Prints

[Bill Pierce]

Yesterday, when we were discussing the relative small number of megapixels needed to make a good screen image and the fact that I still yearned for a medium format 50 megapixel kit that cost just short of $12,000, Icebear sent a message saying, “I take it this is a little tongue in cheek to get the thread going.” The answer is yes… and no.

Certainly our internet needs can be met with small sensor cameras that don’t have some huge megapixel count. And the great majority of family images, news pictures, advertising, e.t.c., now appear on the web. That means they appear for the most part on uncalibrated monitors of varying quality that usually don’t even have the brightness adjusted. This is not a tragedy. Most of these pictures are important for their content, hardly for their subtle nuances of tonality. But I do remember when I first posted images on the web and then saw them on other people’s computers. I saw the high key version, the low key version, the contrasty version, the flat version, the totally weird tonality version and my version. Oh yes, and that special pad and phone category, extremely small. A few of the pictures held up, sort of. But a lot that weren’t based on some sort of high impact content were diminished to the point where they certainly wouldn’t touch or move a viewer, certainly not in their busy office.

For the most part, people accept the fact that looking at a reproduction of a painting, even in a high quality book, much less on an uncalibrated computer screen, is not like looking at the original.

Both Gene Smith and Ansel Adams made prints for publication that were slightly different from their exhibition prints, pictures that had a little extra shadow detail and highlight detail to compensate for the losses in reproduction. That kind of control is not possible on the web.

There are strong arguments for making prints. They will be your version of the image, not the dark version, the contrasty version or the small version - your version out of the many possible. And, if you are the master of your craft, it will be, at least in your eyes, the beautiful version.

And here comes the argument for the many big megapixels. Film cameras range in image size from the 8 x 11 mm Minox to huge view cameras. Half frame through 8 x 10 inch are common. Photographers make big prints from little negatives, small prints from big negatives and, of course, small prints from small negatives and big prints from big negatives. Edward Weston made contact prints even when he occasionally downsized to 4x5. Richard Avedon made some prints that were so big his printer had to use the Modernage mural facilities. Photographers shoot 35, 120, 4x5, 8x10 and make whatever size prints they want. Big prints from little negatives aren’t always super sharp, but sometimes they can be very powerful. Medium size prints from big negatives can be super sharp and sometimes that’s one of the reasons the they can be powerful.

I remember seeing some large prints, probably 5 or 6 feet on the long dimension, of war images made with relatively early DSLRs. They were not very sharp. They were very powerful. I have seen large prints, not of landscapes or architecture, but people full figure and tight head. They were extremely detailed and exceptionally powerful. They were shot by different photographers who all used 8 x 10 film cameras. But I know that in the future those pictures, landscapes and portraits, will be taken on a large format digital camera. They probably already have. I just haven’t seen them. Sometimes fine details and subtle textures aren’t important; sometimes they are. Sometimes little prints are right; sometimes big prints are right. It’s your call. Film photographers have had a variety of cameras, a variety of their equivalent of sensor size, to choose from. So should digital photographers who print their work. Some folks will foolishly spend money on sensor size just to say, “Mine is bigger than yours.” Some will wisely spend money on sensor size so they can make that big print of the tree as beautiful as possible. And some will shoot with their cel phone, and that’s OK.

As always, your thoughts?

 

[Calzone]

Bill,

Not many print. The costs can be huge, especially if you tend to print a lot or big.

I can tell you I can print what I can't see on a calibrated EIZO in a darkened room with the EIZO dimmed down to say 50-80 Lux. My prints reveal more shadow detail than I can see on the EIZO. It came as an epiphany to me one day when I compare a print to the image on my EIZO. Not sure if many people have discovered this. Basically you can print what you cannot see.

Anyways I learned that at Digital Silver Imaging there is a softness revealed on their silver wet prints, even though they use a laser. Seems that because of the use of projection for enlargement that this edge softness is an artifact.

I think the ultimate wet print is made via contact printing.

Cal

 

[Timmyjoe]

I'm a big fan of large format film cameras (for B&W work), not that I own any, but simply because I believe you can get finer tonal gradations with an 8x10 negative, as opposed to a 35mm negative. That's the big draw to large format film for me.

I've never considered that a larger megapixel sensor, especially in a standard 35mm Full Frame format, will give you finer tonal gradations, maybe it does. But that is the only reason I'd be interested in something bigger than the 16-20MP digital cameras I already own.

I could see maybe a Hasselblad Medium Format sensor (6 x 6 sensor) could give finer tonal gradations, and that would naturally have a higher megapixel count (than 35mm full frame), but again, I don't have any experience with those.

Best,
-Tim

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Having it printed is old tradition in our family. My wife mother has prints which are century+ now. We always had it on prints in film era. And printed once it became dominant by digital.

I print on 8x10 in DR and on letter size by inkjet. 135 film is sufficient and 2800 pixels on long side (200 dpi) is very sufficient.
I like to print for framing or on smaller sizes for albums. Letter, 8x10 or smaller are cost effective and easy to frame, mount.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I make silver-gelatine prints from Leica-negatives. I have a Focomat IIc enlarger. I dry the prints on a very old, but huge, Büscher. Formats 24x30cm and 30x40cm.

Erik.

 

[Michael Markey]

I use Ilford when I wish to have something printed.
I send them the file which they expose using lasers on photographic paper which is then wet developed.

I have no idea what this system is called but I like the results.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

I make and sell large prints. I can make 16x20 prints with my Epson p800, and YES pixels matter. The early digital photos I made with a Nikon D70 (6mp) simply look like crap printed that big. The photos just fall apart. My Canon 5DmkII (20mp) files print nicely at 16x20, but that take some stretching of the files to get there. I want the Canon 5Ds (50mp) and I know with the work I do and the prints I make and sell, that it would be useful for me.

 

[Erik van Straten]

I use Ilford when I wish to have something printed.
I send them the file which they expose using lasers on photographic paper which is then wet developed.

I have no idea what this system is called but I like the results.

The advantage of this system is that you can adapt the histogram, just as with scanning, and with that image make old fashioned wet prints.

Perhaps there is no market for laser-enlargers. I have never seen one offered.

The advantage of old-fashioned silver/gelatin prints is that they are much more durable than anything else.

Erik.

 

[ptpdprinter]

The advantage of old-fashioned silver/gelatin prints is that they are much more durable than anything else.

Not sure that's true, but I don't feel like wasting a lot of time running down the numbers. It also doesn't tell you very much about the quality of the image itself.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Not sure that's true.

For black and white, silver prints are more archival IF they're on Fiber Base paper AND they're processed properly.

The inks used in inkjet prints will eventually fade, though current pigment inks are very durable. Silver-gelatin images are made of tiny particles of silver metal, so as long as the print was properly processed and the print is not exposed to atmospheric pollution, the prints will never fade.

 

[Dogman]

I print 6x9 and 12x18 sizes on 8.5x11 and 13x19 paper. Reasonable sizes for APS-C and smaller formats. I print on matte finish rag fiber inkjet papers, mostly B&W these days but older digital pix were color. I don't much care for viewing photos on a monitor. I like tactile, tangible things and prints satisfy this desire. Besides, I love prints. I guess that's why I never make the effort to post any of my photos online--they don't look as good to me as they do in a print so why bother when the picture won't look its best.

Some of my older digital photos were done with small sensor compact cameras. These prints definitely show their technical limitations. They may not be technically optimal but they don't look like crap to me. But then I also have an old photo framed that I dearly love done on a store brand disposable film camera and the technical limitations are secondary to the subject and the moment in time. I love a sharp picture with creamy gray tones and perfect highlights and shadows with depth. But I also like photos that set a mood or convey an emotion over technical perfection.

Photography is many things to many people and these things change constantly. I can understand the enjoyment others get from posting photos online, emailing them to family and friends and just looking at albums on their phones or tablets. I prefer prints.

 

[Dogman]

For black and white, silver prints are more archival IF they're on Fiber Base paper AND they're processed properly.

The inks used in inkjet prints will eventually fade, though current pigment inks are very durable. Silver-gelatin images are made of tiny particles of silver metal, so as long as the print was properly processed and the print is not exposed to atmospheric pollution, the prints will never fade.

If stored in the dark. Pigment inks also last a long time if stored in the dark. Where no one sees them.

Hell, I don't expect my photos to last forever. Petroglyphs and pictographs fade in time and they're done in stone.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I print. Mostly from medium format because of my professional climbing & skiing mountain activities, but also from 5"x7" for landscapes & the occasional portrait. I bought a Leica MP (film) again because I had too many nice iPhone photographs that were dead ends for me. If I couldn't print in the dark room, i'd stop taking photographs altogether & spend that time on playing music which is my other great life interest.

 

[Erik van Straten]

If stored in the dark.

Not true, depends on the light. An exposure for many years by direct sunlight is not good for fiber based gelatin/silverprints, I agree, but that light finally destroys everything, as we all know.

Erik.

 

[cz23]

I recently bought a P800, thinking I would start printing more and larger. But it's too darn expensive. I'm considering selling it and moving to books instead. For the cost of a box of paper I can have a book printed. I know the quality won't be as good, but I work on projects more than single images, so I think this makes more sense. Two or three books a year, and a costly device out of my life sounds pretty good.

John

 

[Erik van Straten]

It also doesn't tell you very much about the quality of the image itself.

Here's Flickr a big help. Bad photos get bored after a while. Viewing the work regularly on Flickr helps you choose the work you want to print.

Erik.

 

[Deleted member 65559]

I make and sell prints on fiber paper up to 20x24"

 

[Calzone]

For black and white, silver prints are more archival IF they're on Fiber Base paper AND they're processed properly.

The inks used in inkjet prints will eventually fade, though current pigment inks are very durable. Silver-gelatin images are made of tiny particles of silver metal, so as long as the print was properly processed and the print is not exposed to atmospheric pollution, the prints will never fade.

I agree with Chris.

The only ink jet exception is perhaps Piezography. These inks for B&W are all carbon based and should be as archival as say a charcol or pencil drawing. No color pigment is used, thus no fading.

The color most prone to fading and the least permanent is red.

Cal

 

[Calzone]

I recently bought a P800, thinking I would start printing more and larger. But it's too darn expensive. I'm considering selling it and moving to books instead. For the cost of a box of paper I can have a book printed. I know the quality won't be as good, but I work on projects more than single images, so I think this makes more sense. Two or three books a year, and a costly device out of my life sounds pretty good.

John

John,

I use and maintain two printers: an Epson 3880; and an Epson 7800. The costs are huge. On a 24 inch by 50 foot roll I only get 16 prints when I print 20x30 on 24x36. One year I took advantage of discount sale pricing and spent $10K on paper and ink alone.

Then there are additional costs of storage boxes for these prints.

As far as books go might I suggest utilizing your printer to create an art book. Perhaps learn book binding. Something about the IQ of a hand made book and the artistic vision.

I print on Canson Baryta Photographique which is cellulose and cost effective, but I love the feel of Canson Platine Fibre Rag. Robert Rodriguez, who is the Canson Artist-In-Residence, says that behind glass these two papers look pretty much the same, but if the prints ar to be held in the hand that the Fibre Rag has that special tactile sense.

Also consider boxed sets instead of books for your work.

Cal

 

[willie_901]

...But I do remember when I first posted images on the web and then saw them on other people’s computers. I saw the high key version, the low key version, the contrasty version, the flat version, the totally weird tonality version and my version. Oh yes, and that special pad and phone category, extremely small. A few of the pictures held up, sort of. But a lot that weren’t based on some sort of high impact content were diminished to the point where they certainly wouldn’t touch or move a viewer, certainly not in their busy office.

...

This is frustrating. Even for the relatively low percentage of people who use color managed web browser platforms. how many also use calibrated monitors?

Also, the importance of small image impact is a relatively new twist.

Many newer mobile displays have outstanding performance. The device display size is less of an issue than making people want to view the full-screen version.

I quit using Flickr, but it taught me a something about how to photograph the thumb-nail images people were likely to click on. This helped me with my interiors photography clients.