Prints

[davidnewtonguitars]

I make lots of 4x6 and 5x7 B&W only prints from the inkjet. They are all "snapshots" to save in my stash, and to give to family members who I've taken pictures of.
I want to have a pile of pictures, mostly of people, to look at now, and to pass on to whoever gets my box, just like our parents did for us.

 

[Dogman]

I've found that I tend to flip through photos on screen quickly, even the classic photos by great photographers. But I spend more time with a real print or a well printed book of photographs, looking closely and enjoying the process.

 

[robert blu]

I've found that I tend to flip through photos on screen quickly, even the classic photos by great photographers. But I spend more time with a real print or a well printed book of photographs, looking closely and enjoying the process.

Yes, and this is one oif the reasons for which I recently made a simple (but nice 🙂 ) photo zine with the Polaroids from one of my trips, to give our friends worldwide the opportunity to have something tangible in their hands.

 

[kbb]

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:

1. No. I am only slightly less elderly than you, and prints are way more valuable than images floating in the digital ether.
2. The monitor and the print will never "match" for the reasons you have stated. However, if the monitor is good, and stays good over time, the print result becomes more predictable because of your accumulated knowledge of the differences between the monitor and the prints produced.
The auto-calibrator thingy that came with my NEC monitor helps keep the monitor the same over time. If the rendition that the monitor displays was constantly changing over time, then printing would be much more difficult.

Note: I started making Epson inkjet pigment prints using a low-end Mac laptop in 2007. In 2012, the high-quality, calibratable monitor arrived.
My color inkjet prints from the pre-good quality/calibrated monitor years are nearly worthless---color-control-wise--- compared to the prints made after the calibrated monitor arrived.

 

[Vince Lupo]

Guess there must be something wrong with the way I'm doing things, as my prints seem to match up pretty well against my monitor.

Now, I will say that I had to tweak things over the years in order to get here, but really it hasn't been all that painful. One thing that I recently did was to switch papers -- I had been using Epson Exhibition Fiber with my 3880 printer and OEM inks for the last couple of years, and the prints were pretty close to what was on the monitor, but I felt like I always had to make slight adjustments to get the print to where I wanted it. However, I just tried Epson Legacy Baryta last month on a whim and instantly the prints just fell into place. Only change I made besides the physical paper was the profile, and that simply involved choosing Epson Legacy Baryta instead of Epson Exhibition Fiber. The prints now are exact reproductions of what's on the screen, so I can't say that there's been a whole lot of hand-wringing to get here.

This is one recent example of an image of mine that prints beautifully on Legacy Baryta:


Raimundo by Vince Lupo, on Flickr

I've also tried it on Legacy Platine, and it is even tweaked just a bit better (tiny bit sharper).

One thing I’ve noticed about inkjet /pigment printing -- in some circles it seems to be looked down upon because, at least from their perspective, it's somehow much 'easier' to get a good print than doing it through traditional (darkroom) means, and that if there is more perceived physical effort involved and pain required to accomplish your goal, that it's of a higher quality and has more worth than just simply (in their eyes, anyways) pushing a button. Well, let's just say I disagree with that sentiment and leave it at that.

I don't ever consider an image to be 'done', even after I've printed it. I'm always looking at images - even ones from a few years ago - and seeing if there are ways I can make them even better, or if there are new 'interpretations' I hadn't considered. I think the images are kept 'alive' by going back to them and making little tweaks here and there. I read that painters like Willem de Kooning would constantly be reworking their paintings, and that they were never really considered to be 'done'.

Guess like you I'm a bit old school - despite the prevalence of 'screens' in our daily lives, I still like to have matted and framed prints on my walls and, hopefully, on the walls of others.

 

[robert blu]

...

One thing about inkjet /pigment printing -- in some circles it seems to be looked down upon because, at least from their perspective, it's somehow much 'easier' to get a good print than doing it through traditional (darkroom) means, and that if there is more perceived physical effort involved and pain required to accomplish your goal, that it's of a higher quality and has more worth than just simply (in their eyes, anyways) pushing a button. Well, let's just say I disagree with that sentiment and leave it at that.

I don't ever consider an image to be 'done', even after I've printed it. I'm always looking at images - even ones from a few years ago - and seeing if there are ways I can make them even better, or if there are new 'interpretations' I hadn't considered. I think the images are kept 'alive' by going back to them and making little tweaks here and there. I read that painters like Willem de Kooning would constantly be reworking their paintings, and that they were never really considered to be 'done'.

Guess like you I'm a bit old school - despite the prevalence of 'screens' in our daily lives, I still like to have matted and framed prints on the walls.

Vince I fully agree with what yuo say (excluding the fact I use a different paper, but that is just my personal preference).

Many photographers think that it's enough to connect a printer to the computer and hit the "print" key. It is not like that, that is tonly he last stage of a process.

And yes a photo starts to live when it is printed (or it is part of an audiovisual project as we have seen from our RFF member Bob Michaels).

 

[Dogman]

...
I don't ever consider an image to be 'done', even after I've printed it. I'm always looking at images - even ones from a few years ago - and seeing if there are ways I can make them even better, or if there are new 'interpretations' I hadn't considered. I think the images are kept 'alive' by going back to them and making little tweaks here and there. I read that painters like Willem de Kooning would constantly be reworking their paintings, and that they were never really considered to be 'done'....

Same here. Constantly rethinking older photos, constantly playing around with different settings.

 

[Ricoh]

Excuse me, what's a 'print'? �� To my shame I haven't printed since getting negs and prints back from the chemist (you call them drug stores, I believe).

 

[Timmyjoe]

Answers:

(1) If I had the time I'd be making lots of prints also. Totally agree, prints will outlast the hard drive's 1's and 0's.

(2) Used to calibrate my monitor, but like you found, didn't make my prints come out like what I saw on the screen. So I do the "little prints" and hold them up to the lighting that I imagine the final print will be viewed in, then make adjustments till the small print is "right", then transfer that info over to the large print.

 

[Dan]

2. The monitor and the print will never "match" for the reasons you have stated. However, if the monitor is good, and stays good over time, the print result becomes more predictable because of your accumulated knowledge of the differences between the monitor and the prints produced.

Important -- and valid -- point

 

[airfrogusmc]

I don't ever consider an image to be 'done', even after I've printed it. I'm always looking at images - even ones from a few years ago - and seeing if there are ways I can make them even better, or if there are new 'interpretations' I hadn't considered. I think the images are kept 'alive' by going back to them and making little tweaks here and there. I read that painters like Willem de Kooning would constantly be reworking their paintings, and that they were never really considered to be 'done'.

Guess like you I'm a bit old school - despite the prevalence of 'screens' in our daily lives, I still like to have matted and framed prints on my walls and, hopefully, on the walls of others.

I agree with this Vince.

Being an old darkroom rat I also agree that working on a digital ink jet print is different from silver gelatin but can be just as still difficult in its own ways to get an acceptable print.

 

[PaulDalex]

I have calibrated my Eizo when it arrived, but when I print I make cycles of proof prints and tweaks of the image in PS and Capture One until I am satisfied of the result.
Exactly as Bill does.
Also I do what Vince says.
Times and again I get back to an image with new ideas and new skill that I have learned in using these programs and make an improved version

 

[vbsoto]

1) I do print. I shoot mostly for my family record. I fully recognize that no one is going to "discover" my cache of photos. The computer or drives will be discarded haphazardly first. I indent to leave a cache of prints on the wall, print boxes, postcards and albums. Those are easier to discover and enjoy.
2)I like the process of editing, "processing" and printing on my epson inkjet. I do have challenges getting the output to match my screen. Its a work in progress, with next steps of profiling my paper/ink combinations. Surprisingly, I get excellent results from files i send to Costco or Samsclub for prints. I use them for critical color or final prints.

 

[kbb]

Answers:

(2) Used to calibrate my monitor, but like you found, didn't make my prints come out like what I saw on the screen. So I do the "little prints" and hold them up to the lighting that I imagine the final print will be viewed in, then make adjustments till the small print is "right", then transfer that info over to the large print.

Essentially, this is what all us print enthusiasts do.
But, to belabor my point just a bit, if your monitor changed it's rendering like the old CRT monitors did, or was just plain lousy like a cheapo LCD can be, our task of getting the print the way we want it would be made more difficult, laborious, and frustrating.

 

[Bob Michaels]

Essentially, this is what all us print enthusiasts do. ..........

Not everybody. I have been using a carefully calibrated, and frequently recalibrated monitor, along with carefully selected printer profiles for about 16 years. Almost always, my first print is exactly what I want. I don't even tweak my final files for printing. I use the same file for JPG's as I do for printing.

Recently I printed 23 prints for an exhibition. I have printed only one before and was long ago. The photos are at http://bobmichaels.org/Gibara Film Festival 2017/ I used the same files these JPG's were made from with no modifications. As this was a new paper to me, I made one 8x10 print from one file to insure the printer profile yielded what I wanted. Then I used 23 sheets of 13x19 Red River Arctic Polar Satin to make the 23 first and final prints on my Epson P600. After I reviewed all the prints several times, I concluded each matched the others and all were exactly what I wanted so matted and framed them.

I should note that none of these files were as they came out of the camera. Each had previously been carefully tweaked in Lightroom to be exactly what I wanted. The calibrated monitor was essential there as the photos were shot over a four year period.

Needless to say, I am a true believer in a complete accurate color managed workflow from monitor to printer.

 

[Bob Michaels]

I should mention that the 23 files yielding 23 first pass exhibition prints were individually adjusted in Lightroom over the four years they were shot. And I changed monitors in the midst of that. But each monitor was carefully calibrated to the same standard so the change was seamless. Each file looked the same on the new monitor as they did on the old monitor because of the calibration.

 

[PaulDalex]

As one might have expected two school of thought emerge.
I would clarify that, at least for me, usually, the goal is not that of obtaining the most faithful reproduction on paper of a photo, but, rather, an image that satisfies my aesthetic taste.
Thus I do not hesitate to alter the photo for example putting color accents wherever I like them, modify a background I don't like, correct defects etc, just like a painter would do, to improve and give the final touches to his work.
In the end I must admit this is not photography. The photo becomes a just starting point.
But this also contribute to explain why I am not a believer of color managed workflow

 

[Dogman]

Several years ago I started to buy one of those spider things that was highly recommended for monitor calibration. Then I read that the iMac monitor doesn't play well with such devices so I blew it off. I then changed my color management to allow Epson to take over the task and all my color photos have been fine ever since. However, my color vision is not sophisticated--my photography is about 90% B&W.

 

[RichC]

As one might have expected two school of thought emerge.
I would clarify that, at least for me, usually, the goal is not that of obtaining the most faithful reproduction on paper of a photo, but, rather, an image that satisfies my aesthetic taste.
Thus I do not hesitate to alter the photo for example putting color accents wherever I like them, modify a background I don't like, correct defects etc, just like a painter would do, to improve and give the final touches to his work.
In the end I must admit this is not photography. The photo becomes a just starting point.
But this also contribute to explain why I am not a believer of color managed workflow

So what happens when you get a new monitor/computer/printer or get a photo printed by someone else? Without calibration, your carefully tweaked photo will look and print differently!

The point of colour calibration is to adjust your monitor and printer so they display and print colours "correctly", so a particular shade of red, say, always looks the same regardless of the monitor/computer/printer.

Calibration has nothing to do with faithful reproduction of "real-life" colours in a photo.

It has all to do with allowing you to satisfy your aesthetic taste more easily and consistently.

 

[jsrockit]

The point of colour calibration is to adjust your monitor and printer so they display and print colours "correctly", so a particular shade of red, say, always looks the same regardless of the monitor/computer/printer.

Yes, this is why I do it. I print books and prints... separate vendors... and then have also printed at home. Calibration just makes it easier.