Never underestimate the power of print.

[Shadowman]

Here's an interesting exercise for you all. If you have never printed your work before, take what you consider to be one of your best shots and get it properly printed to at least A4. If you are in the UK then Photobox are good enough. It won't cost you much, and I think you will be pleased with the results. Makes sure you are free of dust-bunnies though, and check the sharpening is adequate.

Rob,

At what distance and elevation do you view your A4 sized images? I have a bad habit of looking to closely at my images which only magnifies the blemishes caused by my shaky hands. My images viewed at a distance look so much better that I want to place a velvet rope around their display so that viewers have limited access. And then every so often I get a few shots that I want to just shove in the viewers face and say "there, how's that for sharpness".

[carregwen]

Rob,

At what distance and elevation do you view your A4 sized images? I have a bad habit of looking to closely at my images which only magnifies the blemishes caused by my shaky hands. My images viewed at a distance look so much better that I want to place a velvet rope around their display so that viewers have limited access. And then every so often I get a few shots that I want to just shove in the viewers face and say "there, how's that for sharpness".

An A4 print in a matte mount and framed comes out at about 16x12 inches, and an A3 at about 20x16 looks good. Consider youself lucky to be able to afford velvet rope - over here in blighty we are still suffering a recession!

I find the larger you print the more the blemishes show - a small dust-bunny on a sensor looks pretty big on a poster print. But then with a larger print you just get the punters to stand further back, as you said.

[arith]

I get a few shots that I want to just shove in the viewers face and say "there, how's that for sharpness".

Yes, get the magnifying glass out and order them to look at it, a 30" x 20" close up. Why else would I go to the trouble to get it pin sharp.

[Peter Ryan]

Hi Rob,

I print all my own work. I tried using labs but when I sent a beautiful shot of my dark brown horse for print and got a chestnut back I gave up. It is fair to say it took me nearly 18 months to get a good handle on printing.

I used to love getting my packet of photos back when I shot film and now I just stand and watch each image come out of the printer – I love print.

Some key things from my point of view when printing: -
1. Calibrate your screen.
2. When calibrating turn the screen brightness down to around 40 – 50%. The back lit illumination on the screen tends to make you under expose your shots for printing. As mentioned the dynamic range is less on print so you need to get your exposure right.
3. Don’t work in an overly bright work area.
4. Use a good paper. I use the same as Rob – Permajet. I do like their semi-glass Oyster paper. They have profiles for all their papers available for download from their web site to match your printer and manufacture’s inks. If not send them an image and they will create a profile free. They also provide their own bulk inks for Epson printers (which I have not tried as I use a Canon).

I have 16 frames on my wall and whenever I do a major trip I pick the 8 best landscape and 8 best portrait style shots and update the art on my walls with my own work. It means more to me than buying some else’s work.

[Colin Southern]

Some key things from my point of view when printing: -
1. Calibrate your screen.
2. When calibrating turn the screen brightness down to around 40 – 50%. The back lit illumination on the screen tends to make you under expose your shots for printing.

Hi Peter,

I'm not sure if you're confusing calibration with profiling, but one really needs to do both (the better the calibration, the less the correction that the profile has to apply), but either way, screen brightness doesn't have to be an overly big factor. Often the profiling packages will prefer a lower brightness - but - they also prefer low ambient light levels, which can also be a bit of a pain. Personally, I can't stand poorly lit rooms - or monitors; I have my monitor set to 200cd/m2, and let the profile "do what it does best"

As mentioned the dynamic range is less on print so you need to get your exposure right.

Print is definately less than a monitor in terms of dynamic range, but I wouldn't say that it should really effect exposure - it's more a compression / tone-mapping / curves type issue.

[Peter Ryan]

Thanks Colin,

I am in agreement but you are far more technical at saying these things.

[carregwen]

Use a good paper. I use the same as Rob – Permajet. I do like their semi-glass Oyster paper. They have profiles for all their papers available for download from their web site to match your printer and manufacture’s inks. If not send them an image and they will create a profile free. They also provide their own bulk inks for Epson printers (which I have not tried as I use a Canon).

Yes, I use the Oyster too - it is excellent. http://www.permajet.com/product/78/O...-Gloss%29.html

I have 16 frames on my wall and whenever I do a major trip I pick the 8 best landscape and 8 best portrait style shots and update the art on my walls with my own work. It means more to me than buying some else’s work.

Don't change mine so often, but it is a good idea to keep changing them. I recall reading about Bill Gates having a series of wall-mounted electronic screens in his house which displayed various famous art works. It would be nice to do that for your prints, wouldn't it?

[Peter Ryan]

HHi Rob,

I have not experimented with B&W priting before and tried the Permjet Oyster paper but found it not contrasty enough. I tried a Canon gloss paper and found it produced much stronger tones. Have your found a good Permajet paper for B&W printing?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

[Peter Anson]

I've read all of these posts nodding my head all the while.I had become a bit despondent about my photographs over the past couple of months. I'd been on a good trip and the results should have been much better. Discussing some of my shots with a friend he said Why don't you print some of them? Even 6x4. I realised then that I hadn't printed anything at all this year due to my printer being out of order. So I got my inkjet up and running and printed some and what a difference. My spirit is lifted. I won't ever underestimate the power of the print. Thanks for this thread.

[Donald]

I'll pop it in the post tomorrow. It will be rolled in a stout tube.

The anticipation and excitement is unbearable. Nearly grabbed the postman by the throat this morning demanding to know why he hadn't got it. But realistically, given the destruction wrought upon our postal services by government, it will be tomorrow .. or the the next day, ... or ....

[rpcrowe]

I have my prints displayed in several areas of my home. I have a large canvas print of one of my dogs which I turned into a brush stroke painting with Photoshop as well as an entire wall of a dozen A4 size prints of my Maltese show dogs in my hallway.

And speaking of landscape images, IMO paintings also do not look good unless thay are larger in size.

[Klickit]

I'd love to be able to have large prints adorning our walls, but have to stick to 6x4 or near enough self printers because of space constraints. But yesterday, I discovered a very nice photo book with the old fashioned black paper pages and a kind of shield page in between that I can use as a "Here are my pix" book. Once we are land bound again, I guess there will be some wall adronment going up.

[rhadorn]

I agree so much with this statement about the power of print. Given the restriction we have on monitors, we should even think in distinct ways our pictures for the print and for the screen.

The size matters less than the resolution. The size should produce a resolution of say 300 to 360 ppi. Of course, one is used to adapt the size to the viewing distance... but in the present discussion, getting the best quality for the cost is more important. This gives an A4 for a 10 Mp camera, an A3 for a 20 Mp one. And a 17" roll for my 70Mp stitches... which I don't have the printer for. This is what keeps dreams alive.

Reto

[arith]

Actually Canon claim their 50D (15 MP) is good for A2 out of the camera and I print 30" x 20" which look just as sharp after some third party sharpening, and I mean looking from about a foot away. 30" x 20" is approximately A1.

[carregwen]

HHi Rob,

I have not experimented with B&W priting before and tried the Permjet Oyster paper but found it not contrasty enough. I tried a Canon gloss paper and found it produced much stronger tones. Have your found a good Permajet paper for B&W printing?

Any feedback would be appreciated.

I printed Donald's shot with Permajet Classic Fine Art Delta Matt Fibre base 271. It tends to soak up colours and has a very dark look, but it's very good for sombre BW shots due to it's matt finish. It suited Donald's shot of the Tay Bridge as it was a misty shot. Can't see it on their website, maybe they have just increased the gsm to this one. http://www.permajet.com/product/149/...ta%29_285.html

[rhadorn]

Actually Canon claim their 50D (15 MP) is good for A2 out of the camera and I print 30" x 20" which look just as sharp after some third party sharpening, and I mean looking from about a foot away. 30" x 20" is approximately A1.

I am indifferent to the claims of vendors; I am leaning on current professional print standards.
In addition, sharpness is not everything; you still have to have something to show sharp... I mean: detail.

You like them big, I like them fine. It is o.k. that you like them big. 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 restictions rather than for those who have big toys.

Reto

[Colin Southern]

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 restictions rather than for those who have big toys.

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!

[Shadowman]

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!

I think if it is possible the photographer has to control viewing distances.

[Colin Southern]

I think if it is possible the photographer has to control viewing distances.

I think people should print whatever size they need to, and then just sit back and enjoy the photo

[carregwen]

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!

I was talking to my framer the other day and he said that some art galleries now use museum grade perspex to cover their paintings, rather than glass. This enables viewers to 'get up close' as there are no H&S issues as with glass. I can understand that some art-lovers might want to get up close to a painting to see the brush detail etc (whatever turns you on), but for a photograph I think Colin is right - just stand back and enjoy it.