« Gadfly Gives Up or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Digital Black-and-White | Main | Open Mike: Collectibles »

Saturday, 13 December 2014


I suspect that part of the difference is in that the Jpeg is a transmission screen image, and the print is reflected light off a chosen surface. I also think that having compared many screen shots of raw and jpeg images with the same images printed on a number of surfaces, that some images just look better one way or the other. And not always in favor of the print.

[Very true. I've experienced several situations where a great-looking screen image doesn't look good in a print. --Mike]

Is it just me - in the right image I see two faces,which could be Statler and Waldorf from the Muppet Show?

Do people really buy prints, having only seen a jpeg that small?

I may be completely ignorant of how this is meant to work, but if I'm paying £300 for a print, I'd like to see high res image first if I can't get to the gallery and see it in person.

Image for print and image for screen requires different post processing to start with - it is two very different animals.
When you PP for screen you have another problem: You can see how it looks on your screen - and only that. Published on the web, it can be viewed on any type of screen. I have a hardware calibrated 92% Adobe RGB screen and I regularly re-calibrate it. How many do that?
Subsequently I do not bother much to publish for the web and instead optimize for print. At least so far. We now see 5k screens (Apple) and also screens that do 99% Adobe RGB. The best screens (if large) can be a viewing tool better than print. Which brings us back to the time when color slides projection was the ultimate way to look at (color)photos.....
Note: An excellent, from film, enlargement by a trained copyist paper B&W is the most beautiful photo you can see - ever!

"low-reflectance museum glass", perhaps you could tell the museum industry about this! Can't think of a photo exhibition I've been to that wasn't poorly lit.

For a long time I've thought that Paul Caponigro set the standard for traditional, fine-art, landscape photography. He sees well and he's a superb printer. The Nahant image - the right one of the pair - exemplifies his best work. I'm sure it was in an exhibition of his photographs that I saw at the Farnsworth Museum in Rockland, ME a few years ago. If the print on sale were a silver gelatin "Nahant" printed by Paul Caponigro, unpaired with the other image, I'd buy it in a heartbeat. But it isn't. To me it's just an inkjet reproduction of a silver gelatin photograph paired with an image I don't particularly like.

A digital fine art print, in the latest ink generation, by a master printer is indeed a different and brand new animal. Sure it's different from a silver gelatin and allows for quite different and increased expressions of tonalities, colors, resolution and sizes in photographic print work, taking the reflective print craft to very new levels and certainly the masses of digital print work are missing out on it's potential, lacking input and effort.
But trying to explain to the hobby shooter the difference between a reflective and a back lit view of an image has become a never ending task in my shop indeed, or why the 2 MB JPEG will be lacking to create a crisp 30x60" print with, even though it looks so good on screen,....still for a professional these are most exciting times to shoot and print amazing work.
Love the concept of the father and son project, spanning so much of our photographic heritage, while making a vital connection of those pesky tech details, irrlevant to the artistic content.

The comments to this entry are closed.