prints on the wall?

[barnwulf]

Originally posted by Shac

barnwulf - didn't realise Epson recommends 360 DPI - I just printed an image from a D300 - used 240 dpi enlarged to 13x19 - looked damned fine to my eyes.

Yes, I have printed things as low as 180 and 300 they looked OK. We have a fantastic Inkjet store called Inkjet Art. They do a huge on-line sales business. Link: http://www.inkjetart.com/cart/index.php

They sell paper, printers and ink and they make custom paper profiles made just for the paper you use and your printer. They are an incredible source of information about inkjet printing for anyone. They are the ones that told me that Epson printers are set up for optimum print quality at 360ppi. That's all I can tell you. I am not a real tech kind of person so I can't explain it. Jim

 

[Vics]

I put 5"x7" prints of my favorite pictures (family) on the fridge, and my travel pictures go on flickr.

 

[barnwulf]

I will have to qualify my post and say that 360ppi was for printers that Epson made around the time the 4800 was new on the market. I really don't know if that ppi info is still current. You could probably check with InkJet Art. Jim

 

[Gerry M]

Great thread, Joe. It's really interesting to see how others handle the printing issue. I print b&w (using QuadTone RIP) and color on an Epson R2400. I guess I am bucking the trend and have just finished putting my darkroom gear back together, for b&w only. Luddite? Maybe. I also shoot much more b&w film than digital capture.
Gerry

Forgot to address the main issue: On the wall, mostly. I mat my own, but use consumer frames. Flickr for web use.

 

[Bob Michaels]

360 dpi is still the standard for Epson...

Actually, I believe the native resolution of all current Epson desktop printers is 720 dpi. But I had done many tests and cannot tell the difference in an original 720 dpi file and a 360 dpi file uprezzed by the printer to 720.

I believe the larger Epson printers (4XXX, 7XXX & 9XXX) still have native resolution of 360dpi.

This entire part of the thread is academic since I have never been able to see a visual difference in a print from a file with a resolution anywhere greater than 360 dpi at print size .

FWIW, I shoot a lot of 6x7 negs, scan at 3200 dpi but do not print that big, so I have files that actually need downsampling to 720 dpi.

 

[Haigh]

I print then put them on the wall. I also post on Flickr and a couple of online journals and make small iPhoto books so people can see what I do.

 

[Rogier]

I mounted six 29 x 24 inch pieces of sheet metal on the closet door. Painted the doors and use magnets to mount large prints. Eyeballing deals from online printers to order new pints and swab them out when I feel like it.
For the rest post online and share on iOS devices.

 

[johannielscom]

My scans are made at home on a minolta Scan Dual IV for 35mm or a Microtek Scanmaker 8700 for anything larger. 35mm is 3200dpi and the larger sizes are only 1200dpi but even at that size sometimes blow 35mm out the water.

I use my website, Facebook, Flickr and RFF to show my prints online.

For printing I have brought the 'master printer' concept into the digital age, I work with one photo editor from my local shop and have synced my process with theirs so that I can get the result I want.
Prints up to 50x70 cms they have done regularly for me, I'm about to move up to 70x100cms. Their largest size is 100x150 but by the time I get there I will have to make money off it, having those framed behind unmirrored museum glass is over six hundred euros a piece in glass alone. The frame, matte and work are extra, amounting to EUR 800 fast.

I hope to one day have prints like that done...

 

[Roger Hicks]

Both. And in books/magazines. Even the occasional exhibition.

Cheers,

R.

 

[sar-photo]

I'm currently in the process of printing, matting and framing around 50 photographs for an exhibition in May. I shoot medium format, scan the negs on an Epson V750 and print them on A2 paper on an Epson 3880. I must say that once they are framed the pictures look fantastic! A print looks way better than an image on a screen, but a framed and metted print is in a whole other league!

A friend has lent me his Flextight scanner and I am using it to scan 35mm negs that I took back in the 80's and 90's - I am stunned at the quality of the scans that this scanner can produce! They're as good (possibly better) that the MF scans from my V750.

Cheers
Simon

 

[Turtle]

I have images online, but do not find electronic devices to be a suitable end state for images if I can help it. I agree with Bob and get far more from an image if we can spend quality time together 😉. I enjoy the tangible aspect, even it is with books rather than original prints.

Everything I do with scans and negs and digital files has one end aspiration: the printed image, whether this is in my home, exhibited publicly or in someone else's collection. Incredible images have a long-term hold and this cannot be realised with them shut away inside a laptop or inside a file on an iPAD. When they are on the wall, they live with you and form part of your physical space. This results in a far richer and more rewarding 'relationship' over time. All this is without even touching the issue of display quality. I dont think this is about tradition, but about what things are rather than just about what they represent.

All very personal, I know.