Debate: prints v projected digital

[Monobod]

Hi,

I am probably going gaga looking at the screen for so many hours, but I am becoming convinced that digital images, either projected or shown on screen are sharper and more detailed than the same image when printed.

I have the following set up:
DELL 20" ultrasharp screen.
Photoshop CS4.
Epson Pro3800 printer.
Pentax K20D.

I print mostly at 300ppi using 2880dpi printer resolution and display images at 1400x1050 resolution. For comparison, I look at these at 50% on screen.

Whilst the prints are really very good, I cannot help finding myself being over critical of them simply because they do not have that bitingly crisp detail and dynamic 'life' that I see on screen.

Can it be that I am becoming over critical, or are others finding the same 'problem'. It is interesting now that projectors are of such high quality, that some clubs are considering dropping or reducing the number of print competitions in favour of digital projection. There is also an arguement based on relative cost to members for this attitude.

What do you think on this?

[LargeFormat]

My first reaction was "rubbish" even though I view pictures on a 2550x1600 screen. Then I stopped to think. The screen will make any colour using three dots because it can modulate the RGB. How many dots does a printer need to achieve the same, particularly if it has only four colours CMYK?

I'll consider that when I'm feeling strong.

[Nod]

I still prefer prints. OK, I'm happy to admit that I don't have a digital projector but I have seen some of my images projected. The projected images don't have the bite and clarity that the prints from my (relatively budget) iX4000 Canon A3 printer give me.
Incidentally, I find that the prints from the iX4000 (a 4 colour CMYK printer) are bitier and clearer than those from my older s820 (a 6 colour CMYK+ photo Cyan and Magenta printer), possibly due to the newer formulation of the CLI8 inks over the BCI6.

[Monobod]

Hello Nod,

Interesting that you find your digital images less sharp than your prints. I would have expected the reverse. Do you use any sharpening routne on your digital images?

I do not own a digital projector, but my club has one, a Canon SX80 with a 1400x1050 display. But I get very sharp (after sharpening) images in the DELL screen.

[beejaybee]

I do not own a digital projector, but my club has one, a Canon SX80 with a 1400x1050 display.

So you're happy with 1.5 megapixels .... why on earth did you buy a 15 megapixel camera?

Projected transparencies still beat prints from digital for resolution (but only just), digital images on screen are way, way down in comparison, and will remain so until digital projectors (and computer displays) start to approach the resolution of the sensor in the camera.

[Nod]

Hello Nod,

Interesting that you find your digital images less sharp than your prints. I would have expected the reverse. Do you use any sharpening routne on your digital images?

I do not own a digital projector, but my club has one, a Canon SX80 with a 1400x1050 display. But I get very sharp (after sharpening) images in the DELL screen.

A very basic sharpen using USM via PS. The shapenning is generally aimed at getting a good print since I don't particularly like looking at images on a screen. I daresay I could improve the look of my screen images but since I don't like looking at pictures on a screen, I won't be bothering!

[Monobod]

I do not own a digital projector, but my club has one, a Canon SX80 with a 1400x1050 display.

So you're happy with 1.5 megapixels .... why on earth did you buy a 15 megapixel camera?

Projected transparencies still beat prints from digital for resolution (but only just), digital images on screen are way, way down in comparison, and will remain so until digital projectors (and computer displays) start to approach the resolution of the sensor in the camera.

I certainly agree about transparencies. Your comment about the size of the sensor is a bit rum isn't it? You know as well as I do the reason for that.
If you belong to a club these days and compete in competitions, you will find the vast magority of clubs are projecting digital images. To not follow this is to deny the enjoyment of competition. You also know, as well as I do, that a digitally projected image at 1400x1050 is exceedingly good, providing the projector as properly calibrated. Lets not get silly about this.

my contention is that the images displayed on screen on a good monitor, properly calibrated, are looking sharper and more dynamic than my prints. It is not that there is anything wrong with the prints, seen in isolation they also look great, but in comparison...well!