Printers

[Manfred M]

It was about four years ago that I watched a series on printmaking courtesy of Scott Kelby...
the thing that, to this day, sticks in my mind is "when in doubt, make another print". Apparently,
soft-proofing can get ya close, if close is good enough. Aside from that little problem, what does it
cost in materials, to keep making prints until ya get it right?

Let me qualify what Kelby is on about, because while what he says in the video is correct (I've watched it too), I think he is really on about that people seem to think that test prints are no longer required when using a colour managed workflow. In my experience he is absolutely correct about this, but let me qualify this a bit more.

A colour managed work flow ensures that the colours from camera through post processing through printing are correct, but what the process does not help with is the correct "exposure", i.e. how light or dark the print is. This is one part of the process that needs to be determined by a test print.

Part of the issue is that our computer screen's brightness (a projected light, additive RGB image) versus a print (a variant of a CMYK, reflected light subtractive process). A variant of RGB is mapped to a variant of CMYK; yes, I know the printer manufacturers "claim" their printers are RGB devices, but take a look at the names on the ink cartridges. All printing is some flavour of CMYK with the additional ink colours extending the gamut beyond what standard CMYK can deliver.

Our computer screens tend to be fairly bright (just the nature of the beast) and our personal tastes (we tend to like crisp colours on our displays). If we print the image we see on our screens, they will likely coming out too dark, so we have to figure out how much to lighten what we see to get the right "exposure" on our print. The only way to determine how much to lighten our on-screen image can only be done by doing test prints.

The good news is that once we know what this factor is, all we have to do is either remember it or write it down and we can keep on using it UNLESS WE CHANGE THE SETTINGS (BRIGHTNESS, ETC) ON OUR COMPUTER SCREENS. IF THAT HAPPENS, IT'S BACK TO DOING NEW TEST PRINTS.


The other part of the equation is the amount of output sharpening that is required; the ink "spreads" a bit when it hits the paper, softening the overall impact. This has to be countered by adjusting the amount of sharpening that is applied and does vary from amongst the different paper manufacturers and surface finishes (as a general rule, a glossy paper requires less sharpening than a matte paper). When people use the term "output sharpening", this is really what they are writing about and the amount of sharpening will also depend on the size of the print (again viewing the image 100% of output size is what is the standard approach here).

The problem is that this only covers one aspect of sharpening. Each image (depending on a lot of factors) will require tweaks in the sharpening process over and above the paper specific ones. So being a good sharpener definitely helps here.

[Manfred M]

Almost.

In my opinion, the factor that has the largest impact on print quality is the printer's skill (that is, the human printer). It takes some work to learn how to do this well. The second biggest factor, which I think trails by quite a margin, is the paper. The third is the physical printer, provided that you are comparing dedicated photo printers.

Once you get to the level of Canon or Epson printers that are intended solely for photo printing, the differences--assuming good quality paper, correct profiles, and skilled printers--are often very subtle. The differences from the other two factors can be large.

+1 to what Dan has written. I'm in complete agreement here.

That being said, let me add a few thoughts.

1. Learning how to prepare a good print will take practice and developing a good print workflow. A colour managed workflow is key to creating a good quality print. I will guarantee you will use up a bit of paper and ink learning these skills.

2. There are many different papers - the "run of the mill" photo papers make nice prints. Print on a nice fine art paper and your image will look a lot more valuable than one done on ordinary photo paper.

3. Does an image look better coming off an 11-ink printer than a 9-ink photo printer? The answer is yes; but only marginally so. Only you can determine if it is worth the extra money to go to a higher end printer.

[Beauty Through a Lens]

Just a bit of a warning; printmaking is a whole new skillset that you will need to learn. Just because you have an image that you like, doesn't mean it will print well and the result will never look exactly like what you are seeing on your computer screen. Paper finishes all need specific tweaking to optimize print output.

This may be a stupid question but why would it be a whole new skill set? I have talked to photographers who been doing it for years and did some research and there is something you can buy the calibrates your printer and the screen so it prints exactly what you see on your screen. Now maybe I miss understood what I was reading and they vague about this calibrater thing, but from what I just said it seems pretty cut and dry.

Am I missing something?

[Shadowman]

This may be a stupid question but why would it be a whole new skill set? I have talked to photographers who been doing it for years and did some research and there is something you can buy the calibrates your printer and the screen so it prints exactly what you see on your screen. Now maybe I miss understood what I was reading and they vague about this calibrater thing, but from what I just said it seems pretty cut and dry.

Am I missing something?

Try printing skin tones that were captured on an overcast day or that was captured with back-lighting. Flowers are another subject that takes a bit extra analysis when moving to a print.

[Manfred M]

This may be a stupid question but why would it be a whole new skill set? I have talked to photographers who been doing it for years and did some research and there is something you can buy the calibrates your printer and the screen so it prints exactly what you see on your screen. Now maybe I miss understood what I was reading and they vague about this calibrater thing, but from what I just said it seems pretty cut and dry.

Am I missing something?

You are referring to using a colour managed workflow, and that is definitely part of the process, but only part. Having a calibrated screen (which is the device you are referring to) is required for a colour managed workflow. A colour balanced workflow does not ensure correct "exposure", i.e. how dark or light the print is, appropriate sharpening for printing and the whole prep for printing part of the workflow. Nor does it cover which paper will work best (tint and surface finish).

High end photographers insist on using a specific printing specialist and won't let anyone else touch their work, because they are after a particular look and want someone who can get it for them. A poor printer can ruin a good photographer's reputation quite quickly.

Your computer screen uses transmitted light, using an additive RGB colour process. A pro photo printer is an extended gamut CMYK, reflected light, subtractive colour process. YOUR PRINT CAN NEVER EXACTLY MATCH WHAT YOU SEE ON YOUR SCREEN; it can only come close.

Printing itself is easy; printing well is not. Once you know what you are doing, then being a good printer becomes much easier.

[William W]

I have not set a price range since my income will have changed a lot by that time. Size doesn't really matter. Print sizes will vary between 4"x6" to 24"x36. Paper and canvas . . . weekly or bi-weekly with about 10-40 photographs each time.

AND -

. . . printmaking is a whole new skillset that you will need to learn . . . I know a number of pro photographers and they all have their own printer . . . They will farm out large print runs or large sizes to commercial printers and will use their own printer for rush jobs or small jobs. . . . You really have to figure out your needs before buying a printer. There is a lot of money tied up in the hardware, paper and inks.

I agree.

I think before you spend too much time at in-depth research you really need to do a preliminary ROIA (Return on Investment Assessment).

A top-end Epson to print to 24” (Paper only NOT canvas), would be about? US$5,000. Shipping; Spare Inks; Spare Paper add another US$1000.

So you’ve got $6,000 tied up and you need to use the gear for at least 3 months, regularly, to get to know how to print consistently and then fine tune a constant workflow from: Shoot >>> Post Production >>> Print.

And that’s after you lean best practice printing process and also assumes that you already have:
> Calibrated Monitor
> Calibration Tools
> Light Calibrated and Controlled Viewing Area

So let’s say for the sake of discussion and as a back of the envelope RIOA - you’ve invested US$6,000 in Capital Materials and another US$2000 is expended for your time in learning and also the cost of expendables during all the practice print runs and assume (very modestly) that the ongoing: insurance; maintenance and repairs is US$500 p.a.

Let’s say the depreciation life of the machine is 6 years.

Total Capital Costs for six years: $11,000.

I reckon that there is very little way possible to recoup that Capital Expense within a six year life of the machine, let's explore that: There are about 314 weeks in 6 years. On that quick assessment the NET cost to you just to have the printer sitting there - and note – “sitting there” means “not printing any jobs” is: $US35.00 p.w.

That US$35.00 per week would go a long way to the cost of printing 40 excellent quality prints from a Professional Lab (using a > $50,000 machine?) – and you pay the money out as and when you need jobs printed. Also I bet a Mars Bar that you will not be printing 40 prints per week for every of the 52 weeks in each year.

FWIW - I use a modest Canon "pro" printer capable of A3 for print previews aka "PROOFS" for some clients who need a quick and a tangible: for example some Art Directors and Layout People I work with still like a PROOF in a Print form as well as a media file and I use a PROOF PRINT often to show a Client an indicative of the Restoration Work I do; also I do sometimes use a print from my machine to show preliminary results of the forensic studies of images that I do: but note these are all "preliminary" prints made for convenience at that particular time.

Any Prints that I sell come from a Professional Lab, always, except for the On Site Sports Photography & Printing and Events Booths that we did for a while (we rented Printers for those): that’s not only because my RIOA would prohibit me from buying a (truly) Professional Photograph Printer, but mainly because unless the Printer (and I am) working all the time, one cannot keep the consistency and quality in the Prints and also, the TIME taken to sit and print (and perhaps mis-print), is a real cost to my main earning roles – and note that we didn’t factor the cost of your time taken PRINTING (and therefore lack of TIME to perform other duties), into your RIOA.

All that stated, as this appears as a business purchase, it really depend upon your OUTCOMES that you aim to achieve with this purchase.

I stress that: the outcomes need to be very carefully and accurately defined.

For example:

You might have simply mentioned 24” x 36” as an indicative that you might do occasionally, but you might really be selling more like 40 (of the same image) 10 x 8 prints and also your Clients might not want (or want to pay for) the quality and nuance of print that you think that you might think that they want.

These are all factors you need to assess, because, for example, if the general print-run each week is 40 copies of 10” x 8” of the same image and the Clients cannot differentiate and/or aren’t ready to pay for Pro Lab Quality Hand Finished Archival Prints, then you’d be doing an RIOA on a printer of (guess) about $1000 and the learning curve, time sitting printing each week and the cost of expendables would be way less than the other example – and that probably would present a good business choice for you.

WW

[William W]

This may be a stupid question but why would it be a whole new skill set? I have talked to photographers who been doing it for years and did some research and there is something you can buy the calibrates your printer and the screen so it prints exactly what you see on your screen. Now maybe I miss understood what I was reading and they vague about this calibrater thing, but from what I just said it seems pretty cut and dry.

Am I missing something?

I think if you are missing clarity about anything, it is the clarity about defining your outcomes and your market. What is necessary for some products, markets and clients will not be necessary for others.

Firstly it is impossible to get on the screen and on the paper the same: impossible because they are different mediums – but that’s only the beginning bit and the theory bit and it is not really all that important anyway if your aim is to SELL PRINTS.

The print will very rarely be viewed in any consistent lighting anyway: so the PRINT is an unique entity of itself and has to be manufactured as such.

I think the nuance that you are not fully understanding is you need to define (or calculate) how much effort time and money that you need to put into the PRINTING to get a PRODUCT that will sell at PROFIT to your CLIENT BASE (your market).

Please refer to Manfred’s Post #25.

I also referred to and briefly described the set-up necessary for a Calibrated Workflow in my previous. I use a Calibrated Workflow to ensure that what I see on my Photo Monitor Screen, in my Photo Monitor Environment, will give me known and consistent PRINT results when I send the image file to my Professional Photo Finishing Lab and request a specific print medium to be used, because I know that the Lab will have an extremely high level of CONSISTENCY.

This relationship with my Lab and the one printer at that Lab took a few weeks to fine tune and we made several test prints using a set of ‘standard images’ that I have. Occasionally I might be unsure about what print medium to use, so I consult my Printer, she has years of experience (and in a wet darkroom also).

Regarding the Photographers that you have talked to, I do not think any one of them could churn out that same level of consistency, even if they had a $10,000 machine at their home, but that will be OK if it suits their OUTCOMES at a price that satisfies their MARKET.

It really does come back to clearly defining the Product that you are (intending) to sell and the market to whom you are selling.

WW

[Tringa]

As so often on CiC, a really interesting thread; and I don't do any printing.

Bill got to my point before me, though I could not have given his level of costings.

I appreciate there will be times when a print is needed very quickly and don't know the costs of printing outside the UK, but here it is low.

While many people do their own printing others suggest an easy route to high quality prints, for a large proportion of photograhers, is to find a good quality printing lab and develop a relationship with them.

Dave

[Manfred M]

+1 to what Bill wrote in #27.

This is very much along the lines of what the half-dozen or so commercial photographers I have a great deal of contact with tell me as well. The bulk are wedding and portrait photographers, but a couple of them primarily do other types of photography.

The story line from them is quite consistent:

1. "I get paid to take and deliver high quality images for clients; the clients don't pay me extra for retouching or printing."

2. All except one of them started out as film photographers back in the film days. While the trained in retouching and printing in the wet darkroom, most of them did not do this in their careers. Their work was farmed out to professional labs. They basically followed the same pattern when they switch to digital.

3. They all have pro grade printers for "rush" jobs; clients that want the prints "now" and don't care that the labs run from 9-5 on weekdays only. A couple have told me that they will do small jobs on their own printers, simply because it takes less time than running to the printer to pick up the finished products and of course, they also see it as a way of keeping on top of their printing skills.

[DanK]

These last posts illustrate why I asked earlier what "professional" means in the OP. If it just means 'prints with reasonable durability that will look as good as what you get from most labs,' then you would get a very different set of numbers than Bill's. Right now, you can buy a Canon Pixma Pro-100 from B&H for $198 from B&H. Red River estimates the ink cost per 8 x 10 (a bit smaller than A4) at $0.875, assuming $16.99 per single-color ink cartridge (which is more than I pay)--see http://www.redrivercatalog.com/cost-...n-pro-100.html. This will only print to 13 x 19 (33 x 48 cm), and it is dye rather than pigment, but the prints, if you do them well, are superb. Moving to the corresponding pigment printer, the Pro-10, would set you back $450 during the current Canon special.

On the other hand, if by professional you mean a printer that is robust enough for very large volumes and that will print even larger, and perhaps one that can print from rolls of paper, then you are talking about a lot more money, as Bill showed.

This may be a stupid question but why would it be a whole new skill set? I have talked to photographers who been doing it for years and did some research and there is something you can buy the calibrates your printer and the screen so it prints exactly what you see on your screen. Now maybe I miss understood what I was reading and they vague about this calibrater thing, but from what I just said it seems pretty cut and dry.

It is anything but cut and dried. Calibrating the screen is essential, but it is only the first step. Not only is paper a very different medium that is reflective, each paper is different, and their gamuts are often quite different from the gamut of the monitor. This is particularly true of matte papers, which in my limited experience generally have a much smaller gamut than luster and glossy papers. Then there are additional considerations apart from initial cost. For example, some people who are concerned about archival qualities prefer papers that are low in optical brightening agents (OBAs) because they eventually deteriorate, but low-OBA paper are less white and therefore match the screen less. To deal with differences in gamut, you have to soft-proof, do test prints, or both, and then make an additional set of adjustments to the proof to get the print to look as you want it.

My suggestion, if you don't need 'professional' in the second sense, is that you buy a reputable but inexpensive printer and practice with it. If you decide that you like printing your own (not everyone does) and that the inexpensive printer doesn't meet your needs, you can buy a better one later, but you will not have invested much to start.

[William W]

These last posts illustrate why I asked earlier what "professional" means in the OP. . .
. . . If it just means 'prints with reasonable durability that will look as good as what you get from most labs,' then you would get a very different set of numbers than Bill's.
. . . On the other hand, if by professional you mean a printer that is robust enough for very large volumes and that will print even larger, and perhaps one that can print from rolls of paper, then you are talking about a lot more money . . .
. . . if you don't need 'professional' in the second sense, is that you buy a reputable but inexpensive printer and practice with it . . . you will not have invested much to start.

Yes, yes, yes, and yes.

It would worthwhile for Adrian to expand on and detail his expected Market and Clients’ Needs and the Vision of his Business and its Targets.

And in the first instance if he could confirm that this is a business venture - as I have assumed it was and I have responded to this (and other threads by Adrian) assuming it is business. I might be wrong in that assumption.

WW