The Fallacy of Judging Image Quality Online

[johnastovall]

Or Micheal Reichmann on why the print is the final proof of body and lens.

Rant #23b


Amen Brother, Amen....

[ldelacruz]

Only if your final output is print. I am sure there are many people who have a D3X or 1DS who only use them for the web images or Facebook. They most likely rarely print an image.

I agree with your thread the web can make a crappy photo look like amazing crap.

[iCe]

I think that one needs to be able to make their crap look good for the web and in print. I'm beginning the "print" portion of the odyssey at the end of October. Maybe then I'll make myself buy a printer

[ldelacruz]

Originally Posted by iCe

I think that one needs to be able to make their crap look good for the web and in print. I'm beginning the "print" portion of the odyssey at the end of October. Maybe then I'll make myself buy a printer

Thanks Michael. You just proved my point. You have almost every camera and lens Canon makes and you don't print. You are like me and the web is 95% of your showcase medium. We are the new breed of photog.

As for my crap statement I am not saying we produce crap but I can see where true die hard old fashioned film photogs would have an issue with it because it can mask a bad photo and make it it look better on the web than what it would look like in print.

[jeffkohn]

Once again Reichmann gets in over his head. The guy has some nice equipment, and even takes some nice pictures sometimes; but his doesn't know nearly as much about the technical, nitty gritty stuff as he thinks he does.

But what about looking at images at 100% on-screen? There one can see the differences – right? Well, yes, one can see the difference of how they look on-screen at 100% magnification. The fact that this has little to nothing to do with how an image will appear in a print seems to escape many people

This statement is nonsense. If you want to say that "100% on-screen viewing won't show you exactly what a print will look like", that would be true in a literal sense. But if you know what to look for and how to interpret what you see, 100% on-screen viewing [b]can[/bb tell you things about image quality that are useful for determining eventual print quality.

[iCe]

Originally Posted by ldelacruz

Thanks Michael. You just proved my point. You have almost every camera and lens Canon makes and you don't print. You are like me and the web is 95% of your showcase medium. We are the new breed of photog.

As for my crap statement I am not saying we produce crap but I can see where true die hard old fashioned film photogs would have an issue with it because it can mask a bad photo and make it it look better on the web than what it would look like in print.

Actually... I print... I just can't stand looking at the ugly crap that I get back from the printer so I don't print much. I managed to win Best of Show at the Colorado County fair and take home a few blue ribbons but it was like competing against Miss Jones 3rd grade class (no offense intended but really... it was a total downer. I don't think that Miss Jones was even hot). It's not the printers fault. It's just that I don't know what I'm doing (yet)

I produce crap My benchmark is way higher than I've got the skill to create but I'm working on it. Endeavor to persevere

Originally Posted by jeffkohn

Once again Reichmann gets in over his head. The guy has some nice equipment, and even takes some nice pictures sometimes; but his doesn't know nearly as much about the technical, nitty gritty stuff as he thinks he does.


This statement is nonsense. If you want to say that "100% on-screen viewing won't show you exactly what a print will look like", that would be true in a literal sense. But if you know what to look for and how to interpret what you see, 100% on-screen viewing [b]can[/bb tell you things about image quality that are useful for determining eventual print quality.

Zackly... Good proofing skills and good color management will get you very close to the final result for printing.

Who the hell has a screen large enough to look at an image in it's entirety at 100%?