Topic: Is it just me, or have you noticed...?

[hookstrapped]

I've heard enough people talk about and warn that a photo that looks good on a computer screen might look like crap printed -- I'm putting together a print portfolio of recent stuff and, How true -- so I figure that's a common experience.

But have you noticed that also some photos look better printed than on the computer, and these happen to be by any and all measures your best photos?  I mean, in terms of clarity and contrast and overall impact.  Or do I just need another drink?

[moominsean]

if printed properly, most photos look better in print than on a screen. i love photo books for that very fact. i have a tough time looking at photos online for more than a few minutes, really...

my polaroids for the most part look much better to me, as well, in person that on the screen. smaller, but better.

[Francois]

I'd pretty much say it depends...
If your screen is properly calibrated, the print should be good.
But if not... you can expect pretty much anything on paper.

[hookstrapped]

I think the screen often hides flaws and lends a luminence when it's not really there in the photo.  As for prints looking better, I think that's a sign of a proper photo rather than a ptetender.

[Skorj]

I've yet to see a real photograph look better on a PC. Even crappy snaps look better printed properly. Skj.

[hookstrapped]

I've yet to see a real photograph look better on a PC. Even crappy snaps look better printed properly. Skj.

I have plenty.  It's actually a pretty standard bit of advice you get in NY at places like ICP to digital-only students, to beware that when you start dropping off printed portfolios you might lose a lot of photos you think are good if you've only viewed them on the computer.

[Flippy]

I'll second that sometimes the screen lends a luminance that isn't there on paper.  It's kind of like when you look at a slide on a light table, vs. projecting it.

But hey, print it on endura metallic then, problem solved. 

[stefancoisson]

As a graphic designer, I deal with this on a weekly basis. You have to remember that on screen you're looking at a lighted "surface".

What everyone is saying about how a printed photograph can look just as good and better than online is VERY true.

Since you're working on a print portfolio, best thing to do is make sure everything is calibrated correctly. Monitor, printer for right paper, etc... etc.. You'll probably have to do some proofing and testing, but you can definitely get things to look great.

If you're going to a real/commercial printer you can have them do randoms/proofs and that will help you a lot!

[stevesegz]

 I agree with moominsean.
I too love photobooks for this reason.
I am always surprised on the quality of the images compared to that on the screen and am always delighted when my latest purchase drops throught the door.

 A colleague posted some of his images on Facebook and was deluged with friends saying how wonderful they were and could they have a print.
The prints revealed the true quality of the images needless to say many were disappointed. Should have gone to Metro or Printspace.

I'm not going to go into the traditional v inkjet v lambda cos thats off topic.

[Phil Bebbington]

I have always been delighted with images that I have had printed, even when done at Jessops. I guess I ought to factor in that feeling of holding the physical object!

I keep the screen calibrated and have found that the prints are always great - without the back-lighting, naturally

[stevesegz]

'Jessops' really  I must just be fussy.
To me the print is the final part of the photographic journey unfortunatley most only get as far as the computer screen these days. It is the vital component if it is mediaocre it's not finished.

[Sandeha Lynch]

Not always, perhaps even rarely.  I still think my Blurb book looks better onscreen than in print, but really appreciation of the image has always been a matter of context for me.  I was introduced to photos through newspapers, Sunday magazines, photo collections and monographs, and tend to remember composition rather than surface.  It's as much a matter of meaning as visual appearance, so with a good monitor I'm perfectly happy.   

[LT]

I think the screen often hides flaws and lends a luminence when it's not really there in the photo.  As for prints looking better, I think that's a sign of a proper photo rather than a ptetender.

I think it all depends on how well it is printed. The luminance of a properly realised wet-print on baryta paper far exceeds what is apparent on a screen, IMO.

[Mojave]

HS, I am just finishing up my print class and before this class started, I was with you 100%, especially with the luminance issue. My prints always came out darker than what I saw on the screen. However, now that I am at the end of the class I know now that its all a matter of getting the print right, which is all about finding the proper ICC profile for the printer you are using. This all digitally speaking of course. I cannot speak about darkroom printing from personal experience but have heard that prints created in the darkroom always look better than how the image looks online. I know this is true with my gum prints.

But anyway, after my class my prints now match what I see on the screen exactly. I cant tell that the prints look better, just that they look exactly how they do on screen. If you want to go over ICC profiles, I mean if you arent very familiar with that, I'd be more than happy to talk to you about what I learned in class. Its not a whole lot of info but its helped me create proper digital prints.

[Francois]

One thing to remember is that most of the consumer electronics (this means regular printers, not the high tech toys that print wider than an 8½x11 with 7 color cartridges) are geared to work on the sRGB profile. I try to keep everything at that and feel the predictability of the results has increased somewhat... especially when the print jobs are sent out.

[Mojave]

Francois, I have a Canon Pixima Pro 9500 Mark II with 10 ink cartridges that prints up to 13 x 19 sized prints and have recently discovered that the sRGB color profile works best for that printer too. I think its much different for the Epson printers though.

[vcv751]

I am a big fan to get photographs printed. Don't expect you can get good prints from front-end machines where you insert you CF or SD in the slot with a touch screen interface. I spent some time study the FUJI frontier machines and calibrate the color in PS using the fuji frontier ICC profile, I have better results but the outcome is not consistent. The main reason due the output machines is not properly calibrated. I spoke to the print shop staff, obviously he is not a photo enthusiast, said who cares about the calibration of a 10 cents photo kiosk. I ended up going to another mini lab, which we speak the same photography language.

If you ever seen films get developed on photo paper or digits get "developed" on paper (not Print), then you may agree image on paper is unique and have more potential to look better than the best illuminated computer screen.   

[Francois]

From what I found by testing various kiosks around the area with the same images, the variation can be quite interesting.

From experience, it is not so much related to calibration as to software.

The best print come from the Frontier machines that use Crystal Archive paper.
Those who use the dry process machines (including those by Fuji), results can be variable.
Many kiosks (especially the more sophisticated ones) have built-in "intelligence" (Kodak comes instantly to mind) which is supposed to make prints look better. Sadly, you can't turn off these features. I think they were geared towards untouched digital images and the regular granny-type client. When you come with an already calibrated and worked image, it creates junk.
Also, you have to feed the machines some sRGB profiled images... else the results are random.

[mickld]

I struggle to get a good inkjet print too. The amount of guesswork and test prints it takes me to get a print that matches what I have on screen helped me 'rationalise' setting up a darkroom. Apart from the washing up, it's just as much work for me to print in the darkroom as it is to work with an inkjet, but the darkroom is much more fun. Black and white only, of course! I know that's my fault but I've kind of given up printing digitally. It's a source of much frustration and confusion.

What really struck me when doing my first few wet prints was how good my 6x6 Holga prints come out compared to my scanned versions - there's a lot more tonal quality in those toy camera negs than my scanner reveals.

[LT]

... but the darkroom is much more fun ... What really struck me when doing my first few wet prints was how good my 6x6 Holga prints come out compared to my scanned versions - there's a lot more tonal quality in those toy camera negs than my scanner reveals.

Yes YEs YES!

[mickld]

LOL - I think it was my very first print that really struck me! The photo was of my son sitting in the sea wearing a wetsuit. This gave lots of dark wet blacks that had a sheen in the sunlight, and the inch of clear water he was sitting in glistened too.  The scans were leading me to believe the negs were kind of thin and weedy, and the water looked muddy - like it was an overcast day while it was actually a nice sunny day. But when I saw the 7x7 inch print (MGIV RC) sitting in the water tray looking all glossy and gorgeous I was really taken aback. And no grain in sight (HP5 in Rodinal).  Probably says more about my scanning abilities!

The Holga is a surprisingly capable camera. I had actually dropped it in the sea that day while changing film. Shook it down and carried on, no problems.