What really matters

[pico]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I have no idea how many of us grew up with cameras that had lenses considered  excellent then, but not so today. So, therein is  the root from which to criticize my my  view.

 

Has the current monitor technology set the standard? What might happen if monitor resolutions improved at least 2^4?

 

I find the monitor images entirely irrelevant. What photos evince regardless of prevailing technology is  the soul of the medium.

Edited October 13, 2016 by pico

[TomB_tx]

Agreed. I look at the complete photo as a whole. Even on large monitors I find my old lenses just as pleasing as they were on film.

[Advertisement]

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

[bocaburger]

Imagine the sight of someone at a gallery with a jeweler's loupe and their nose pressed up to a print.  Seems to me magnifying digital image files to that extent is tantamount to the same thing.

[Exodies]

I like to have a very close look at any picture, photo or painting. It doesn't detract from having seen the image from any other distance.

[spydrxx]

Oh yeah, I pixel peep, mess around with sliders and things, then resize for my screen, do whatever needs doing, and go forward. I've had a number of more "modern" lenses, but actually often prefer what I get with older lenses. Probably my limited eyesight contributes to my luddite view of things. Most of my prints have been made from negatives (or positives) exposed with lenses 30-70 years old. Nobody but I seem to know the difference. So my take is that scientifically it is great to exploit the modern lenses, sensors, and other devices...they do wonderful things, but in the end it is the creation, whatever the tools, which appeals to me and many others.

[semi-ambivalent]

To hold a well printed and spotted, double weight, 16x20 silver gelatin wet print in one's hands is unlike anything digital. Both image and artifact, a computer monitor can never compare, whatever the pixel count is. People simply acclimate to what is made available to them.

 

s-a

[Jon Pop]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I think that looking up close at a painting (to see how the brush strokes worked, for example) or pixel peeping with photos on a computer is fine from a curiosity point of view; to see what's going on. Certainly lens designers - who by necessity have an obsession with the trade-offs they are always juggling due to the laws of light - make good use of looking very closely at corners, 300% enlargements, etc. 

 

However...

 

I think the current obsession with what are now the absolute micro-details in lens design and rendering is a game of diminishing returns, in the extreme. It's become a type of click-bait in the photo world, where there is a proliferation of 'expert review websites and blogs' that pretend to offer authority on (for example) 'the profound differences between the Zeiss Otus and the Apo Summicron 50' (two lenses that are inarguably on the highest side of the performance curve). Made even worse by the absolute hype brought about by the 'next level' purportedly coming out by a manufacturer, then quickly 'reviewed' by the so-called sites (even the best ones, while thorough, don't spend the months if not over a year shooting real photos with anything they review, yet have no difficulty making declarative statements).  And then of course this is all debated on forums.

 

I'm not suggesting there aren't differences between the performance and rendering of lenses, old and new (this is very evident when one shoots with the variety of 50mm lenses on a Leica, for example). The differences between a Summarit 50 f1.5 and a Summilux 50 f1.4 Asph are quite obvious.  But in the end, it always has been - and always will be - about the picture. Complete with its proper composition and, I might add, the 'proper viewing distance'...as is true for all art. No one evaluates a symphony based on scientific (or usually pseudo-scientific) micro-comparisons between frequency levels. The whole point is that it has to work as a whole. Individual instruments can and do ruin the symphony...but only at a certain level are they even detectable.

 

It's fun to be gear heads; debating specs, collecting things, sharing experiences. But the pixel-peeping abilities and obsessions that now exist under the aegis of 'photography' I feel have caused more of a kind of regression rather than progress; a focus on micro details of equipment as a proxy for actual content of photographs. 

[lct]

I could not tell a single lens that i liked on film and dislike on digital but their flaws are more visible at 100% mag on a monitor. 30 years ago i would have said that my 35/2 v4 an 50/2 v4 were sharp at all apertures for instance and i never heard about focus shift then. I'm no pixel peeper though and as far as lenses are concerned i'm more interested by character than resolution. 

[Herr Barnack]

I have no idea how many of us grew up with cameras that had lenses considered  excellent then, but not so today. So, therein is  the root from which to criticize my my  view.

 

Has the current monitor technology set the standard? What might happen if monitor resolutions improved at least 2^4?

 

I find the monitor images entirely irrelevant. What photos evince regardless of prevailing technology is  the soul of the medium.

 

Agreed. 

 

Looking at an image on a screen is IMHO similar to looking at an ultrasound of an unborn baby in the womb. 

 

My interest is in producing an exhibition quality print.  Until that comes to pass, I look at the image on my screen the way an expecting parent looks at an ultrasound. 

 

Until there is a physical print, it's all just ones and zeroes.

Edited October 14, 2016 by Carlos Danger

[lct]

I've always preferred screens personally. I did not like printing in the film days because i was not satisfied with photo labs and i had no skills for chemistry myself. Now i'm still not satisfied with labs and my printing skills are mediocre at best. I guess my pics are too crappy to be hanged around but i would never hang a photo of mine on my walls anyway. My "prints" can be watched on the PC monitors of my relatives and clients anywhere in the world, i don't need anything else but it's just me.

[Manoleica]

I've always preferred screens personally. I did not like printing in the film days because i was not satisfied with photo labs and i had no skills for chemistry myself. Now i'm still not satisfied with labs and my printing skills are mediocre at best. I guess my pics are too crappy to be hanged around but i would never hang a photo of mine on my walls anyway. My "prints" can be watched on the PC monitors of my relatives and clients anywhere in the world, i don't need anything else but it's just me.

Your words pretty much are as per my thoughts, I do though send cards, prints and have produced a couple of coffee table books..via Apple.. I have never been disappointed with the results and have had lots of very nice comments.. L

[pgk]

I (and my agencies) still sell images shot on 35mm film and early digital cameras (6MPixel). Any (including modern) monitors are somewhat irrelevant if the content is there. 

[Jeff S]

Of course the thing that matters the most is the picture itself; otherwise, why bother?  

 

Given a worthy picture, the most important thing for me has always been the final print.  I've taken pride in controlling and executing the entire workflow from camera to print, as well as to matting, framing and display for those special ones.  This has been the case in my darkrooms (since the early 80's) and in digital (since 2009); only the PP tools have changed, and those improvements (in software, printers, papers, inks, etc) have done more to increase print quality than any camera/lens choice.

 

A quality monitor does play a meaningful role in the print workflow by providing the means to consistently and reliably control and preview various print characteristics.  But monitor quality has not influenced my choice of camera or lenses.....those have been sufficient for years...plus nobody knows what gear was used anyway.  The only thing that additional resolution has afforded me is the ability to crop or print somewhat larger without degradation, but then I don't print any bigger than 16x20-ish anyway.....often a lot smaller, depending on what the picture itself dictates.

 

Jeff

Edited October 18, 2016 by Jeff S

[cirke]

I enjoy  my iPad pro Retina  I don't need prints , I prefer screen

[sblutter]

To me, its always been about the print

[gberger]

Being a transparency shooter, arguments were about the differences and quality among film types,  projection lenses, screen types and projectors.

 

Now, the discussions often center around what is seen on the monitor.  IMO, the monitor, itself, clearly is a crucial element. Where is your Photoshop done? Where do you use Lightroom to post-process?  A properly-alibrated monitor becomes essential. 

 

Yeah, I love looking at digital photos on my 27" iMac with Retina display!  Clearly better) than the display on my older IMac.  Almost as satisfying as projection. 

[michaelwj]

The thing that really matters is the taking of the picture. That's what I love.

 

The rest is details. There would be no picture to view if I didn't enjoy the act of taking it. So to that end, the tactile relationship with the camera is what matters.

Edited October 19, 2016 by michaelwj

[JonPB]

When I first started using high-pixel-count monitors, I found that my interest in pixel peeping went down. Something about a ~100 PPI monitor encourages me to look at every pixel, while I rarely have any interest in going beyond 100% on a ~300 PPI monitor -- which yields a much lower magnification. So, at least in my own experience, improvement in monitor technology is negatively correlated with standards for technical image quality.

 

I'm with Michael, in that the act of taking pictures is what drives me.

 

It is the stimulation to view, consider, and experience the world that makes photography my hobby of choice. In cameras and presentation, my sole goal is to minimize distractions from the experience of cultivating images. Making photos, for display on an ephemeral screen of RGB pixels or as a carbon-on-cotton print, pleases me...but not enough to deal with the hassle of doing so. The true reward I get is finding more encouragement to take my camera out again. There's both the evidence to assuage my internal doubts that it is worthwhile, and the social reward of positive accolades...or at least polite recognition. People seem more willing to accept me going for a wander once they see my images. On my own, I'm a perplexing recluse; with a camera, I become a respectable eccentric. Others, of course, have widely different motivations and find different justifications for or rewards from photography. And, to me, this says that the soul of the medium is what people put into it, not the shape it ultimately takes.

 

Cheers,

Jon

[NB23]

I've just finished printing twelve 20x24 fiber ilford prints. Each and every time Imm printing I ask God to make me live to an active 100 years so I can continue do do this.

Which film, which lens, which developer, which paper, which lens, which camera, which speed I used, which aperture, this angle relative to the sun, which selenium ratio, the temperature, the unquantifiable Alchemy factor...

 

Computer screen? I guess it's practical. As satisfying as sex with an inflatable doll, I guess.

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Leica M

[Neko]

 Printing is magic! I have nice screens but when I see a beautiful image printed in, let´s say, Hanhnemuhle Fine Art Baryta, the feeling is fantastic. Printing takes time and dedication, but is totally worthy. My screens are just means to achieve the best possible print.