Show off your prints!

[saladin]

I've started some very basic printing , just to get a feel for it. It's certainly nice to hang something you've taken on a wall.

One thing it has shown me is that noise is largely overstated in print. It's the digital medium that shows it up, but on paper and at useful viewing distances it seems to vanish.

Anyway, below are a few crappy phone pics of photos I've framed .


Hobart Harbour, Gx8 with 15PL. It's a cheap 30x20 frame, I sized the photo in 16x9 ratio and simply set the canvas size to 30x20 for a straight print.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Train Station. G85 with 30/1.4 Sigma (iirc). This is an ikea frame, somewhat weird sizing. The print is a 50cm x 40cm.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Creek flowing. A recent one with the Em5iii and 75/1.8 . I need to print this again with the whole thing boosted by roughly 1/2 stop, it printed darker than I expected and whilst it looks great once you get up closer, it doesn't quite jump at you from a distance. Again, same unusual print size as previous one.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Old Shack. G85 and Sigma 30/1.4 . This one was previously in the creek frame, but we wanted matching portrait orientation and monochrome. I really like the oversaturated colours in this one. So I need another frame. It's resting on a new 20x30 frame (same as the Hobart Harbour) but I haven't decided what to put in it yet.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

All up, they probably average around fifty dollars each. The challenge for me is finding/taking photos good enough to justify spending more on them. I'm often not that happy with my results, lol.

 

[John King]

Nice, Jason.

@saladin Only extreme noise shows in print IME.

Monitor noise comes from the fact that even high resolution monitors are very low resolution output devices.

Mine are 1920x1200 and 2560x1440 [Edit] PPI. pixels in total [end edit]. My Epson R3880 is 2880x2880 dots per square inch.

Because of this massive difference in resolution, transitions between pixels/dots appear as noise on the monitor, whereas that gradation is extremely smooth on a print.

 

[saladin]

Another 20x30 print with the subject in 16:9. It's going into a cheap frame, but the print looks great. Em5 Mark iii and 40-150 kit zoom.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[ABFoz]

So I started printing again after a few years of pause.

Door hinge for scale:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

The size of the larger image is 11"x14". I like this size for the 4:3 aspect ratio because there isn't much cropping.

Manfrotto Amica 10 for scale:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

This one's A3, which accommodates the 3:2 aspect ratio well with minimal cropping.

Everything is printed on Fujifilm Quality Dry Paper, care of Warehouse Stationery.

I like the overall feeling, although, I would appreciate everything more with total controllability that can be experienced with my own printer.

 

[John King]

Good on you.

I prefer to do my own. Too many variables/problems with commercial printers if you are picky, and I am.

It's more expensive to do your own.

 

[jayweh32]

Good on you.

I prefer to do my own. Too many variables/problems with commercial printers if you are picky, and I am.

It's more expensive to do your own.

DIY prints can be done relatively cheap. Canon pro 100 used to be able to be had for $150 especially on the used market. Buy an extra set of canon ink when they do their paper sales and you are set for roughly $250. I have 200 sheets of 13x19 over 2k sheets of 4x6 and 200 sheets of 8x10 all for around 250$. I now use precision color inks for added savings. That's not too bad for DIY but it is not archival ink. I do have prints from roughly 7-8 years ago that still look great.

 

[ABFoz]

Too many variables/problems with commercial printers if you are picky, and I am.

Totally agree. There isn't that much that can be done with commercial printers, especially with the one in my area. I also want to get that maximum satisfaction feeling when I do the printing myself.

DIY prints can be done relatively cheap. Canon pro 100 used to be able to be had for $150 especially on the used market. Buy an extra set of canon ink when they do their paper sales and you are set for roughly $250. I have 200 sheets of 13x19 over 2k sheets of 4x6 and 200 sheets of 8x10 all for around 250$. I now use precision color inks for added savings. That's not too bad for DIY but it is not archival ink. I do have prints from roughly 7-8 years ago that still look great.

I am on the lookout for bargains now.

I saw a good print by a commercial printer but the owner of the photo was charged NZD95. At that rate and level, DIY printing is the way to go for me. Cheers.

 

[John King]

Totally agree. There isn't that much that can be done with commercial printers, especially with the one in my area. I also want to get that maximum satisfaction feeling when I do the printing myself.

Yes.

I am on the lookout for bargains now.

I saw a good print by a commercial printer but the owner of the photo was charged NZD95. At that rate and level, DIY printing is the way to go for me. Cheers.

That's what I found too. 16 bit, wide gamut print on fine art paper, and the price went through the roof! Cheaper to buy my AUD$ 2,000+ Epson R3880 and do 20 prints on it!!

And it is pigment ink, so archival quality.

 

[ABFoz]

Cheaper to buy my AUD$ 2,000+ Epson R3880 and do 20 prints on it!!

I will also have a look at that model. Cheers!

 

[John King]

I will also have a look at that model. Cheers!

I don't know if it is made anymore. The Rx880 series are about 10+ years old now.

Have a look at the other Epson A2/A2+ pigment printers, perhaps.

Or (risky) look for a s/h R3880.

 

[doady]

If I want to do an archival pigment print on OBA-free fine art paper, one lab in my offers Epson Hot Press Natural and Cold Press Natural at 16x24 inches for $42 CAD and another offers Hahnemuehle Museum Etching at up to 20x24 inches for $65 to $110 CAD. Another lab used to offer Hahnemuehle William Turner and Bamboo at 20x24 inches for $110 CAD but not anymore.

In comparison, Epson P900 costs $1450 CAD and papers are limited to 17 inches wide (so no 18x24 inch prints). Canon Pro 1000 costs $1600 CAD. Either way, lab or home printing, is going to cost a lot of money.

For me it's the choice of papers as much as the prices that's the biggest problem. I'd like to try out papers like William Turner and Bamboo and Agave. I have some ICM photos that might look good printed on canvas as well, and no OBA-free canvas options from any labs here as far as I know.

But my photos mostly are not colourful or cheerful, not really the kind that's suited for hanging on the walls. I started buying photography books lately and it made me wonder if I should make a book instead. And of course that is not something I would be able to do at home.

 

[John King]

@doady, I personally find that A2 is pretty much a Goldilocks size for me. Big enough to show beautiful detail, etc, but not so big as to take over.

These things are very much personal.

Really big prints will have to be done at a printing shop, regardless. Most of us haven't got an R9880, or similar!

 

[John King]

A couple of A3 prints I have just done.

Left is from an unedited OoC JPEG taken with my E-M1 MkI + 12-50 at ISO 6400. The right is from an edited raw taken with my E-510 + f/2 50 macro at ISO 800.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

[Edit] These were both done on my Epson XP-970 dye based printer, not my pigment ink R3880. [End edit]

 

[CD77]

A friend of mine was missing travelling back to the North of England (she lives in Oxford) so asked for prints of a few of my photos to cure the homesickness. I ordered them and had them shipped direct to Oxford so I've not seen these in person... think they turned out ok!

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[John King]

A couple of A3 prints I have just done.

Left is from an unedited OoC JPEG taken with my E-M1 MkI + 12-50 at ISO 6400. The right is from an edited raw taken with my E-510 + f/2 50 macro at ISO 800.

View attachment 877534

[Edit] These were both done on my Epson XP-970 dye based printer, not my pigment ink R3880. [End edit]

Well, I just reprinted the one of Rosa (on the left) from the RAW after cleaning the print heads.

A couple of observations:

1) the new print is far better than the original, almost unrecognizably so;

2) Adobe ACR does not inherit your colour space settings and bit depth from previous versions of ACR! You must set these using the ACR settings wheel, otherwise, regardless of what you think you're doing, ACR will quietly convert your lovely PPRGB 16 bit file to aRGB and 8 bit!

Ask me how I know how flaming frustrating this was!

3) While the file looks as noisy as hell on screen, there is no noise visible on the print (even using a 4x magnifying glass).

4) ACR also selects 'Adobe Color' by default. If you want reasonably accurate colours, select 'Adobe Standard' as your default.

5) The new print accurately matches the colour of our beautiful Rosa ... .

6) Looking carefully on screen at 100%, or at the print with the magnifying glass, I can just see a reflection of myself in her pupil ...

7) I can highly recommend the Epson XP-970 for anybody who wishes to print their own.

[Edit]
8) Speaking of noise, the 10 MPx E-510 image is really, REALLY noisy on screen at 100%. However, this is barely visible on the A3 print, even using the magnifying glass.
[End edit].

 

[jayweh32]

Could be a great budget option for more people to get into printing. Looks nice and compact.

As you noted printing hides some of the flaws we see on the comp screen. Some noise can actually be attributed to screen resolution too. Main reason I started this is to get people to print vs always looking on a screen as m43 quality is better than it sometimes shows on screen.

[/QUOTE]

7) I can highly recommend the Epson XP-970 for anybody who wishes to print their own.

[/QUOTE]

 

[doady]

After lenses for UWA and macro, I will probably have to get a P900 or something. Seeing you guys print makes me want to as well. I realize now I've never gotten much satisfaction posting photos online. I hardly post to Flickr or Instagram anymore, and I've hardly posted any my photos here either. Even when I look at other photographer's work, I've always mostly looked at magazines and books. Maybe printing my photographs, even only for myself, might motivate me more.

P900 wouldn't actually be my first photo printer though. I did have a Canon ip4600 back in the day. It was only $100 CAD or something, and I never bothered to buy new cartridges due to the costs, but I did make some letter-sized/A4 prints from it on Ilford pearl and Epson matte papers while the ink lasted. Keep in mind, this was almost 15 years ago, I was still new to photography, I was even more clueless that I am now. So I didn't know much about post-processing, and I hadn't started shooting RAW yet either. Almost 15 years ago also means that maybe the dye inks and OBAs have faded a bit too.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[John King]

Could be a great budget option for more people to get into printing. Looks nice and compact.

As you noted printing hides some of the flaws we see on the comp screen. Some noise can actually be attributed to screen resolution too. Main reason I started this is to get people to print vs always looking on a screen as m43 quality is better than it sometimes shows on screen.

Monitors are very low resolution output devices. My Dell UP2516D is 2560x1440x3 sub-pixels for the entire screen, and only aRGB.

The XP-970 is printing 1440x1440 dots per square inch (I do understand the difference between DPI vs PPI, but really irrelevant to this point). I do not know the colour gamut of this printer, but I will bet that it's wider than aRGB.

My R3880 lays down 2880x2880 dots per square inch, is 16 bit, and will print most of the visible part of the PPRGB colour space.

I attribute almost all "noise" seen on monitors as being a result of their extremely low resolution. Monitors simply cannot display smooth colour and resolution transitions, and these appear as noise.

An image has to be as noisy as anything before it even starts to show on even an A2 print. Long before this happens, lack of DR and resolution in the image will make it unusable for larger prints.

What I'm really saying is that printing doesn't 'hide' noise, monitors are displaying 'noise' that isn't really there.

 

[John King]

Now, the acid test! Photos of photos, including full frame shots of details with my FTs f/2 50 macro lens.

This latter test is really unfair to the quality of the prints. Features visible in the close up macro shots are like eyeballing a wall size print at minimum viewing distance. Interesting exercise though.

Rosa at ISO 6400 with the E-M1 MkI + 12-50 macro, before cleaning the print head.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

After cleaning print head.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Detail.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Lizzie, with E-510 (10 MPx) + FTs f/2 50 macro @ ISO 800

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Detail

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

 

[Bytesmiths]

This is what I used to do for a living:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)