Thread: First prints ...

Sorry to have confused everyone, I didn't especially want to start a new thread on such a similar topic to the others already in the printing forum, so I hijacked this one. I reckoned that doing it this way was a little less self absorbed. But you know it's all about me, right? ;-)

Bart, I kept waiting for a whole load of photos then I realised that if I did a massive order it would be a huge undertaking to get them ready, then go through them, then have to adjust them and get some reprinted etc etc. My current modus operandi is wait until they do a good deal on 50 or so prints, run them and see what I like. Then I can fix things that haven't worked and stick them in the next batch.

I am increasingly tempted by the wet printing. I do have a darkroom of sorts at work - I still develop x-rays. Red light and everything. Also filled to the brim with dog food.

I was thinking about presents for my increasing number of nephews / nieces / godchildren (none of whom are actually related to me) and I saw the Sunprint Kits. Looks fun! I'm not sure if I can get some within budget in the UK, but I'll give it a go. Proper sunshine might be a problem too.

[IMG][/IMG]

Originally Posted by bartjeej

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

If you do that you'll probably be overly critical and end up waiting a long time. Besides, as has been pointed out, you really don't know how a print is going to look from the on screen image until you actually taken the plunge and got some prints done. You could go the 6X4 (or 15X10) route and print up 40 or 50. Or you could select fewer - 5-10 and print them bigger, say 12X8 (or 30X20). I did the latter because, for me, now that I'm used to seeing images on screen, even a 15 inch laptop screen, a small print looks...small.

Of the thirty or so I've had printed, I've framed five. I think that's a pretty good ratio and I don't really have wall space for many more anyway.

Happy printing.

Originally Posted by grebeman

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.

I've always liked how you present your images Barrie, and have been meaning to ask you (for about two years!) how many pixels wide you make that border ... I know how to do it (at a push I can just about drive Gimp) but I so wish there was an option to finish an image with a border in LR ...

Originally Posted by HeatherTheVet

I do have a darkroom of sorts at work - I still develop x-rays. Red light and everything. Also filled to the brim with dog food..

Ooh, well if you have any expired but unexposed x-ray film in sheets (5x4, 5x7, 8x10, whatever), do let me know & I'll take it off your hands pronto!

I'm not a great one for dogfood however

Originally Posted by pdh

I've always liked how you present your images Barrie, and have been meaning to ask you (for about two years!) how many pixels wide you make that border ... I know how to do it (at a push I can just about drive Gimp) but I so wish there was an option to finish an image with a border in LR ...

Paul, I usually do my borders in AfterShot Pro using a plug in, and it's set with an arbitrary number, and I've no idea how that relates to pixels. However harking back to my Photoshop 6 days, I would suggest around 10-15 pixels would be a good starting point.

Barrie

ah ... well, after a little thought I realise I have ImageMagick ... so a quick application of

Code:

 convert 20121123-1-3.jpg -bordercolor black -border 6 zippy.jpg

produces this

Hey All,

This whole subject of printing is interesting to me. I intend to do some printing of photos I especially like. I have been there done that developing black and white film and printing it and loved it. Of course colour film is too temperature sensitive for casual work. But now in the digital age there are a couple other point to consider...

Some images that look so so or blah in a small screen format look wonderful printed or viewed big. How many great photos have you deleted because of not realizing this?

Why is the ability to print 8x10 or a little bigger considered so standard? When I look around my living room the prints I look at are the big ones 24x18 or so. Now they are not photos they are western art prints but the point being bigger is what people see and notice unless they are really looking close. When I look at a photographer like Liz Carmel I notice she sells prints 50 inches by 80 inches - course she uses medium format or some such. Of course that is way beyond where I ever see myself but 24 by 18 or at probably the very biggest 24 by 36 maybe.

The point is the ability to print big with detail as in landscape photography. To me I have always thought that this is the reason for more megapixels and why more high quality megapixels matter. Of course you can do pixel interpolation but how much interpolation is actually realistic before the print just doesn't look right?

Of course then there is the issue of what should you print on - paper, canvas, metal, what?

Course you can always go this route...

SILVER & LIGHT

Anyway I think discussion of all this kind of stuff would be valuable as to me it is one of the considerations in deciding on a camera body - yet one never talked about - just boiled down to 10 or some such megapixels is enough.

-Ed-

"at the weekends, I'm Gloria" I hope you're enjoying the rest of the weekend Gloria, glad to see you've got your borders sorted out Barrie

Originally Posted by EasyEd

Anyway I think discussion of all this kind of stuff would be valuable as to me it is one of the considerations in deciding on a camera body - yet one never talked about - just boiled down to 10 or some such megapixels is enough.

-Ed-

When I attended my first digital photography course way back in 2001 run by Adrian Davies (one of the first people in the UK to be using digital cameras) he was using a Kodak body that took Nikon lenses, a 2.5 Mp camera costing some £7,500. From memory he happily printed at either 210 dpi or 240 ppi and even at arms length those pictures were excellent. 200 ppi was certainly quoted for larger prints with a greater viewing distance and given that, a 24" by 18" print could be made from an 18-20 Mp camera. For people who in the main share their photographs over the web 10 Mp is more than enough if they did but realise it, surely cameras should be sold on their user friendliness (ease of altering f stop, iso and the like) rather than how many of those darned pixels does it have.

Barrie