The vehicle of choice for viewing

The thread is hybrid because it pertains to both film and digital. Paper prints can be brought forth from each mode.

Old people like myself are rather acclimated to viewing prints (and type print, as well) on a hard, reflective surface (without back lighting). It seems that the younger crowd prefers to view prints (yes, even type print) on computer / phone / tablet screens (e-books) which are back lit. Is this preference quantifiable, thus 'legitimate', or is it simply my residue of acclimation through long experience? Are young people 'that way' because they are married to their phones, or is there legitimate, objective reason for their preference? In other words, is there something about a back lit viewing, as opposed to a reflectance viewing, that is intrinsically better or worse?

Whether reading prose or viewing a photo, my eyes rest much easier when seeing them on a piece of paper. I want to know why. Yes, I want to know why back lighting holds, at least for me, a subliminal annoyance that I certainly can easily attempt to ignore, but its persistent re-emergence, in the long run, forces me to bring up this topic. Oftentimes, we are annoyed with something that is not readily discernible in quantifiable terms. Its bothersome aspects are sufficiently buried, but a tiny displeasure, nevertheless, manifests.

When projected transparencies were all the rage in the 50s and 60s and even 70s, I felt that that medium was truly analogous to viewing a print on paper, perhaps because of the reflectance factor (i.e., no back lighting). Indeed, because of the dark surround, I felt, in many respects, that that image might even be superior to a reflectance print normally viewed in room light. Hence, I had absolutely no reservations towards that projected medium. Is that preference statement in regard to slides with (theoretical) error? If it is, please correct. Am I simply 'washed up' in life, or do I make any sense with this thread? Are there others, young or old, who think likewise? - David Lyga

I've gotten use to both forms. I prefer a print from a tactile perspective. Things I can hold seems to give me more satisfaction. Back in the day looking at a bunch of MF chromes on a light table was always a thrill! And that's backlit.

DonW said:

I've gotten use to both forms. I prefer a print from a tactile perspective. Things I can hold seems to give me more satisfaction. Back in the day looking at a bunch of MF chromes on a light table was always a thrill! And that's backlit.

Click to expand...

I had not thought of the light table. Yes, it was back lit. Maybe I am making too much of this, but we will see if others have a say. - David Lyga

Being backlit isn't what sets screens apart from other viewing media as much as being pixelated (at least older ones), and either stationary and for many associated with work, or small. And often screens are set to crazy brightness and color saturation. Phones fortunately are by default no so terrible in this regard.
The generational difference you apparently observe is probably based on access, convenience and cost. But I'm not certain if it holds. There are many older people who love their screens, and at least one probably not so young member here who rhapsodizes a lot about showing pictures on this TV.
Me, I'm among the younger members here, and I love prints. A physical object, high resolution, can be held and placed where one pleases, don't need power, I can see many at the same time... Most of this is not a question of reflective vs. backlit media. But practical considerations demand that I will only ever see most other photographers' work on screens.

An interesting contemplation! For sure to me, the display screen is different than a printout. Here we occasionally talk about getting a posted image in the gallery to "look just like the print" but in my experience that's pretty much impossible. Of course I am finishing up eight decades on the planet, so there could be other issues, physical or cultural. Just within the last few days, a 50-ish guy on another forum was complaining that the current generation tries to do everything on-screen. They mock him for making a printout of a text document so he can take it aside and do markups with a red pencil. But he claims the error rate from the on-screen contingent is significantly higher. (He's an attorney in a large corporation who is working with contracts and such, where words and punctuation are important.)

I try to balance my approach depending on the final intended viewing -- am I building something on a website -- or preparing an exhibition or printed handout. The additional problem with stuff that winds up on a video display is that unless the monitor is calibrated, all bets are off. No two people viewing something out there in the cyber world may be seeing the same thing. With a printout, it is what it is (although there can still be issues of lighting intensity and color!) As I understand it, part of the reason transparencies were the standard for publications "back in the day" was that you could see exactly what was there and how the creator of the work saw it, as opposed to trying to mentally unpack a negative.

Enh, about the time we figure this out, they will come up with a way to directly inject appropriate brainwaves into our visual cortex.

DWThomas said:

An interesting contemplation! For sure to me, the display screen is different than a printout. Here we occasionally talk about getting a posted image in the gallery to "look just like the print" but in my experience that's pretty much impossible. Of course I am finishing up eight decades on the planet, so there could be other issues, physical or cultural. Just within the last few days, a 50-ish guy on another forum was complaining that the current generation tries to do everything on-screen. They mock him for making a printout of a text document so he can take it aside and do markups with a red pencil. But he claims the error rate from the on-screen contingent is significantly higher. (He's an attorney in a large corporation who is working with contracts and such, where words and punctuation are important.)

I try to balance my approach depending on the final intended viewing -- am I building something on a website -- or preparing an exhibition or printed handout. The additional problem with stuff that winds up on a video display is that unless the monitor is calibrated, all bets are off. No two people viewing something out there in the cyber world may be seeing the same thing. With a printout, it is what it is (although there can still be issues of lighting intensity and color!) As I understand it, part of the reason transparencies were the standard for publications "back in the day" was that you could see exactly what was there and how the creator of the work saw it, as opposed to trying to mentally unpack a negative.

Enh, about the time we figure this out, they will come up with a way to directly inject appropriate brainwaves into our visual cortex.

Click to expand...

Your analysis of, and defense of, the consistency of the printed medium is a rather profound argument that cannot be glossed over. Maybe the actual viewing is not so important or inherently different, but there is a lot to say about the printed print's exactitude.

This 50ish attorney you speak about is mocked for making a hard print. Now, think about the immature mentality of those mockers and I dare anyone NOT to mock the mockers!!! I guess that this is where it all begins. I take a Megabus to NYC and print my ticket to show to the driver in order to board. Most simply show their tickets from their phones or other electronic screens. I am too afraid of that electronic integrity failing and place far greater trust upon my hard copy. Yes, the really taxing part of this is the "need for youth to mock one's acculturated capacities". Not everything is run by 20 somethings in this world.

Bottom line is that precision seems to be an inherent component of the actual print or transparency. Screen settings are not only potentially arbitrary, but, also, not so very precise in today's averaged electronic output for the hoi polloi. Is it still too difficult to understand that valid argument? - David Lyga

As an old guy, I find reading text on a screen annoying. It's also hard to keep track and bounce around and go back on a screen especially for non-fiction stuff. With paper, you can dogear pages, use stick pad sheets to mark things, etc. On the other hand, back lit photos and videos are better than slide shows projected on a screen. Photos are better than screens for individual pictures. But I like doing and viewing digital video slideshows to play on my computer or 4K large screen TV.

Certainly digital has given us more options, so that part of it is good.

I shoot slide film, and prefer to view them with a loupe using sunlight to illuminate them, as it looks more realistic than the illumination provided by a light table.

Lighted screens are fine for "in the moment" viewing, but unless you make a physical object as a step in your process, you haven't produced anything that can be considered "permanent". Photographers have long advocated for the production of permanent objects and I think they always will, for good reason.

David, just as an aside, E-Books are reflected light, not transmitted. I'm on my third reflected light E-Book which has an inbuilt light source that skims the surface of the reader, all of mine have been Kobo units.

As for the wonder of seeing transparency film on a reflected screen in a darkened room, that is pretty much the best experience of viewing reflected light pictures. The next best way to view pictures is reflected light in a viewing box, which is especially constructed for this purpose and almost nothing else. These were usually made and used by people who were doing colour control for fabric, prints, photographic pictures and colour matching of dyes, usually paint in that situation.

Humans developed their eyesight with reflected light, it is what our eyes are designed to do. The situation of transmitted light with highlight and shadow differences that are tightly controlled, as in computer screens and the associated pictures designed for computers, is transmitted light at or near its best.

If you look at gaming images, in general, while the colour range is fantastic, the highlight to shadow difference is not that far apart, maybe 5-6 stops of light in film photographic language. By doing this the image is better looking and more visually stimulating to the human brain, in general.

Similar effects in product advertising is done where you can see the compression of the f stop range in practice. A stack of white towels with a white background, is one such example where there are no pure whites and no solid blacks. The use of black reflectors to reduce the range allows us to see a lot more than if everything was blown out at the top of the range going from pure white to pure black.

Not sure if I've explained this well, but this is my take. Funnily enough, I was wondering about this the other night when I was re-charging my E-Book and watching an almost 30 year old house member reading on her tablet with transmitted light; she is always adjusting the light output for when reading in bright light and low light. Whereas within reason, I can read my E-Book in whatever available light there is. I will admit to using the inbuilt reflected light source of my E-Book 100% of the time, only because the light gathering capacity of my eyes is now quite poor.

Mick.

Difficult to see the raised relief of a carbon print on a computer screen.