Punchier Prints?

[Mike Raub]

While I know reflected light prints will never have the pop a transmitted light image on a monitor will have, I have seen prints that seem to have a lot more punch that I have been able to get out of prints. I've been playing with various adjustments to try get more punch in my prints, but before wasting more ink and paper I thought I'd seek the advice of the experienced printers on this forum to maybe give me some ideas I may have never even thought of. I print on an Epson 3880. Any advice much appreciated.

$12 a year for the experience and expertise this site gives you access to has to be one of the best bargains in photography and I just sent in my money.

[Wayne Fox]

While I know reflected light prints will never have the pop a transmitted light image on a monitor will have, I have seen prints that seem to have a lot more punch that I have been able to get out of prints. I've been playing with various adjustments to try get more punch in my prints, but before wasting more ink and paper I thought I'd seek the advice of the experienced printers on this forum to maybe give me some ideas I may have never even thought of. I print on an Epson 3880. Any advice much appreciated.

$12 a year for the experience and expertise this site gives you access to has to be one of the best bargains in photography and I just sent in my money.

Most of the time the extra “punch” you are seeing is the result of the way the print is lit, combined with the media choice as well as the media presentation. It’s usually about ultra glossy options.  With an inkjet printer it’s hard to get the ultra gloss that is typical of many of the galleries I see around (sort of the peter lik style).

You can face mount the inkjet glossy print and hit it with light.  That will be pretty close, maybe even better than most who are either printing on aluminum or face mounting Fujiflex.  I’ve compared epson inkjet side by side face mounted with flex face mounted prints,  and I think the inkjet print is superior, and the visual result “what you are calling punch” is pretty much the same.

But even so, a good glossy inkjet paper traditionally mounted and presented and hit with light will have a lot of punch.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Wayne is right and the only other thing to add is to look at papers with a lot of optical brighteners in them.  They tend to have a more dramatic punch.  Of course this is a bit of a trade off as the dyes in the paper will eventually burnout and you will get yellowing of the print.

[Rand47]

While I know reflected light prints will never have the pop a transmitted light image on a monitor will have, I have seen prints that seem to have a lot more punch that I have been able to get out of prints. I've been playing with various adjustments to try get more punch in my prints, but before wasting more ink and paper I thought I'd seek the advice of the experienced printers on this forum to maybe give me some ideas I may have never even thought of. I print on an Epson 3880. Any advice much appreciated.

$12 a year for the experience and expertise this site gives you access to has to be one of the best bargains in photography and I just sent in my money.

Are you soft proofing your files?  And, what paper types are you printing on?  Paper type has a dramatic impact on "presence" (punch) in printed images, IMO (subject matter dependent to some extent too, of course).

Rand

[Robcat]

"Punch" depends on several things in addition to the previously mentioned paper types (if punch is what you're after, stay away from matte and stick w the glossy end of the spectrum). But even with the shiniest papers you won't get the effect you want if you don't pay attention to composition-level contrast and then proper image processing with attention to full dynamic range and micro-contrast.
Your images have more "punch" if your composition includes areas of light and dark (all pleasingly arranged, of course  ). Uniform lightness/darkness won't "punch".
Then your workflow has to ensure that the dynamic range is appropriate (not just white and black points, but in between---know where high and low skin tones need to fall for example).
Then adjust micro-contrast. Does an important part of your image look flat? Whether it's a face, flower or forest, look at the RGB or luminosity values of the lightest and darkest parts and use curves to pull the range apart. A little goes a really long way.
If you're convinced it's only a paper problem, get a friend to lend you an image file from a print that you think pops and try printing it on your paper of choice. If it looks more like what you want, then it's not paper. If it doesn't, then switch.

[Pete Berry]

Mike, we're in the weeds without first having a look at several of your "un-punchy" image print files. And please list the papers you have used so far in your 3880 - which is as capable of delivering more punch than most would like, as is any other contemporary archival inkjet printer.

Pete - who has just ante'd up his twelve bucks

[GrahamBy]

Have ypu looked around the web for some test images that please you? If you can find a sort-of "certified punchy" image to print, that will help you to work out if it's your printing technique, or you general image preparation. Of course it will also be a useful diagnostic for your printing set-up wrt to calibration.

[Mike Raub]

Thanks for the replies. On of my problems is that the monitor on the 27" iMac I use for image processing and printing is dramatically brighter than a printer can reproduce. I hooked up my Colormunki with the intention of calibrating to a much lower brightness level, if the iMac permitted. Unfortunately the Colormunki now refuses to communicate the position of the rotary selection wheel to the software wizard, which in effect halts the calibration process. I'm hoping if I can get a reasonably close brightness calibration between the screen and the printer I can start trying some of the suggestions above. I've heard some people have problems in getting the iMac screen dim enough to match what a printer can produce, so I'll just have to see how much I can do after X-Rite repairs the puck.

[RHPS]

Thanks for the replies. On of my problems is that the monitor on the 27" iMac I use for image processing and printing is dramatically brighter than a printer can reproduce.

I thnk you're missing the point here. The printer can't produce any "brightness" at all. The brightness is provided by the viewing light. If you put yout prints in a searchlight beam they would be far "brighter" than your iMac. As Wayne Fox said in an earlier post "Most of the time the extra “punch” you are seeing is the result of the way the print is lit.....".

[GrahamBy]

It may be useful to read this:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/colour_management/prints_too_dark.html

[mstevensphoto]

some of the things I've found to work:

use a paper with OBAs (some on here detest those papers, I'm not one) Breathing Color's Optica One is a very bright base white

send out a pint to a master print maker

send out a print to a master print maker and have them print it on Fuji Crystal Archive and see how/if it meets/differs from your desires.

varnish your print, esp if you're doing something like Optica One. Optica One with a coat of Timeless Gloss varnish brings a lot of punch (in a non-garish way)

Print on metalic papers (I overwhelmingly dislike the inkjet options and opt for a lightjet option and mostly metalics are still punchy in all the wrong ways)

backlight your print

if you're doing BW and want more drama, try piezography.

[digitaldog]

While I know reflected light prints will never have the pop a transmitted light image on a monitor will have, I have seen prints that seem to have a lot more punch that I have been able to get out of prints. I've been playing with various adjustments to try get more punch in my prints, but before wasting more ink and paper I thought I'd seek the advice of the experienced printers on this forum to maybe give me some ideas I may have never even thought of. I print on an Epson 3880. Any advice much appreciated.

Some Midtone contrast (what Adobe calls Clarity) can help. Something master printer Mac Holbert came up with long before Clarity. You can do it in Photoshop with his action or of course, try Clarity which is a tad bit different.

Midtone Contrast


1. Highlight your top layer in your Layers Palette then:


2a. In CS I: Select Layer->New->Layer to create a new, blank layer at the top of your Layer Stack. Then, holding down
your Opt Key (Mac) / Alt Key (PC), select Merge Visible from the fly-down menu on the right side of your Layers Palette.
Be sure to keep the Opt/Alt depressed until you see the blank layer update. You should now have an additional layer at the
top of your layer stack. It represents how the image would appear if you had flattened your layers. Rename this layer
“Midtone Contrast”
-OR-
2b. In CS II: Holding down your Opt Key (Mac) / Alt Key (PC), select Merge Visible from the fly-down menu on the right
side of your Layers Palette. Be sure to keep the Opt / Alt depressed until you see the blank layer update. You should now
have an additional layer at the top of your layer stack. It represents how the image would appear if you had flattened your
layers. Rename this layer “Midtone Contrast”




3. Next double-click on the Midtone Contrast layer icon to bring up the Layer Style Palette. Change the Blend Mode to
Overlay and lower the Blend Mode Opacity to 20%. Now move the left “This Layer” slider to 70. Now Split away the left
side of that slider by holding down the Opt / Alt key and move it to 50. Repeat the same process on the right “This Layer”
slider, moving the sliders to 185 and 205 respectively. Then select “OK”.


4. Now select Filter->Other->High Pass. In the High Pass Palette set the radius to 50 and select “OK”. Now select Image-
>Adjustments->Desaturate. The Midtone Contrast layer is now complete. At 20% opacity it should be very subtle, but
noticable. The effect can be decreased or increased by raising or lowering the Midtone Contrast Layer opacity. I’ve found
that the proper setting can usually be found between 20% and 40% opacity. Above 40% one risks creating “halo” artifacts
that are visually distracting.




Of course, whenever you can do this kind of work at the rendering stage instead of at the pixel stage in Photoshop, the better. But this works well (make an action) for use in Photoshop for all those existing pixel based images that need the contrast boost.

[Robcat]

...send out a pint to a master print maker

Send me a pint and I'll help you out too .
Send me several pints and I wont be much good to you.
Don't send punch, though.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Some Midtone contrast (what Adobe calls Clarity) can help.

Yes, I agree with Andrew. Good Clarity control helps a lot, although I'm not sure if that's the 'punch' the OP is referring to.

I was more thinking along the lines of both Topaz Clarity for local contrast control, which is traditional Clarity on steroids (as in halo free, color and saturation preserving, several contrast levels at the same time, edge-aware masking, real-time preview updates, savable presets, etc., etc.), and Topaz Detail (halo-free resolution and detail enhancement, also on steroids ).

These plugins work with virtually any image editor that supports Photoshop plugins, or directly from a Raw converter (e.g. LR, C1, etc.) via the free Topaz Fusion Express 2 plugin (usually gets installed with the main plugin).

I just saw that Topaz Labs is currently running a 35% holiday discount (use coupon code : TOPAZ2015) on all their plugins, valid through December 31st, 2015. They claim that all updates and upgrades will remain free for existing licensees, as has been the actual case for years already.

Cheers,
Bart