Which comes out sharper, a screen image or a print?

Or, put another way, if I want to print an 8 x 10 at 300 dpi, I send a 2400 x 3000 file. Printed, you are looking at 7+ megapixels of data.

To get the image to look 8 x 10 on the monitor, I would need a 848 x 1060 file. You only see 0.9 megapixels on the screen.

I guarantee you that 7 megapixels will be sharper than 0.9

Rad

HappySnapper90 wrote in post #9379427
...LCDs are superior to print except for price and portability!

Then why are my prints a marked improvement over what I see on a computer monitor? Oh sure, when I'm looking at a photo on my monitor, it looks great, but then I make a print, and the deficiencies of the screen image become blatantly apparent.

Radtech1 wrote in post #9379563
Or, put another way, if I want to print an 8 x 10 at 300 dpi, I send a 2400 x 3000 file. Printed, you are looking at 7+ megapixels of data.

To get the image to look 8 x 10 on the monitor, I would need a 848 x 1060 file. You only see 0.9 megapixels on the screen.

I guarantee you that 7 megapixels will be sharper than 0.9

I better keep my monitor because from what you all are saying, I must have the best one in the world. I think you are missing my point. With a good LCD, you can display bigger with fewer pixels with excellent viewing quality. The last thing I want someone to comment on my prints about is "how sharp they are". There are far more important elements to an image than sharpness since all images have a proper viewing distance which is not 6 inches from the print. Even 8x10 should be viewed at arm's length - where sharpness will not be an issue whether the print is 240 ppi or 360 ppi.

Monitor viewing and print viewing are two separate beasts. Plus I hear the agrument that LCDs can display a dynamic range (contrast ratio) that is 3 or 4 times higher than what a print can give, i.e. 2000:1 (LCD) vs. 500:1 (print). LCDs are superior for viewing images, in part because they supply their own light source, except large ones are very expensive.

Sharpness is not my problem. If you asked, "Which comes out more color correct, a screen image or a print?", 99.99% would say the screen. The other .01% would be the color management experts.

I for one am not making a comment specifically on sharpness, just on what I witness. It's not even remotely debatable from my viewpoint; on most levels, my prints axiomatically look better than their corresponding images on my monitor. The impact I receive from looking at a good print (inkjet or wet) is far more than I receive from a monitor, particularly in terms of detail, deep blacks, and tonal depths and gradation.

So no, while an LCD has some arguable advantages, perhaps in terms of illumination, it is not superior to a print.

That's all from me, I'm signing out.

sjones wrote in post #9385902
I for one am not making a comment specifically on sharpness, just on what I witness. It's not even remotely debatable from my viewpoint; on most levels, my prints axiomatically look better than their corresponding images on my monitor. The impact I receive from looking at a good print (inkjet or wet) is far more than I receive from a monitor, particularly in terms of detail, deep blacks, and tonal depths and gradation.

So no, while an LCD has some arguable advantages, perhaps in terms of illumination, it is not superior to a print.

That's all from me, I'm signing out.

Agree 100% and Ditto...

Wow, great replies. I gave up on this thread because it was dead for so long after I asked the question.

So here's a couple more:

1. Can I get quality prints at the local Wal-Mart, or should I print online through a service (which service)?

2. Should I be adjusting resolution in any way, or just send the Jpeg file as is?

Sometimes I shoot Jpeg (snapshots, etc.) and sometimes raw (when composing and taking my time).