Photography vs Digital Image

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by xpatUSA

"Taking advantage of the luminance from the monitor" almost sounds like cheating, eh? Still, if we like dull images like prints we can always turn down the brightness control, I imagine. ;)

---

The lower contrast on a print is recognized when authorities suggest for the best looking prints to 'over' sharpen so the image looks almost 'crunchy'. Sharpening is just increasing the differences, the contrast, at tone borders to make them more visible. Since prints have less contrast the tone borders need even more defining, hence more shrpening.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Black Pearl

Thanks for answering my question to another member - I haven't the foggiest what you're going on about but thanks anyway.

---

I get that a lot and you're welcome.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thetraveler

There are two kinds of differences, one real and one intellectual.

The image on a screen takes advantage of the luminance from the monitor to give the image life but at the same time there is much less detail and, unless you have a very resolution screen you won't get the impression of detail that comes naturally with a print.

A print relies for its appear of luminosity on the underlying medium (there is no white ink) and so is naturally duller than a monitor. On the other hand, it is a real thing, you can lift up up, look at it more closely, lay it down and the image persists. The printmaker has captured that image and laid it on a medium.


To me, an image on a screen is ephemeral, tied to the machinations of a monito, graphics card and computer cpu. It seems that I am always sharing the image with technology - and it goes away when I turn the monitor off.

A good print, to me, is a greater accomplishment, just that much further down the difficult path from subject, to camera to editing to reproduction, then past the monitor to print.

Somehow, intuitively, viewers know that. They give more crtedit to prints than to images on a monitor. Also, wrongly, they give credit for size and manner of reproduction. That is almost impossible to avoid. I was at a show in a gallery in Chelsea and the images were all printed quite beautifully and very large. The show was impressive but, at the end I saw a notebook with the same images sized at 8 x 10 and not nearly as well printed; not only were they less impressive, they were banal.

So viewers walk a fine line, ignore the method, the manner that tried to falsely enhance your appreciation, look at the image.

---

I agree that print and monotor are two different mediums.
I disagree that one is superior to the other.
they are simply different.
A cigar is different than a pipe which is different than a cigarette.
A row boat is different than a powerboat which is different than a sailboat.

it is ones own choice which is right for the occasion.
brian

And so a diverse and well-articulated range of views has been given, which is healthy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shanghai Steve

And so a diverse and well-articulated range of views has been given, which is healthy.

---

absolutely