Equating monitor size to film size question
 

In the past, a large negative could always produce a fine print when the
print was smaller than the negative. Conversely, if the negative was
smaller, then the resulting print began to degrade.



Does the same hold true if the monitor acts as the negative, disregarding
the camera's pixel count?



Example: A 21" monitor used for digitizing an image (i.e. correcting it
with a photo-editor program) should produce a better quality print than a
smaller monitor being used to produce a larger print than the monitor's
dimensions.



I'm wondering if the larger monitor will allow one to see more "quality
mistakes" ((i.e. sharpness, color banding, etc) that will be compensated for
in making a smaller print.



In other words, a smaller monitor will produce a less quality print than if
a larger monitor were used for examining/editing.



BP~

Re: Equating monitor size to film size question
 

No, the monitor size doesn't affect the quality of the finished print since
when your editing on the monitor you can zoom in and out and work on any
tiny details blown up as large as you like, and then you save the file in
the same size as the original. So as long as you pay attention to the
details you can work on any tiny spot in any level of detail you wish, on
any size monitor.

Negative size in film photogrpahy would equate in digital to the dimensions
of the image ( in pixels) of the image file used to make the print and not
the size of the monitor you used to work on it. Don't get me wrong, it's
certainly easier to work on a nice big screen, but you can manage with any
size without affecting the finished product.

--

Mikey S.
http://www.mike721.com


"B. Peg" <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote in message
news:oqQSb.148740$6y6.2904608@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> In the past, a large negative could always produce a fine print when the
> print was smaller than the negative. Conversely, if the negative was
> smaller, then the resulting print began to degrade.
>
>
>
> Does the same hold true if the monitor acts as the negative, disregarding
> the camera's pixel count?
>
>
>
> Example: A 21" monitor used for digitizing an image (i.e. correcting it
> with a photo-editor program) should produce a better quality print than a
> smaller monitor being used to produce a larger print than the monitor's
> dimensions.
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if the larger monitor will allow one to see more "quality
> mistakes" ((i.e. sharpness, color banding, etc) that will be compensated
for
> in making a smaller print.
>
>
>
> In other words, a smaller monitor will produce a less quality print than
if
> a larger monitor were used for examining/editing.
>
>
>
> BP~
>
>

Re: Equating monitor size to film size question
 

The advantage of a larger monitor is that you can see more of the picture at
a given resolution. That may help you to do a better job of image editing,
but has no other effect on the finished product.

"B. Peg" <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote in message
news:oqQSb.148740$6y6.2904608@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> In the past, a large negative could always produce a fine print when the
> print was smaller than the negative. Conversely, if the negative was
> smaller, then the resulting print began to degrade.
>
>
>
> Does the same hold true if the monitor acts as the negative, disregarding
> the camera's pixel count?
>
>
>
> Example: A 21" monitor used for digitizing an image (i.e. correcting it
> with a photo-editor program) should produce a better quality print than a
> smaller monitor being used to produce a larger print than the monitor's
> dimensions.
>
>
>
> I'm wondering if the larger monitor will allow one to see more "quality
> mistakes" ((i.e. sharpness, color banding, etc) that will be compensated
for
> in making a smaller print.
>
>
>
> In other words, a smaller monitor will produce a less quality print than
if
> a larger monitor were used for examining/editing.
>
>
>
> BP~
>
>

Re: Equating monitor size to film size question
 

On Sat, 31 Jan 2004 16:08:52 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "B. Peg"
<bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote:

>In the past, a large negative could always produce a fine print when the
>print was smaller than the negative. Conversely, if the negative was
>smaller, then the resulting print began to degrade.
>
>Example: A 21" monitor used for digitizing an image (i.e. correcting it
>with a photo-editor program) should produce a better quality print than a
>smaller monitor being used to produce a larger print than the monitor's
>dimensions.
>
>I'm wondering if the larger monitor will allow one to see more "quality
>mistakes" ((i.e. sharpness, color banding, etc) that will be compensated for
>in making a smaller print.>
>In other words, a smaller monitor will produce a less quality print than if
>a larger monitor were used for examining/editing.

Get off your can and learn to zoom in while editing!
__________________________________________________ ______
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (EGRuf@cox.net)
http://members.cox.net/egruf
See images taken with my CP-990 and 5700 at
http://members.cox.net/egruf-digicam

Re: Equating monitor size to film size question
 

B. Peg wrote:

> I'm wondering if the larger monitor will allow one to see more "quality
> mistakes" ((i.e. sharpness, color banding, etc) that will be compensated for
> in making a smaller print.

Yes.. You will see much more on your monitor. Take a full sized image from
a 10D or Digital Rebel for example.

It's 3072 pixels wide.. How big it looks on your monitor depends how
many DPI you have your monitor set to.

Of course you can't set the monitor DPI directly, you have to calculate.
The monitor DPI depends on what you have your screen resolution set at,
(eg 1024 x 768 pixels) and the physical size of your display. (eg. 12 inches
wide by 9 inches high).

If your video card is set at 1024 pixels wide and your screen is 12 inches
wide, then your DPI is 1024/12= 85.3

At 85.3 DPI, the 3072 pixel wide image will be:

3072 pixels / 85.3 inches = 36 inches wide.

The same image printed on 6 x 4 inkjet paper is only 6 inches wide.
You don't need to calculate.. Just lay a ruler on the paper :-)

Viewing the same data spread out over 36 inches vs 6 inches will
definitely yield MUCH more detail.. after all, it's 6X bigger.

> In other words, a smaller monitor will produce a less quality print than if
> a larger monitor were used for examining/editing.

Not necessarily.. Don't forget you can zoom in and out with an image
viewer/editor. You can view a section of a photo at exactly the same
size regardless of the size of your monitor.

The only limiting factor would be the dot pitch of the screen.. The
coarser the dot pitch, the coarser the image will look.

Re: Equating monitor size to film size question
 

We have to be careful what we mean by a larger monitor, though.
Sometimes an increase in physical size, say 17 to 19 inch, is NOT
accompanied by more resolution in terms of the number of pixels it can
display. Conversely, say in a 17 inch size, some monitors can display
more pixels than others. So monitor quality is an issue to watch when
buying one.

Marvin Margoshes wrote:
>
> The advantage of a larger monitor is that you can see more of the picture at
> a given resolution. That may help you to do a better job of image editing,
> but has no other effect on the finished product.
>
> "B. Peg" <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote in message
> news:oqQSb.148740$6y6.2904608@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > In the past, a large negative could always produce a fine print when the
> > print was smaller than the negative. Conversely, if the negative was
> > smaller, then the resulting print began to degrade.
> >
> >
> >
> > Does the same hold true if the monitor acts as the negative, disregarding
> > the camera's pixel count?
> >
> >
> >
> > Example: A 21" monitor used for digitizing an image (i.e. correcting it
> > with a photo-editor program) should produce a better quality print than a
> > smaller monitor being used to produce a larger print than the monitor's
> > dimensions.
> >
> >
> >
> > I'm wondering if the larger monitor will allow one to see more "quality
> > mistakes" ((i.e. sharpness, color banding, etc) that will be compensated
> for
> > in making a smaller print.
> >
> >
> >
> > In other words, a smaller monitor will produce a less quality print than
> if
> > a larger monitor were used for examining/editing.
> >
> >
> >
> > BP~
> >
> >

--
Don Stauffer in Minnesota
stauffer@usfamily.net
webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer

Re: Equating monitor size to film size question
 

> "B. Peg" <bent*pegs69noospam*@att.net> wrote in message
> news:oqQSb.148740$6y6.2904608@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > A 21" monitor used for digitizing an image (i.e. correcting it
> > with a photo-editor program) should produce a better quality print than a
> > smaller monitor being used to produce a larger print than the monitor's
> > dimensions.

Hmmm, would you say viewing your negative with a 5X loupe will give you
a better print than a 10X loupe? All the monitor size does is to give
you a bigger or smaller window to view your image. With a smaller
monitor, you'll need to scroll more to view or retouch your image.
That's all.

Tom Nelson
Tom Nelson Photography

Re: Equating monitor size to film size question
 

"Jim Townsend" <not@real.address> wrote in message
news:101obbkt7miod5c@news.supernews.com...
....
> Yes.. You will see much more on your monitor. Take a full sized image from
> a 10D or Digital Rebel for example.

That doesn't depend on the size of the monitor, but on how many dots you
choose to display on your monitor. It is often true that a larger monitor is
capable of displaying more dots (a higher resolution) than a smaller monitor,
but not always.

>
> It's 3072 pixels wide.. How big it looks on your monitor depends how
> many DPI you have your monitor set to.

You are making this unnecessarily complex. Digital cameras and monitors
are both in terms of pixels, not pixels per inch. So, if your digital image is
3072 pixels wide, and your monitor is set to 800 x 600, you will see (at most)
800 out 3072 pixel, or roughly 1/4. If instead you set your monitor to 1600 x 1200,
then you will be able to see roughly 1/2 of the picture. It has nothing to do
with the physical size of the monitor.

Obviously, any modern editing tool allows the user to zoom in and out as
needed. The trade off is that if you need to zoom out to see the entire picture,
you won't be seeing all the detail in the picture. If you zoom in to see all the
detail, you may not see the entire picture.

....


--
Dan (Woj...) dmaster (at) lucent (dot) com

"They took all the trees, and put em in a tree museum
And they charged the people a dollar and a half to see them
No, no, no / Don't it always seem to go
That you don't know what you got 'til it's gone
They paved paradise, and put up a parking lot."