[lazarustx]

My partner and I are thinking we'd like to replace a large store bought framed print with one of my photos.

I currently have a Gallery wall with framed 11x14 photos. I love the look but I'd really like for some of my stuff to hang over the fireplace.

Here's my issue...A mounted canvas print, let's say 36x36, can be a few hundred bucks, let's say $400. If I replace it every 3 years, I'm at $1200 for 9 years plus whatever the cost of a frame.

So I'm wondering, what electronic solutions are there?

I found a digital signage display 55" for around $1000.

amazon.com: Samsung QB65R 65 inch 4K UHD 3840x2160 LED Commercial Signage Display for Business with HDMI, Wi-Fi, and 3-Year Warranty, 350 nit (LH65QBREBGCXZA), Black: Computers & Accessories?tag=pentaxforums-20&

I have my reservations on using this type of setup, mainly that it feels very industrial. Not the same feeling that current framed artwork conveys.

I'm wondering if anyone has used a similar setup in their home. Pros? Cons?

Regards,
Rodney

[MarkJerling]

With an equivalent 4K TV being about half the price, why not just use that? Although, I do like how thin this is. You could stick a frame around it and it will look almost like a painting.

With an equivalent 4K TV being about half the price, why not just use that? Although, I do like how thin this is. You could stick a frame around it and it will look almost like a painting.

I've got a 43" 4K monitor in the combination living/dining room, with the "screensaver" function on the attached computer set to display my set of favorite pictures switching at about 7 minute intervals. It's also the TV, using the SiliconDust "Connect Quattro" LAN-connected, over IP.

[RGlasel]

I'll offer a different tack, a backlit display (whether it is a digital LCD display or any other kind of medium with a light source behind it) is a very different experience than a medium that isn't self-illuminated. Even viewing images projected onto a screen from the front is a different experience (compare watching a movie on a wall screen instead of a TV). It is impossible to replicate the experience of a photo printed on paper with a digital display. Not to say which is better, just that trying to replace prints with an LCD display is pointless.

[SSGGeezer]

I think @normhead has his favorites on his 4K tv and even his K-10 shots look good from everything he has said.

Not to say which is better, just that trying to replace prints with an LCD display is pointless.

As the images are entirely digital, I do not understand how this statement can be true? I realize prints have a slightly different esthetic due to paper choices and PP before printing, but the same applies to a digital display as far as VA vs TN or IPS displays, black levels of the monitor, Adobe RGB percentages covered, as well as brightness level.

[RGlasel]

As the images are entirely digital

I realize prints have a slightly different esthetic due to paper choices and PP before printing, but the same applies to a digital display as far as VA vs TN or IPS displays, black levels of the monitor, Adobe RGB percentages covered, as well as brightness level.

The issue isn't resolution, colour calibration or digital vs. analog; the difference is how the image is illuminated and whether the image is self-illuminated with a bright light source behind it or if it is illuminated by ambient light reflecting off of a printed image. You simply cannot make a print that is indistinguishable from a backlit image on a screen and vice-versa. Even though your brain knows that it is the same photograph, your perception of the image will be different with different media.

[SSGGeezer]

your perception of the image will be different with different media.

Perhaps we will have an actual display with this as a theme someday when art museums and galleries are open again. I would like to see what my brain makes of your observation. I suspect you are saying this due to personal experience and not due to something a book told you.

[RGlasel]

I suspect you are saying this due to personal experience and not due to something a book told you.

Both actually. I've read a lot of Marshall McLuhan's work, but it's an easy theory to test. I've printed a few of my digital photographs at 16 x 20 or larger using a quality print service and they don't "glow" like the photos do on my computer monitor. A couple of years ago, I tried my favorite lens for taking flower pictures, the Tamron SP 90mm macro, on my Super Program film camera and it makes a difference viewing prints or the digital scans. At reasonable sizes, there is nothiing wrong with the sharpness of the film photos, but even the brightest flowers look duller on paper and the prints look "older." To me, it looks like I took the pictures twenty years ago.

[normhead]

Both actually. I've read a lot of Marshall McLuhan's work, but it's an easy theory to test. I've printed a few of my digital photographs at 16 x 20 or larger using a quality print service and they don't "glow" like the photos do on my computer monitor. A couple of years ago, I tried my favorite lens for taking flower pictures, the Tamron SP 90mm macro, on my Super Program film camera and it makes a difference viewing prints or the digital scans. At reasonable sizes, there is nothiing wrong with the sharpness of the film photos, but even the brightest flowers look duller on paper and the prints look "older." To me, it looks like I took the pictures twenty years ago.

Exactly.... for those of us reproducing natural scenes, we will never achieve the contrast and illumination levels we see out doors, but bottom line, you come closer with self illuminated media monitors and T.V.s. And this was always true even with film. Printing on translucent film bases and building the image into a self illuminated box was always the most impressive, if somewhat impractical. T.V.s and monitors are just such devices made practical. The most you can get out of print in terms of contras is about 120:1. Some T'V's boast 1000-4000:1 (most are between 400 and 500 to one.)

I still have many prints on my wall. I appreciate both media. But if you want folks to go "wow" digital is the way to go.

---------- Post added 09-12-20 at 11:27 AM ----------

I have my reservations on using this type of setup, mainly that it feels very industrial. Not the same feeling that current framed artwork conveys.

I use a Samsung 55 inch. It works fine for images, and for baseball and Netflix. One device does all. Some low contrast prints probably wouldn't translate well, after all if you have 120:1 contrast and you're only using 80:1, it's hard to argue you need more contrast. Colour contrast can be just as effective as black to white contrast. I once had a customer describe one of my more muted prints as "spiritual". Maybe back illuminated prints are more "in your face". There's room for both.

[lazarustx]

Thanks folks. What I hadn't mentioned was that on the adjoining wall, there's a 75 inch TV. I've attempted to use that system in the past to display images, and here's my take.
1. I think that not all my macro images are meant to be on large media
2. I'm not too frugal with power use, the house is decked out with Home Automation goodies, but I'm conscientious about wasting power when not in the room. So maybe I'll only use this when I'm having dinner parties.
3. I'm not used to seeing some of my work in big bold images. I might have to start with a large canvas print that's not so in my face!

So thanks everyone for your feedback!
Regards,
Rodney