Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/10/13

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: Re: [Leica] Is lithography dead?
From: "Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Oct 1999 10:49:57 +0200

From: Alexey Merz <alexey@webcom.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 1999 01:38
Subject: [Leica] Is lithography dead?


> Anthony wrote that a computer monitor is
> "vastly superior to prints". This is true
> only in specific and limited technical senses.

They have a larger gamut than prints overall, and this is true no matter what
kind of monitor you are using.  You can display more colors on a monitor, with a
greater range of intensities, than you can on a print.

> ... few monitors are calibrated to consistent
> gamma.

Gamma typically isn't relevant.  Slide projectors aren't precisely calibrated,
either, but the slides they project still look great on a screen.

> And don't even think about color synchronization.

No need to, when you are just looking at one monitor.

I was talking about gamut and dynamic range, not consistency from one monitor to
the next.

> This will improve but a good photographic print is
> still much better.

At 18 inches on a 20" monitor, 1600x1200 is an excellent resolution.  One can
theoretically see somewhat higher resolutions at that distance and size, but
this is a good compromise.

Furthermore, there is far more to a photograph than just resolution, and
monitors do very well in the other departments.  If you like the look of
projected slides, you're much better off using a monitor than looking at prints.

> Also: a print doesn't flicker.

Neither do monitors, if you set the refresh rate high enough.  I find that even
60 Hz is plenty for me.

> Also: most of us can't yet put 5 or more ultra high
> quality monitors on our walls. We can't choose
> the surface texture (glossy, pearl, matte) of the
> monitor.

Surface texture is only important for prints.  I've never understood why anyone
would care about the surface texture of a print, because, if you can see the
surface texture of the print, it's not being correctly lit in the first place.
I want to see the photograph, not the surface of the paper on the print.

I suppose you could shine all sorts of lights obliquely off your monitor screen
in order to create the same defects you see in prints, if that is really
important to you.

> Also: the very character of luminant vs. reflected
> light displays differ.

Yes.  The former is much more flexible for representing real life.

  -- Anthony