Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: RE: Image Disembodiment  (Read 24104 times)
svein-frode
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 92



« Reply #40 on: August 19, 2008, 02:31:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Yep, I'm a hopless romantic Rob

There is defineatly something to be said about prints and books, but personally, nothing compares to the luminous quality of backlit images. Both medias will live side by side for sure, but I imagine that general paper copies of snapshots will continue to decline as the "mobilephonegeneration" grows up and more and more images will only be viewed on some sort of electronic display.


Michael, te veneratio quoque!
Logged

Svein-Frode, Arctic Norway

www.svein-frode.com
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #41 on: August 19, 2008, 02:36:05 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Most TVs can be calibrated and adjusted to your taste. I have the TV calibrated with the same system I use for my PC monitor! For normal viewing I use an energy save mode which dims the screen considerably.

Full HD is just 2MP, but I imagine future LCD screens will come with increased resolutions for picture viewing, just as you can change the resolution of your PC Monitor.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216079\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, I understand you can adjust the TV contrast, brightness and color, but it's still transmissive and more of an eye strain that reading a printed book.

Regarding the increase in resolution of future LCD screens, my point is, it's happening rather slowly. My current Sony 19" CRT monitor which must be at least 8 years old, is set at 1800x1440 and 70Hz. Although that's not an HD aspect ratio, it's slightly higher resolution than an HD display in terms of total pixel count.

There are no large, TV type displays which are as high resolution as my relatively cheap, 8 year old Sony CRT. It might happen eventually, but to replace large, fine art inkjets, the resolution increase would have to be substantial; another step upwards from HDTV of similar magnitude to the difference between SD and HD.
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 19, 2008, 04:12:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I still can't get over the fact that the latest and most expensive HD displays cannot display the full resolution of an image taken with the latest mobile phones, which now boast 5mp built-in cameras.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=27300&pid=215741&mode=threaded&show=&st=20&#entry215741]http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....20&#entry215741[/url]

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 19, 2008, 05:07:44 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....20&#entry215741

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes, indeed. And let's not forget that each TFT display pixel usually consists of 3 subpixels. A 1600x1200 display is, in a way, quite close to a 6MP camera in terms of photon processing (producing or collecting) transistors.

Pierre
Logged
Ken Tanaka
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



WWW
« Reply #44 on: August 19, 2008, 06:15:13 PM »
ReplyReply

The physical photographic print is, and will remain, the apex of the photographic display media.

Electronic media (Internet, electronic picture frames, "fine art displays", etc.) are, and will remain, the domain of amateur photographic enthusiasts, commercial promotional communications, and family photos.
Logged

Best Regards,
- Ken Tanaka -

www.KenTanaka.com
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #45 on: August 19, 2008, 06:31:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Electronic media (Internet, electronic picture frames, "fine art displays", etc.) are, and will remain, the domain of amateur photographic enthusiasts, commercial promotional communications, and family photos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Was there something important missing in this list?  The apex thing?  Well, hear this. The most powerful/useful/influential image on *any* media is the one that's at hand, i.e. here and now.  And since my 9x6x1 inch laptop is with me everywhere, my photos are probably more influential and certainly more useful than 10 other people put together, including every pro who doesn't have an audience on Fox TV every evening.
Logged
Ken Tanaka
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 126



WWW
« Reply #46 on: August 19, 2008, 08:06:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Was there something important missing in this list?  The apex thing?  Well, hear this. The most powerful/useful/influential image on *any* media is the one that's at hand, i.e. here and now.  And since my 9x6x1 inch laptop is with me everywhere, my photos are probably more influential and certainly more useful than 10 other people put together, including every pro who doesn't have an audience on Fox TV every evening.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216130\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
"dalethorn", I've absolutely no idea what you meant to assert here.
Logged

Best Regards,
- Ken Tanaka -

www.KenTanaka.com
dalethorn
Guest
« Reply #47 on: August 19, 2008, 09:26:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
"dalethorn", I've absolutely no idea what you meant to assert here.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216141\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm not surprised.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #48 on: August 19, 2008, 11:58:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yes, indeed. And let's not forget that each TFT display pixel usually consists of 3 subpixels. A 1600x1200 display is, in a way, quite close to a 6MP camera in terms of photon processing (producing or collecting) transistors.

Pierre
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216118\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Do I detect a Foveon versus Bayer debate developing here   . A 6mp Bayer type sensor is roughly equal to a 3.4mp Foveon sensor, but even an image from the Sigma SD9 is too big for an HD display. Whether your images are 6mp Bayer type, 3.4mp Foveon type or 3-5mp cell phone images, if you want to create a slide show on your latest 60" plasma 1080p screen, you'll have to either crop those images or downsample them, that is, throw information away.
Logged
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8812


« Reply #49 on: August 20, 2008, 12:11:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index....20&#entry215741

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216110\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bernard,
The link to that IBM news item is not working properly for me, but I do vaguely remember reading about that several years ago. I believe the monitor was fairly small, wasn't it? Around 22" probably.
Logged
John Camp
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1252


« Reply #50 on: August 20, 2008, 12:25:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The collector point is a valid one to some extend, but it could probably be possible to control the diffusion in such a way that a limited number of digital copies exist.
Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=215441\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's what the rock bands thought, too. Now some of them are giving away their albums to promote their live shows, which may be the only way to make a living as a rock band in the fairly near future. Once an electronic file gets out in the open, somebody will move it along -- and, as far as that goes, "multiples" of any work of art are less valuable than unique objects of the same quality by the same person. That's why Picasso prints are still fairly affordable, but a Picasso oil painting is not.

I actually think that only certain people become interested in fine art (if that's what we're talking about), and fine art is really a matter of ideas more than media. There are already some artists (Jeff Wall) who only display their individual photographs as illuminated unique objects, no TV set required. A collector who acquires one of them (at about $1 million each, last I heard) has both a unique object and a large illuminated photograph. A video screen really only adds the possibility of change and piracy, and change is not that important with serious fine art works. Suppose you had both a Van Gogh and a Cezanne, of the same size. How would you feel if they were on a rotating frame so that you could only see one at a time? You don't want to do that -- you want to see all your masterpieces all of the time. Video screens are for family photos, for promotional effects, for things that need to be changed. Fine art is for contemplation.

As for electronic readers, I've actually only seen one in the wild, and I was not impressed. I think they may be useful for reference works, but as somebody once said, if paperback books were  invented next year, they'd be considered an advance over laptop-style readers -- they are cheap, biodegradable, sturdy (don't break when you drop them; can be dried out if you drop them in a lake; no problem if you spill coffee on them), need no power source, and, if you've only got one of them, can be torn in half so somebody can read the first half while somebody else reads the second half.

JC
Logged
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #51 on: August 20, 2008, 02:54:46 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bernard,
The link to that IBM news item is not working properly for me, but I do vaguely remember reading about that several years ago. I believe the monitor was fairly small, wasn't it? Around 22" probably.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216175\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Correct, it was 22 inch indeed and the resolution was 3840x2400...

So it shows clearly that the technology is here today, and has been around for years, to create screens with a resolution of 200 DPI.

What might not be there is the graphic card to drive them.

But I don't think that TFT would be the right technology, OLED is a lot more promising since the screens can be made to be very thin (a few mm) and therefore a lot lighter.

One option would actually to make ROM screens that could only be impressed once with an image... you would have all the characteristics of paper, but with the tremendous advantages of emissive medium.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7523



WWW
« Reply #52 on: August 20, 2008, 02:57:56 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Electronic media (Internet, electronic picture frames, "fine art displays", etc.) are, and will remain, the domain of amateur photographic enthusiasts, commercial promotional communications, and family photos.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216128\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I could swear that I read very similar comments hundreds of times about digital cameras 10 years ago.

You could be right, but my guts feeling is that my next Epson large format printer will be the last one I'll ever buy.

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #53 on: August 20, 2008, 04:39:05 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I could swear that I read very similar comments hundreds of times about digital cameras 10 years ago.

You could be right, but my guts feeling is that my next Epson large format printer will be the last one I'll ever buy.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Quite right, Bernard, you´d do quite well with an HP of similar size, if my smaller A3+ one is anything to go by! This is a joke, in case I start another flame war. What is a flame war? (Not a trick question.)

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #54 on: August 20, 2008, 04:44:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote from: John Camp,Aug 20 2008, 05:25 AM

I actually think that only certain people become interested in fine art (if that's what we're talking about), and fine art is really a matter of ideas more than media.



That, John, more or less completes the discussion on what is or is not art: it is something which is dependent on the opinion of a select group of individuals, those who actually care.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #55 on: August 20, 2008, 04:48:10 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Was there something important missing in this list?  The apex thing?  Well, hear this. The most powerful/useful/influential image on *any* media is the one that's at hand, i.e. here and now.  And since my 9x6x1 inch laptop is with me everywhere, my photos are probably more influential and certainly more useful than 10 other people put together, including every pro who doesn't have an audience on Fox TV every evening.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216130\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]




I have no fight with your position as stated, but you are talking about a means of ready reference, not the ultimate way of displaying a work of art.

Rob C
Logged

Rob C
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 12215


« Reply #56 on: August 20, 2008, 04:57:03 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yep, I'm a hopless romantic Rob

There is defineatly something to be said about prints and books, but personally, nothing compares to the luminous quality of backlit images. Both medias will live side by side for sure, but I imagine that general paper copies of snapshots will continue to decline as the "mobilephonegeneration" grows up and more and more images will only be viewed on some sort of electronic display.
Michael, te veneratio quoque!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216081\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


As with my response to dalethorn´s post, I think you are comparing two different concepts, in this case, fine art and lowest common denominator snapshots. The two don´t seem compatible bedfellows to me as they require different sets of display parameters.

Hopeles romantic, working in finance? Mama mia, what a challenge!

Rob C
Logged

laughingbear
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 164


« Reply #57 on: August 20, 2008, 06:09:38 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I could swear that I read very similar comments hundreds of times about digital cameras 10 years ago.

You could be right, but my guts feeling is that my next Epson large format printer will be the last one I'll ever buy.

Cheers,
Bernard
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=216193\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's because the 11880 is very good in deed. <grin>

Thanks for this write up Bernard, enjoyed it a lot!

Quote
That is of course until the next revolution comes where images will stop to have any physical representation at all. Streamed directly to our brains. By then the need for capturing devices will be mostly gone and all images will be virtually computed... Reality itself might then become a thing of the past… 

Yeah, we are on our way in deed to make Reality something that can be "tuned" at the push of a button. We are not that far away from that scenario in my opinion, while pictures are not streamed directly to our brains due to lack of technology, otherwise Playstation, Fox News and others would happily provide that, I consider us in Kindergarden when it comes to manipulation of Reality perception, and beyond doubts they are working hard to get it better.

Did you ever have a chance to speak to a "Second life" junkiee who spends 10 hours or more a day in that computer generated world? Do it, you might be suprised.

Apart from that, when we reach the time of ProPhoto++ RGB devices, and later down the road technology that utilizes holographic display devices to project the picture around the observer, of course this would include microparticle dispensers that support the sense of smelling, we may find ourselves living behind walls.

Walls.... Doh?

Yup, the rest of the world continued to live under circumstances of war and starvation, and the endless streams of those who try to reach the walls in their relentless attempts to flee the humanitarian catastrophy constantly increased, so the rich world had no chance but to build walls, again.

Behind these walls it is against etiquette to speak of what is going on outside of the walls. It is socially inaccpetable and since generations those living inside were sheltered from the human tragedies outside.

Science Fiction?

Not really, just that these walls are not of physical nature all the time, some are of course, but most of them are walls that exist in our brains already, the biggest of all is called ignorance.

But what about prints?

Paper as we know it has long ceased to exist, nano technology enables us to reuse thin data foils over and over again. Oh, language btw has undergone a transformation, there is only one language left behind the walls, its has been introduced by the 2067 Patriot Act and does not have Past Tense included in the grammatical structure, it consists of 650 vocabularies only and is the only language allowed to speak. Writing has been banned with the same Patriot Act from 2067 as there is no need for written text anymore, there are no more questions left to be asked. We solved it all, the universe has been explained and God is dead.

Quote
Crystal Ball OFF.
Back to printing some images on my old Epson 4000.

Yup!

P.S.

Quote
A super slide show going from Ansel Adams to Alain Briot without having to visit the attic to switch frames. 

Who is Ansel Adams?

Best,
Georg
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 06:10:43 AM by laughingbear » Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 20, 2008, 09:25:06 AM »
ReplyReply

Hi Bernard,

I haven't read the 57 previous posts in this thread - time is short today, but I did just finish reading your most interesting muse into the future, and I find it "visionary". In my trade, one would say this article is the epitome of "forward looking statements" and of course - again in my trade - the issuer of forward looking statements disclaims responsibility for them, because there can be real consequences if readers actually made financial decisions based on them, and then they turn out to be wrong. The luxury of doing this with photography is that one can enjoy the intellectual pleasure of reading them, without risk or cost, and ask onself in a very relaxed and detached manner whether one really believes both the story-line and the details. And there is no reason for the writer of these statements to disclaim responsibility - it's a vision, period.

OK, what do I think of this vision? My bottom line impression is that things are heading in the direction you indicate, but you have over-stated the death of paper. For a number of reasons. A paper print is a tangible product which one can easily frame and display, or keep in archival boxes. Their quality keeps improving with each new paper and inkset, and they aren't that hard to conserve. We also have - we think - pretty decent predictive evidence about their durability. Also, the industry is not about to stop improving inkjet printing technology. I think it is plateau-ing, in the sense that the rate of improvement in the future may be less than it was over the past 15 years, simply because so much has been achieved. But I also think it will march onward and upward and there will continue to be countless thousands of takers for it, to justify the investments. In short, paper is less inconvenient than you make it out to be. It also hangs on walls nicely for the cost of a frame, which need not be high.

Now let us compare screens and printers. The fact is today that my Epson 3800 with Ilford Gold Fibre Silk and K3 inks has a wider colour gamut than my LaCie 321 display, and this display, while not the costliest, is still not inexpensive. We've reached the point where the DMax of the prints and the display, despite the difference between reflected and transmitted light, are not that different. Since I came off of matte paper to using IGFS, I've found the need for soft-proofing VERY diminished. So what this means, is that as a way of seeing things, good prints and screens can be about equivalent now. As the two technologies advance in the future, we'll see which develops the quality edge, hence one aspect of consumer preference.

The convenience and cost factors of course will also inform consumer preference. How many screens will we need to buy and mount on our walls if we wish to hang a bunch of pictures in different places for viewing? What cost? How long will these screens continue to perform before they need replacement? What about the longevity of file formats they will be able to read? Etc., etc. Lot's of questions about what this new technology will provide in terms of future sustainability. The digital wallets and slide shows we now enjoy are fine, but they too depend on storing vast amounts of information in formats that will continue to be accessible for as long as we and our children and our grandchildren may want to access them. I was just asked to scan and reproduce images I made 50 years ago of our childhood life. I had the negatives and was able to do the work. I hope the same will be true for my grandchildren with my digital files.

More generally, I just don't see this question as one of "either" "or". I think each technology is optimal for its own purposes and conditions, and they will continue to develop and co-exist for a very long time. Paper will outlive film for a long time to come. There is no death to anything. But your article is interesting - lots of food for thought, and points to one direction in which things are clearly moving.

Cheers,

Mark
« Last Edit: August 20, 2008, 09:28:23 AM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6767


WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 20, 2008, 09:29:18 AM »
ReplyReply

PS, Bernard, I really enjoyed those B&W panos you included - stunning, attractive images.

Mark
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad