[VSTAR]

For the first time in about 3 years I went to a photo exhibition. It was “Wildlife photographer of the year”. It was held at our Royal Ontario Museum as a special exhibit and displayed winning photographs from around the world. Some had already appeared in camera magazines in 2021 that I had already read and seen.

Interesting, the number one camera manufacturer used in the photos was Nikon.

I have been to many photo exhibits during my lifetime….but this was the first one that had no printed prints. They used what appeared to be digital displays for each photo. Colours looked great, brightness was really bright. Just not used to going to a photo exhibit with no printed photos.

Have photo exhibits gone digital or are most still using printed photos?

[UncleVanya]

For the first time in about 3 years I went to a photo exhibition. It was “Wildlife photographer of the year”. It was held at our Royal Ontario Museum as a special exhibit and displayed winning photographs from around the world. Some had already appeared in camera magazines in 2021 that I had already read and seen.

Interesting, the number one camera manufacturer used in the photos was Nikon.

I have been to many photo exhibits during my lifetime….but this was the first one that had no printed prints. They used what appeared to be digital displays for each photo. Colours looked great, brightness was really bright. Just not used to going to a photo exhibit with no printed photos.

Have photo exhibits gone digital or are most still using printed photos?

The last one I went to was a one person show. All photos were square and all were b&w. They were large but not huge - perhaps 3’ on a side frame included, maybe less. There were other works in other parts of the hall. All were physical prints.

[BarryE]

For the first time in about 3 years I went to a photo exhibition. It was “Wildlife photographer of the year”. It was held at our Royal Ontario Museum as a special exhibit and displayed winning photographs from around the world. Some had already appeared in camera magazines in 2021 that I had already read and seen.

Interesting, the number one camera manufacturer used in the photos was Nikon.

I have been to many photo exhibits during my lifetime….but this was the first one that had no printed prints. They used what appeared to be digital displays for each photo. Colours looked great, brightness was really bright. Just not used to going to a photo exhibit with no printed photos.

Have photo exhibits gone digital or are most still using printed photos?

No, thankfully.

Staying and displaying digital is to me a cope out. A well crafted print in/on a carefully chosen mount/frame is a skill that is becoming increasing challenging for many curators. I wouldn't think the buying public would be that positive at seeing just digital images, unless the show is more for impact and video, rather than selling. Even trying to sell a book of the winning images alongside the digital images would be misleading, as screen and print, especially CMYK print, are so very different. With prints on display book images would likely be very similar and so be more honest.

Or maybe organisers make so much money from entry fees that selling the final images in any form is irrelevant. I suppose taking a digital show on the road and getting it in front of as many folk as possible advertises the competition, creating more entries down the line. Saves bothering with all that tricky selling of a product ...

[robgski]

Wildlife and landscapes would probably look great displayed digitally.
As for the 3” prints, that’s very small for a gallery exhibit, but bigger than we see on a phone.

[pschlute]

For the first time in about 3 years I went to a photo exhibition. It was “Wildlife photographer of the year”. It was held at our Royal Ontario Museum as a special exhibit and displayed winning photographs from around the world

I am going next week to the same exhibition at the Natural History Museum in London, UK.

I very much hope they are prints I am going to see.

[UncleVanya]

Wildlife and landscapes would probably look great displayed digitally.
As for the 3” prints, that’s very small for a gallery exhibit, but bigger than we see on a phone.

If that was directed to my post; 3 feet x 3 feet. Small gallery maybe 30’ across x 50 feet long.

[JohnMc]

Interesting, the number one camera manufacturer used in the photos was Nikon.

I'm trying to recall the last painting exhibit that listed which brand of brushes were used.

[jumbleview]

Money talks. It would be nice to compare money spent on creating digital exhibition hall vs money spent on creating traditional print exhibition. In a long run digital hall would be much better, because effort/time to reprogram such a hall for another exhibition would be marginal. But even within short run I would not expect it to be much expensive. People more and more get used to see images on screen and quality of modern display are better and better.

[photoptimist]

At some level, light-emitting displays are a much better medium than prints for any photography that includes light sources in the image such as outdoor images.

Displaying the luminosity of the sky or specular reflections in juxtaposition with normal reflective surfaces (leaves, fur, rocks, etc.) means recreating variations in light level that exceed the ambient illumination of the room

Reflective light media (aka prints) are limited to reflecting maybe 95% of the light falling on them. They cannot replicate the 200% or 400% or more brightness of bright light sources or reflections in the scene.

[UncleVanya]

I'm trying to recall the last painting exhibit that listed which brand of brushes were used.

I happen to know what was used in the images I saw because the photographer was a friend of a friend of a friend. Lol. He took time to discuss his process. He used dslr with Zeiss Nikon mount Milvus lenses and very very long exposures and heavy neutral density filters. The work was minimalist and nicely done but a little pretentious in presentation by the gallery.

---------- Post added 03-10-22 at 05:20 PM ----------

At some level, light-emitting displays are a much better medium than prints for any photography that includes light sources in the image such as outdoor images.

Displaying the luminosity of the sky or specular reflections in juxtaposition with normal reflective surfaces (leaves, fur, rocks, etc.) means recreating variations in light level that exceed the ambient illumination of the room

Reflective light media (aka prints) are limited to reflecting maybe 95% of the light falling on them. They cannot replicate the 200% or 400% or more brightness of bright light sources or reflections in the scene.

While that’s true i think it’s important to acknowledge that there is an art to compressing a scene into a print that you can view in a particular setting. The art of a print and a lighted screen are different and may not be meant to be viewed the same way. Seeing prints helps inform purchases of a similar nature (books and prints) I wonder if this exhibit included signed (different meaning) digital images that could be purchased. And we’re they DRM marked or DRM-free?

[pschlute]

but a little pretentious in presentation by the gallery.

Galleries need their paying customers to feel they are getting something special

[JohnMc]

At some level, light-emitting displays are a much better medium than ...

Different yes, but not necessarily any better just like oil paint is not inherently better than watercolor is better than stained glass.


Every perception of colour is an illusion…we do not see colors as they really are. In our perception they alter one another.

~Albers in 1949

[robgski]

If that was directed to my post; 3 feet x 3 feet

Ah! Much easier to see.

[texandrews]

At some level, light-emitting displays are a much better medium than prints for any photography that includes light sources in the image such as outdoor images.

Displaying the luminosity of the sky or specular reflections in juxtaposition with normal reflective surfaces (leaves, fur, rocks, etc.) means recreating variations in light level that exceed the ambient illumination of the room

Reflective light media (aka prints) are limited to reflecting maybe 95% of the light falling on them. They cannot replicate the 200% or 400% or more brightness of bright light sources or reflections in the scene.

Indeed! Our conservators have our WOP lighting, which includes photographs, at 12 foot candles. I agree with Mike Johnston of TOP that it's impossible to see prints properly at such low light levels.

Ten years ago electronic displays were not so good as the best ones today. For certain things, it's a great way to present images. For others, the print's the thing.

[photoptimist]

I happen to know what was used in the images I saw because the photographer was a friend of a friend of a friend. Lol. He took time to discuss his process. He used dslr with Zeiss Nikon mount Milvus lenses and very very long exposures and heavy neutral density filters. The work was minimalist and nicely done but a little pretentious in presentation by the gallery.

---------- Post added 03-10-22 at 05:20 PM ----------



While that’s true i think it’s important to acknowledge that there is an art to compressing a scene into a print that you can view in a particular setting. The art of a print and a lighted screen are different and may not be meant to be viewed the same way. Seeing prints helps inform purchases of a similar nature (books and prints) I wonder if this exhibit included signed (different meaning) digital images that could be purchased. And we’re they DRM marked or DRM-free?

Absolutely!

Much of the art (and technique) of both taking the picture and making the print is in compressing the huge range of luminance levels of original scene (the human eye can handle about 20 stops) to the much more limited range of the sensor (maybe about 14 stops) and the even more limited range of the print (only about 6-8 stops due to the blackest blacks not being 100% light-absorbing). In contrast (ha!), HDR monitors are getting to the point of offering a 14-stop range between 100% white and 100% black (although the bit depth is only 10 bits so they have to use gamma to expand the 10 bits of data into a 14-stops of brightness).

And all of it requires skill on the part of the photographer to try to replicate the photographer's vision of the scene with the output medium at hand.

As for selling digital copies of the image, NFTs are the new way to go. With an NFT, the buyer gets cryptographically-certified ownership of their copy. And although others might get to see that image and even make a digital copy of that image, only the owner of the NFT can say "I own a original artist-authorized copy."