107 replies to this topic

[CounterWeight]

I've found printing to be it's own little bucket of fun.  I usually make my image near the optimum size for the ultimate print size I'm after and seems 350DPI can be upsampled (meaning enlarged) a little without much image breakdown.. I try to avoid downsampling (reducing from image size) at all cases.  Not that there is anything wrong with the 'resizing' wizard type stuff that all print shops have, it's just I have no control over it.  So I think it's good to ask the shop 'tech person' what the printer prints at or will try to convert your image to and just make it at that size and scale.

 

After realizing that no matter what I do, the printer itself most likely put the actual print info into a jpeg format, I put my files into Paint Shop pro or Photoshop for any final manipulation in size and DPI into jpeg.  I always seem to need to push the gamma a bit on the bottom end of the data curve and that helps make the data come out in the low contrast transitional areas, but if not carefully applied will show gradient step when viewed up very close - so be careful there.  And any sort of noise reduction can make that more obvious too.

 

All the differences I attribute to the old days when you could take slide film and have it turned into a print, this I mean with respect to seeing on the illuminated screen.  Printed, the image is just reflecting the available light and 'on screen' it is projected light. Very low contrast benefits from projection and can be hidden in printing.

 

Many printers have print engines (software to hardware) and needs to be calibrated their printers that you have to get your mind around if you want to use them repeatedly and get the same results - and I always ask that it be recently calibrated if I'm going to print.  Sometimes they will say, "seems to be printing darker" or something like that.

 

Another caveat is that many bulk printing shops have 'image enhancement' or photo fix routines when you are inputting into the kiosk or remote log in, I always make sure that there is nothing at all turned on as I have found they drastically alter the image brightness and tones - here I'm thinking they are acting like exposure meters and adjusting data accordingly - always at the expense of the subtle low contrast stuff.

 

One last note, if printing larger images make certain that they have an area to let the print dry / cure that is flat as adding the print ink can / will cause even the heaviest print stock to curl while drying, this is something (a large flat open space) that not all places have if they just print small and medium sized portrait pictures.

 

I use a standing distance of 4 to 8 feet as a working distance as that is the distance viewed in the places I've exhibited.  For the house, I've only a few up here, I use 2 to 5 feet for my viewing distance.

 

My test with the canvas and simulated painting took me in a complete different direction and I ended up only doing a few with a sort of Van Gogh artistic effect and they were popular, actually sold them, but it's not what I want to do with my carefully and painstakingly processed data.  I think the images above show quite well what the medium does to the image, to me they look pixelized or coarse grained.

 

I am I suppose a bit old school about it, but I do only go local and use brick and mortar shops so I can interact with the folks that work there and test out variations before I choose a final print, this I do by taking a smaller portion of the larger (usually 24x36 poster size) and printing for critical evaluation.

 

The paper you print to is usually matched to the printer by the manufacturer (or vendor), but I always ask to go to the heaviest stock they will print to and mount as you would any photo, nothing special outside getting a well made frame (getting harder all the time to find inexpensively) and for larger images that can get a bit spendy, but there are less expensive options if you just go for the 'el cheapo' poster frames in most stores for the largest sizes...  Problem with the cheap frames is they are just that (here I mean the plastic ones) and I've had all sorts of problems with them, plastic falling out when lifted, corners separating - but they are much easier to work with the weight!

 

I had a very bad experience with having the image attached to a backing board, over time it warped, and so I just use traditional framing. 

 

With traditional framing I find it's good to review the choices you have in the plastic or glass (if you do) and think about reflections and lighting where you will be presenting the work.

[jzeiders]

That is why I prefer to use a company that specializes in fine art printing and uses a half million dollar printer, The process is light based not ink based,  light from LEDS to make the exposure onto regular photographic materials that use a normal wet photographic process,it  makes a difference to me verses ink jet prints. I tried the do it yourself method and found it less than satisfying and expensive not to mention time consuming.

 

If I'm making a special print, I'll choose the service that gives me direct access to a master printer, We discuss what I want and he sends me proofs until it is perfect. When I'm happy he makes the print(s) and ships. After building understanding with one guy, he knows what I like and the process goes quickly. It is more expensive but quality usually is.

 

If I'm doing something less critical, I use the automated service and do all my prep work in Lightroom. I usually get prints back in about 3 days. This takes some trial and error to learn the setup and how to prep the files so I can predict what I'll get. It isn't hard, just a bit of a learning curve. I never get any machine or software banding, stripes, patterns or artifacts. You have to do your own spotting before sending the files. What you send is what you get.

 

Both offer prints on other media such as metal and canvas, I prefer the Fuji gloss paper myself.

 

I do collect files and wait for sales and do a batch order which is quite economical.

 

YMMV,

 

Jack

[David Ault]

Here are the prints I've done.  I decided to add the border and text after getting the first one back and it looking somewhat bare.  I did this fairly quickly and it looks like I over exposed it a bit as all the images look brighter in the middle than they do in person.  The two pictures on the left are the Adorama metal prints, the one above is the 'allow the metal to show through' version.  It really is much darker than the others and only looks good in very bright light.  The upper right picture is from FractureMe and the lower right is from DeepSkyPrinting.

 

 

You can see the full resolution version here.

 

As a reference, this is the image I sent to them:

 

Visually, the Adorama metal print (without the metal showing through) was closest to what I expected.

 

Regards,

David

[raf1]

Thanks for the post Adam.  Looks good from the 20' view, maybe not so much up close.  I wonder if we can't start a sticky, solely with a quick review, company used, price, and type of print for people's reference.

 

That's a good idea Josh. 

 

Very interesting topic.  I've been doing my own analysis of different print houses and techniques.  So far I've tried fractureme.com (print on glass similar to the acrylic method that Adam tried), deepskyprinting.com which Warren mentioned and adoramapix.com for metalic prints (I've tried both the white and silver techniques).  I'll have to take a picture of them all together so everyone can see how they compare.

 

In the meantime I can give you some verbal feedback:

 

The fractureme print has the same banding issue that Adam has with the acrylic print.  I contacted them and they seemed to think that it was a normal part of their process and is normally not visible due to the higher contrast in most terrestrial photographs.  It's contrast and detail was also very poor.  It was definitely the worst of the 4.

 

The deepskyprinting print had the best detail and contrast.  The saturation seemed to have been pushed a bit too much for my tastes and the black level was a little too low.

 

The adorama metal prints were the closest to what I see on my monitor (which is calibrated).  I did find out that if you proof your image with their ICC profiles and include it in the JPG data they will use it when printing.  They will not use any other profiles, so the profile in my image was not utilized, which surprised me given how closely they matched the monitor.  I did get them to send me a proofing profile for the metal prints, but for some reason I can't get it to be used as an embedded profile when I write the file.  A small amount of detail was lost, which I guess means I need to print it a bit larger and stand a bit further back

The white print was excellent and it almost seems like you are looking at a glass surface.  The silver print allows some of the metal to show through, but I really didn't like what this did to the contrast and saturation of the image.

 

Regards,

David Ault

 

I appreciated David's posts as well.  This has been one of the most informative threads I've read lately.

 

CS, Ron

Edited by raf1, 04 December 2014 - 02:37 PM.

[David Ault]

Thanks Ron!

 

Jim, I'm curious what print shop you go to that uses a photographic transfer process?  And forgive my ignorance, but how does that even work if your source is digital?

 

Regards,

David

[Footbag]

Yes.  There are some great posts in this thread!  Thanks David for the comparison.  My metal prints are showing up in a week.

 

For you guys using "higher quality" printers...  How do I find out if I have one locally?  Is there a keyword I could search for locally?  I'm thinking it's unlikely, we don't even have any camera shops left.  But hopeful.           

[nitegeezer]

Thanks for the post Adam.  Looks good from the 20' view, maybe not so much up close.  I wonder if we can't start a sticky, solely with a quick review, company used, price, and type of print for people's reference.

Just keep adding to this thread, I have added it to the list of best threads here.

[rigel123]

Here are the prints I've done.  I decided to add the border and text after getting the first one back and it looking somewhat bare.  I did this fairly quickly and it looks like I over exposed it a bit as all the images look brighter in the middle than they do in person.  The two pictures on the left are the Adorama metal prints, the one above is the 'allow the metal to show through' version.  It really is much darker than the others and only looks good in very bright light.  The upper right picture is from FractureMe and the lower right is from DeepSkyPrinting.

 

 

You can see the full resolution version here.

 

As a reference, this is the image I sent to them:

 

Visually, the Adorama metal print (without the metal showing through) was closest to what I expected.

 

Regards,

David

Wow, I've never had Deep Sky Printing blow out the core of something like your example shows.

[jzeiders]

Vendors I've used has either of two printers, Laserjet (older technology) or Chromira.

 

Both need trained operators and careful setup.

 

You might do a search for fine art prints or exhibition prints to see if there is a vendor in your area. The ones I use are in California.

 

Jack

[TimN]

I use a local vendor that caters mainly to professionals. I saw an exhibit that was done on metallic and framed with acrylic that looked spectacular. So, I wanted to try that. The metallic did a great job reproducing my image like my computer screen. The acrylic framing gives a 3D effect and the glare is reduced as I have it in a bright room. I sent the image to the vendor in JPEG (thats what he wanted) after resizing to 300 dpi in photoshop for my ordered size. I did this myself as I didn't want anyone playing with it. He sometimes adjusts settings so I indicated that I wanted nothing adjusted. I was very pleased with the result and I'm ordering more using the same process.

 

I'm sure there are many ways to show astro images very well. I just want to share one that exceeded my expectations.

[nodalpoint]

jzeiders, on 03 Dec 2014 - 9:27 PM, said:
That is why I prefer to use a company that specializes in fine art printing and uses a half million dollar printer, The process is light based not ink based,  light from LEDS to make the exposure onto regular photographic materials that use a normal wet photographic process,it  makes a difference to me verses ink jet prints. I tried the do it yourself method and found it less than satisfying and expensive not to mention time consuming.

 

 

Today's top of the line ink jet printing, for color, is pretty much superior to traditional color materials in most aspects:

1)Pigment based ink jet prints are more archival than c-prints, in fact collectors, museums, etc. now favor pigment prints just like they used to prefer Polaroid materials (as it was much more archival than other color materials). 2)There are tons of paper choices for pigment prints; gloss, matte, lustre, thick, thin, rag, and various textures. 3)You can print very large photos, the printers I use handle continuous rolls of paper up to 44" wide. 4)The latest ink jets have a wider gamut and dynamic range than c-prints.

 

The truth is artists have mostly switched over to ink jet pigment printing for color and collectors want it for new work. B&W is a different story but there's no way I'd ever go back to c-prints for color (unless the Cibachrome process suddenly rises from the ashes, but true Cibachrome was dead before it became Ilfochrome which recently ended production.)

[jzeiders]

The vendors I use do inkjet as well as light based printing and also use roll stock.  I prefer the look of my work done with the light/wet process. I've done both. Your preferences may well be different. Which ever your choice, choose quality over price and I think you will get good results.

 

Try both and see what works for you.

 

Jack

[nodalpoint]

The vendors I use do inkjet as well as light based printing and also use roll stock.  I prefer the look of my work done with the light/wet process. I've done both. Your preferences may well be different. Which ever your choice, choose quality over price and I think you will get good results.

 

Try both and see what works for you.

 

Jack

 

I've been involved in fine art printing for a couple decades now so know a bit about it.  If you like c-prints, I can understand that. 

[David Ault]

Wow, I've never had Deep Sky Printing blow out the core of something like your example shows.

 

Warren,

 

I tried my best, but I did get the image of the prints a bit over exposed and I didn't have the time to try again, so it's not as bad as it looks in that picture.  That shot is probably fine for comparing them to each other, but not great for understanding what the prints look like on the wall.  I think both the Adorama metal and DeepSkyPrinting prints look good and neither of them have the core blown out.  I think the DeepSkyPrinting version may also be a bit more washed out than the others due to the position of the light source.  If I have some time this weekend I'll try it with a diffuse light and get the camera square to the prints.

 

Regards,

David

[David Ault]

I had a little time today, so I setup to try to take a better shot of the prints:

 

You can find the full version here.

 

Regards,

David

[Footbag]

Lol!  I was going to ask you to throw a grey card in there...  As a joke!

[David Ault]

I actually considered putting it off to the side and then cropping it out of the final frame, but I figured, what the heck, this way everyone can check the color balance!

 

Regards,

David

[rigel123]

That does look better!

[Footbag]

I received my metal prints from Adorama. I've found a new favorite printing style.

I'm going to find out how large it can handle. Also planning a specific image with metal in mind.

[josh smith]

I received my metal prints from Adorama. I've found a new favorite printing style.

I'm going to find out how large it can handle. Also planning a specific image with metal in mind.

 

 

Awesome!  Any details on what exactly you got?

 

Also, I got my books in yesterday and I'll post a quick review when I get home.

[Footbag]

Here is a picture of the metal print. It was printed on glossy white metal.   

 

 

[Footbag]

Here is a closeup...

 

[David Ault]

Very nice Adam!  I don't see any of the banding that was present in the acrylic print.

 

I've got one additional metal print coming in soon from Adorama.  It's for a black and white.  We'll see how it turns out.

 

Regards,
David

Edited by David Ault, 17 December 2014 - 12:54 PM.

[Goofi]

Nice ... based on this thread I sent a pic off to be printed ... we'll see what happens

[FiremanDan]

I have nervously been uploading then deleting my files to these sites trying to decide who and what to use. It seems Adorama metal will be the way to go. I don't have much in the way of print worthy images yet, but I am anxious to get my M42 printed. This thread has been great to read through. So many great prints! I can't wait to have my own work printed one day! Please keep this going!