Displaying photos -- a simple solution?

[Michael_4514]

I'm a hobbyist and my photos are mainly for my own amusement and enjoyment. I scan everything, but I don't print much, not just because I don't have a darkroom but because I wouldn't know what to do with so many large prints. You can only frame so many, and 16x20, or larger picture albums? They would take up way too much space.

So here's a neat solution that costs nothing.

Mac's built in screen saver allows you to display any directory of photos you choose. I hook up my macbook to my tv, and presto, it's a 42 inch or whatever digital frame. The screen saver pans across the photo, which is really interesting, and the display size of the tv is perfect for large format and also medium format scans. Plus, it's better than 99 percent of what's showing on the boob tube.

[Tajmul12345]

By my experience i think 42inch digital frame is batter for you.

[Vaughn]

...So here's a neat solution that costs nothing...

And it is worth every penny!

All joking aside, it would be a good way to show one's images, but personally I am not interested in doing so. I am dedicated to, or my goal is, the image on paper as the finished piece.

[ROL]

...but I don't print much, not just because I don't have a darkroom but because I wouldn't know what to do with so many large prints.

Stinkin' thinkin'. If you had a darkroom (and knew how to use it), you'd know what to do with so many large prints. IMO.

[Greg Miller]

A 42" HD 1080P Tv has a resolution of 1920x1080. using 1080 for the short side of a 4x5 or 8x10 image, you will only be able to display 1350x1080 pixels. So yes you can do this but you will be displaying about the same amount of detail of a 4x5 print but over a much larger surface area.

[rkmiec]

Use frames that are not sealed in back,group 4-6 prints in each frame and swap out from time to time. Tv idea is nice but not close to a print.

[David_Senesac]

Fine for small image viewing but not close to doing full justice for large format. A large format scanned then processed 40x32 at 300 pixels per square inch Lightjet printed image has a pixel dimension of 12000x9600 pixels versus HD video of just 1920x1080. Whether your screen is a 42 inch, 72 inch TV or like my high end NEC 24 inch computer screen, there is no more actual detail. The larger screen simply allow viewing from further back to a potentially larger audience. That said there is really not full potential detail for that many pixels in the large format image however it is regardless a few times more than the HD image.

The video media however as a brighter, more saturatable, transmission medium does provide a potentially improved image viewing experience versus traditional color photographic prints. What most of those on this board and the general public are not aware of is the technology just around the corner that has a potential to transform the way we view high quality large images. One ought to web search on 4k UHDTV and 8k UHDTV. In just a few years consumers will once again will be swarming over a new generation of these even higher resolution video technologies. Duh...why didn't they tell us before I bought this giant HD screen for $3k? At this point the only group paying notice beside the manufacturers are those with high end home theatre but that will change.

It is then that someone will notice how viewing static images is a better human visual experience than prints even though the latter might have a bit more actual detail. The difference between looking at a great well lit transparency on a light table that glow radiantly versus any scanned, processed, print made from it. Thus it may start out with wall hangable thin depth LCD image frame products where one can load in large format images from media. For those pro photographers invested in prints, it is something to be aware of.

David

[Chuck P.]

...............it would be a good way to show one's images, but personally I am not interested in doing so. I am dedicated to, or my goal is, the image on paper as the finished piece.

I second that.................the ultimate "high" for me is to put the image on paper like it exists in my mind's eye.

[photobymike]

I second that.................the ultimate "high" for me is to put the image on paper like it exists in my mind's eye.

There is a lot of really good photographs out there. 99 percent of the them are in the digital state and stay that way. When i look at photos on the web i see huge collections of them.... many at on time ...It is almost like a movie of all the digital images. My point is it just turns into digital static. I could not tell you what image or images i enjoyed the most. Now view a good photograph in a frame ..that is a different experience. Matted and framed the photo demands your full attention to view it.

Lets see visual static vs a photograph that has been well performed and in a mat and possibly framed. I choose the photo and mat anytime. Arguably It will also last longer than that digital picture. You do not need the web or electricity to view a matted photo. You do not need a viewing device to look at a photo album. Your photo will intrinsically relate to you the photographer for all time...