How do you decide which of your photos to have printed?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhotographyBuff
  • Start date Start date
P

PhotographyBuff

Guest
And which of your photos to only store electronically on digital media or display online? More generally, what does it mean to you to print your photos and have them tangibly available in your hands as opposed to having them available only on digital media or online? What are the major differences (if any) in your opinion and experience?
 
That's easy, it depends on the purpose of the image and the correct way to deliver that image. Is it intended for one, a few or many.

Shooting for pleasure, for family, they'd probably stay on the computer as a memory reminder. For an 'event' then if the images are to be shared then it's easier to display online.
I print all my coursework, produce prints on request from events, have produced other media for specific requests.

There is a lot of difference between a print and a digitally displayed image, selection of media makes a difference in the image delivered. Putting on the web means a good way to deliver quickly to a large audience.
 
PhotographyBuff said:
How do you decide which of your photos to have printed. And which of your photos to only store electronically on digital media or display online?
Click to expand...

I don't use printing as a storage method. I have a few prints up around the apartment. They were chosen because my wife and I wanted something on the walls, so we picked out some of my photos that we both liked. Then tried to choose ones we didn't think would date too quickly / we'd get fed up of looking at.

Other prints would just be work related - exhibition, for clients, etc. Choosing them obviously is just based on the purpose.

PhotographyBuff said:
More generally, what does it mean to you to print your photos and have them tangibly available in your hands as opposed to having them available only on digital media or online?
Click to expand...

Nothing really. A print doesn't mean anything to me. It's just paper and ink (and expensive to get done nicely).

PhotographyBuff said:
What are the major differences (if any) in your opinion and experience?
Click to expand...

Ones on paper, the other's on a screen... that's about it.

A good print is always nice, but digital stuff is a lot easier to view, and opens up myriad ways of presenting/viewing/consuming photography.
 
Jayst84 said:
Ones on paper, the other's on a screen... that's about it.
Click to expand...

Ah you couldn't be more wrong.
On the screen, how do you know that the person viewing has the same correct colour resolution you have. Are they viewing your image the way you have made it.
There's also colour depth, depending on how produced, there's a much wider range of colours, tones in a print than in a monitor.
 
Is it the A-level Photography exam today? ;)

I get the ones I like printed, and will have printed a set from family/social gatherings as it's more interactive when you next get together than just sharing electronically.

Given the reaction when you hand over a stack of prints that everyone's already seen electronically, I'm not sure that anyone really connects with an electronic image in the way they do with a print.
 
I have around half a million published (455914 ) pics online... the only way I am printing is if someone pays me :)
 
From my wife's perspective (ie not a photographers) prints are almost the only way to look at pictures - she will often pick up an album just to look at or to show friends, but she will rarely look at pictures on a screen more than once. Photo books are fast becoming an expensive favorite of hers.
I am not talking just about pictures of the kids etc but other subjects too.
 
PhotographyBuff said:
And which of your photos to only store electronically on digital media or display online? More generally, what does it mean to you to print your photos and have them tangibly available in your hands as opposed to having them available only on digital media or online? What are the major differences (if any) in your opinion and experience?
Click to expand...

I've recently been printing and framing stuff for an exhibition; I hadn't done much printing from digital until recently, other than for calendars and the like.
The selection process has been a long one, but is aimed at presenting a consistent set.

If think there is something different about a print. If we get it right, they get looked at for much longer, more often and with more scrutiny than an on-screen image. Consequently I've reworked a number of images I've previously regarded as finished, and in turn that should mean that my standards are higher in future.

I had a bit of a revelation about framing last night, too. There's a kind of magical point when a print is framed at which is stops being one of my photographs with all its flaws and history, and becomes something else. I won't say art, but the finished object has a life of its own distinct from the process which created it.

That probably sounds pretentious enough for Pseuds Corner. Sorry about that.
 
Last edited:
It's tricky - I was hoping to find something to make the choice easier in here. :)

I print those I like best, but can't afford to have many done. Printing, for me, completes the process of creating a photograph, and makes it become real. Without being printed, the image is still only an idea.
 
I print my best sailing shots and pass them to the crews at the local sailing club. They appreciate them.
My landscape shots are sometimes printed as subjects for watercolour paintings.
 
Well - for personal stuff I'm pretty much with Alastair...

Alastair said:
...I get the ones I like printed, and will have printed a set from family/social gatherings as it's more interactive when you next get together than just sharing electronically.

Given the reaction when you hand over a stack of prints that everyone's already seen electronically, I'm not sure that anyone really connects with an electronic image in the way they do with a print.
Click to expand...



For work stuff, it's very simple and again, best summed up by an earlier post - this time by Kipax...

KIPAX said:
... the only way I am printing is if someone pays me :)
Click to expand...


And the major difference between the electronic and the printed media... simple - If I print, it's at a minumum of 10x8, probably larger, often MUCH larger, and it gets framed and goes on the wall, to be seen daily, lived with, loved and appreciated. Digital - it stays on a HD, never gets looked at by me after it's edited or posted online, and I pretty much forget about it. (that's both personal stuff obviously - work, I stop caring about it approximately a nanosecond after the money hits the bank)
 
Last edited:
TheBigYin said:
Digital - it stays on a HD, never gets looked at by me after it's edited or posted online, and I pretty much forget about it.
Click to expand...

Thats a shame.. personally I look at mine online.. doesnt need to be printed to be appreciated... Also thousands can look at mine online.. not many if printed in the house.. I prefer the thousands myself :)
 
oh, for the personal stuff, I know from the viewing stats that the stuff I put online gets looked at, I just don't look at it myself very much if at all...I'm a bit of a obsessive detail freak, and the only pictures i've taken that don't profoundly irritate me because of their defects are the ones I print. The "good but still annoying to me" stuff ends up online in various places and some people seem to quite like it - I even occasionally post stuff on here :shrug:



and for business stuff... lets just say most of it is bread and butter product shots, completely uninspiring (because, sadly, that's the brief from the client, who wants plonkey images on white backgrounds for ease of cutouts / use in online parts catalogues etc. - and frankly, it's boring enough actually shooting the damned things, without having to look at them) - and as long as the clients using it, and is happy, and pays me - I'm fine if nobody ever sees it again, and even happier if they do see it (it might mean repeat work £££) but they don't know it was anything to do with me.
 
PhotographyBuff said:
? More generally, what does it mean to you to print your photos and have them tangibly available in your hands as opposed to having them available only on digital media or online? What are the major differences (if any) in your opinion and experience?
Click to expand...

It depends on your needs. Unless it's being hung in a gallery or somewhere to be viewed by the public, then the only reason to print is for your own pleasure and to decorate your home. Unless it's for public display I do not print. Apart from a portrait of my wife, I have none of my own work in my home. There's something slightly narcissistic about hanging your own work in your own home (just my opinion).

You can display work to more people online than you can in a gallery, but gallery exhibiting is specific, and aimed at a certain audience, and if in the right gallery, in the right place, can be seen by more of the "right" kind of people. You may get 500K views on Flickr, but if it's 500K people just clicking on it, looking for 10 seconds then moving on to view the next one, and never giving your image a second thought ever again, what was the point? I'd rather have 10 people who are in a position to give me work or endorse my work to others in a similar position than a million nobodies on Flickr who will never give me a second thought. Ultimately, no one else gives a stuff about how many views you've had.

Also... no online method of display can show the quality of your work like a high quality print can. Even a 4K monitor is very low resolution. A full on, A1or larger print from a decent printer knocks spots off a digitally displayed print.
 
On line display of an image, can be affected by the method of delivery. You're at the mercy of the provider. How often do we hear that the images aren't displayed correctly on Flickr etc. What size is best for your image to be displayed and has the viewer a monitor capable of that resolution?

Because of unauthorised copying, use, images tend to be small in nature or watermarked. The advantage is it's easy to share quickly to many people. For the wedding I recently shot, the majority of the images were shared on line in a protected folder as many of the family and friends travelled far for the wedding and wouldn't be around to see the album.

The album when finished was something different, something tangible to savour, handle, to discuss and share over tea, a much more sociable method of image delivery.

With print, aside from quality, depths of tones, you have a choice of medium, which makes a big difference. Matt or gloss, choice of paper type or medium (acrylic, aluminium, canvas, t-shirt etc), texture, size, how you present it. You can modify the final result, I saw some beautiful work by a Taiwan artist, Kamolpan Chotvichai, who cuts her prints into fine ribbons, the depth and impression is lost when seen as a 2D representation. Wu Tien-Chang beloved was presented in Venice with enormous, impressive lightboxes.

With a physical copy, you have much more control over the final image and the way its displayed, but for the majority it's likely to be to a smaller audience.

Distribution of an image is for a reason - unless it's icloud auto copying your phone images for others to see ;) The method of distribution is relevant to the final audience requirements, but when asked What are the major differences (if any) in your opinion and experience, to say that ones on paper, the other's on a screen... that's about it, as a response shows a lack of understanding.

I don't suggest it's appropriate for all, but for that special image, print it occasionally, see the difference. For event's. special occaisions, family holidays, produce a book or album, put it on the book shelf and look at it randomly. The images, the collection, takes on another meaning than a collection on a screen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top