-screen, and I follow a lot of film photographers whose work looks stunning on screens. Screens, assuming they are correctly calibrated, are today's slide projectors, except they work for negative film too.
But yeah, obviously almost everyone publishes in sRGB which loses a lot of the color gamut.
I have compared my own B&W scans to my darkroom wet prints and the prints definitely look more beautiful to me.
But screens can be good for B&W. If you watch that recent Winogrand film, they show many of his B&W pictures in the film where you can see more detail in the images than in the printed books of his images that I have. But one thing I had to do for his pictures to look "right" on-screen was to turn down the brightness.
But scans of my color negatives, if done well, are a different story. Many of these look very beautiful on-screen, and I follow a lot of film photographers whose work looks stunning on screens. Screens, assuming they are correctly calibrated, are today's slide projectors, except they work for negative film too.
But yeah, obviously almost everyone publishes in sRGB which loses a lot of the color gamut.
Dogman
Veteran
Okay, back up a minute.
I think many of you are misunderstanding. When I say "prints" I'm not talking about chemical darkroom prints specifically. I think I mentioned prints done on paper, darkroom or Epson or even a very high quality photomechanical reproduction in a book.
When I print today, I do pigment inkjet prints using rag art papers--some of the paper types predate the history of photography so it's not like this is all new technology. When I printed in the darkroom I was never able to get the quality of prints I currently get using inkjet. But that's neither here nor there. Beautiful prints are beautiful prints no matter what medium.
But I'm not a super great printer anyway and I didn't want the discussion to move into the area of film vs digital and silver vs ink printing. When I say I prefer a print I mean any really well done print vs a screen image (that looks like crap).
I think many of you are misunderstanding. When I say "prints" I'm not talking about chemical darkroom prints specifically. I think I mentioned prints done on paper, darkroom or Epson or even a very high quality photomechanical reproduction in a book.
When I print today, I do pigment inkjet prints using rag art papers--some of the paper types predate the history of photography so it's not like this is all new technology. When I printed in the darkroom I was never able to get the quality of prints I currently get using inkjet. But that's neither here nor there. Beautiful prints are beautiful prints no matter what medium.
But I'm not a super great printer anyway and I didn't want the discussion to move into the area of film vs digital and silver vs ink printing. When I say I prefer a print I mean any really well done print vs a screen image (that looks like crap).
charjohncarter
Veteran
I do this too. But I use Costco. Most of my prints are B&W film negatives scanned and then sent to Costco to be wet printed on color paper which is not a good compromise. Not very often do people I give them to even comment later. I feel like I'm wasting my time, I guess they would rather have them on their phones.
retinax
Well-known
Can you give more explanations why you think stuff on screen looks like crap? I certainty prefer looking at a print, but screens can look pretty good to me. That requires the screen to be high enough resolution or far enough from the eye so I don't see pixels, and the brightness and colour temperature of the screen to be resonably adjusted the the ambient. Why most people don't adjust the brightness is totally beyond me. When I look around in a library, half of the laptop screens are either blindingly bright or very dark.
Reflections can be an issue just like with glossy prints, especially if the screen is too dark.
My main problem is that I don't have a very large, high resolution screen, and my tablet which is pretty good is of course always smeared by my greasy fingers.
And I have a big problem looking at extremely compressed jpegs. Even on this forum, some photographers don't seem to be visually sensitive enough to see how everything gets smeared and pixelated. Makes me almost feel nauseous.
Reflections can be an issue just like with glossy prints, especially if the screen is too dark.
My main problem is that I don't have a very large, high resolution screen, and my tablet which is pretty good is of course always smeared by my greasy fingers.
And I have a big problem looking at extremely compressed jpegs. Even on this forum, some photographers don't seem to be visually sensitive enough to see how everything gets smeared and pixelated. Makes me almost feel nauseous.
karateisland
Established
I snagged a 12" iPad pro, and I have to say I really enjoy looking at images on it. It's nothing compared to a print (and I do try to have my work printed), but it at least that beautiful screen makes each image more satisfying to work with.
retinax
Well-known
Wait, you say pictures start looking like crap only after you post them? But before, you must have viewed them on your computer and they look ok? Then that must mean they get shot when uploading, compression- or resolution-wise. Do you by any chance have a very high resolution screen and your browser somehow automatically enlarges pictures that would otherwise be tiny on that screen?
Dogman
Veteran
They look good on the screen but when compared to the print, the screen image looks like crap.
Takkun
Ian M.
I'm with you. I definitely love seeing work printed wet or inkjet on a fine FB paper (just picked up some prints from a fantastic printer for exhibition), but I don't see the fuss over onscreen images. How else would I edit them? Compression from FB/instagram/etc is another story though.
Maybe I'm lucky with an iMac that's been pretty accurate color-wise for the better part of a decade, but images look great, if different than on paper. As for the iPad, at least the Retina models, it's gorgeous for display. I've been trying my hand at editing on mobile and the workflow isn't exactly intuitive but there's no want for quality.
Load a few TIFFs onto it and you've got a very nice dynamic portfolio.
But I suppose this is more about viewing online specifically rather than onscreen generally. I do agree that it's no match in quality, but I don't really get all the hate I've been hearing here lately about sharing work online or social media. I mean, how many of us were posting on the thread about Flickr's problems?
I guess I'm mixed on that front. I have no problem with posting digital images since I don't expect you all to come into my home and look at prints on the wall, but I know they're no substitute for the real thing, which is why we all still enjoy visiting galleries and museums.
Dogman
Veteran
One of my points here is that a screen image only looks good for quick, cursory viewing. It encourages the viewer to look and move on. A printed image can hold your attention and invite close inspection and study. At least that's how I see it. That's one of the reasons why, when compared to a good printed image, the online screen image looks like crap.
Michael Markey
Veteran
I see a lot of prints every week at my local Photographic society.
Many of them made by accomplished printers and successful in international competitions.
I still prefer to see them on a screen.
I have two prints of mine on my wall and the only reason that they are there is that the printing was supervised by Stewart (Sparrow) at his local lab.
Other than that I only have stuff printed for archive purposes and those are done by Ilford and are filed away.
I never or very seldom refer to them.
Many of them made by accomplished printers and successful in international competitions.
I still prefer to see them on a screen.
I have two prints of mine on my wall and the only reason that they are there is that the printing was supervised by Stewart (Sparrow) at his local lab.
Other than that I only have stuff printed for archive purposes and those are done by Ilford and are filed away.
I never or very seldom refer to them.