Thread: First prints ...

Like surprisingly many others, I've had almost no images printed, relying on Flickr to make them visible to others.

This morning I got 4 monochromes back from a dedicated B&W lab, who print digital images "by hand". This was a pricey choice (relative to Snapfish etc.) but I wanted to see just how good (or bad) my images looked on paper.

The first three are from SiJ, the last from about a year ago, all shot using my E-P2 with the 35mm Summicron ...


SiJ - Day 02 by _loupe, on Flickr


reynard by _loupe, on Flickr


laundry lane by _loupe, on Flickr


Penberth by _loupe, on Flickr

They were printed uncropped at 9x12 for the 4:3 aspect and 8x8 for the square, with no borders and on a matt paper. I cropped "laundry lane" a bit before sending it to them, so it's a slightly different image on paper to the one above.

The first thing to say is that the printer did a superb job; there will always be a slight difference in tone between a screen image and a print, but these are extraordinarily close. Most importantly, the tonal range was perfectly delivered. They stressed the importance of having a calibrated monitor, and I do - I'm sure this made a difference.

The second is that I have a lot to learn about presentation; Each would have benefited from a white border, and I didn't understand this from looking at screen images alone. I have a soft-proofing plugin for LR3 and have the LR4 beta, but didn't really use either after (email) discussion with the printer (although they sent me some experimental profiles for their service).

The third is ... on paper, there's no place to hide:

"laundry lane" looks wonderful on my laptop, but just doesn't cut it on paper. The bokeh blobs look ugly, and the depth of field/plane of focus works poorly up close (it still stands up as an image viewed from across the room ...); so this was a significant disappointment

"penberth" suffers from a bit too much denoising in the original image I reckon. It's OK but not wonderful.

"SiJ Day 02" and "reynard" however I'm really really pleased with. Coincidentally (?) I applied a very mild split-tone to both (I modified "Platinum Palladium" from TLR B&W Split Toning Presets The Light's Right | An Online Community for Digital Photographers - these are free presets for LR) and I also cut the denoise right back.

"reynard" is the outright winner on paper ...

Learning so far is that being satisfied after pixel-peeping at 1:1 (or even 2:1) on screen does not guarantee a good print ... and that viewing an image intrinsically illuminated on a screen is very different to how it will look when it is illuminated by light falling on a surface (I expect that people who have been long-time film photographers will understand this automatically, but those of us who have really only been photographically active with digital equipment might not - meaning me of course); plus bokeh (how I hate that word) might just look horrible on paper when it looks soft and delightful on screen!

As a few people (you know who you are) have mentioned that 2012 is "the year of the print" for them, it might be really helpful to have further reflections and advice from others who are either venturing into print for the first time, or from those who have been printing from digital files a while and can offer suggestions about selection and PP; most especially relating to getting prints done by labs rather than at home.

I'm particularly interested in printing monochromes, and I'll bet selection and prep are different for colour. Would it be worth having two different threads?

anyway, thought I'd share ...

I am going to be adventuring into print this year once I can get enough together to make it worthwhile.

i think a printing thread or subforum would be handy
H

Thank you for this, Paul.

For right now here is a link to what a search for "Printing" brings up: http://www.seriouscompacts.com/searc...searchid=18795 and for "Prints" http://www.seriouscompacts.com/searc...searchid=18799

Good idea, Heather, I'll see if I can arrange for a subforum just for the subject of Printing.

P.S. I do think it is worth having to separate threads re B&W and Color. It will be a lot easier for referencing.

Don't worry about the white border, get a good portfolio box and mount them on card in clear sleeves.

I've just had a set of 50 or so prints done. You're absolutely right about not quite understanding until you hold them - what looks good on a screen may not look so hot once it's printed! I had a few problems with automatic cropping (one cropped out the subject of the photo altogether!) when they decide it's a true digital something x something not 6x4 or whatever. I also discovered that if I put a border on in Snapseed, it will not come out nice and evenly on the prints. A bit disappointing.

I also found that the same print in 2 different sizes came back in 2 different shades. It was B/W so easy to spot, one has a green cast to it. Very odd.

On the whole I'm pretty pleased though. Great to handle the pictures and see what I like. I used Snapfish so it didn't cost much. And sometimes I even take a half decent photo! I'm definitely happier with the B/W prints though

The point of the exercise was to print off two photos I took at a wedding in the summer for the bride. She's not called the bride any more, she's called the widow. 16 weeks married and he died unexpectedly of a brain tumour. Thankfully those pics turned out rather well.

It's just after 3 in the morning and I can't sleep, so this post might become a rambling, misdirected one, so sorry if that's how it turns out. I'm looking at your images on a laptop from the warm comfort of my bed so I'm unable to judge tones at all Paul, but I guess with laundry lane the bokeh problem is in the top right hand of the shot. To me, with respect, it does look wrong from the start even on the screen. On the subject of borders I put a thin black one round my submitted images in this forum since I find that improves them when viewed on a white background. Likewise for my own prints made at home on white paper. However when I view them on an image viewer running on my linux computer I view them against a black background which seems to improve them considerably, so a subject for some more investigation there.

I have always printed on an inkjet at home and been able to crop and position my images to my satisfaction. Could it be that images submitted to a printer are best laid out against a full print sized background layer in the photo editor of your choice and then flattened such that the actual image is positioned where you want it, rather than where the printer deems to place it when the actual image is smaller than the print (I'm not sure if at this time in the morning I've made myself clear there or not).

I've been wondering whether, when my current inkjet used for printing becomes time expired, I would go the commercial route (running an inkjet can be quite expensive) so I shall be interested to see where this thread goes and what peoples experiences are.

Now, do I get up and have a cup of tea because I don't think I'm going to get back to sleep

Barrie

Paul,
First, thanks for the post. I would encourage anyone to print photographs they like. Like the other elements of photography, getting to prints you like is a learning game.

One quick thought for you. While its natural to look closely at a print, make sure you take the time to view them from a realistic viewing distance. This helps train the eye to see the whole picture, and flaws that look unbearable close up sometimes fade away. Of course, they are often replaces by others that are only visible when viewing the entire photograph...

Well this is a bit of a zombie thread, but I'm glad it's been reanimated ... thanks Barrie for your comments, and Pelao too. One of the things that is driving me away from digital work is the tendency to look too close at images. I've really lost interest in "sharpness" ... I don't look at a Brandt (or a Rothko!) and say "wow! how sharp is that?" ... why would I care about my own images that way?

So, for an update (only 7 months late)... here are the finished prints:



They are actually "wet digital prints", which is to say that the lab (Ilford Lab Direct) takes the digital file and uses a laser projection system to expose it on "real" photosensitive paper which is then developed in the normal way.

I agree that the rather aggressive b***h (I hate that word) in the foxglove image is problematic, by the way.

Most of my images recently are being made with the kind of sensor that comes on a roll, and thanks to the wonder of Freecycle (and a bit of eBaying) I'm set up for learning to wet-print.

Here's a bit of a documentation shot from my kitchen a few weeks ago, the result of my first time spent in a darkroom for ... oooh ... 45 years probably ...




And, though hardly suitable for a "compact" forum, here's a scan of a contact print made from a 5x4 pinhole negative. My scanner is also a Freecycle reject and is a bit crude ...

Ah,

I've just noticed the date on your original post, that obviously escaped me at 03:00 this morning , what goes around comes around. For me the "problem" with digital is matching the tonal and detail quality obtained when I used to do 120 roll film work with what were really very simple 4 element lenses on the most basic of cameras, and as for the "out of focus thingy stuff" it was beautiful. I've been obtaining better tonal range experimenting with my recently acquired Silver Efex Pro 2 software, but at the expense of introducing more artifacts (and yes it does mean I've gone over to the dark side running a computer with Windows 7 ). I'm not sure how I progress from here, I've given up on film having had so many problems that I put down to the quality, or rather lack of it, of my spring water supply.

Barrie

Originally Posted by HeatherTheVet

I've just had a set of 50 or so prints done. You're absolutely right about not quite understanding until you hold them - what looks good on a screen may not look so hot once it's printed! I had a few problems with automatic cropping (one cropped out the subject of the photo altogether!) when they decide it's a true digital something x something not 6x4 or whatever. I also discovered that if I put a border on in Snapseed, it will not come out nice and evenly on the prints. A bit disappointing.

I also found that the same print in 2 different sizes came back in 2 different shades. It was B/W so easy to spot, one has a green cast to it. Very odd.

On the whole I'm pretty pleased though. Great to handle the pictures and see what I like. I used Snapfish so it didn't cost much. And sometimes I even take a half decent photo! I'm definitely happier with the B/W prints though

The point of the exercise was to print off two photos I took at a wedding in the summer for the bride. She's not called the bride any more, she's called the widow. 16 weeks married and he died unexpectedly of a brain tumour. Thankfully those pics turned out rather well.

yikes, that's harsh... I hope she can take some comfort from the photos!

Odd about the different colour casts for different size prints of the same photo, I'd think that shouldn't happen?

Paul, I always loved the Reynard shot, happy to hear that it worked out in print as well

I've been telling myself that I'd like to print some of my images too, but I'll probably wait untill I have a more substantial body of images that I'd actually like to see on a wall