Prints look better than a screen

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by RichA, May 17, 2005.

  1. RichA

    RichA Guest

    I dislike screens. They have pixels, in fewer numbers than
    my camera. So, when I look at images (even though my screen res
    is up to 2000) I see some kind of lines, jaggedness, etc. Meanwhile, I
    print an 8x10 or larger even and it looks SO much better. In some
    sense were still in the darkroom days, when what came out as a print
    isn't quite what you thought you'd get, not without testing,
    pre-prints, etc.
    PLEASE Motorola; Finish that multi-billion pixel technology you are
    working on!
    -Rich
     
    RichA, May 17, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. RichA

    Todd H. Guest

    I'll drive down to Schaumburg and make sure they know. :)
     
    Todd H., May 17, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. RichA

    birdman Guest

    What you are pointing out is that an inkjet print effectively has far less
    resolution than the original image, especially when that image is viewed
    magnified on a high resolution computer monitor. In part this has to do with
    the conditions under which prints are normally viewed, which is usually at a
    distance and rarely involves use of a magnifying glass. CRT/LCD devices are
    not passively reflective like prints and that change of media alters the
    quality of the final image the most. It has been my experience that many of
    the artifacts seen on a computer monitor will not be visible in the print,
    including alot of digital jaggies and moire and film grain, at prints up to
    letter size.
     
    birdman, May 17, 2005
    #3
  4. RichA

    RichA Guest

    Exactly what I've seen.
    -Rich
     
    RichA, May 17, 2005
    #4
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.