Comments on: Why the Web Still Lacks as a Method to Display, Evaluate, or Enjoy Detailed Photographs…

By: Tuesday Grab Bag (No Jokes Edition) | Photodoto

Tuesday Grab Bag (No Jokes Edition) | Photodoto — Tue, 01 Apr 2008 15:07:43 +0000

[...] Street photographer Michael Murphy says web pages are a lousy display medium for photographs. [...]

By: Beerzie Boy

Beerzie Boy — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 14:01:32 +0000

I think that one of the main problems is that the web is a horizontal medium. Vertical images present a particular challenge. Although I’m not sure why you cant go to a 800px-wide max…most monitors these days can accomodate that.

By: Michael Cassidy

Michael Cassidy — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 14:57:38 +0000

Sorry ‘except’ should have been ‘accept.’

By: photojunkie » End of the Week Round Up.

photojunkie » End of the Week Round Up. — Mon, 11 Feb 2008 05:47:48 +0000

[...] Why the Web Still Lacks as a Method to Display, Evaluate, or Enjoy Detailed Photographsâ€¦ - An interesting piece regarding the lack of details. [...]

By: Jose

Jose — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 17:36:50 +0000

The web is just another medium for displaying images and one that can never be “controlled” by the person who took the picture. LCD and CRT all have different characteristics and plenty of rendering options. No image looks the same in every display.

When producing an image, a photographer should always think of a target size and a medium of display. Images “demand” a size, a scale.

There are images that will never work even printed on a book. Take Andreas Gursky’s or Candida HÃ¶fer’s work for an example. Those who have seen their work at a gallery or museum know what Iâ€™m talking about.

Gabriele Basilicoâ€™s images are a good example of how good an image can be when printed on a book. Although he uses a large format camera, I think books are the best medium for his work to be displayed on.

Detail is not an issue in every image and size is usually more important. Size controls intimacy for example (in little images) or makes us use one of the most ignored perception senses: peripheral vision. Take a look at Uta Barthâ€™s works and you can see what I mean.

By: Chuck

Chuck — Sun, 10 Feb 2008 03:40:38 +0000

What we give up in moving toward a primarily digital display (or inkjet print) is the sensual depth of a silver print (in black and white. The physical experience has always been more disappointing for color, unless you include slides and transparencies, which is what a monitor most resembles). But photographers gave up the same thing when they moved from platinum to silver. What they got in return was speed and greater ability to accommodate more extreme dynamic ranges in lighting conditions. I always wonder how long it will take for even the most “serious” photographers to forget how beautiful silver was (is) and to begin thinking about how beautiful noise is.

By: dylan

dylan — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 13:25:39 +0000

That’s true and a lack of consistency in monitors is something we’ll have to live with I suppose.

What I like about a tangible print in my hands (or in a book) is the absence of the ‘next/previous’ button.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 09 Feb 2008 00:02:16 +0000

Except the limitations of the media. It has improved and will improve but it is not Plus-X 120 developed in D-76 on one of the beautiful Kodak papers.

It is a little worse than you state because color changes from one monitor to another so you have now real idea what your viewer is seeing, BUT you can deliver your images to an audience very fast.

I still like film and wet printing.

By: dylan

dylan — Thu, 07 Feb 2008 19:46:00 +0000

Hi Michael

This is something I’ve thought of for a long time.

Flash software like jalbum is one way around this problem - if users have large screens you can (as webmaster) choose maximum widths your images are displayed at (and the images will then display at the max width of the users screen)

It doesn’t get around the problem completely but it helps a bit…

Nothing beats a big print in your hands or up on the wall…

By: Ian

Ian — Wed, 06 Feb 2008 20:48:12 +0000

I remember reading about how tastes in what is beautiful in movie stars have changed since movie filming styles have changed. In the classic black and white films it was all about lighting and defined sharp features were the most dramatic, i.e. Marlena Dietrich. Now it is women with very full features that command drama on a large screen like Scarlett Johansson and Angelina. I know I’m using a fluffy example but the publics taste has changed as the medium does. I agree that images, especially on Flickr, need to be graphic and powerful to catch the eye and make one want to explore more deeply. I wonder how Kertez or some of Erwitts more subtle photos would have looked as a Flickr member “your picture is my SUPER fav!!!!”