High-end printing workshops -- good value?

[brucehughw]

Hi, everyone.
I own an Epson SC P800 printer and am starting to exhibit - coffee shops, small juried shows, open studios (juried), and an upcoming show in a popular public place. I have some competency in printing (from LR and PS), and have taken a fine art workflow class (5 days for about $2,500 US) and a 12-week advanced digital printing class (good deal, learned a lot). I'm wondering if a higher-end printing class (5 days for $2,800) would be a worthwhile investment. The class goes into more depth with LR and PS (global and regional luminosity and sharpness adjustments, for example). I feel like I can pick up a lot of that on my own, and nearly $600/day is steep. I see the same instructor offers this material at other places, so it seems there's a bit of a "circuit" for near-celebrity instructors.

Can anyone share their experience with one of these high end classes - did it really improve your printing, or did you just do a lot of it and get a little better?

[DanK]

Bruce,

I haven't, so my thoughts may not be useful. However, you already have more formal training in printing than I do, and more than most people I know. Are there specific problems you are running into, or things that you want to be able to do that you can't yet do? Are you finding your prints unsatisfactory?

I print a fair amount, although only from Lightroom. Many people would look down their nose at this, but I find that Lightroom's calculations of output sharpening are generally good. If I were to look for training in anything, it would be output sharpening in Photoshop, simply because I haven't done it. However, I suspect that there are plenty of good, free tutorials online for that.

Another option is to join a photo club and ask for help from people with more experience. There are several in your area. I belong to the Boston Camera Club (https://www.bostoncameraclub.org/). The club offers occasional training, both paid (although much cheaper than those in your note) and free, and most of the members are quite happy to share their expertise. For example, I have twice done small workshops on focus stacking in macro photography. Moreover, the club has monthly print competitions, which would be a good way to get constructive critical feedback on your printing. I plan to start bringing prints to those competitions this spring. (I've entered many of the club's electronic image competitions, but never a print competition).

Dan

[Polar01]

Bruce, I have done a couple of print sessions with expert printers, however never at that kind of cost. IT is something that is hard to comment on without knowing who the instructor is.


Cheers: Allan

[brucehughw]

Hi, Allan.

Here's a link to the workshop (instructor is R. Mac Holbert). Who were your instructors?

Thanks, Bruce

[brucehughw]

Hi, Dan.

That's a good idea. I might look into the BCC.

Thanks, Bruce

[Manfred M]

The printing courses I have taken cover the same material you are looking at in the supplied link and to date I have taken only the basic and intermediate courses. I paid significantly less money and the courses ran for 30 hours each; 10 weeks at 3 hours per evening.

There are two more print based courses that I am hoping to take, but they are not being offered in the winter term, so with a bit of luck they will be running in the summer and fall. Cost of the courses is around $CAD 600 ($US 450). The pedigree of one of the instructors is more impressive than Mac Holbert's the other has clients from around the world.

Only you can determine if this is good value for you. Fortunately for me, I can get the same level of instruction for a lot less money.


http://spao.ca/


PS - I also print using the Epson SC P800.

[DanK]

Manfred,

Not having taken a course of this sort, I am wondering what I might be missing. I looked at the page you linked. It has a link to their basic printing class, DIGITAL PRINTMAKING I: foundation. It doesn't have a link to what I assume is their more advanced course, The Art of Digital Printmaking. The link for the former has no description of content; it just says "The instructor of Digital Printmaking I, Jim Lamont, will assist students in creating better prints."

I am comfortable with the basics (using ICCs, soft proofing, choosing among papers, adjusting for paper characteristics), but I wonder whether I am too willing to forego more formal training.

Thanks.

Dan

[Manfred M]

Manfred,

Not having taken a course of this sort, I am wondering what I might be missing. I looked at the page you linked. It has a link to their basic printing class, DIGITAL PRINTMAKING I: foundation. It doesn't have a link to what I assume is their more advanced course, The Art of Digital Printmaking. The link for the former has no description of content; it just says "The instructor of Digital Printmaking I, Jim Lamont, will assist students in creating better prints."

I am comfortable with the basics (using ICCs, soft proofing, choosing among papers, adjusting for paper characteristics), but I wonder whether I am too willing to forego more formal training.

Thanks.

Dan

The intermediate course is and it looks like Jim is planning to run it again in the fall.


http://spao.ca/art-of-digital-printmaking-2018f

The course covered the materials in Bruce's link titled "Image Optimization" and many of the other topics under "Setting up the working environment". We spent some time on discussing proper viewing lights for evaluating prints, setting up (calibrating and profiling the screen), the working environment (light levels and work area colour), etc. This is the course that I took last year.

The two key takeaways from the course were:

A modern camera has a dynamic range of over 14 ev. In the right working environment, most modern, high quality screens have a dynamic range of 10 ev (1000:1 contrast ratio). A print shown in a gallery environment has a dynamic range from 7.5 ev (matte paper) to 8 ev (lustre / glossy paper). The photographer needs to pull out what was captured and bring those details out in a print.

The other key learning is the difference between a good print and a great one is making small selections and corrections. Michael Tardioli, SPAO's founder (who was Karsh's printer) tells me that he often has 50 or more adjustment layers in one of his images. Making fast, accurate selections and tweaking them are the key to a great image. He generally spends around 4 hours a day printing. He usually holds a Capture to Print course over the summer, but it does not seem to show up on the SPAO website yet.

[brucehughw]

Thanks, Manfred. Wow - 50 layers! I usually have 3-4, and (being honest here) am just sort of guessing beyond that. I'll forgo the workshop (not good value) and keep looking for good instruction. Does SPAO offer workshops? I looked at the website and did not see any.

Also, could you elaborate on this "A modern camera has a dynamic range of over 14 ev. In the right working environment, most modern, high quality screens have a dynamic range of 10 ev (1000:1 contrast ratio). A print shown in a gallery environment has a dynamic range from 7.5 ev (matte paper) to 8 ev (lustre / glossy paper). The photographer needs to pull out what was captured and bring those details out in a print." -- I get the dynamic range part, but with the narrower dynamic range of the print - how are we supposed to handle that?

The intermediate course is and it looks like Jim is planning to run it again in the fall.


http://spao.ca/art-of-digital-printmaking-2018f

The course covered the materials in Bruce's link titled "Image Optimization" and many of the other topics under "Setting up the working environment". We spent some time on discussing proper viewing lights for evaluating prints, setting up (calibrating and profiling the screen), the working environment (light levels and work area colour), etc. This is the course that I took last year.

The two key takeaways from the course were:

A modern camera has a dynamic range of over 14 ev. In the right working environment, most modern, high quality screens have a dynamic range of 10 ev (1000:1 contrast ratio). A print shown in a gallery environment has a dynamic range from 7.5 ev (matte paper) to 8 ev (lustre / glossy paper). The photographer needs to pull out what was captured and bring those details out in a print.

The other key learning is the difference between a good print and a great one is making small selections and corrections. Michael Tardioli, SPAO's founder (who was Karsh's printer) tells me that he often has 50 or more adjustment layers in one of his images. Making fast, accurate selections and tweaking them are the key to a great image. He generally spends around 4 hours a day printing. He usually holds a Capture to Print course over the summer, but it does not seem to show up on the SPAO website yet.

[Polar01]

Bruce as per your post #4, I did a day with John Paul Caponigro when he was up in Toronto, did his Fall Colours, would like to do his Advanced Printing Workshop. As these are done in Maine I need to plan a interesting return trip to Ontario. The best one was with the late Michael Reichmann who I crossed paths with in Toronto one day just wandering around, he was doing the same so I asked him if I could join him and wander we did. Later went back to his office/studio/gallery and talked prints, he love to teach and freely gave his knowledge. Learned a lot just listening.
I paid $12.00 USD a year for the Luminous Landscape, an excellent series was the Maters with Charles Cramer, and two essays titled Beyond Calibration and Beyond Calibration 2, well worth the $12.00 just for those alone.


Cheers: Allan

[brucehughw]

thanks, Allan. I looked at Luminous Landscape, and was not enthusiastic about watching videos that weren't necessarily well organized. But with your recommendation re Charles Cramer (who also does workshops), I'll take another look. I'll look at the essays too. The Maine workshop you mention (JPC) is not the same organization that I mentioned, but probably in the same price range. I'd love to find one of those 12-week classes that go really in depth and that cost 1/5 of the weeklong workshops. I'll ask around at the Boston Camera Club (not a member now) and see what they say. Thanks again for the LL suggestion. If you can recommend any other essays, please pass along.

Bruce as per your post #4, I did a day with John Paul Caponigro when he was up in Toronto, did his Fall Colours, would like to do his Advanced Printing Workshop. As these are done in Maine I need to plan a interesting return trip to Ontario. The best one was with the late Michael Reichmann who I crossed paths with in Toronto one day just wandering around, he was doing the same so I asked him if I could join him and wander we did. Later went back to his office/studio/gallery and talked prints, he love to teach and freely gave his knowledge. Learned a lot just listening.
I paid $12.00 USD a year for the Luminous Landscape, an excellent series was the Maters with Charles Cramer, and two essays titled Beyond Calibration and Beyond Calibration 2, well worth the $12.00 just for those alone.


Cheers: Allan

[Manfred M]

I get the dynamic range part, but with the narrower dynamic range of the print - how are we supposed to handle that?

I'm not up to 50 layers yet, but this one is running at around 35 layers currently (each group has 2 or 3 layers in it).




In terms of handling it, there are two aspects to doing this:

1. Have a properly calibrated and profiled computer screen that is putting out between 70 and 120 candela / square meter. I find that if I am at 80 cd / sq m I am very close except when printing high key images. This (in a properly lit workspace) puts your computer screen at a level where we see a very broad tonal range. A dark room (no more than 70 lux and lower is better). Think of the lighting in a movie theatre. It is dark to maximize the contrast ratio and our mid-tone vision.

Other than the usual retouching, also look at the areas of the image where you do not notice any tonal variations. Work these so that you do. This is especially evident in shadow areas and also in highlight areas (human colour vision tends to favour the mid-tones).

2. Do test prints (much like the colour darkroom days). I will generally do between 2 and 6 test prints (all at around 4" 6" size) as I refine my image for print. These tend to go on 81/2" x 11 paper. I can test everything except output sharpening when I do so I will get all of the parameters right before I do a large print. I generally wait at least an hour to give my test prints drying time (the experts tell me if I get really fussy, I should wait at least 2 hours).

SPAO does not do workshops, but can set up one-on-one mentoring. I have no ideas as to the cost.

[Shadowman]

I wonder if it would be more beneficial to have your prints (from current printer) reviewed by an expert, I've seen many image review opportunities that are far less costly than the course you want to undertake.

[brucehughw]

I don't think I'll take that course. $500/day is just too much.

I wonder if it would be more beneficial to have your prints (from current printer) reviewed by an expert, I've seen many image review opportunities that are far less costly than the course you want to undertake.

[brucehughw]

My monitor is profiled and I think the profiling hardware and software check the brightness and ambient light (matching the former to the latter). I did not know a dark room was better. Indeed, I thought a dark room would make the screen image seem artificially bright. But if the monitor is also not too bright, I can see where that artificial brightness won't be an issue.

Re your other point (working areas that lack tonal variation), that is new for me. Is the idea here to take whatever tonal variation is present (as seen in the histogram) in some seemingly uniform area and then increase the contrast of just that area? Can you please elaborate. How does that improve the image? Is it just adding a little variety to what would otherwise be a bland region?

Thanks a lot for weighing in. You always have great suggestions. (PS I went and bought a Nikon D500. Getting to know it, but very pleased so far)

In terms of handling it, there are two aspects to doing this:

1. Have a properly calibrated and profiled computer screen that is putting out between 70 and 120 candela / square meter. I find that if I am at 80 cd / sq m I am very close except when printing high key images. This (in a properly lit workspace) puts your computer screen at a level where we see a very broad tonal range. A dark room (no more than 70 lux and lower is better). Think of the lighting in a movie theatre. It is dark to maximize the contrast ratio and our mid-tone vision.

Other than the usual retouching, also look at the areas of the image where you do not notice any tonal variations. Work these so that you do. This is especially evident in shadow areas and also in highlight areas (human colour vision tends to favour the mid-tones).

2. Do test prints (much like the colour darkroom days). I will generally do between 2 and 6 test prints (all at around 4" 6" size) as I refine my image for print. These tend to go on 81/2" x 11 paper. I can test everything except output sharpening when I do so I will get all of the parameters right before I do a large print. I generally wait at least an hour to give my test prints drying time (the experts tell me if I get really fussy, I should wait at least 2 hours).

SPAO does not do workshops, but can set up one-on-one mentoring. I have no ideas as to the cost.

[Manfred M]

Re your other point (working areas that lack tonal variation), that is new for me. Is the idea here to take whatever tonal variation is present (as seen in the histogram) in some seemingly uniform area and then increase the contrast of just that area? Can you please elaborate. How does that improve the image? Is it just adding a little variety to what would otherwise be a bland region?

Let's look at the image from #12. The first is effectively SOOC and the second one has a good deal of dodging and burning. Click on one of the images in Lightbox and toggle back and forth between them. This is an image I am preparing for a 17" x 22" print that I will be printing on Canson Baryta Photographique.

1. Before





2. After




Look at what happens along the roof lines of the buildings, especially the green copper roofed tower and also the bright lit areas along the lower parts of the building and along the wall. These are the types of areas I am referring too.

[Manfred M]

I wonder if it would be more beneficial to have your prints (from current printer) reviewed by an expert, I've seen many image review opportunities that are far less costly than the course you want to undertake.

If Bruce is showing his work in juried shows and studios, that is exactly what would happen in those environments. The downside is that the comments will be on the completed print, without any knowledge of what he started with and the decisions he went through to produce the work the judges are looking at.

The advantage of doing this type of work in a course is that the instructor / tutor sees the starting point and can help the student in seeing the issues and suggesting techniques that will be most effective in making the edits. This is not a skill one can learn from someone who is not an experienced and skilled printer.

[DanK]

I see that I was confused about what these classes are. I thought they are classes about printing per se, but they are really classes on how to create a good printed image, with a major focus on editing. That's a whole different ball game, as they say down here.

These two photos are a good example of the impact of local adjustments. Definitely on my to-do list for the spring.

My experience showing images in juried competitions has been mixed. While some judges were very good, a a surprisingly large proportion were not consistently able to articulate specific strengths and weaknesses. Their prominence didn't seem all that strongly correlated with their effectiveness. In addition, judges often focused on a few specific things, rather than providing a thorough discussion of the work. Over time (and over judges), I have gathered a lot of useful criticism, but it took time and was rather hit-or-miss. The advantage of a good class would be that this would be concentrated and more thorough.

[billtils]

I see that I was confused about what these classes are. I thought they are classes about printing per se, but they are really classes on how to create a good printed image, with a major focus on editing. That's a whole different ball game, as they say down here.

These two photos are a good example of the impact of local adjustments. Definitely on my to-do list for the spring.

My experience showing images in juried competitions has been mixed. While some judges were very good, a a surprisingly large proportion were not consistently able to articulate specific strengths and weaknesses. Their prominence didn't seem all that strongly correlated with their effectiveness. In addition, judges often focused on a few specific things, rather than providing a thorough discussion of the work. Over time (and over judges), I have gathered a lot of useful criticism, but it took time and was rather hit-or-miss. The advantage of a good class would be that this would be concentrated and more thorough.

Dan

You have hit the proverbial nail on the head with this set of comments - including what you say about some judges!

Thanks for posting.

[Manfred M]

I see that I was confused about what these classes are. I thought they are classes about printing per se, but they are really classes on how to create a good printed image, with a major focus on editing. That's a whole different ball game, as they say down here.

You are 100% correct in what you have written here Dan and the subtlety is very important.

The pure mechanics of printing is little more than selecting a paper and running it through the printer. Nicely said, that's the easy part.

A printing course is all about preparing an image for printing so that it will work as a print versus preparing it when it will be displayed on a computer screen. Most of the techniques will be familiar to those of us that do extensive editing on images we show on screens, but the way and reason that they are used can be different than in preparing for a print.

Let me list a few of the key differences between what we see on a computer display or other screen (smart phone, tablet, etc.):

1. Prints are much higher resolution than screen displays. The majority of computer screens have resolutions of ~ 100 dpi whereas prints are running from 300 dpi (Canon and HP printers) and 360 dpi (Epson printers).

2. The colour gamut of a print will generally be higher than a computer display. Most computer displays are not even sRGB compliant, whereas a print can display colours well beyond what even the best computer screens can reproduce.

3. The dynamic range of a print is lower than a screen.

4. A print is viewed under reflected light whereas a screen uses transmitted light. This means that a print will look different under different lighting conditions.

5. People view prints differently than screen images. They tend to spend more time studying subtleties and changing their viewing positions versus how they look at them on a screen.

etc. etc. etc.

My experience showing images in juried competitions has been mixed. While some judges were very good, a a surprisingly large proportion were not consistently able to articulate specific strengths and weaknesses. Their prominence didn't seem all that strongly correlated with their effectiveness. In addition, judges often focused on a few specific things, rather than providing a thorough discussion of the work. Over time (and over judges), I have gathered a lot of useful criticism, but it took time and was rather hit-or-miss.

Don't let me get started on that one...

Too late....

The problem that we see all the time with judges is that most of them are picked because of their reputation in the photographic community rather than their knowledge of how to judge. Being a competent photographer and being a competent judge are two completely different skill sets. How often do we see star athletes fail miserably as coaches. Having a skill versus being able to teach that skill or identify skill deficiencies in others are two totally different skill sets.

When judging, not only does the judge have to have a good, solid understanding of photography (and in fact specifics of the genre that is being judged), but they must also be able to articulate what works in an image and what does not. They have to be able to do so in a positive light and not let personal prejudices or biases enter into how they evaluate an image. Judges with big egos who feel that they are "great photographers" and compare the works they are judging to how they would tackle the scene are usually the worst judges I have seen.


P.S. While I have not witnessed this myself, I have spoken to judges who have been to events where one of the entrants has an ego issue and can get quite abusive toward the judges when their work is not scored at a level the entrant feels to be appropriate.