The internet as medium

[nongfuspring]

Looking at Ko.Fe's recent thread I think makes something quite clear, the major shift in photography over the past decades hasn't been film to digital, it's been print to internet. Today whenever we've taken a photograph we're presented with two non-mutually exclusive options: print or upload. Should we upload we're presented with options like which website to upload at, what resolution, will it have a hashtag, etc. With print we have to decide on the material qualities of the photograph as an object itself; how big it is, how is it printed, how is it supported and so on. Wether one prints or uploads a photograph makes a huge difference to the viewer's experience of the image, and also the process the photographer goes through to present it. One example of this is Gursky's infamous Rhine series, which are colossal stage set-like prints in person, but are mostly argued about on forums based off impressions barely larger than thumbnails.

From what I've seen some RFF users have made a firm commitment to printing, where others have made a wholesale move to uploading. What's your position on this and why? And for those of you that have decided that the internet is the primary way that people will see your photographs, what decisions have you made to make the internet a more suitable place for your work to be seen?

 

[Darthfeeble]

I like to share on various sites to get input and such, but my main joy is in the print on the wall. It's not a photograph until it's on the wall.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I can't afford to print every photo I make, and even if I did, no one would look at them. My audience and my patrons are all people outside Indiana; no one here gives a damn whether I live or die.

So, I put the photos on my website so my fans around the world can see them, and when someone buys one, I print it.

 

[Bill Clark]

I have very few images on the internet, for many reasons.

Paper prints that are framed and displayed on a wall is where I want to view my photographs. This can be at various locations. I do have 4/6 prints that are in envelopes. I can look at those and determine if I should make an enlargement.

To me, the best compliment is when I see a nice smile on someone looking at my work.

 

[Georgiy Romanov]

Real prints can give me a real human relationships. Nothing like that on the net. I can't remember when a pretty girl gave me her number after she saw my photos on the web. But Internet is very good field for the maintenance of these relations with your viewers 🙂

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Thanks for mentioning of me. 🙂

In the past printing was the only way to get opinions. Internet is exactly the same now.
In the past printing was the only way to show it to the public and family. Internet ... is the same now.

It is now second month or so while I'm studying GW analog prints via Internet.

I could distinguish most of the time digital from film and wet print from the scan. Would it be on the print or on the monitor.
My monitor and PC provides me the size which is equal to prints sizes I'm finding in the books of Ansel Adams and HCB.

The only real differences between the Print and the Internet to me are in archival and accessing options.

This is why I prefer to have all options combined from the both.

Cheers, Ko.

 

[mfogiel]

I have recently gone through a thought process about prints, and my conclusion is that given the resolve to end my days as a film only shooter, it is worthwhile to concentrate on a type of output which is both enjoyable, in line with my retro thinking, and at the same time ever more rare nowadays: aim at good quality B&W matted prints of small to medium size.
As a paradox, the small output is most interesting: a 10x12 inch mat with a 6,5x9,5 inch (or whereabouts) print, with a back mat glued sandwich like to the front gives you an object that you can comfortably view in hand or frame and put on a wall or your chest of drawers even in a small apartment.
People nowadays do not even EXPECT that the goal of photography is to create lasting records, they sort of have been accustomed to use photographs as a rapidly changing movie.
I have investigated for some time, if there was an effective edge to producing small prints through contacts of LF negatives, but on the LF forums many users claim that they actually prefer the output they can get from scanning their negs on a flatbed, and printing digitally after PS adjustments. Whether the actual inkjet print appearance is superior to a silver baryta print is a matter of debate, but in aspects like perceived sharpness and/or tonal balance ( given the ease of masking in PS) it certainly is. I print the images I am interested in on Epson 3880 in ABW on the current equivalent of Ilford Gold Silk paper, with slight warm toning, and the effects are very satisfying. I could be happier if Epson adopted a uniform gloss layer to avoid a somewhat uneven appearance of pure white spots on the paper, when you look at it from an angle, but that's about it.
Apparently, the latest SC printer series has even deeper blacks and better DR, substantially superior to darkroom prints.
As for the mats, i've bought a Logan mat cutter and cut my own, as dealing with framing shops is both time consuming and expensive.

Now, this has nothing to do with the internet, as I continue using it for posting my everyday photographs and for keeping together the work I care most about in one place. The two things are not in conflict with each other in any way.

 

[jsrockit]

I make books...

 

[B-9]

Now that I have an M8, I'm going to focus on being a better digital photographer. Ide like to make some of those nifty photo books, as soon as I learn the ropes of digital post. Then there is printing... I will be taking advice then!

I'm excited to shift from negative archiving and occasional print making to posting more digital images on places like Instagram. Where I do not really need to think too deeply on what I'm going to post (or print), as it is a rolling movie of my experiences.

I am also excited to post more photos here at RFF and become more involved with projects Ide like to see. I really have to say, the World Wide Web makes a great medium! It's easier than ever to connect to patrons and followers, or in my case gain a few!

 

[nongfuspring]

Some interesting replies, especially yours mfogiel. I'm curious about that SC printer you mention.

Part of the reason why I brought up the topic is that I feel that if I'm going to take photographs more seriously I ought to treat the delivery of the photos as seriously as I do the taking. I was thinking of doing more darkroom and digital printing, and also custom building a website for photographs. I feel that just posting up onto a hosting site is not my style, if the primary way people see my photographs is through the internet I'd like a unique website that operates more consciously as a support for my photos and more proactively uses the internet on it's on terms instead of the other way round. I'm still figuring this out though.

 

[Kate-the-Great]

I use the internet/digital display almost exclusively as my medium nowadays, although I'm getting back into printing slowly.

The proliferation of excellent displays is making viewing digital images on-screen very enjoyable, given suitably high-quality files provided. My primary display- a 24" 2160P panel with matte finish and 10bpc color- approximates a 13x19" print at 200dpi, and my Surface Pro 2 is similar to a 6x8" at 200dpi. Even a large smartphone (which is even more likely to have an excellent display than many laptops) offers a similar experience as a 3x5" or 4x6" print at 300+dpi. And of course, being backlit, digital displays can offer a wider contrast ratio than prints for more "pop".

Not that I think printing is going to, or should, go away. Digital displays won't be able to match a high-dpi gallery-sized print until 40 & 60"+ panels with 33 million pixel ("8K"/4320P) resolution become accessible. And there is certainly something tangible and static about a paper print that I enjoy.

But it is undeniable that the bulk of photography is now shown online.

 

[ihorzu]

Should we upload we're presented with options like which website to upload at, what resolution, will it have a hashtag, etc. With print we have to decide on the material qualities of the photograph as an object itself; how big it is, how is it printed, how is it supported and so on. Wether one prints or uploads a photograph makes a huge difference to the viewer's experience of the image, and also the process the photographer goes through to present it.

I think you are mixing everything.
When you upload and choose website, hashtags and resolution it's like choosing gallery and proper names for your photos. how to order them on the wall, and how to advertise.
When you print and choose "material qualities of the photograph as an object itself; how big it is, how is it printed, how is it supported and so on" - all this shifted to the photo processing tools (Photoshop, LR, e.t.c.) where you can process image any way you want.

Nothing changed now but shifted to the less expensive digital environment.

 

[ihorzu]

So my idea it is not print vs upload. It is old style presentation (gallery, your house's/appartment's walls) vs modern digital.
So yes, it is still analog vs digital.

And it is better for us when it is analog + digital.

 

[lukitas]

I grew up in print, got educated in print, and then worked in print for a considerable part of my life. A print is the appropriate form of a photograph.

Nowadays, I don't print at all. I think about it. Every day, my least forgettable photos go on my blog, I link to one or two on fessebook, and I put a few on the rff gallery.
There must be 20 or 30 people who look at my photos. Almost every day. Most are from Belgium and the US, some from the Czek republic, occasional views from Europe West and East, South America, Asia. I find that to be quite an achievement. 30 or so people take the trouble to look at my photos. My prints never had that large or loyal a public. Someone even asked me when I was going to do a show!

I'm thinking about a book though, maybe even a few. Exhibitions are a museum-like experience, and feel like waiting on well-to-do patrons. A book is for the home, should be more democratic, more accessible, even though for accessibility, internet takes the cake. Does anyone have experience with publishing services on the internet?

cheers

 

[Tompas]

Family pictures get mailed to family members and friends. No 'social media'.

Those images of mine that I really like get printed, and the very best of those I frame and hang on a wall.

On my little family website I have both -- some family pictures as well as some of my personal favorites. Visitors most likely are interested only in the family pics...

 

[codester80]

Can I stir up this thread a bit by adding a supplemental question? If someone is focused on presenting their images only via Internet, why the need for high resolution cameras? 24MP files look no different than a 6MP file when viewed on a computer monitor.

 

[Michael Markey]

Can I stir up this thread a bit by adding a supplemental question? If someone is focused on presenting their images only via Internet, why the need for high resolution cameras? 24MP files look no different than a 6MP file when viewed on a computer monitor.

I don`t think that is necessarily so.
It depends on the monitor and the site surely.

 

[codester80]

I don`t think that is necessarily so.
It depends on the monitor and the site surely.

From photoshopessentials.com

Image Resolution Affects Print Size, Not Screen Size
If the fact that computer monitors today all have screen resolutions higher than 72 ppi hasn't convinced you that there's no such thing anymore as a 72 ppi screen resolution standard, here's another important fact to consider. If you previously read through our Image Resolution, Pixel Dimensions and Document Size tutorial, you already know that image resolution has absolutely nothing to do with how your image appears on your screen. In fact, a digital image, on its own, has no inherent resolution at all. It's just pixels. It has a certain number of pixels from left to right and a certain number from top to bottom. The width and height of an image, in pixels, is known as its pixel dimensions, and that's all a computer screen cares about.
The size at which an image appears on your screen depends only on two things - the pixel dimensions of the image and the display resolution of your screen. As long as you've set your screen to its native display resolution as we discussed earlier, then an image will be displayed pixel-for-pixel. In other words, each pixel in the image will take up exactly one pixel on your screen. For example, a 640x480 pixel image would fill a 640x480 pixel area of your screen. An 800 pixel-wide banner on a website would appear 800 pixels wide on the screen. No more, no less. And no matter what you set the image's resolution to in Photoshop, whether it's 72 ppi, 300 ppi or 3000 ppi, it will have no effect at all on how large or small the image appears on the screen.

The only caveat being if your digital camera produces incredibly small native files you will see degradation in quality as editors cheat to up rez it to fit larger monitors.

 

[nongfuspring]

I think you are mixing everything.
When you upload and choose website, hashtags and resolution it's like choosing gallery and proper names for your photos. how to order them on the wall, and how to advertise.

I disagree - choosing between image resolution and physical size are very different, likewise a hashtag is very different from deciding on a title. A hosting website that can be accessed from any computer with an internet connection is fundamentally different from a gallery that must be visited specifically - a print is a physical object that occupies and responds to space, a jpeg is a bitmap that is accessed via a node of generic network infrastructure (i.e. a computer). The support structure of a website and that of a gallery space are completely different and have their own limitations and possibilities.

The comparison can be analogous, but it is not equivalent. Clearly visiting a dedicated photography gallery is a different experience from visiting flickr - I'm not saying one is better than the other, but to say they are identical is to do justice to neither.

When you print and choose "material qualities of the photograph as an object itself; how big it is, how is it printed, how is it supported and so on" - all this shifted to the photo processing tools (Photoshop, LR, e.t.c.) where you can process image any way you want.

Photoshop doesn't produce prints, a printer produces prints. PS is used in both analog and digital presentation workflows.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Can I stir up this thread a bit by adding a supplemental question? If someone is focused on presenting their images only via Internet, why the need for high resolution cameras? 24MP files look no different than a 6MP file when viewed on a computer monitor.

Because if someone buys a large print, you're screwed with the 6mp file.