p.1 #1 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
When I started getting more into photography, I soon ran into a rather basic limitation: being able to frequently consume (=look at and enjoy) my images. There are thousands of photos on my hard drive and every time I stumble across a folder I had not touched in a long time I usually think to myself that there are actually nice photos in it - and it always feels like a waste some are not even viewed in years. At the same time, of course I wouldn't enjoy just frequently browsing through all my photos on the computer.
Digital picture frames seemed like the perfect solution as the randomness always makes for some nice surprises. But at that time, the products available were too small and inconvincing so I stayed away.
Instead, I found a neat solution in magnetic exchangeable frames. The concept is that it combines the advantages of a classic frame (real print, nice wooden framework, no power needed) with the flexibility of a digital picture frame (frame attached to main body by magnets --> prints can be exchanged rather easily). Here is how it looks like: https://i.imgur.com/2znfq8y.jpg
I got myself a few of these, some as large as 40'', and have been using them for quite some time. In general I am very happy as they look great on the wall. However, over the years I have gotten way more photographs and there are no more free walls for even more frames in my small room. Also, while being easy to replace prints, it is still a bit of a hassle and lately I've been so lazy that I have only exchanged prints once every third month or so.
Apparently digital frames have evolved over the years, and there are some interesting products available like the Meural/Netgear Smart Art, Canvia Digital Art or Samsung's The Frame. They seem much better now at displaying photographs as if they were actual prints. All of these products - apart from being very pricey - still have significant drawbacks, most notably being 16:9 rather than 3:2.
So I am wondering if I am missing something here? This seems like such a basic requirement for many of the millions of photographers around the globe- yet apparently these are the best solutions available at present. Is there maybe another way - digital or non digital - that I am not aware of or how are people here coping with it? Surely not everyone here can be satisfied with simply checking out their images on their monitor and maybe a few of their best images hanging on the wall when they might have hundreds of thousands more just stored away.
p.1 #2 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
I've struggled with the same issue, I think many others have too, and I don't think you're missing anything. Your magnetic frames come closer than anything I've seen personally to meeting the need you describe. I've seen magnetic frames but never any as nice looking or as large as the one you show. Did you make these yourself?
I've always found a fixed aspect ratio to be a problem. I've got some 16:9 images but on a percentage basis it's a small proportion. A digital frame with a 3:2 aspect would cover a lot more of my images, but they don't even work for vertical images and I have a lot of those. On top of that I've got many square images, 5:4, 5:7, and a few horizontal and vertical panoramas that are 2:1 and 3:1. I'm sure there are others. Scenes don't conform to any fixed aspect ratio and part of the whole creative process is determining the best cropping.
Most of what I've described is also a problem with any fixed format frame. In an ideal world one could have your magnetic frames in several aspect ratios and sizes, and easily switch them to hang horizontally or vertically. OTOH, if one shoots all horizontal images with a 16:9 aspect ratio the digital frames would be great! I do think they have their place, but displaying your best vertical and many other non-16:9 images on a 16:9 horizontal screen isn't one of them. Since screens are made for video, and it'll never be worthwhile for a manufacture to make something like a giant square screen capable of displaying any aspect ratio still image equally well, I don't expect the situation to change. For this and other aesthetic reasons I think prints will be the optimal still image display media for a long time to come.
p.1 #3 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
My solution for the same problem was to hang a photo shelf and periodically place new prints on it. The shelf is in my office and can hold 4 or 5 13”x19” prints, depending on the orientation. The prints are mounted to adhesive-backed foam-core. This solution works well for displaying the images, but disposition of the old prints becomes an issue when they’re replaced (about every 3-4 months).
Right now, I have 8 or 10 foam-core-mounted prints in a closet looking for a home. In the past I’ve given them away to family and friends; but, at some point, that ceases to be a solution. Seems like the magnetic frames would encounter the same issue.
The digital frame idea has merit; but as you point out, has its drawbacks, too. For me, my shelf is the best solution for now.
p.1 #4 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
First, as a personal preference, I have little interest in digital displays. To me a good image deserves to be printed. I do at least a couple of types of prints. Returning from a photo session, I often process a handful of the best images and print them on 8 1/2 x 11 paper. I display these either framed or sometimes just stuck on the kitchen or other wall with photo putty. This helps me learn from my session as to what worked and what did not work well. For my best images, I print on either 13x19 or 17x25 paper.
Almost all of my images are composed in camera and designed for a standard 3:2 image ratio. Well less than 10% of my work is shot with the idea of cropping to a different image ratio during post processing. Displaying at standard image ratio is simple. I have stacks of frames and mats for each of the paper sizes I mentioned. My frames are all Nielson matte black aluminum channel frames with acrylic glazing. I often skip the glazing for home display. I can change out and replace an old print with a new one in less than 10 minutes.
p.1 #5 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
I have large landscape prints hanging on various walls around the house. I also make many prints that I put into folios to bring out when company is over and is interested in a certain subject I’ve photographed. There is no better way to view and image than by holding it in your hand and viewing the certain aspects in the print including the texture of the paper.
Lastly, I create a lot of coffee table books after each of my trips. This allows not only a great way to view the images from a trip, but you can also provide written background on the image.
I haven’t displayed my images on a digital device for at least 10 years. I just don’t like each image taking on the character of the digital device, all bright and glossy.
p.1 #6 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
I like to make the occasional print as well - But wall space is limited
I enjoy viewing images on a 2021 55" Sony 4K HDR TV
- you can display as a slide show, one at a time, or individual images
- the modern 4K HDR TV's do a good job displaying and have sufficient dynamic range
p.1 #7 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
I finally purchased a Samsung The Frame and absolutely love it.
I can switch out my images whenever I feel like it. Since it is illuminated and 4K everything looks wonderful.
p.1 #8 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
I’ve got a large format professional printer that needs almost a dozen individual ink cartridges for printing. I also have a large format cutter to custom cut framing boards for the photos; Yet, they these have gone unused for many years. Only necessary if you need professional results or signed prints to sell. Digital slide shows and printing services are far easier these days with less hassle for home displays. It is pretty easy to run a slide show/display on your TV or computer monitor as well as the small frames designed for this. I have had good luck with having favorite prints displayed on glass from places like Fracture. 25 bucks may seem pricey for an 8 x 10 glass photo but the quality is good and a simple way to display or hang on the wall. There are also services that print on metal and the technology is improving fast.
p.1 #9 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
dmcphoto wrote:
I've struggled with the same issue, I think many others have too, and I don't think you're missing anything. Your magnetic frames come closer than anything I've seen personally to meeting the need you describe. I've seen magnetic frames but never any as nice looking or as large as the one you show. Did you make these yourself?
They are indeed really good, but as mentioned I lack the discipline to swap the prints more frequently. So I am not fully living up to their potential - and I also don't have any wall space left
...
Most of what I've described is also a problem with any fixed format frame. In an ideal world one could have your magnetic frames in several aspect ratios and sizes, and easily switch them to hang horizontally or vertically. OTOH, if one shoots all horizontal images with a 16:9 aspect ratio the digital frames would be great! I do think they have their place, but displaying your best vertical and many other non-16:9 images on a 16:9 horizontal screen isn't one of them. Since screens are made for video, and it'll never be worthwhile for a manufacture to make something like a giant square screen capable of displaying any aspect ratio still image equally well, I don't expect the situation to change. For this and other aesthetic reasons I think prints will be the optimal still image display media for a long time to come....Show more →
I agree they both have their place - it's not necessarily and 'either or' question. Regarding the aspect ratio, the situation is the same for me but I'd still think that 90% of my images are 3:2 or something close. That would be good enough.
I am just wondering why the industry does not build these to fit common photographic formats - but maybe the demand is just not as high as one would expect.
If some company brought out a 3:2 digital frame with latest technology to display images as print-like as possible and add an adaptable digital passepartout effect (to cope with different aspect ratios), it would be an instant buy for me. Well, one can only dream.
p.1 #10 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
Lots of different approaches - very interesting! Had not thought about coffee table books or photo books in general, not a bad idea at least for trip collections.
I totally agree there is no better way to look at an image than as print. For me personally, it would only make sense for the highlights images though. If I am considering several thousand images that are not in the top tier list but still good enough to be looked at occasionally, printing all of these is just too much.
So at least for this second tier group, I cannot think of any other solution than digital frames.
I really want to like products like the Meural or Canvia but am just not really convinced. They are also too small for my taste, if I sit on my couch and look across the living room to the distant wall, 27'' is just not enough. Samsung's The Frame ticks at least this box. Maybe waiting for yet another generation is still the best compromise at present.
p.1 #11 · Displaying images at home - prints vs. digital frames in 2021
DistantPlaces wrote:
They are indeed really good, but as mentioned I lack the discipline to swap the prints more frequently. So I am not fully living up to their potential - and I also don't have any wall space left
Thanks for sharing this system. It certainly seems that it makes changing prints within the frame more easy. But I believe in the end the same result will occur as if the print is framed with a traditional more permanent method - it will simply sit there on the wall. No matter which kind of frame is used, intuitively it will be seen as hassle to change the print, reframe a new one (even if this is easier and faster), and then fixing it again to the wall. I know I wouldn't change it often, maybe not even at all in multiple years to come.
Next issue in general is the own laziness to make prints to frame - and I am guilty here myself. Before even considering reframing, a process needs to start what else to print that it fits within existing prints on the wall - and often it doesn't go further. It's like an activation energy needed to do the process. I am sure there are some who enjoy printing photos often and regularly - I am not one of them. It is a sporadic task which I am doing - often when pushed to make prints for an upcoming exhibit.
Advantage of digital photo frames is the transition between different images which can be added or removed and replaced. I haven't had such device yet. I never felt the need for it since I like the look of framed and matted photos at the wall which I took. Doesn't need a battery either . I don't think such frames as referenced will make you printing more and changing prints more often for reasons mentioned.
. I don't think such frames as referenced will make you printing more and changing prints more often for reasons mentioned.