Lataxe
newbie
Reged: 15/05/2008
Posts: 12
|
|
The AP camera tests tend to consider the camera as an instrument primarily for producing a print. The tests consider the merits and demerits of cameras with the assumption that a print is the normal medium for looking at the photo.
Digital darkroom techniques and equipment are also print-oriented. We must calibrate our monitors and printers so that the final picture on the wall will be printed as the screen shows it following the edits. Sharpening, colour saturation and even dimensions are all about getting the best possible print.
I don't know about you but in our house we have ceased to look at prints, except for the 3 dozen already hung on walls here and there. My nice A3 printer is busy with downloaded PDFs or other printed matter rather than with photos, these days. We look at the photos via the big monitor, which also serves as the TV. Sometimes we cart the laptop hither or thither to show photos to a friend. Distant friends and relatives get an email and they too view photos on a screen.
Are we not still living a bit in the film-based past~~? Perhaps there should be a sea-change in the generally print-oriented assumptions behind equipment reviews and digital darkroom techniques?
|
Roy5051
Reged: 02/09/2001
Posts: 713
Loc: Somerset UK
|
|
And maybe all go back to 2 megapixel cameras, especially for projection, as most reasonably priced projectors only use that amount of data!
--------------------
Roy
Why do people with expensive cameras say you don't need one to take good photographs
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 4976
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
And maybe all go back to 2 megapixel cameras, especially for projection, as most reasonably priced projectors only use that amount of data!
Good point.
But don't we want to "pixel peep" even if only to point out that someone else's pet piccy isn't more than marginally sharp?
|
Maui888
journeyman
Reged: 13/01/2007
Posts: 55
Loc: Hampshire, UK.
|
|
As somebody pointed out on another thread, everyone (semi/serious about photography) should print their photos. Printed paper (or card, whatever) is quite a different medium to the (relatively) low res monitors we have. I've found an image can have quite a different mood/feel to it when printed and it can be an inspiration when you get a 'fine' image printed out (and a challenge - I'm very much still learning ;-).
This doesn't mean you have to print everything. As Lataxe says, if we're showing 'family snaps' or there equivalent, theres a plethora of ways of delivering them that save on paper and ink and its nice to have that choice these days.
|
Lataxe
newbie
Reged: 15/05/2008
Posts: 12
|
|
A printed photo is indeed different (with different digital darkroom requirements) than is one intended for a screen - or a projector. Different screens also seem to require edits for them to show a photo at it's best. Sony, for example, apparently build-in to their cameras some sort of auto-processing of photos specifically for the output at HD resolutions to one of their LCD HD TV sets. The output for various types and sizes of LCD screens seems to require different sharpening, contrast and colour balance or saturation. Web-based stuff differs from that output to a state-of-the-art monitor.
All these media are valid but print media seems to have remained as the number one priority for camera makers, reviewers and digital darkroom technique-teachers. Yet I (and I suspect most other photographers who are not professionals) look at 90 or more of photos on a screen. Most of mine never get to be printed; and yet they are looked at far more often than they would be were they in a printed photo album - screens are so convenient.
My suggestion is that camersa reviewers and digital darkroom lesson-givers should perhaps revise their advice to be much less print-oriented than heretofore.
Lataxe, not writing a letter but typing to a forum.
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
