Never underestimate the power of print.

[Colin Southern]

I was listening to a NASA podcast today - a NASA team has repaired a tape drive that's been sitting in a barn for 16 years, and used it to restore / digitise tapes from luner orbiters. They talked how originally some of the footage of earth (from the moon) was so blurry you couldn't make out practically any detail, but with modern processing techniques they can now clean them up to reveal detail larger than 5km. I guess that this wouldn't be of interest to photographers though, who seem to need in excess (literally!) of TWO HUNDRED potential tone changes in every single square MILLIMETER to be happy. From 250,000 km, I bet even 5km "artifacts" look sharp.

[Donald]

As I patiently await the arrival of Mr Postman hopefully carrying my 'present' from Rob (we don't get mail until the afternoon out here in the sticks), and make ready to run to my friend the framer as soon as possible, I do wonder what you guys who have printed and framed (not onto canvas) do about a front cover.

Do you always use glass? Is it always non-reflective? etc. I suspect what I'm about to receive from Rob is going to be the launchpad for getting quite a few things printed over the next couple of months (once the bug has bitten, you've got to scratch).

Rob has very helpfully given me some guidance as to what/how I need to deal with what he's sent me (thanks, Rob). Interested to hear what others think.

[arith]

You also need to define minimum viewing distance.

Personally, I've never understood why people want to print something 10 feet wide, and then view it 1 square inch at a time from 6 inches away!

that's only to check it Colin; then I sit back and admire it from a distance with the knowledge that some critic cannot smear it with the accusation of being a bit out of focus. And John asked if it is possible to control viewing distances and as far as I know only if you stick the image on the ceiling.

I like big but I don't print them myself, leaving professional printers to choose the best settings which turn out a bit better or a lot better than I can do on my cheap Epsom which only prints to A4 and costs a lot more in ink.

[carregwen]

I like big but I don't print them myself, leaving professional printers to choose the best settings which turn out a bit better or a lot better than I can do on my cheap Epsom which only prints to A4 and costs a lot more in ink.

Sounds sensible. My printer, ink-flow system and all the extras have cost quite a bit over the past three years. I think it would have been cheaper, and perhaps better, to get it done professionally on-line.

[rick55]

Sounds sensible. My printer, ink-flow system and all the extras have cost quite a bit over the past three years. I think it would have been cheaper, and perhaps better, to get it done professionally on-line.

Here's a question for people like Rob and Colin, who do top-quality printing themselves: is there a hybrid approach that makes sense?

Colin provided a good description of the series of color space and dynamic range conversions that occur as we move from the camera to the monitor to the printer.

Is there something one can do, like calibrating the printer to a specific standard, that would allow printing a draft on the Epsom with confidence that the finished product from the professional print service will look the same?

My ideal workflow would be to go through all my normal PP work, getting something that looks great on the monitor. Then (assuming it's something I want to print), resize/crop for print, and adjust for printing, and print a draft on my printer. If it looks great, but small, upload to whatever print site, and get a wonderful print back in a week or so. Is something like that feasible?

Cheers,
Rick

[carregwen]

Is there something one can do, like calibrating the printer to a specific standard, that would allow printing a draft on the Epsom with confidence that the finished product from the professional print service will look the same?

Permajet provide ICC profiles for all of the paper they sell. See HERE I've tried printing my own prints on my Epson 2400 and from on-line print facilities, and the colours tend to be consistent, but the type of paper does make a difference. Matt papers tend to give a very flat look, which is better suited to mono shots. The semi-gloss papers look better for colour. If I print a colour shot on semi-gloss Permajet paper it looks at least as good as a print from an on-line printer such as Photobox, but as I said before, in order to justify buying and maintaining a decent printer I think you need to be printing and selling prints at a reasonably high level to justify the cost. I don't think I do, and I wish I had stuck to on-line printing.

[Colin Southern]

Is there something one can do, like calibrating the printer to a specific standard, that would allow printing a draft on the Epsom with confidence that the finished product from the professional print service will look the same?

Hi Rick,

Yes / No / Maybe / Don't Know!

Seriously, I've "had it" with local print shops - they just don't understand colourspaces or colour management. The other day I had printed 2 copies of 4 images, all 6 x 8 (I didn't have a current printer/paper profile and was too lazy to make one) - 4 of the 8 shots were "ok" and 4 were ghastly; turns out I'd left 2 of the 4 images in Prophoto colourspace, which they can't handle -- you'd think they'd take one look at the image on their screen and think Hmmm ... professional photographer ... studio shots ... looks like they died a couple of days ago ... STOP BECAUSE SOMETHING LOOKS WRONG, but no ... they print them - and when I come in to collect they tell me "2 look just fine but the other 2 images have a colour cast or something".

I realised immediately what I'd done - flicked them to sRBG colourspace on their computer (they didn't know how) - reprinted them (at my cost) and took them away. When I got back to the studio I had a closer look and detected a slight blue cast across all of them (and they were a bit too dark) and I ended up putting all of them through the shredder and printing them myself (and they were all fine). $48 down the drain.

In the past I've used another shop in town, and ended up with a magenta cast on a B&W. Just can't win.

Lesson learned: "If you want something done right, DO IT YOURSELF"

Seriously, it's a bit of an investment in colorimeter, spectrophotometer, and printer - but - with that out the way you get immediate results - and - you can also do quality work for others. It's a bit like relying on a taxi -v- having your own car; you just can't beat the convenience & control of having your own car.

[rick55]

It's quite frustrating. It seems, especially when the goal is to do large prints, that it should be possible to print a smaller version, or even a couple of sections, using known profiles/parameters, then use a commercial service. From your description, some or most of the gap is in the execution, not the technology.

Lesson learned: "If you want something done right, DO IT YOURSELF"

Seriously, it's a bit of an investment in colorimeter, spectrophotometer, and printer - but - with that out the way you get immediate results - and - you can also do quality work for others. It's a bit like relying on a taxi -v- having your own car; you just can't beat the convenience & control of having your own car.

This is probably the point, although I might clarify your statement. When you say, "If you want something done right," you're saying, "When you want something done as near perfect as possible." Your analogy of the taxi driver is a good one: someone working at a print shop is concerned about making your image as good as it can be, in a vague, abstract way, to make the business successful and keep their job. In a similar, abstract way, a taxi driver is worried about whether you get to your appointment on time. But if not, there's another print job or fare coming in a couple of minutes.

Cheers,
Rick

[Colin Southern]

Hi Rick,

I think that when one does it ones self then you side-step a number of potential issues, and also shorten the whole process down.

For me, one of the big issues is handling the different dynamic range and characteristics of print mediums -v- monitor display; anyone who says "just buy this profiling product and your prints will match what you see on your screen" either has very low standards / can't tell the difference, or - to put it delicately - are being somewhat "economical with the truth". BUT - by working from a calibrated and profiled screen and a profiled ink / paper / printer combination you at least start the journey from pretty much the same reference point. Case in point - I to a lot of canvas printing and I KNOW how it needs to look on the screen to look right when it's printed and I KNOW how far to push the histogram to get the dynamic range compression looking good ...

... so come print time, more often than not I can get what I want in 1 shot. If I have a few nagging doubts I'll print the image as 22 x 11" rather than 44 x 22 (ie 1/4 size) and see how the tones and levels look - fix it quickly if it's not right - and reprint. And of course for those that are 99% there I leave notes on file that next time I print it "try a small hue shift on the blues away from purple" etc. So it's not perfect, but it's pretty efficient.

On the other hand, if you use a cheap commercial shop you're likely to get people who may not understand how to adjust your image to give you the result you're after on their machines. A more upmarket shop may adjust the image in a way that they think is better, but you don't (eg boost the mid-tones, but let some highlight detail ... of the brides dress ... blow) (AAAARRRRGGGGHHHH!!!). So if you're not going to do it yourself then a high-end shop is the next best thing - but - the better the relationship you can build with them (eg talking to the guy who does the printing - helping him to understand your needs) the better the result is probably going to be.

In reality, I also do a fair amount of printing other peoples work and many will say "don't alter anything" - I usually alter levels / saturation / sharpening at a minimim - and when they pick it up I ask "how does it look" to which the usual answer is "wow - fantastic"! (Some who know me then go on to say: "I suppose you made adjustments anyway" (rolls eyes) - to which I answer "yep" )

Call me narrow minded - but I STILL think there's no substitute to jumping in boots and all - tackling the learning curve - gaining experience - and then applying what you've learned to your own work (or others).

PS: Did you all see the one I did for Agata a few weeks ago? - it was a classic example in that it needed some very subtle hue adjustments to avoid some gamut clipping. Would your average print shop have got that right? Not a hope in heck!. What did the customer think of it? Have a read ...

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pi...&id=1007916115

[rick55]

So if you're not going to do it yourself then a high-end shop is the next best thing - but - the better the relationship you can build with them (eg talking to the guy who does the printing - helping him to understand your needs) the better the result is probably going to be.

This looks like the best compromise approach . . . .

Call me narrow minded - but I STILL think there's no substitute to jumping in boots and all - tackling the learning curve - gaining experience - and then applying what you've learned to your own work (or others).

But for those of us doing a couple of prints a month (if that), I'm not sure this is a sensible option. For me, at least, it's hard to keep the workflow in my head at that frequency. This is where I think it's best, as you suggest above, to work with someone who: 1) understands that I'm very serious about this, and won't accept "that's pretty good"; 2) will take the time to interact with me and make sure I'm delivering the bytes needed to produce the best output; and 3) has the expertise to do it better than I can do it myself.

PS: Did you all see the one I did for Agata a few weeks ago? - it was a classic example in that it needed some very subtle hue adjustments to avoid some gamut clipping. Would your average print shop have got that right? Not a hope in heck!. What did the customer think of it?

I remember the thread where you and Agata discusses that image, starting with adjusting the colors, then offering the print, and it's great to see her reaction. If you were in Northeastern US, you'd be my first choice!

Cheers,
Rick

[rhadorn]

You also need to define minimum viewing distance.

Personally, I've never understood why people want to print something 10 feet wide, and then view it 1 square inch at a time from 6 inches away!

This was a response to the following statement of mine:
"My point is to to define the minimal print size at which you see all what you have captured without loosing any detail as you do on the screen, out of an interest for people experiencing restrictions rather than for those who have big toys (printers)."


You still did not get my point, Colin. When it comes to encourage people to print their best pictures (the start of this thread), then it is necessary to define the smallest printer, which will be capable of of showing all details captured - in my sense, the main scope of printing as compared to monitor viewing. This will be a A4 printer for a 10MP camera, A3 for a 20MP one.

Of course, it is supposed that the viewer can look a the picture at a close distance, so as to see details printed at 300 - 360 PPI (the native resolution of the most common printers). No control on the viewing distance is needed: close viewing is a condition to see the fine details. If the printer is too small, the gain on viewing pictures on the monitor will only be partial.

You may have to print bigger because of a greater viewing distance. You may also print much bigger as a matter of taste (the trend is obvious today). But please don't print big and force people to stay at a distance! This is absurd. Onlookers must be allowed to move in front of the pictures as they want to.

Reto

[Colin Southern]

But please don't print big and force people to stay at a distance! This is absurd.

But in essence what you're suggesting is "print small and force them to get close to see detail", which I find absurd, especially when many who's eyes are not what they used to be would literally need (at a minimum) a magnifying glass to see the detail that they could have enjoyed from a distance without having to resort to such optical aids. Just doesn't make any sense to me I'm afraid.

Anyway, I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one; either way, it's late, and I'm off to bed!

[carregwen]

I'd say that is one happy customer

[Donald]

I'd say that is one happy customer

And the second, very, very happy customer is much too shy to let his face be seen on here.

It's (They've) arrived !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (see post #5 in this thread to see what this is about)

And, you're right. Seeing it in print just takes it to another level. I'm going to cuddle it.

So, not only his he our new Moderator, but he is also my idol!

Thanks Rob.

[carregwen]

And the second, very, very happy customer is much too shy to let his face be seen on here.

It's (They've) arrived !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (see post #5 in this thread to see what this is about)

And, you're right. Seeing it in print just takes it to another level. I'm going to cuddle it.

So, not only his he our new Moderator, but he is also my idol!

Thanks Rob.

You are most welcome, Sir - it's all part of the service. It is a cracking shot you took, and I wish I had taken it. In answer to your PM - the second one is the one that looks slightly more contrasty and has more detail. If this has prompted you into getting some of your shots printed and framed then I'm happy with that. And I would encourage others to do the same.

Actually, there is a third happy customer (one of my prints), but I don't think she has received hers yet as she's in the US.

[Bannacht]

My prezy arrived yesterday, I've already cuddled it! Thanks Rob.

[carregwen]

My prezy arrived yesterday, I've already cuddled it! Thanks Rob.

All part of the service, madam! It does look good, doesn't it. I have a framed copy of it myself.