Do you print?! Why not?

[Miguel Palaviccini]

Just curious how many of us print our digital files. I know that in this hobby, we spend a lot of time (and money!) to get some of the best files that we can. We are very critical of our own work - which is a great thing, IMO.

But then ... we resize to 1200 px wide, save for web, and post online. That's the final output for most of us (I think, that's why I'm asking).

I recently got a Canon Pixma 6320 printer (for regular home printing) and decided to give printing a go with some of my recent images. At $50, it was hard to pass up. What a treat! I ordered a sample pack of paper from Red River and have been giving different papers a try. For $13 (free shipping), it's hard to beat!

There definitely is a learning curve, but I've found a good set of tutorials to help me along the way. I'm sure there is a lot more to learn, but this should get you on the way if you decide that you want to start printing.

Getting Started (http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/techniques/getting-started-with-inkjet-printing/)
Ten Tips for Better Prints (http://www.naturescapes.net/articles/techniques/ten-tips-for-better-prints/)
How to install and use Printer Profiles (from the RR website) (http://www.redrivercatalog.com/profiles/inkjet-printer-color-icc-profiles-red-river-paper.html)

I'd be interested to see the number of people that print their images. Looking at the Avian forum alone, I know I'd want a large portion of those up on my walls (although my wife may not be so keen on only having bird images on the wall!)

[gail bisson]

Hi Miguel,
I have often wondered the same thing about this topic.
I don't print anything myself. Lack of time and lack of knowledge are the main reason.
I am spoiled because a good friend of mine is a 'professional "printer. His printers are top of the line ($$$$$) and he is amazing with his knowledge of the process.
I have only had 4 prints done for myself and 2 of them are birds. The other 2 are of wildlife from a family trip to Africa.
If I lived alone I would probably have more of my pics on the wall!
I think that when I retire I will be more interested in learning the ins and outs of printing and have the time to devote to it.
For now, it is " resize to 1200 pixels and post online".
Gail

[Doug Brown]

No comment! :w3

[arash_hazeghi]

I have an Epson R3000. I use it about once a month, I don't have the time to print plus cost of paper/ink adds up quickly unless I really want to hang something on my wall. Plus at some point you run out of places to hang the prints so they will just go in a binder on the coffee table :)

The quality of my Epson is good but its max. print size is 13X19 which is smaller than my 30" screen.

Honestly, IMO using a $50 printer to print images that you put so much effort in is a waste of your time. The print quality will be poor (it seems you haven't compared with professional prints yet to get a better idea). The other issue with those cheap printers/paper is that color will fade after a few years. Back in 2004 I used a cheap HP printer (well $150 back then) to print approximately 50 prints from my travels, photos that were memorable and dear to me at that point. I used HP paper which claimed to last 100 years, however after 4-5 years they all went yellow. I trashed the printer. If you want to make prints that last and are of critical quality you will need a much more expensive printer/ink/paper, so it adds up.

These days you can get a 50" high quality LCD TV with full spectrum color calibration. It costs about the same as a pro Epson printer plus the supplies it needs to make about 50 large prints. It will mount flat on the wall just like a frame, plus you can display any photo that you want anytime you want it. You can also adjust the colors/back light according to the lightning conditions. I'm leaning in that direction to display my photos.

[Grady Weed]

These days you can get a 50" high quality LCD TV with full spectrum color calibration. It costs about the same as a pro Epson printer plus the supplies it needs to make about 50 large prints. It will mount flat on the wall just like a frame, plus you can display any photo that you want anytime you want it. You can also adjust the colors/back light according to the lightning conditions. I'm leaning in that direction to display my photos.

I think the TV/display is a great idea to some degree. I also send my images to MPIX when I want a print to hang. I have around 10,000 in printed images I sell at shows sitting here in my office. I plan on selling them off and just keeping a few 12x18 's to hang on the walls in strategic places to show tour clients after the days activities. I have found you can go overboard in the print department. Showing them on a TV/display is a much cheaper option. In addition the art market to sell to the regular Joe tourist is drying up big time around here in Maine. Hence having prints just boxed up is a big waste of money right now.

[Miguel Palaviccini]

Honestly, IMO using a $50 printer to print images that you put so much effort in is a waste of your time. The print quality will be poor (it seems you haven't compared with professional prints yet to get a better idea). The other issue with those cheap printers/paper is that color will fade after a few years. Back in 2004 I used a cheap HP printer (well $150 back then) to print approximately 50 prints from my travels, photos that were memorable and dear to me at that point. I used HP paper which claimed to last 100 years, however after 4-5 years they all went yellow. I trashed the printer. If you want to make prints that last and are of critical quality you will need a much more expensive printer/ink/paper, so it adds up.


"A waste of time" is relative. Some would argue that going out to shoot and not printing is a waste of time. ;) The printer I bought gets pretty darn good reviews, and if you have a calibrator monitor, and use the proper ICC profiles for the papers and printer used, the results can be pleasing. I believe the yellowing can be accounted for by buying acid free paper (although I'm sure other factors could affect this - I don't claim to know).

The main reason that I would like to print at home is so that I can try different paper styles. I've gotten prints from Mpix before and they were great, but the paper selection isn't the best. I like the Fine Art Natural white paper, and the Linen style paper. I haven't found a place that prints on these papers yet, but if someone knows of one, let me know!

I don't disagree that to get the best results and have them last, you need to spend the big $$$. But most of us have already spent the big money on the rest of the equipment, so I was curious how many have gone the extra bit to get prints.

[arash_hazeghi]

"A waste of time" is relative. Some would argue that going out to shoot and not printing is a waste of time. ;) The printer I bought gets pretty darn good reviews, and if you have a calibrator monitor, and use the proper ICC profiles for the papers and printer used, the results can be pleasing. I believe the yellowing can be accounted for by buying acid free paper (although I'm sure other factors could affect this - I don't claim to know).

The main reason that I would like to print at home is so that I can try different paper styles. I've gotten prints from Mpix before and they were great, but the paper selection isn't the best. I like the Fine Art Natural white paper, and the Linen style paper. I haven't found a place that prints on these papers yet, but if someone knows of one, let me know!

I don't disagree that to get the best results and have them last, you need to spend the big $$$. But most of us have already spent the big money on the rest of the equipment, so I was curious how many have gone the extra bit to get prints.

Actually I didn't say printing was a waste of time, what I said was printing with a $50 printer is a waste of time IMO for someone who puts much effort into their photos and is critical of quality. I think you will realize this in future when you go back and look at your prints in a few years time and when you compare them to a professional quality print :S3:

I used Mpix a few times too, it was OK but not great. They are a consumer printing service so not much to expect. If you want fine art quality prints on specialty media you have to look at professional labs who work with individual photographers such as westcoastimaging :

https://www.westcoastimaging.com/

This is the lab that I use when I want to make large prints, I usually print myself with their printers but you can request a specialist to print for you, (which btw includes sending proofs on actual media to make sure it exactly matches what you want)

http://raykophotocenter.com/

[Miguel Palaviccini]

Sweet! Thanks for the info on the printing services, I'll definitely look into those.

Now, any chance you can convince Doug to get some of his images printed? He needs his BBC photo printed on something larger than an 8x10!

[David Stephens]

I used to print small prints, but only to send to my mother and she'd put them on her fridge or into a physical album. Nothing was done for my own walls. For my wife, we'd look at images on the 47" HDTV. For the wall, I use a professional printer. Tony Eitzel is a full time printer with a professional quality Epson with many years of experience printing for John Fielder and other area photographers. The big 50" prints that Tony has done for me just knock my socks off. A high percentage of my visitors want to buy some of my Grand Canyon prints for themselves.

Buying, maintaining and learning to use a large, high quality printer is like another job. For professionals, it's a way to make money off your prints without passing a major portion of the income to another provider. Printing, matting, framing is something that some people really enjoy, but I'd rather be shooting.

I'm lucky, Eitzel is very reasonably priced (competitive with online sources). I can resale with a decent profit margin for myself and I certainly enjoy his work product. Nothing compares to a big, high quality print.

[Diane Miller]

In defense of an inexpensive printer, it's a way to start learning and gives you another way to evaluate your work, within the limits of good profiling. There's nothing quite like holding a well-done print in your hands.

If anyone is interested in stepping up from $50, I've had the Epson 3880 since it came out and love it. And I have a pro printer friend with very high end equipment for big prints. He used to print for Galen Rowell and may still for the gallery -- not sure if they went in-house. My 3880 can easily match his results except for size.

[Daniel Cadieux]

Believe it or not Costco does an amazing job for prints and with great prices, I use them regularly and have not been disappointed yet. Only once the colours went wrong (the yellows were almost orange) and they redid them at no extra cost and with a smile.

Having said this I don't have many prints done. I have a "portfolio" type album with a selection of 8 x 12's, and a grand total of five prints framed on the wall with only two being birds...both of the same saw-whet owl hung side-by-side (back and front poses).

[kevin Hice]

I do have some photos printed for club competition once a month. I find it very gratifying to hold them in your hand different perspective from the screen.Once I get better hopefully soon I will have some printed to a larger size to hang.I heard Robert Bateman the artist suggest that you rotate your prints on a monthly basis instead of keeping the same ones.I just had one done on canvas and was very pleased with it.

[Grady Weed]

I do have some photos printed...I find it very gratifying to hold them in your hand...I heard Robert Bateman the artist suggest that you rotate your prints on a monthly basis instead of keeping the same ones.

We rotate our on the walls as well. We also try to hang them in a theme style fashion too. Printing them helps you to feel more energized about your work, as well as where you need to make progress. When you get tired of them you can gift them to friends and family. Then you can shoot more!

[Dave Mills]

Photographers are guardians of their image files. However,when they pass away what happens to their files? Unless one prepares for that eventuality many images will be lost due to files being lost or deleted. At least prints give one a somewhat permanent record. My important artistic images and family images are printed

I believe in the future more images will be lost than saved after the photographer passes....

[Grant Yang]

I haven't printed much in the past. However, I'm planning to do more in the future. I've found that when I print images, I tend to look at them differently. Often compositions that look good on a computer monitor aren't as impressive when printed out large. The reverse often happens as well. Scenes with lots of interesting small details are often overlooked when displayed small on my computer, however those images are often much more interesting when printed out large.

[John Guastella]

Scenes with lots of interesting small details are often overlooked when displayed small on my computer, however those images are often much more interesting when printed out large.

+1 . Roger Clark made the same point in a recent thread over on the Naturescapes forum, and I wholeheartedly agree. Certain images really come to life when printed.

John

[Keith Bauer]

Hi Miguel: From Ansel Adams: "The negative is comparable to the composer's score and the print to its performance. Each performance differs in subtle ways"


Yes, I print a lot. For me it is always the end goal to get a nicely framed print completed and hanging on the wall. If you ever want to talk about printing and techniques, give me a call and you could come over and see how I deal with printing.

Keith

[Diane Miller]

Food for thought: In Adams' day, there was some leeway in the negative created, with quite a lot of advanced technique involved. But the most leeway for interpretation of the image was in printing (and was most amenable for B/W).

Today that analogy is mostly turned on its head. There is a little technical leeway in digital capture -- mostly for IQ in terms of noise, and for compositing exposures. But the artistic interpretation of "the score" is now in adjustment of the captured data in RAW processing and after -- that is really "the print" today, in the Adams analogy. The actual print today is more like the old days of color printing, which is basically about getting the correct tolalities and color that accurately reflects the processed digital file.