Prints

Bill Pierce

Bill Pierce

Well-known
Local time
1:45 PM
Joined
Sep 26, 2007
Messages
1,407
Several times I’ve gotten the same question about printing, Since prints (most of them) are going to outlast unattended digital storage, not have a problem with compatibility and computer programs and have a viewing consitency that images are not going to have on a variety of computers (plus the fact that I’m a print nut), I thought it was important to answer it. The question was “Do I use computer monitor calibration tools like Color Munki and Spyder?” And the answer is “I used to.”

Without denigrating them, because they are very useful in providing an accurate preview of the color in prints, I find there is one problem that you can’t expect them to solve. There is a difference between a trans illuminated computer screen and a paper print that depends on the light falling on it and bouncing off on the way to our eyeballs. There are also other minor differences caused by differences in paper surface, tone, e.t.c.. Yes, I fine tune the brightness of my computer screen and use the brightness and contrast tools in the printing subsection of my image processing programs, but I don’t use a monitor calibration tool to predict what a print will look like.

Instead I make a little proof print and fine tune it until it looks the way I want it to look under a variety of lighting conditions and pray that no one will look at the print in an underlit room or in a patch of sunlight coming through a window. Then I make big prints (and send the small prints out as postcards).

Two questions… (1) Am I an elderly nut case in making prints - lots of them. (2) When you make prints, how do you deal with the difference between what you see on the computer screen and what comes out of the printer:
 
Answers:

(1) If you are, I am too.

(2) I muddle through, fiddle around and take what fate deals me.
 
I'm not alone! I never used, have calibration tools. I'm just not selling images or prints. :)

I also do control print and if I don't like it I adjust printing settings.
What I noticed recently, if I have correct gamma for prints (2.2 in my case) it is very close for colors and luminance to images on the screen. Check your gamma! :)

I'm not thrilled about giving images only as files. I like to print some of them. Or even make simple book. I use cheap craft papers and garden thread for binding.

I also like 4x6 glossy prints. Just to print and look. They tell me few anti gearhead things. It is next to irrelevant which camera is in use for the image on print. Even phone does well :) And it is also showing irrelevance of megapixels. I print from 861 pixels on long side files and 4x6 are still awesome! :)

32890677531_3bd9ae1845_m.jpg


I almost made family album from them and I'll try my street album as well. No, two. One BW, another in color. :)
 
My 2 recent monitors were already fine out of factory in terms of color accuracy , screen calibrator still made 10% difference when printing. It is worth getting one of those.
 
I only printed b&w and did only the file prep on my monitor. I use a NEC Multisync PA271W and calibrated it with a spyder 4Pro. A fellow told me about that you loose 10-20% (of "everything") when printing. Typically I am careful not to overporcess images for online viewing (my gallery here on RFF only) but with this expected loss, I overdid contrast, curve, clarity and edges of the histogram (deep blacks and bright highlights) on purpose and the prints turned out awesome.
Archival Piezography prints by Cone Studios on Hahnmuehle FA Baryta.
No experience printing color or printing on a printer at home. With low volume printing, having a printer yourself is just a maintance hassle, I'm not going there.
 
I use one Bill. The biggest difference other than color was my screen, and from what I read all our screens by default are too bright. I still make "smaller" test prints to make sure its dialed in, which is is 9 out of 10 times. 8x8 or 8x10 are pretty inexpensive, when I'm done I give them away too.

Chip
 
BTW of course it never looks "the same" as a screen since they're different mediums. Like looking at how a chrome would print in a brochure.
 
I found monitor calibration a waste of time too. If everyone you corresponded with calibrated the same monitor the same way there might be some value to it. I have fiddled my Lightroom print dialogue to pretty closely match what I see on the screen and that's all I really want.
 
@Bill
I agree that screens and prints are different things and it's not possible to calibrate them so a photograph looks the same.

HOWEVER, what about consistency and reproducibility? Without calibration, there's no way to know how your print will appear on another printer - for example if sending the image file to a gallery or agency to print? It could look terrible...! And even it looks OK, it will still be different from your print - perhaps radically.

I think not calibrating the screen and not using printer profiles are serious mistakes. Calibration isn't perfect, but it's better than guesswork and trial and error - and if the screen and printer are (a) good quality and (b) carefully calibrated, then the prints can be made to match the screen reasonably closely.

As well as a photographer, I'm a graphic designer, and I can guarantee that I'd lose clients fast if I didn't calibrate my monitor, printer, paper and ink!
 
Profiles are like translators between the language of color your devices speak. Not using profiles is like going to a foreign country and asking for something blue. Do you want cerulean or ultramarine? You only know the word blue, so you get whatever the other person thinks is blue. You can arrive at an acceptable print without using them by going into a bizarro feedback loop, but life is so much easier if you know what you are doing.

That said I have a background as a consultant with this stuff so to me it is simple.

1) No you are not crazy. Make as many prints as you want. They will outlast anything digitally stored.

2) I don't have this problem because I understand what is happening. Plus the monitor and printer profiles I use are far beyond what you download off the internet. When I profile my monitors they take over an hour to do minimally. And don't get me started on how long it takes me to profile a paper...

If you don't even profile your monitor you are really just starting with various levels of garbage. You will be off from the getgo.
 
Instead of prints I’m in the process of making some albums with lots of choices on the internet. I hardly make or have made prints anymore.
 
I calibrate my screen and I do not have problems with color accuracy or brightness of the print when using multiple vendors. I make prints and I make books. Both are accurate enough for me. I recently sold three 40x60cm prints and they looked great...just as nice on screen as in print. Calibrating for color temp as well as lowering the brightness of my screen was the best thing I ever did to make things easier on myself.
 
I do a lot of prints but from Costco. So I'm like you. I overtime have calibrated my screen to match my Costco prints. There really wasn't that much to do. I do struggle with paper types, and viewing conditions. But I think I'm the only one that notices.

BTW: enjoyed you on the Smith video.
 
I print because that's a great way to share and discuss over a coffee... one individual in my world is 93 and certainly she has never used a computer... I normally print a little over saturated / over contrast as I believe it helps her enjoy the photos... she enjoys the colors and content... BTW b&w always makes her sad because it's a reminder of the past...

Casey
 
Very new to home printing. I have already been absolutely disappointed and impressed by my lack of tech.

Still I have a few great prints that I like. That's something.

So

1) I see the point and the joy
2) I am new to this and the monitor seems fair enough with limited expectation
 
Bill Pierce said:
...

Two questions… (1) Am I an elderly nut case in making prints - lots of them.
Click to expand...

Of course you aren't.

Bill Pierce said:
(2) When you make prints, how do you deal with the difference between what you see on the computer screen and what comes out of the printer:
Click to expand...

There are too many variables that effect our perceptions of the screen and print renderings.There has to be a difference. One of many examples involves the print media. Fine art paper, high gloss paper and canvas prints will render differently.

I use commercial labs and always pay for test prints or test strips for large prints I plan to display.

A calibrated monitor minimizes the impact of one of the variables. I found a monitor calibration reduces the effort and cost required to optimize a print's rendering.
 
I am with you Bill. And I agree that a back lit image on a computer screen is different from an actual print. I usually tweak once I start making prints. I consider the first print I make a test print, kinda like I would in hte darkroom and then go in a adjust the file as needed to get to a final desired look. I don't consider an image finished until it is printed.
 
airfrogusmc said:
I am with you Bill. And I agree that a back lit image on a computer screen is different from an actual print. I usually tweak once I start making prints. I consider the first print I make a test print, kinda like I would in hte darkroom and then go in a adjust the file as needed to get to a final desired look. I don't consider an image finished untip it is printed.
Click to expand...

Similar here. And I find I print better (I mean inkjet) when I work on a consistent series of photo. After the first few ones I get use and manage to get the result I want. When I print a single photo it's more hit and miss.

Therefore like in the wet darkroom the best accessory becomes the waste bin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom