I visited a fine art photo gallery yesterday. I witnessed a new phenomenon. Digital prints, ink jet prints on archival paper selling for thousands, looking amazing, framed meticulously. The digital print has been with us for some time, but it has been elevated to much higher esteem as a fine art standard. These images are being perfected and manipulated bringing DSLR images to a never seen before pinnacle of quality. This is a great time to be a DSLR shooter with a working knowledge of printing.
The proof is in the printing. A few analog years ago a lot of very famous photos were made in nasty fumy darkrooms with every possible printing liability from smudgy finger prints to drying stains, dusty negs and fading fixer. It is so much easier to make a gorgeous high quality archival print now with an ink jet printer. It still takes a concept and a dedication to the disciplines and command of the camera but – super high quality printing is in the hands of the photographer now – and with accurate repeatability.
I’m considering the fine art gallery avenue, which as a commercial photographer I never have done. I love making prints and the new cameras now support great output standards. The agent I spoke with said, “Oh Nikon D800 – Oh great ! …”
Do you print? Do you sell prints? Do you present your work in galleries or shows? “The Print” has taken on a new value.
These are images from a recent seminar on digital workflow from concept, casting, shooting, editing, RAW processing, retouching right through to the final printing. The print is the prize.
The test print. Given 36.3 megapixels, it’s a waste to post it on the web. Print big. See what it looks like on the wall. Almost everything looks better 40 x 60 than even full page in a magazine.
Checking color and finessing the lights before I begin shooting.
Final touch up before the shot.
Checking highlights and dIscussing position of focus targets with the keeper of the keyboard.
Looking at prints with photographer Philip Porcella and creative director Keith Lane.
The nuances of the final selection.
Originally posted at 9:28PM, 6 December 2012 EST (permalink | reply | edit | make sticky | close | delete topic) Rob Van Petten edited this topic 3 weeks ago.
I don’t try to sell prints — just licence the odd image for publication — but for my personal satisfaction I find it necessary to print. There are some kinds of images that just don’t work on most digital displays, particularly laptops and mobile devices. Some landscapes and abstracts that are highly texture-dependent just need to be an 8×10 or 12×18 to make sense.
I don’t agree that ink jet printing is easy, though. Colour management, paper profiling, ink clots, proper sharpening workflow, the huge variety of papers on the market and the printing process’ susceptibility to environmental conditions brings in a whole new set of headaches. I’ll sometimes proof an image 5 or 6 times before it’s right, and I’m a rank amateur with low standards. Even with a colour-managed workflow printers can throw up surprises in terms of tonality that have to be corrected.
Originally posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) Jamuudsen edited this topic 3 weeks ago.
The print has always had value. There certainly is a paradigm shift in photographic fine art in the digital age. Especially, after Sandy destroyed so many prints in the galleries in the flood zone. Just make another print and voila!!!
The magic of photography for me will always be getting the shot – the subsequent steps to final output are determined by other goals and marketing which doesn’t carry the same excitement as the click of the shutter.
From both a time and economic point of view, outsourcing printing has many advantages.
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
One day, film will win you back, Rob. One day, when the hustle and bustle of this high-speed world grates on your nerves, you’ll long to pick up a sturdy, patient rangefinder and get back to your meditative roots.
I’ll be happily waiting for you there, watching you grin as you load that first roll and the glory of your beginnings comes back to you. ; )
But, yes, printing one’s work is great. I love getting those long, flat, rectangular packages from Mpix! Opening them fills me with a certain joyful anticipation. Hmmm…what can I compare that anticipation to? Why, pulling a fresh wet roll out of my daylight canister, of course! You remember that feeling, don’t you! : P
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
I sell images printed on aluminum and canvas and paper – usually printed by online services. Am very intrigued by printing on art papers and recently invested in a high quality printer. It’s easy to see that printing, too, is an art. So many variables to tweak. It’s exciting, and I’m looking forward to more exploration.
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
+1 platypussstudios.
Rob there is a custom print shop here that prints digital images on aluminum, any size, and they have a good chunk of the commercial world with big corporations, but they are small enough to do just one, one of a kind print as well.
The reason I bring it up is because the quality seems to be much better than paper prints, approaches 3D quality.
I am doing very limited printing. I just supplied a medical clinic with two dozen prints for framing to go in the clinic.
Originally posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) GStrader edited this topic 3 weeks ago.
Curious notion we have about not being satisfied with an image on the screen and printing them out on paper makes them more tangible.
I feel the exact opposite about email, bill paying, correspondence, facebook chats and most matters of business communication. I don’t ever need to see that written on paper. In fact then it’s a mess and I will lose it, and filing it is lost forever.
But a photo I want to look at on the wall. I am challenged by the printing process. I don’t mean to say that ink jet printing is a snap and anyone can do it first time every time. It also requires a skill set and experience and some trial and error to get a prize print. I just find it tidier than darkroom and more repeatable certainly, in the day light and with clean fingernails. I can sit here and write this to you and in the background I can run off a print of something I worked on last night and it is going to look exactly like it did last night. I’m amused by your comment that you sometimes proof an image 5 or 6 times. I think I have tested a serious image 10 or 12 times before I am ready to commit to a big sheet. A quick job or a an editorial that is a rush – no. But something for my wall, or a show I have to be convinced that I have it as good as I can get it, so I test a lot for retouching, color corrections, the right detail in the blacks and profiles. I just expect to correct everything all the time at least a little. I enjoy the controllability and the precision of these printers.
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
I’m in the strange position of seeing some of my photos going viral, like this one:
I’ve lost touch with these photos in a personal sense, since they have forged a life of their own ‘out there’ in the world. But I’ve had a handful of prints made, and gave one to my brother. When I see the prints, they feel like my photos again. It’s a strange feeling. The image quality of the prints is good, but the feeling of ownership is there in a very different way.
I hadn’t really made that connection until reading your piece.
Originally posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) richard.heeks edited this topic 3 weeks ago.
Yes it’s fortunate that so many casualties can be recovered from digital files. The originals from the hands of the masters is another story. I suppose it makes the surviving original prints more rare.
That instant of knowing you captured the moment is a great sensation. I’ve thought that having a shot exceed your expectations is the highest photo inspiration.
But – I like to make my own prints and hold them in my own hands and say Wow. I get a huge satisfaction knowing that I have produced it from beginning to end, determining every step of the process from concept to final print.
I think I’ve never liked a print from a lab as much as from my own control freaking self. If I had to pay for my pickiness with multiple tests and variations it would cost me much beyond the machine and supplies. Moreover there is great satisfaction in the I feeling that I have produced something beautiful.
Man you must be reading my mind, or hacking my email. I have to laugh. You can see me grin in these pictures with my brand new 1951 Nikon S rangefinder. Maybe that glory is returning. You are a funny guy. I can almost smell the D-76 wafting off my martini. See me grin…
I sure hope you upload some scans. Of course I give you a bit of a hard time in our various film bantering, but I’m truly glad to see that you’re back in the saddle. Enjoy that beautiful brick!
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
I think its one of the most gratifying parts to this whole process. It’s tactile. It’s visual. And it doesn’t smell bad. There are lots of variables but I suggest you find a paper stock and style that suits what you shoot and stick with it. That reduces variables and allows you to refine your process and perfect the print. Have fun with your new printer.
Clear some wall space. I find hanging prints on the wall and living with them forces me to come to terms with the things I need to improve. My own over-exposure to the work forces me to think beyond. Go big.
I have seen some of this printing on metal. I’ll research the aluminum substrate. I have a friend in Miami who does that kind of alternative process for big installations. I saw a really gorgeous print sunk in Lucite that I liked too. For the time being I’m staying consistent and thinking about this gallery proposition. Probably print on Exhibition Fiber paper 24 x 30 and 30 x 40.
Two dozen prints is a good size presentation for the medical clinic. Is this all your personal work?
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
Yes all my personal work. Really they needed a complete redo they had almost nothing on the walls, so it was easy for me, and a great score. Most of this biz goes to the stock agencies now.
Originally posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) GStrader edited this topic 3 weeks ago.
Very nice image. It’s one of those peculiar photographic phenomena that you can’t see with your naked eye, but the camera can catch. I was not aware of this one until I saw your shot. Congratulations on all the international coverage. You should be taking credit globally.
I’m interested in your comment that you take ownership in a different way when you make and look at a print . I think that is some of it. The image is officially public by hanging on the wall, and it’s a statement of completion for others to review.
SIgning the print is another sensation of ownership. I often have full size tests that are almost right. Or I have tests on different paper stocks. Those I don’t sign. The final print that acts as my quality standard by which I gauge all the others that I sell or give away, I sign. Signing the print means to me, this is as I intended it, and as good as I can get it. Signing the print gives me that sensation of ownership – warts and all.
GStrader – That is a great score. Do you have any pictures of the installation? Are these images ones you have here on flickr? You’re right that these kind of purchases take place through stock agencies and there are specialized agencies who provide art buying for commercial institutions and public spaces. Good job.
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
Perhaps I am printer challenged with the digital process because I do not find getting the print output exactly the way I want it easier than darkroom process. I do agree that it is much tidier. I can honestly say that I have never had to hold my printer on the edges and slowly rock it back and forth to keep the ink flowing over the print so it does not blotch or streak. Nor has the slight variation in temperature of one ink cartiage caused a variation in the print quality. However, I have had what I thought was an calibrated monitor and printer cause differences in what I expected in the final print. Different set of problems but as was stated – a skill set for sure.
I also like some of the metallic and canvas work that is being done. I send out for this work but they can have a very nice presentation.
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
There is a definite skill set involved. I think it’s more procedural than alchemic, like the wet version. More predictable and repeatable. I definitely prefer working in the daylight with no chemicals. Most of the printers rock themselves a little bit doing the carriage dance on a shaky shelf. Maybe the only agitation involved is the cost of the ink.
The workflow I recommend is doing your RAW Processing in Nikon View NX2, image manipulations in Photoshop and print out of Photoshop. Set the printer to Photoshop Manages Colors, enter the printing profile and it would be very close. From there I always do selective adjustments for fine tuning usually by adding adjument layer masks in Photoshop (curves or selective color) to adjust selective areas, overall contrast and brightness, black levels or sharpness and softening. I like Photoshop and enjoy doing my own digital manipulations. This is what I have always taught in my classes.
I don’t want to go down the slippery slope of debating output workflow here. There are certainly a thousand variations to produce high quality prints. I recommend keeping it simple and consistent. I suppose it’s a matter of how much time you want to invest.
Just as a point of reference here is my printer dialogue box. The print profile is Exhibition Fiber Paper which is my current paper preference.
Originally posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) Rob Van Petten edited this topic 3 weeks ago.
GStrader – That looks like a very nice show. As good as a print looks in your hands, it always looks even better in a frame on the wall. Good luck with the assembly process and I hope you invite us all to the opening.
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
With increase in real estate prices and house / apartment size becoming smaller … there is hardly any wall left to hang printed pictures. I guess digital photo frames are the next thing as I am using them myself 🙁
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
I do not want to debate the workflow but I’m wondering if I need a “shaky shelf” to get the printer rocking more.
Seriously, I appreciate the feedback and direction. I will follow that process. I am a real believer in keeping it as simple as can be. Now with that said, I’ve been known to spend a lot of time getting something perfect too. wrt time, some images just automatically prioritize more time than others.
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
I send my files out to be printed by a pro shop. My biggest is a 20×30″ print of a grungy bald eagle. It looks brilliant all matted and framed. I often have 16×20 prints made and have sold a few smaller 8×10/12 framed and unframed.
You are correct. There is nothing like seeing a big print.
Posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
Is it really print quality or the fact that most digital photographers rarely see their work printed therefore its the novelty effect?
I find that inkjet prints are the most disappointing aspect of this new revolution, especially black and white. Paper costs the earth for what, just a texture? There is no silver content. Printers last for a year before heads become blocked/worn. Ink costs…………..yeah right. And of course how many sheets have those bloody lines on it because alignment has gone out because there was a speck of dust on the runner. But the result! No depth of tone, no luminence, dmax. Its just a “synthetic” copy of something pretending to be.
There, for me, is nothing more real, satisfying, exclusive, tactile, emotional and deep as spending time in a smelly darkroom, printing negs that result in an image that is so human, one that glows with detail and tone. It aint quick, it takes skill ammassed over years to produce, it means that the missus cant bug me coz the red light is on.
But most of all it is an original personal statement that relys not in technology, but in feeling and brains to produce. It involves no processers or alogrythms or yule logs come to that! It is hand made! Its not done by Adobe or Nik.
Ever seen an old Ansel Adams exhibition and marveled at the tonal range and depth? When was the last time you saw an exhibition and marveled at the print quality? And what is inkjet print quality? No lines? The fact the ink bleed is kept to a minimum?
And dont get me on these self obsessed wanna be’s calling them selves “Fine Art”. Just because of the use of the word that sounds like giggle, (which is what you do when you find out its meaning) glicee prints are held in reverence as though its something to marvel. Its french for inkjet! Whats next, Kumusta prints on buffollo trampled paper processed by Adobe Turd Polisher 9.
rajnishjaiswal – I know what to get you for Christmas – a Digital Photo Frame! Not exactly as precious as a framed print, but certainly practical and works as a night light too. Or you could hang up an iPad and get your email too. I was hoping by now my camera would converge with my phone and I would only carry one device.
Finally an intelligent comment in this group. Thanks Daren, I am glad there are people like you out there! There is too much arrogance around. Photography is fine, but it’s photography. It’s not fine art though, no matter what the printing gimmicks are; this I believe.
Originally posted 3 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) ColetteSimonds edited this topic 3 weeks ago.
Thanks for the recommendation on Exhibition Fiber Paper – it’s on order. I definitely want to find a signature look, and am working towards that…the process is a lot of fun.
I have a magnetic wall in my studio covered with prints…and also copy things to my Nook for other to view. It’s great to have so many presentation options available.
To Daren and Colette – I’m sorry you’ve not experienced the joy of printing your favorite images on interesting paper with a high quality printer. You should at least try to remain open to the possibility that art can occur.
Originally posted 2 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) platypusstudios edited this topic 2 weeks ago.
Daren Smith – Nice to hear from you again. But you don’t sound too happy. I hope it’s not all that chemistry. There was a time when chemistry was the height of technology but they’re rolling up the sidewalks in Rochester as Kodak fades to black. It’s time to embrace the digital wonderland. Technology never moves backwards. No print was ever anything more than light bouncing off paper. It has no human or spiritual essence. Whether it’s shot from an enlarger or shot from an inkjet there are artfully rendered master pieces done in many processes from the right skilled artist. I’ve seen a lot of trash can liners come out of the darkroom as well.
Ansel may have had 10 zones in his best Kodabromide prints, but now you have 255, that you can measure and manipulate to a nuance. I recently saw the Avedon exhibit and my first impression was that these new digital prints, some huge, were far better than was ever made in the darkroom even under Avedon’s critical supervision. They were lushly black and tonal, and sharp right to the edges which was always a challenge on a big print from an enlarger. Not even Ansel could make a 40 x 60 that is sharp, clean and as pristine as what rolls off a 9900.
That being said, I don’t argue anyones workflow if it makes you happy. If the darkroom is where you find it – good for you. But this time, you don’t sound too upbeat. You might be suffering from a touch of digital denial. Let’s try to get you out in the fresh air and cheer you up. Maybe you need to shoot something special. That prozac is only another misnomer of the chemical era. Shooting pictures is a better antidepressant.
I always enjoy looking at your images – you are an accomplished photographer. What makes a photograph aesthetically successful is the concept and the content no matter how it is produced. I always enjoy your comments.
Originally posted 2 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) Rob Van Petten edited this topic 2 weeks ago.
I print most of my photos myself. My printers last at least several years and I think they do a good job for what they are. I had my first photos chosen for a local group show recently. This one got an honorable mention which is pretty cool! I do think it looks better on a computer screen though because of the lighting.
I also recently got a smugmug account to sell prints/downloads and I hope to buy some different prints (canvas, metal, etc to see how those come out)!
Posted 2 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
Here comes another disgruntled reply. Please note this isnt a dig at you, just a reflection of my musings.
Just to point out a few things.
Ansel Adams zone system was about understanding the limitations of exposure and devising a system where film development could be controled to fit the exposure range of paper. 10 zones were devised as a “chart” to help place exposure and its creative use could be controlled within the bounderies of film. The actual range of tones is infinate from pure white to pure black because the paper reacts to light and that light and its reaction is imeasurable as there can be a million or more micro varients, not even decernable to the human eye. Inkljets consist of a couple of black and grey ink cartidges that overlap to render a tone, this is limited to 255. Maybe this is why I find digital B+W limiting and dissapointing? Also, special matt inks have to be used for a matt finish, further complicating issues.
Am I right in saying that film has a wider exposure latutude than digital? About ten stops? Some zone system writers claimed 11 zones, some 9, thing was it wasnt about tones, it was about their control within the parameters of the equipment.
I have seen HUGE Ansel Prints and how he made them, although sadly not in person, and I can say they were amazingly sharp right to the edge, with depth too. The best bit is that the equipment he used, still works today!
I agree that how someone choses their “workflow” is entirely up to them, surely thats what makes us individual, an artist even. There are many areas were especially for you pro’s, its been a godsend, speed, convenience, manipulation. But it isnt just about that. You talk of “fine art”. Go watch how an artist works, get into their heads and I promise that technology wont be their driving force.
Can you see why I am grumpy? I am not allowed to CHOOSE. I am not allowed to use my tools to express myself, be an artist. Camera manufacturers made that decision for me. You have, in a way, said I am in digital denial.
I am not the baby Moses in the basket. I want to be able to continue with my photography in the way I choose, to share that passion for something that isnt relient on technology that lasts for 6 months. I shoot both, but the advantages to digital are only convenience. We are not allowed to to develop our own style because we dont own the gear long enough, and we are limited by the technology and the output. If I painted, if I was to choose oil, watercolour wouldnt come along and kill off oil. If I sculptured, can I only use the latest Dremel instead of chisels, and would those chisels be withdrawn from sale because there was a bright yellow one coming out next month?
Thats why I get grumpy. The manufacturers for photographic tools dictates, it doesnt offer choice, quality and support. It is perhaps the only artform that is manipulated by the manufacturer, and shame on it. The choice of lenses for my FM2 dwindles every day, but yes at least Nikon still offer the F6, well while stock last, bravo.
I havent seen these wonderful prints you tell me about. Yes there were crap printers in my time, but there were also marvelous ones, amateurs that produced these works in home darkrooms with so much passion. We didnt talk about weather a camera had GPS and 64m pixels. We marveled at the character of papers and lenses for the tonal range and character they produced but more imortantly how this could impart a character in our work that made us individual, how through education and trial and error we could develop a style, a signature that was a reflection of us. This is missing in inkjet, in digital.
Be honest, have you looked back over your images taken on earlier cameras and dismissed an image becasue it wasnt taken on that 36m pixel camera? That £25,000 Digital Nikon that had a Mega Pixal!
Hell, those results were the equivelent of Steven Hawkin singing Opera! Do we dismiss them now that technology doesnt allow us to open the files and if it does, that image is not recognised by adobe CS3450? What a shame and waste.
For long enough I have defended my artform against art critics, those that said how can photography be art. With digital, I have a tool that removes human intervention through its technology and pace of development, that relies more on technology. I want control. I want to choose. I feel less of a photographer with my aging D200 than I do with my awesome FM2. 25 years old, still works.
You see, my style of photography isnt commercial, it isnt even profesional. Its an expression of me and my heart and mind. If I chose a different form of expression, through paint or stone, I would have control, but my beef is that Nikon, Canon, Epsom, HP, Sony etc control me.
I see you are a rock star, or at least play guitar, or hope you still do. Imagine you have that Fender Strat with humbuck pickups, you have chosen strings with the sound you like, amps and speaker cabs that deliver that sound that is you. Now I come along with my plastic guitar hero and play station and tell you, you can no longer get support or buy a new equipment because Sony says so. It makes a sound like a guitar, whats your problem? You can get a cd rom that makes you sound like Hendrix if you shell out $39, but be warned, next christmas, Guitar Hero will come with a Lady Gaga plug in so you can only play Poker Face, but you get a free basque and wig.
Can I ask a christmas wish of you? If you chat to Nikon, can you ask them if there is any chance they could start this new trend of CHOICE. Can they in any way, develop lenses that work on all of their cameras, even those from years ago? Could they re introduce the FM2 maybe? I’d go with Pink I am that desperate. Then when I give talks to photography clubs and demonstrate this awesome artform I learnt years ago, I can say that you can get it from Nikon because they care, they want you to enjoy what ever you choose and support you in that choice. So on sundays I can shoot film, and on weekdays, I can shoot i phones, sat morning D600 and you never know, employment may again rise with Kodak rising from the grave.
Hell, I could become me again.
Thank you for your advice. Although I have nothing against people printing, of course, I do not believe that art happens through a fancy printer. In fact art happens before the camera shutter button is pressed; art is the idea, the vision before we press that shutter button. In my mind it is not the big resulting production. Just like Daren, I do not believe that photography belongs to fine arts and for the same exact reasons that Daren stated so well. And I would like to add that in the days of film, paper was the medium. If we do believe in advanced technology, I don’t see the point of wasting that much paper and ink. Since photography relies so much in technology (that’s why it’s not fine art), why not use the technology to reduce landfills? Isn’t an ego driven attitude to print big?? Of course everybody is entitled to his/her opinion. But it’s important to know that some of us don’t share certain ideas launched here. I’m not trying to convince anybody. But I like to be heard sometimes. Daren encouraged me to be heard too. That was courageous of him. I thank him.
Posted 2 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
Moore’s law applies to cameras as it does to computers. Everything that is a standard today will be outmoded in 18 months – twice the size for half the price. But I see that process slowing down. Camera body evolution seems to be stabilizing and there is an emphasis on lenses.
The worthy processes will rise to the top and will survive by Darwinian market demand. I see this all as a welcome revitalization. All those darkroom skills apply to the digital darkroom and a lot more accurately and repeatably. The better printers have stabalized and become standard for a few years. (We have had 10 Pro 3800’s for 5 years or more at the school print lab running consistently with very little maintenance.)
And yes my prize guitars are from a rock era from Fender and Gibson in the 60s and I do believe that it takes playing for that long for them to gain the playability -tempered by the vibrations of a thousand hours. But they are made of exotic wood. Camera’s are computers. Sensors and processors. FM’s were brass clockworks that wore out and became un-precise, unlike the resonance of a musical instrument that learns to sound like you play through years of vibrations. Even now however, those guitars play through Pro Tools and Garage Band for the final mix. The musician has the final say in the sound, the same way the photographer has the last word. That’s the beauty of it. I could never make a C print or a dye transfer print as consistently as I can with a 3880.
Somewhere there the is an analogy here.
These may be polemic points but the fact remains there are valid camps on all points of the continuum. Use the tools you like and make the images you love. Strive to make them as good as you possibly can, and to discover something in the process.
Thank you for your contribution and your point of view here. This is exactly the intention of posting a point of view like this. On my next visit to the UK I suggest we go on a gallery jaunt and see what we discover.
Oh yeah… You don’t have to ask for an audience with the folks at Nikon. You have one right here.
ColetteSimonds
The purpose of the forum is exactly for everyone to feel comfortable to voice an opinion. Be civil and rspectful and if you have to, agree to disagree. I’m glad that Daren encouraged you to speak up. We are all only one point of view. Some of posting an article with a strong opinion is to deliberately illicit reaction and engage a discussion.
Posted 2 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
I’ll hold you to that “date” Rob. We will start with mine!
I’ll give you a holga and we will have a shoot out!
Posted 2 weeks ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
Daren –
I’m handy with a Holga – I would do that – but I’d rather make it a collaboration than a competition.
Platypusstudios –
Thanks for that. That’s a great piece of video and right brain/left brain techno/art wisdom. I had not seen that before but will add that to the archive of good bits to circulate. Thanks you.
Posted 8 days ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
Rob, I do suggest that one always recompose the work before comitting to the “big print”. By that I mean post, to select the pixel values for the size to be printed, and to view the image at 100% to 150% before committing to the print.
I learned this when I printed my first large print. The shot that I thought I had, once blown up to the large print, was not the shot that I thought I had. There was some dirt on the sensor that was not noticed before printing at the larger size. Once blown up became very noticeable. From then on, I made it a part of the process, looking over the image magnified.
Not only for that reason, but sometimes an image at one size can look entirely different at another size. So view it at the size that you intend to print it.
Posted 7 days ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
GStrader – You bring up a good point which I take for granted sometimes…
If you are going to print big you need to inspect it big. You can’t just trust the screen res magnification. You have to check it out 200% or more to see if there is anything that is going to distract or need some clean up. Nobody stand the test of 200% without some tidying up. Happy Holidays Gary.
Posted 7 days ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
thanks for very interesting thread especially as am just contemplating making larger prints.i must say that i found myself in a steep learning curve when first printing , and decided to print myself after unsatisfactory results for me from labs and was really only by chance having bought a cheap epson for my business( not photography)in shear desperation tried a print from it ,well all i can say is the results were amazing much better than the labs i had used .A larger printer is definatly next on my shopping list , I agree Rob ,its so good to see my images in print, thanks again for a very informative thread.OF cause on mastering the printer learning too cut , mount and framing ,all can say is just dont give up if you run into trouble or go out by a cheap epson printer you will be amazed!
Originally posted 6 days ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete) simonh2159 edited this topic 6 days ago.
Simonh2159 – Lot’s to learn for sure, but I think that most of what I knew from the darkroom still applies to making a digital print. There are some new sliders like clarity and vibrance that did not exist there. But these all just give the photographer more options.
The cutting, mounting, framing part I leave to the professionals. That to me is an additional business that requires skills I don’t have. (Cutting straight lines accurately) I have a good relationship with a local framer who has a history in the gallery business and offers great advise beyond my skill and understanding.
Me too on the Epson printers. I now use a Pro 3880 for most of my work and use a 9900 for prints bigger than 17 x 22.
Happy Holidays to all of you and I hope all your wish lists get fulfilled this year. What I want most of all this Christmas is a steady rise in global tolerance, the world economy in general, and some spare time to enjoy it. I want to go out and shoot a lot for 2013. Peace.
Posted 6 days ago. (permalink | reply | edit | delete)
