Sorry? Are we going to regret low resolution images?

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I know the 8K monitors will be here pretty soon.

 

Years ago I wrote that I, for one, might regret making such small images because greater resolution is coming. If we get greater network throughput, and the adoption of larger, high-resolution monitors becomes popular, then the present practices/preferences might create a new digital divide. Or will it?

 

What do you think?

 

[Jeff S]

Besides the pic itself, I care mostly about prints, and none of them are 'huge'.  Anything that helps improve print quality, not size, is a welcome addition to my overall workflow…otherwise not.

 

Jeff

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[pico]

I have the same opinion, Jeff. My keepers are 40" on the long side.

 

Nonetheless, it is crazy to be viewing high quality images at our current PPI metrics. It drives me crazy when people compare images put to a browser. It might not happen in my lifetime, but it's gotta get better.

.

[Jeff S]

I just stick to what pleases me, so unless the technology that allows me to do that disappears, I'm fine.  Most of my prints are 14x18, fully matted and framed.  Only occasionally will I go to 20x24 or more.  Most of the prints I collect are even smaller.  But then I still have a flip phone.

 

I do, however, consider having a quality monitor as key to a disciplined and calibrated print workflow.  But I'd much rather continue to see better printers, inks and editing software for my print quality.  Unfortunately, most people don't print these days, so I suspect more competition in the screen display world.  

 

Jeff

[adan]

I think human vision is going to be a limiting factor. I have a "2.5K" monitor, (Apple Cinema Display) and it is already at the edge of what I can actually see (absent peering through a magnifier 2 inches away), and at the limit of what I want on my desktop (let alone carry around as a "tablet" or phone!)

 

The same width as a Digilux-2 5Mpixel image @ 100%

 

8K will of course have a place in home (or commercial) theaters.

 

From the point of view of visual communication, most people view the world now through their smart-phone screens. Frustrating for someone like me who wants to work on the scale of spreads from LIFE (22" x 14") or Nat. Geo. (14" x 10").

 

My brother, an audiophile, commented recently that he found it funny that people were chasing more and more visual resolution (2K, 4K, 8K) - while being satisified (in the overall market) with lower and lower audio quality (.mp3)

[Mornnb]

It's already happened.

The iMac 5k is a 15 megapixel display. Well beyond the resolution of early digital cameras. Including the M8.

I don't think it will be much of an issue for 20 megapixel cameras though as 5k at 27" is already getting pretty close to the limits of the human eyes.

Edited April 25, 2015 by Mornnb

[Richardgb]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Funniest thing I heard recently was enthusiasm for 'HD video' on mobile devices, although the technology would be useful in other applications.

 

The report was dated 1 April.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-32140732

[MarkP]

My brother, an audiophile, commented recently that he found it funny that people were chasing more and more visual resolution (2K, 4K, 8K) - while being satisified (in the overall market) with lower and lower audio quality (.mp3)

 

 

So true!

[peterv]

There's no denying displays get better and better (dynamic range, color gamut, resolution) and less and less photos are printed. This will only get worse (or better, depending how one looks at it)

 

It's like with film, if we print less, there'll be less means available to paper and printer makers to develop the medium further. 

 

I like to print my photos, but it's very expensive if you want to do it right (or have it done by for example Whitewall)

 

A good high res/high color gamut monitor to exhibit photographs in gallery-quality may soon be very economical.

[wda]

I fear there will always be a mis-match between the technically possible and human perception. So I settle for what pleases me and accurately reflects my vision.

[tobey bilek]

I love large prints.   My home is small, therefore space is limited.  I have some 16x20" in the living room I put there in mid 70`s.    Small rooms demand smaller prints.  Refrigerator prints of the grandkids are 4x6.

 

I think for run of the mill stuff,  a nice album with 4x6 or 5x7 is quite nice.  6 MP Nikon D40 is sufficient.     That camera has made nice 11x14 prints.    It is more about the photographer and light than the camera for most things.

[pico]

I also downsized from a rural mansion of six bedrooms which were apartment sized with baths (not counting a three apartment attachment for support staff and their private staircase) for a tiny pocket change abode and I cannot be happier.

 

Now I have only one photo on my walls made by an obscure Swedish gentleman to remind that what is important is not famous.

 

Next I am divesting of all the stuff that no longer matters to a man close to end of life.

 

The kicker? I laugh with a strange relief that nobody wants all this stuff! Decades of tools, cameras, darkroom, cars.

 

I am tempted to announce a 'come and haul it away' event. Sure, why not?

Edited November 16, 2015 by pico

[pierovitch]

In about the same it takes to evolve 8K eyeballs?[emoji89]

[250swb]

So do all you guys go through life being dissatisfied with everything that has gone before in your photography?

 

I'm just as happy with the small intimate print made with a film camera as I am with a very large (or very small) print made with a 24mp camera. I'm not going to get into the competitive mind set that relegates all previous work to the dustbin just because it can't be printed very large, or displayed very large. It is what it is, no regrets, but some people are suckers for being told that the past wasn't good enough.

 

 

Steve

[Exodies]

We create the present at such an enormous rate that we have no resources left to cling to the past.

[pico]

My brother, an audiophile, commented recently that he found it funny that people were chasing more and more visual resolution (2K, 4K, 8K) - while being satisified (in the overall market) with lower and lower audio quality (.mp3)

All that shows our hearing diminishes sooner than vision.

[Bill Livingston]

All that shows our hearing diminishes sooner than vision.

If you can hear the difference between a real piano and an MP3 recording of a piano then your hearing is perfectly good enough to justify something better.

 

Hearing is the first sense you gain, and the last you lose, generally speaking of course...

 

I could go on... But Adan's brother is quite right... bizarrely, the emphasis seems to be on the visual rather than the auditory at the moment and people seem to accept utter rubbish, sound wise... when actually, sound has a far more direct connection to the primal responses and therefore emotional response...

 

Aural memory is far more accurate then visual memory. Look up 'silent, sound repetition'. We all do it, all the time... we are just not aware of it as it's the way we listen and identify naturally. 

 

Its a fascinating subject, and anyone interested in our response to music, particularly our emotional response to music and sound stimulus will be very aware of it. 

Edited November 22, 2015 by Bill Livingston

[Exodies]

You know what they say - the best music player is the one you have with you.

And as with cameras, a better music player won't necessarily give you more emotional response to the tunes.

[jankap]

Hearing is the first sense you gain, and the last you lose, generally speaking of course...

What is with smelling and tasting? These are the first, I think.

Hearing is the last you lose? I doubt, that this is a general rule.

By the way some of my friends and I myself have hearing aids and I was told, that these devices often are in the cupboard.

Jan

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Exodies]

I'm not sure smelling and tasting are much use in the womb, similarly for sight. Pre-natal hearing however is vital for language learning.