107 replies to this topic

[Footbag]

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! 

 

Enjoy!  Orion shows up well on a lot of printing styles.  Metal has become my favorite, though. 

 

Remember when you had to print your pictures them to see them?  Either do I. 

Edited by Footbag, 18 December 2014 - 11:17 AM.

[CharlesW]

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

Would you mind sharing what the name of the business is that you use?

[everstar]

Enjoying this thread, can't wait to get some images to try printing on my Epson!  Only thing that worries me though is how much black ink astro prints would use, I have to imagine it would be quite a bit and a lab might be better in that regard.

 

How are you all upscaling your images, in Photoshop, Genuine Fractals? What about additional noise reduction beyond darks? 

 

It will be a while before I am there, I have been away from the hobby for a while and when I imaged back in the late 90's I was chasing asteroids mostly, but I remember with the cameras back then ST7 and AP8 the starting resolution did not seem to upscale well.  I have a pair of 8300's I got in a trade, looking forward to first light with them.  

[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

Would you mind sharing what the name of the business is that you use?

 

 

Charles,

 

The laserjet outfit was located in Florida but I no longer remember the name, that was for Comet Halley prints, about 1987?. Calypso used to do very fine prints but closed a few years ago. I heard there is a print lab in Santa Cruz that still uses a Laserjet but I don't know the name. Met a fellow that worked there when shooting Comet panSTARRS at Fremont Peak.

 

Depending on what I'm doing I use either Aspen Creek Photo or West Coast Imaging in Oakhurst, Ca. Two companies, separate facilities, same owner.

http://www.aspencreekphoto.com

 

Aspen Creek is an automated setup where you do all your own prep work, submit it electronically and they just print per your instructions and ship.

 

West Coast is a custom lab where you work directly with a master printer. Obviously this is more expensive, and takes longer as you discuss your goals and need to review proof(s) before final prints are made.

http://www.westcoastimaging.com/#intro

 

They print on Fuji Crystal archive papers which I like, also they offer ink jet prints, metal prints, acrylic face mounts, etc.

 

I've had great results with both. Obviously due to the higher expense, only special projects go through West Coast. They both offer specials regularly that reduce costs, so I tend to print in batches and take advantage if the sales. I also request them to ship flat, not rolled.

 

I'm sure some of the other folks here can offer suggestions on vendors they have experience with.  

 

Jack

[Footbag]

Enjoying this thread, can't wait to get some images to try printing on my Epson! Only thing that worries me though is how much black ink astro prints would use, I have to imagine it would be quite a bit and a lab might be better in that regard.

How are you all upscaling your images, in Photoshop, Genuine Fractals? What about additional noise reduction beyond darks?

It will be a while before I am there, I have been away from the hobby for a while and when I imaged back in the late 90's I was chasing asteroids mostly, but I remember with the cameras back then ST7 and AP8 the starting resolution did not seem to upscale well. I have a pair of 8300's I got in a trade, looking forward to first light with them.

So far, I haven't had to upscale the image. 16x20" is my max.

Photoshop does a good job, though. CC has an even better version.

I use noise reduction in my normal process. Good labs reproduce whats on the screen well. They cannot reproduce the brightness the screen offers. I suggest brightening them more then usual. Or getting snall test prints.

Edited by Footbag, 18 December 2014 - 09:32 PM.

[Footbag]

I had an interesting experience with a printing company.  I was planning on trying MpixPro.  It was recommended as a pro printing outfit with great prices.  I had planned on ordering an Acrylic from them to check the quality. 

 

Well, I signed up and it asked me to provide five images.  I uploaded them and the next thing I know I get a FedEx overnight ship confirmation.  A welcome kit shows up with my images and I'm supposed to use them to test the color correction and calibrate my monitor using their program.  I'm pretty impressed with their service.  They also sent me a package of different samples of Fuji paper.

 

Unfortunately, their Acrylics and Metals only come in very specific sizes.  I didn't realize this when signing up.  I may try them for something else though as I'm pretty impressed with their service. 

[FiremanDan]

So I went to Target with a JPEG on a thumb drive... I wanted to get an idea what it would look like once printed. It doesn't look good at all! 
There are blotchy saturation streaks. You know how if you drive up the saturation too far and you can see it kind of streak through image? I am sure part of why it looks bad is the low quality of these little print kiosks, but could this also be an indication that my image is not processed well enough to print? 

[JoseBorrero]

I truly like aluminum prints  

 

up to what I know ps has settings with benefit the deep sky imaging, remember that we image in RGB and the printers are CMY. so this settings in ps are a most.

[FiremanDan]

Bump. 

So I went to Target with a JPEG on a thumb drive... I wanted to get an idea what it would look like once printed. It doesn't look good at all!

There are blotchy saturation streaks. You know how if you drive up the saturation too far and you can see it kind of streak through image? I am sure part of why it looks bad is the low quality of these little print kiosks, but could this also be an indication that my image is not processed well enough to print?

[David Ault]

Can you post a link to your image?

 

Regards,

David

[woodscavenger]

I truly like aluminum prints

 

up to what I know ps has settings with benefit the deep sky imaging, remember that we image in RGB and the printers are CMY. so this settings in ps are a most.

 

Can you elaborate on this?  Do we need to change how the file is saved/exported to get better color?

[FiremanDan]

This is the image in question David. The more I look at it the more I see problems with it and why the print didn't turn out very well. I guess I have a long way to go before I am ready to print anything. 
http://cdn.astrobin....0_watermark.jpg

Edited by FiremanDan, 22 December 2014 - 12:39 PM.

[David Ault]

It's a nice image and I don't see why it can't be printed well.  I suspect the printing Kiosk more than the image.  There is a bit of color noise, but I suspect that would actually be hidden a bit by a good quality print.  You might try one of the online print houses and see what you get.  They aren't that expensive, for example, a standard print on Kodak glossy paper costs around $1.50 for an 8x10 print (not including shipping of course which probably costs way more than the print itself) from AdoramaPix.  Deep Sky Printing also does a nice job and they are quite inexpensive and will mount the print on various backings so it doesn't need to be framed.  I mention these two because they are the print houses I've use that I have gotten good results from.

 

Regards,

David

[FiremanDan]

Thanks. I re-processed this data the other night and got a lot of that color noise down. I think I will try another cheap print to see if that helped and in the next few weeks I'll try a larger real print from one of these places. I am looking at Adorama white glossy metal. Seems to be a good choice based on this thread. 

[Goofi]

A question for those who print their images ...

 

How large can you make your prints? At what point do you find the image quality suffering too much?

Do you use a DPI standard (ie: blow it up, but no worse than 200 DPI)?

[David Ault]

Hey Goofi,

 

So far, what I've done is re-size the images so that the stars have an average FWHM of around 6 pixels (before stretching) and then pick a print size based on 300 pixels per inch.  So, for example I had an image of around 2600 pixels wide and the stars had an average FWHM of around 3.  I did all the normal processing and then at then end, doubled the resolution of the image and at the same time set the DPI to 300.  At 5200 pixels wide at 300 DPI, this works out to a print of around 17.3".  The closest print size for my image was 11x17" which worked out quite well.  Another way of thinking about this is printing so that the stars (while linear) have a FWHM of around 0.02 inches (around half a millimeter).

 

I really have no idea what others are doing, so it will be interesting to see other responses.  This is just a rule of thumb I've been using and it's worked out well for the 6 prints I've done.  It's totally a personal preference though, so take this for what it's worth: about as much as the paper this post was printed on

 

Regards,

David

[Goofi]

Thanks David ... what you're doing makes sense. I'd love to hear what others are doing too.

[anismo]

Thanks to this thread, I did my first AP print using deepskyprinting (Mounted + metallic print) and it came out great! I really do think there is some sort of sticky or resource. Hard to find this info

 

Edit: NM, saw that this is tagged in best threads. Good stuff

 

Edited by anismo, 10 January 2015 - 01:35 PM.

[David Ault]

Looks excellent Anis.  Congrats on the print!

 

Regards,

David

[anismo]

Thanks David, I was nervous about submitting a high res jpeg instead of the Tiff. I has come out well , at least I know the starting point on how to print these things.

[Footbag]

I got two photo books from Adorama.  One large and one small.  The large one is about 10x12" and the small one is about 5x8".   For the $60 they cost, they came out very nice. 

 

The photos don't do the images justice.  The color and clarity is great!

 

You can add pages or change the layouts.  I ended up using almost all of my 2014 images, but I made the worse ones smaller to hide the defects. 

 

I did steal the Wiki descriptions.

 

Edited by Footbag, 11 January 2015 - 10:31 AM.

[Footbag]

The Centerfold...

 

[Footbag]

Typical page layout for this style.  Lot's of styles available. 

 

[David Ault]

That looks awesome Adam!  I've considered making one of these before.  After looking at yours I'm definitely going to now.

 

Regards,

David

[bhwolf]

A coffee table style book is a great idea and also sounds like a nice gift idea!  Hmmm....

 

Not to sound too modern but has anyone given thought to using LCD TVs (or, despite the higher power requirement, plasma)?  Many of them can auto-display images from a USB key.  Obviously it's cost prohibitive to buy, install, and power a dozen TVs, but thinking if the goal was to have only a few, it might not be that crazy.  A quick look at slickdeals shows a noname 55" LCD 1080p for $350, a 29" 720p for $79.