Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Difference between print and screen

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
February 23, 2005 7:51:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the basic
effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 24, 2005 2:14:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:51:54 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:

>What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
>printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the basic
>effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.


1. Dmax - decreases

2. Gamut - generally decreases

3. Resolution - hard to compare, but generally
can't improve going from screen to print

4. Noise - hard to compare, but with an injet
print you've now got an error diffusion pattern
to contend with that doesn't exist on-screen.

5. JPG artifacts: What, you need yet
another superfluous and gratuitous
variable here?


It's really an apples-to-oranges comparison.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 24, 2005 8:14:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:14:15 -0500, in rec.photo.digital rafe bustin
<rafeb@speakeasy.net> wrote:

>5. JPG artifacts: What, you need yet
>another superfluous and gratuitous
>variable here?

At least it is possible to totally eliminate this on if one chooses to save
to the camera raw format.
----------
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://edwardgruf.com/Digital_Photography/General/index...
Related resources
February 24, 2005 12:01:30 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul there are too many variables. ex. depends on the printer used, ex.
depends on the software to print ex. depends on the jpeg compression ex.
depends on the size of the jpeg. ex. depends on the iso rating.

It is possible to get what you see on the screen on paper but many things
can change or alter this.

"paul" <paul@not.net> wrote in message
news:gd2dncRqKsi4uIDfRVn-sQ@speakeasy.net...
> What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
> printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the basic
> effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 24, 2005 5:44:32 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:14:15 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:51:54 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>
>>What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
>>printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the basic
>>effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.
>
>1. Dmax - decreases
>
>2. Gamut - generally decreases

...and often colors shift within it.

>3. Resolution - hard to compare, but generally
>can't improve going from screen to print
>
>4. Noise - hard to compare, but with an injet
>print you've now got an error diffusion pattern
>to contend with that doesn't exist on-screen.

...and if it's a good printer, can't be seen with the naked eye at any
reasonable viewing distance.

>5. JPG artifacts: What, you need yet
>another superfluous and gratuitous
>variable here?
>
>It's really an apples-to-oranges comparison.

Hey, you didn't mention your 200% zoom you use to critique every image
with becomes a mere 16.7% when printed at 6x4.

That's a big one!

So:

6. It gets smaller.

:-)

7. Color casts - Ambient lighting introduces at the time of viewing
play a bigger role on a print than they do on a screen.

8. Brightness - It gets darker at night, brighter in the day - the
opposite of what happens to your screen.

9. Smelly/Fingers - It smells, and people like to stab their grubby
fingers at it.

It's a good idea to print a test target on any new media/printer
combination (something similar to the one below, but either make your
own or find a much higher resolution one online) and use it to
cross-reference with your screen so you can learn the perception
difference.

http://dima.pmai.org/images/DIMA_printer_Target.jpg

--
Owamanga!
February 24, 2005 5:44:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:14:15 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:51:54 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
>>>printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the basic
>>>effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.
>>
>>1. Dmax - decreases
>>
>>2. Gamut - generally decreases
>
>
> ..and often colors shift within it.


Although inkjets have a pretty impressive gamut.


>
>>3. Resolution - hard to compare, but generally
>>can't improve going from screen to print
>>
>>4. Noise - hard to compare, but with an injet
>>print you've now got an error diffusion pattern
>>to contend with that doesn't exist on-screen.
>
>
> ..and if it's a good printer, can't be seen with the naked eye at any
> reasonable viewing distance.
>
>
>>5. JPG artifacts: What, you need yet
>>another superfluous and gratuitous
>>variable here?
>>
>>It's really an apples-to-oranges comparison.
>
>
> Hey, you didn't mention your 200% zoom you use to critique every image
> with becomes a mere 16.7% when printed at 6x4.
>
> That's a big one!


Hey I use 400% on-screen to see what's going on <grin>. I've got a very
powerful loupe and inkjet prints look awful at that scale. The obvious
thing is it's just these little random dots with lots of white paper
between. Black areas have little white grit every so often. Looks
horrible up close like that.

No doubt prints are much worse quality than on-screen. Noise and
posterization that are bothersome on screen are imperceptible on a print
simply because it's a poor reproduction. I know inkjet printing is very
impressive but maybe there is considerable room for improvement.

Although... looking through my loupe & back at an 800% view of the
original on screen... there are something like 5 or more dots to stretch
across a 2-pixel wide line (275 dpi print at 2800 dpi printer setting),
but still the on screen original has more definition & the print is
relatively muddy. Subtle details and tonal changes are just not visible
on the print.


So I wonder at what dpi printing, can you get all the detail and tones
of the original? Maybe 200 or 150 dpi? It seems a shame to throw o ut
information if it can be captured printing larger. Of course it's going
to look softer but you stand back looking at a larger print anyways. The
days of actually seeing pixels on a print are long gone. I don't know
that'd probably have to be below 72dpi before you could actually see
square pixels on a print. I've got a 100dpi print of the same image and
it looks really close to as much detail as the on-screen original. So
I'd say that's the best way to print, at 100dpi or so. That's a 30-inch
wide print for a 6MP image. That way you aren't throwing anything away.


>
> So:
>
> 6. It gets smaller.
>
> :-)
>
> 7. Color casts - Ambient lighting introduces at the time of viewing
> play a bigger role on a print than they do on a screen.
>
> 8. Brightness - It gets darker at night, brighter in the day - the
> opposite of what happens to your screen.
>
> 9. Smelly/Fingers - It smells, and people like to stab their grubby
> fingers at it.
>
> It's a good idea to print a test target on any new media/printer
> combination (something similar to the one below, but either make your
> own or find a much higher resolution one online) and use it to
> cross-reference with your screen so you can learn the perception
> difference.
>
> http://dima.pmai.org/images/DIMA_printer_Target.jpg
>
> --
> Owamanga!
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 24, 2005 5:44:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:

> Hey, you didn't mention your 200% zoom you use to critique every image
> with becomes a mere 16.7% when printed at 6x4.


I specifically mentioned, several posts
back, that anything beyond 100% was only
useful for detailed retouching and spotting.

Again, I think I should point out that a)
I do a lot of work with film scans,
anywhwere from 20 Mpixels up to about
120 Mpixels, and b) for most of these,
I'd like a file that could (in a pinch)
be used to make large prints, say 24x36"
or thereabouts. (Easy with LF film
scans, not so easy with 35mm scans.)

If I was limiting myself to 8x10" prints,
I'd have no need for anyting better than
my trusty 10D and would spend a lot less
time fussing around in Photoshop.

The smallest prints I make are 5x8"
which I sell for around $20 matted.


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 24, 2005 8:09:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:46:44 -0500, rafeb <rafe@nowhere.com> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>
>> Hey, you didn't mention your 200% zoom you use to critique every image
>> with becomes a mere 16.7% when printed at 6x4.
>
>I specifically mentioned, several posts
>back, that anything beyond 100% was only
>useful for detailed retouching and spotting.

Okay, okay.. just rattling your cage. Apologies.

--
Owamanga!
Anonymous
a b C Monitor
February 26, 2005 7:22:42 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 14:44:32 GMT, Owamanga <nomail@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 23:14:15 -0500, rafe bustin <rafeb@speakeasy.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 16:51:54 -0800, paul <paul@not.net> wrote:
>>
>>>What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
>>>printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the basic
>>>effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.
>>
>>1. Dmax - decreases
>>
>>2. Gamut - generally decreases
>
>..and often colors shift within it.
>
>>3. Resolution - hard to compare, but generally
>>can't improve going from screen to print
>>
>>4. Noise - hard to compare, but with an injet
>>print you've now got an error diffusion pattern
>>to contend with that doesn't exist on-screen.
>
>..and if it's a good printer, can't be seen with the naked eye at any
>reasonable viewing distance.
>
>>5. JPG artifacts: What, you need yet
>>another superfluous and gratuitous
>>variable here?
>>
>>It's really an apples-to-oranges comparison.
>
>Hey, you didn't mention your 200% zoom you use to critique every image
>with becomes a mere 16.7% when printed at 6x4.
>
>That's a big one!
>
>So:
>
>6. It gets smaller.
>
>:-)
>
>7. Color casts - Ambient lighting introduces at the time of viewing
>play a bigger role on a print than they do on a screen.
>
>8. Brightness - It gets darker at night, brighter in the day - the
>opposite of what happens to your screen.
>
>9. Smelly/Fingers - It smells, and people like to stab their grubby
>fingers at it.
>
>It's a good idea to print a test target on any new media/printer
>combination (something similar to the one below, but either make your
>own or find a much higher resolution one online) and use it to
>cross-reference with your screen so you can learn the perception
>difference.
>
>http://dima.pmai.org/images/DIMA_printer_Target.jpg
>
>--
>Owamanga!


Although I probably should start a totally new subject here, these
last few posts seem a good place to stick my toe in. My interest for
a long time is in how to eliminate the difference between the actual
appearance (colors) of a good inkjet print when viewed in subdued
daylight and the subject that you photographed. I really don't give a
rat's a__ about all the differences being discussed herein, like
monitor to print, etc. Just the final color match.

An example to consider: photograph a bill of US Currency, in the
subdued daylight, with an "18% Gray Card" in the image, both with the
camera spot metering on the Gray card and then with it metering on a
portion of the bill. Do as MUCH adjusting in P.S. as you might, with
a calibrated monitor, then tweak your printer til you give up. The
print will almost never match the subject, especially in the greenish
brown cast of the paper itself. Seems the USGov has figured out a way
to prevent counterfeiting quite well. LET ME ASSURE YOU - MY MOTIVES
HERE ARE NOT THAT, BUT RATHER TO GET REALISTIC PRINTS OF ALL HUES.

Olin McDaniel
February 27, 2005 2:16:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
> printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the basic
> effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.

The main difference is changes in color rendition. An image seen by emitted light (on a screen) can never have the same
colors as one seen by reflection (on a print), but the colors can be brought close by the way the display and the printer are
set up.

Beyond that, items such as resolution depend mainly on the pixel count, assuming that the quality of the lens and other
factors are controlled. The simple answer to your question is that there are no simple answers.
February 27, 2005 2:16:40 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Marvin wrote:

> paul wrote:
>
>> What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
>> printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the
>> basic effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.
>
>
> The main difference is changes in color rendition. An image seen by
> emitted light (on a screen) can never have the same colors as one seen
> by reflection (on a print), but the colors can be brought close by the
> way the display and the printer are set up.
>
> Beyond that, items such as resolution depend mainly on the pixel count,
> assuming that the quality of the lens and other factors are controlled.
> The simple answer to your question is that there are no simple answers.


What I was getting at is from the other discussions about noise & grain
dissapearing in prints even at 300dpi. That suggests 300dpi is finer
than it needs to be yet others insist you do get better detail than
200dpi, I guess you aren't getting everything though. Theoretically
there would be a filter in photoshop to simulate the blur effect of
printing. It's not clear to me what's going on that some added detail
emerges but grain & noise below a certain size is invisible on a print.

I guess it's a matter of being represented by dots which are much like
grain/noise in character. I played with making screened b&W bitmaps in
PS once & found that it required an enormous file size to show those
dots distinctly and you had to be zoomed in 100% to see it correctly. So
to answer my own question, I think that is the factor that shows edge
detail pretty well but is not good at all for showing speckle type
detail. Speckles show up strongly on a computer monitor and edge detail
is difficult to represent on a grid. An inket print can use several
(maybe more) dots to span a single pixel so it is finer grained in a
sense but it needs different colored dots to mix colors so is pretty
coarse in that regard.
February 28, 2005 4:41:17 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

paul wrote:
> Marvin wrote:
>
>> paul wrote:
>>
>>> What changes about image detail, jpeg artifacts, noise, etc when
>>> printing compared to what you see on a monitor? I would assume the
>>> basic effect is a burring and loss of quality/sharpness.
>>
>>
>>
>> The main difference is changes in color rendition. An image seen by
>> emitted light (on a screen) can never have the same colors as one seen
>> by reflection (on a print), but the colors can be brought close by the
>> way the display and the printer are set up.
>>
>> Beyond that, items such as resolution depend mainly on the pixel
>> count, assuming that the quality of the lens and other factors are
>> controlled. The simple answer to your question is that there are no
>> simple answers.
>
>
>
> What I was getting at is from the other discussions about noise & grain
> dissapearing in prints even at 300dpi. That suggests 300dpi is finer
> than it needs to be yet others insist you do get better detail than
> 200dpi, I guess you aren't getting everything though. Theoretically
> there would be a filter in photoshop to simulate the blur effect of
> printing. It's not clear to me what's going on that some added detail
> emerges but grain & noise below a certain size is invisible on a print.
>
> I guess it's a matter of being represented by dots which are much like
> grain/noise in character. I played with making screened b&W bitmaps in
> PS once & found that it required an enormous file size to show those
> dots distinctly and you had to be zoomed in 100% to see it correctly. So
> to answer my own question, I think that is the factor that shows edge
> detail pretty well but is not good at all for showing speckle type
> detail. Speckles show up strongly on a computer monitor and edge detail
> is difficult to represent on a grid. An inket print can use several
> (maybe more) dots to span a single pixel so it is finer grained in a
> sense but it needs different colored dots to mix colors so is pretty
> coarse in that regard.

I think you are talking about subjective judgments, not measurables. I'm not knocking subjectivity, but it does get hard to
agree on matters such as the maximum useful number of dpi for scanning.
!