gdanmitchell
Offline
• • • • • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
stanj wrote:
See, Dan, this is where I disagree with you. I have made large prints (60x40 and bigger), whether on R4 paper or with ink jets, so I know what goes into it. However, I am not sure you sat in front of say an Apple XDR display, or an 8K display for that matter. Not a TV, but a 32" computer display. I am not interested in how much you (or I for that matter) made off licensing prints vs. 8K images, I am purely interested in what they look like. I made successful 60x40 prints with a 1DS, and they look stellar at the normal viewing distance for a 60x40 print. But at the normal viewing distance for a 32" 6K computer monitor, the same image looks dated, and so does most other 1DX2 / R3 material that I have.
I know you specifically always come back with large prints and I'm fully aware of the challenges that goes into them. That doesn't make the other, 21st century presentation any less valid, and I would argue in a decade prints will be just as popular as film cameras are today, likely with the same people. ...Show more →
I don't have an 8k display, but I've seen plenty of 4k images.
Also, I did not say either mode is "less valid." I simply explained why print comparisons are still the usual benchmark.
It is hard for me to see how a screen display would stretch the limits of what a photograph would show beyond what a print does.
As to what will happen in 10 years, who knows? I'd say that there is plenty of precedent for art _objects_ having and maintaining (and sometimes increasing) their value, but I'm aware that some video artists have sold work, too — though what they usually sell is more of an installation that includes changing images rather than still images displayed via video.
As to an image looking "dated," we'll see about that one, too. The world of technology is replete with things that looked like the nearly-unimaginable future but then, a few years or a decade later, looked quite dated. Within the lifetimes of many here, a black and white TV using a tube monitor seemed like the least dated technology imaginable. We can usually (though not quite always) say with more certainty what the value of things with a track record is. Claims that some brand new technology will be the Next Grea Thing That Will Replace All That We Know are common and most often wrong. (I have lived and worked in Silicon Valley for decades, and I've worked with a few of the folks doing some of those technologies. In a few cases I had my hands on them before they were "in the wild.")
In any case, I take your point that screen technologies are improving and that those who feel that screen presentation of their photography will be the most frequent (or only) way their images will be viewed should pay thoughtful attention to the capabilities of their equipment to produce screen images of the sort they expect to display.
Anyway, back to the topic of this thread: I still think that our OP may be distracted a bit by the notion of a companies "best" product rather than thinking about how well products in general will meet their needs. In this case, again, I think the OP should ask what they would do if there was no hypothetical R1 — would the R3 do the job well? If so, the R3 may well be the right camera for our poster.
Dan
|
I don't want to buy into their first offering of a mirrorless 1D, I want that model line to mature a bit yet. (ie. global shutter and/or quad-pixel AF)
