What's the Future of Image Presentation?

Sam Tip

Sam Tip

Suspended / Banned
Messages
288
Name
Sam
Edit My Images
No
Just some thoughts...

When I first got into digital imaging, for me it was ALL about the prints. But I don't print at home. I get machine archive prints made. Even with the tonal compromises this causes, I've been delighted with the results. Sometimes they get framed up.

There will always be a need for prints of course, in albums and framed for private walls and exhibitions. That kind of thing. But with razor-sharp 12" tablets-come-laptops I'm wondering if the emphasis is subtly shifting.

There are fantastic TV screens now with image quality only dreamed about 20 years ago. That's fine for shots in a landscape aspect but it's a real bummer for portrait work. This is a big deal, in my opinion.

Today an increasing number of us are holding high quality 10" and 12" screens that display illuminated images in all their tonal glory. And we simply rotate the device to avoid black bands with those portrait aspect images.

I suspect that many serious amateur shooters these days aren't bothering with prints as much as they used to -- if at all -- knowing the display capabilities are exceptional on handheld devices. They can share their online portfolios and galleries with potentially hundreds of viewers and be very content with that.
 
The method of capturing photographs is almost exclusively digital nowadays, and makes sense that the method of presentation is also digital, which for most people, it is.
Back in the day, a few decades ago, I used to have my best photos print enlarged and put them in a nice album. It was pretty much the only way for me to view and enjoy them.
But now, I can see my photos just as well on my 23 inch Apple screen, or for that matter any half decent display device.

There is a finality, a "finished product" aspect of a printed photo, that digital does not have. But its the way I have gone now. I would only now have a photo printed if it was destined for the wall.
 
I've been shooting little projects the last year or so and collating 10-20 cohesive images into a photobook, entirely for my own interest but it adds a full stop to a project I feel.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BBR
Personally, I still look at prints as the final product rather than screen viewing. I do almost all my own printing at home and go up to A3+. I get panoramas done elsewhere though and usually create a single large image at 24" wide and get charged by the inch for a long (or tall) print then slice it at home. Don't really like peering at a screen, even to do the original culling! Got about 1750 shots from an Iceland trip to sort through... Deep joy!!!
 
People still want prints. Well printed images look awesome, and viewing on even a large monitor is not the same as looking at a big, well printed, well lit print.

Industry still like print folios, galleries still need prints, and prints are most definitely in demand. There is more demand for photo books now than any other time in history.


Only the amateur sector seems to be abandoning prints... as is the consumer world, but the professional world most definitely is NOT abandoning prints at all.
 
As this thread is about the future, I'm imagining beautiful, glossy, colour, e-ink boards that you can frame and hang on your wall in a variety of sizes, and at different orientations. You'd have the option to have them self illuminating. You could replace the image periodically, as long as the size ratio fitted. You could have a gallery of large square frames that showed different things to different people as they walk past. And you'd save the cost of printing, transporting and storing.
 
ianp5a said:
As this thread is about the future, I'm imagining beautiful, glossy, colour, e-ink boards that you can frame and hang on your wall in a variety of sizes, and at different orientations. You'd have the option to have them self illuminating. You could replace the image periodically, as long as the size ratio fitted. You could have a gallery of large square frames that showed different things to different people as they walk past. And you'd save the cost of printing, transporting and storing.
Click to expand...


That would rock! Sounds like a fair way off though :(
 
My Printer has not been used for months as it has been packed for moving, if the heads are blocked and can not be cleaned, I don't think I will buy another one. If its ok I will print as and when I need to. Ink Prices are so high and its much easier to pass my hi-def tablet around, Photos look better on it, but size is an issue.
 
I threw my printer away for the same reason. I get anything I need printed online quite cheaply now.

One place I use, cheekily the shopping basket also shows the equivalent price of inkjet ink and paper. Which is always much more expensive than their online printing, including postage. It is believable as their costs are quite low.
 
Last edited:
Almost everyone only looks at pictures on digital devices now with a resolution of about one million pixels... yet these same people must have the next offering from their favourite camera manufacturer with even more pixels than the current offerings from their competitors!!


Steve.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
If the final use of your shots is a tablet or even a monitor, multi megapixel sensors are a waste of space. For me, prints will always be the final product with screen viewing a necessary evil which must be endured during the weeding process!
 
Apart from prints, in my experience there are a couple of reasons why 16-20 MPs are particularly useful. One is cropping, which can occasionally give me unexpected options, though I prefer to aim at composition in-camera.

The other reason is detailed editing using the typical range of tools in software. It's surprising how important and effective this can be, and 12 MP images and less can be restrictive. Some software (Lightroom for example) can channel us into making global edits that suit some parts of the image much more than others. A spin-off from this is a tendency these days to do less in conventional image-editing software.

So, what's best for the image and how much time do we want to spend glued to a computer screen?

I must say in balance, I'm keen on displaying my best images on high quality handheld screens, landscape and portrait. And I need enough megapixels to satisfy my editing needs. But prints are my ultimate goal and images can be edited with that in mind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top