Originally posted by biz-engineer Digital displays keep camera expectations low. That's especially true for smartphones that display photos on a small high density , high brightness display. My expectations are high for ILC cameras because I print, and barely met with the K1. It occurred to me that I spotted on physical print some fringing that I didn't see on display. More recently, I received a 24x36" print where I had apply a red filter (digital way), I have to re-print it because the red filtering created some white halo between sky and other parts of the image, this isn't visible on a small display. I can see that electronic displays create low expectations, otherwise with "fine art" prints there is virtually no limit to how good one want a camera image quality and resolution to be.
Straying a little OT here, but...
With fine art, I'd assume
all components in the production line are important in consistently delivering end results that satisfy the demanding artist and clients. The camera and lens are only at the very earliest stages of the process.
It seems like the photographer who regularly produces larger, fine art prints could easily justify a bigger, better display for post-processing; something like the
Dell UltraSharp 32 8K monitor, for example? It's not cheap (around US$4,000 currently), but then neither are the prints they're selling. The cost of the monitor would be recouped by the first few print sales, no?
Another way of looking at it... A premium quality 24 x 36" fine art
re-print (due to unforeseen artefacts in the original) could cost the photographer around $200, right? Twenty of those and he or she could have bought the monitor instead
Even for someone
not selling many high value, fine art prints, if their primary consideration is best possible quality for larger prints then I should think a large, high-resolution, wide-gamut monitor is as vital as the camera and lens; perhaps even more so...