Best way to prep files for canvas printing?

[Johnny_Boy]

I am still getting used to my new printer (Canon iPF 8300) and had a question around how to best print on canvas?

For glossy/satin/luster photo paper prints, I have no issues. I just prep the image as best as I can on the calibrated wide gamut monitor, print it, and it looks great. So far I have not done any specific printing prep work for the images being printed.

But when I print to canvas (BC Lyve and Canon Satin canvas), the overall image looks flat and lacks the punch. I think it is because the gamut on these are so much less than the papers. How do you guys prep images for situations like this? Any pointers for me?
 

[bill t.]

For glossy/satin/luster photo paper prints, I have no issues. I just prep the image as best as I can on the calibrated wide gamut monitor, print it, and it looks greatBut when I print to canvas (BC Lyve and Canon Satin canvas), the overall image looks flat and lacks the punch. I think it is because the gamut on these are so much less than the papers. How do you guys prep images for situations like this? Any pointers for me?
 

The same way you prep files for matte media or any relatively low-gamut media.  It's mostly all about lots of separation in the mid-tones and keeping the dark areas opened up as much possible.  Matte media is about elegance and subtlety, not punch.

Take a look at Image->Adjustments->Shadows/Highlights to bring up those dark areas, and sometimes the Mid Range contrast slider can be helpful but go easy.  Tony Kuyper has very nice actions that will help you tweak the contrast in various tonal ranges, but those take some study.

Can not emphasize how important it is to do lots of soft proofing, especially to get those dark tone ducks lined up in row.  And soft proofing only works well if you have excellent profiles that really represent the media correctly.  A lot of manufacturer's profiles are somewhat off the mark.  The last time I checked the Lyve/8300 profiles they seemed way too aggressive in the dark areas for my tastes.

And of course you need to do a lot of test strips or test prints, just like the good old days.    You can use something like Deft spray gloss to get a quick idea of what your test strips will look like when coated.

[Johnny_Boy]

The same way you prep files for matte media or any relatively low-gamut media.  

You are giving me too much credit! Unfortunately I don't actually know how to prep files for matte media either. Are there any books or articles that I can read up about this that helps me to understand what I need to do? Any pointers?

I understand bringing up the shadows and highlights in terms of brightness, but I am not sure what I should be doing about clipping colors due to small gamut on the medium?  Do you control that too, or do you let the color rendition choice to drive that automatically?

[bill t.]

Personally I try to find an interpretation of the image that fits reasonably well within the gamut of the media (ie minimal "out of gamut" indications in PS), but mainly which prints well.  My final decider is the print itself, and I have some very nice images that are technically wildly out of gamut but look terrific as a print.  My underlying empiricism has grown stronger with age and I no longer scold myself for such things.

Yes, I am sure there are countless books on the subject.  However, there is nothing that will teach you more than buying a few rolls of canvas for the sole purpose of printing a small selection of images over and over and over with varying contrasts, color balances and what not, until you start getting something you like.  Oh, keep lots of notes so you can tell what print goes with what settings later on.

OK, and as for tips, this one is red hot...

As you start to get prints that you like technically, make reduced copies that you can quickly call up on screen for comparison to the image you are working on.  There's a little window gizmo up towards the top of the PS screen that makes it easy to bring them up side by side.  That will instantly tell you which way you need to go with contrast, density, color balance, etc to get the kind of look you like.  It's also nice to have the corresponding print.  There is no substitute for being able to put things in perspective.

[langier]

Custom profiling or finding a canvas-specific profile for your printer/ink is what I found worked and that's just the start. You also should consider coating to make your images pop and to add protecting from stretching and handling as part of your finishing.

Some of the canned profiles I used were fine, but then when I went to canvas I now use, it wasn't quite good enough. I took the Colormunki and did my own, testing both matt and photo black inks. Once I got a profile, I took the Bill Atkinson test image and ran both to see where things were.

Using the photo black on my printer gave me the best results and the gradients were right-on. But because the canvas sucks up ink, the blacks are week. Since my prints are usually framed and ready to hang, they need both UV and scuff protection.

Coating is one of the secrets, IMO, to both finishing the process and making the canvas look its best and as good as nice coated paper.

There are a few ways you can coat. I first tried using spray can, but they only offer UV protection and you can see the spray patterns. Others use HVLP systems, much as one would in auto body refinishing, but that takes lots of practice and space when you've got to do a bunch or is a pain to set-up and coat if you only have a couple.

I use two different methods, the roller method and a Daige Ez Glide.

When I have just a couple of prints, I use a foam roller from a paint store. The key is to really soak up the surface and keep the roller moving both along the length and width of the print until it all evens out. It will have a nice wet and glossy look to it. I'm using Clear Sheild LL diluted with 20% water which helps make the surface even. The Clear Shield is available from matt to satin to sem-iglossy to glossy. The semi-gloss works for me.

When I have a bunch of prints, say 10 to 15 or more, I use a Daige Ez Glide. This is a trough with a spreader and squeegee and you simply pull the prints through. I've found that the Clear Shield LL with 20% water works well. I pull the print through and then hang it to dry. After about 20-30 minutes, I do a second coat which makes the surface pretty nice.

When using the Daige, you'll need to add about 3-4 inches to one edge of your canvas to pull through the trough and to use to hang on a cloths line. I also add at least an inch to the other sides from drips, etc., then trim it off as needed. The Daige takes little time to set up, but needs about 1/2 hour of cleaning using water after each use, I've found.

Once the images are fully dry in an hour or so, the canvas is good to go and looks so much better than uncoated. If you are going to stretch your prints, the liquid coatings will help keep the image more pliable and durable, compared to uncoated prints.

Before I started the Clear Shield, the canvas edges would crack and the images scratched off pretty easily. Stretching was always an adventure. Now I don't worry quite as much about the handling after they are coated.

[ftbt]

I am still getting used to my new printer (Canon iPF 8300) and had a question around how to best print on canvas ... But when I print to canvas (BC Lyve and Canon Satin canvas), the overall image looks flat and lacks the punch.

It shouldn't with BC Lyve. I have an 8300 and use BC Lyve as our exclusive "in-house" canvas. Call Paul Morales at BC after the holiday. He is their technical guru. I use their "canned profile" that he provided to me. I also use their Glamour II coating and that helps the image in terms of depth and punch.

[Johnny_Boy]

BILL T - thanks for the tips on what to look for and how to compensate the image. I understand what you mean by actually printing to see and learn. I've been doing that for a bit now, but boy, it gets so expensive to do this!!

LANGIER - thanks for the tips on coating. I've ordered a trial setup from BC Lyve, and I have been using their Timeless coating thing with a foam roller. It does make the image more poppy, although I am not sure if I want to go all gloss as the current sample that I got.

FTBT, I am using the profile that BC have on their website. I also downloaded the printer driver and printer media setting update for the ipf8300, and using that. Overall, I would say the color is 97% accurate It just might be my printer. BC lyve prints have slight red cast to the image. I've had similar pattern on my Canon canvas, and a custom profile fixed that.

Examples of Print Preview Images
a picture is worth thousand words or something like that... so I tried to visually show what I am talking about here. Please see the attached image below.

(They are screen captures, but I think the relationship between the images should be still preserved to illustrate the purpose. I stripped out the color profile info on the image, so it might look really saturated on your web browser.)

Basically the print preview for canvas looks much more washed out than the Ilford Gold Fibre Silk. The real canvas doesn't look as washed out as the actual preview (especially with the gloss coating), but it shows the similar trend.

I am thinking maybe I just do not like the blacks on canvas? Things that should go DARK doesn't really go as dark as I would like. I think the brighter images that I have does not have as much issue in terms of washed out look. They are just slightly less saturated in color.

In this particular image, what would you recommend that I compensate, so it will print better?  I tried Bill's suggestion of messing around with the Shadows/Highlights and that seems to really help. Anything else I should try?

[bill t.]

OK, you are going through the well known Paint It Black School of photographic print making!  Every Newbie does it.  Next person who tells you that printing dark is cool, punch 'em in the nose and around here you will have have to punch an awful lot of noses.

There are three things that matter for printing on matte media.  TONAL SEPARATION, TONAL SEPARATION, AND TONAL SEPARATION.

Draw a selection around the foreground rock shape.  Select the Levels tool, and it will pop up with with a mask containing a hole for the rock.  Click on just the black & white mask on the new levels layer and blur it somewhat with Filter->Blur->Gaussian Blue.  Now increase the separation in the detail by steepening the Levels curve.

Way over simplified.  What I'm really trying to say is, BRING UP THE TEXTURE AND DETAIL IN THOSE DOGGONE DARK AREAS.  For more subtlety search how to selectively increase the separations in the dark areas with a luminance mask, there are lots of tutorials I believe.  Tony Kuyper has contrast and texture controlling actions that are positively amazing, but be prepared to several hours of study.

And do not get into the trap of worshipping D-Max Divinity for it's own right.  The quest for D-max has ruined many an image.  Forget the glossy prints, and just make the best matte print you can.  I have to say that over the years I have made many glossy and matte versions of the same image, and in almost every case I find that when I come back to the prints after not seeing them for a while, I greatly prefer the matte version and I usually find the glossy version somewhat crass.  It all comes down to taste.

http://goodlight.us/writing/luminositymasks/luminositymasks-1.html

EDIT: really nice image.

[Light Seeker]

I suggest that you pick up the soft-proofing video tutorial that Michael Reichmann & Jeff Schewe put together. I have the older version and it helped me immensely. I will be picking up the new one shortly. The entire set is called "Camera to Print & Screen" but you can buy a subset called "Guide to Colour Management" that has the soft-proofing section.

http://store.luminous-landscape.com/zencart/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=37&products_id=283

Terry.

[bill t.]

Also, don't get the idea that the soft-proof image on the screen is necessarily conveying the same mood you will get from the print.  The soft proof screen image is a great way to keep your editing ambitions with the grim reality of the media's gamut.  You can see immediately when you are trying to push an image into a place it just can't go, especially color-wise.  But the kind of haziness you see in the darkest parts of your canvas soft proof screen image probably won't look so unsatisfactory on the coated print.

Takes me back to this...you gotta make lots of proof prints.  The minimum length I can print on the 8300 is 8 inches, so I usually make a selection frame of 2.5 inches wide by whatever high and "copy merge" several sections of the image at print size, then arrange those slices on a 8" x whatever test print.  BTW, with canvas it's important to proof near the intended print size, but less so with smoother media.

[mstevensphoto]

not sure how you're getting an 8" min on the 8300, I regularly print a 4"x36" test strip. for my own money I like to take (at full final size) a representative strip of the whole image (don't care if it's horiz, vert or diagonal so long as it has my highs and lows) AND any areas I think will be trouble (usually the lowlight detail and highlight detail). I often do those as smaller boxes - usually I just end up doing one strip, sometimes it's even nice to put a little box of "bracketed" image slices together so I can really see. sometimes doing that I find that my hard fought contrast really makes it worse than good ol perceptual rendering.

[bill t.]

sometimes doing that I find that my hard fought contrast really makes it worse

Yes that's the hardest thing.  When "fighting" an image one is often lured into trying for more contrast, more saturation, more whatever as a way of creating a dramatic image or fixing some perceived defect.  And one can get so tunnel-visioned by certain details that one fails to see the whole picture.  When I sense that I am in such a mode, I try to just stop, hang the tests up for a day, and then come back to them later.  Quite often I'll realize that the best interpretation of the image was not the one with the most this or that, or with the highest D-max, or with the snappiest highlights, and that the horrible "defects" that so obsessed me earlier were pretty much irrelevant in relation to the whole image.

And also, contrast and tonal separation are related but not the same thing.  Tonal separation means that adjacent shapes of similar density stand out distinctly.  Contrast will inevitably be involved with that, but just crankin' up the curves is not always the best way to get separation.  There should always be a measured, even progression of tones up from the darkest areas rather a sudden jump from a clipped, black hole patch of black up to some lighter tone.  And the inverse for the highlights.  And there should be lots of modulation in the midtones, but not harshness.  Easier said than done.

[Justan]

Also, don't get the idea that the soft-proof image on the screen is necessarily conveying the same mood you will get from the print.  The soft proof screen image is a great way to keep your editing ambitions with the grim reality of the media's gamut.  You can see immediately when you are trying to push an image into a place it just can't go, especially color-wise.  But the kind of haziness you see in the darkest parts of your canvas soft proof screen image probably won't look so unsatisfactory on the coated print.

Takes me back to this...you gotta make lots of proof prints.  The minimum length I can print on the 8300 is 8 inches, so I usually make a selection frame of 2.5 inches wide by whatever high and "copy merge" several sections of the image at print size, then arrange those slices on a 8" x whatever test print.  BTW, with canvas it's important to proof near the intended print size, but less so with smoother media.

To add to Bill’s comments, there really is no practical way around making a lot of test prints. The thing about canvas is that getting good results is much more of a technical process than typical printing. Don’t be shy about testing and accept it as part of the process. Eventually you’ll get it

Printing on canvas has many unique behavioral characteristics and the only way to get to know how it behaves is to test. And take a lot of notes. I often make notes directly on the test print and keep many examples from previous tests. I do this as it always helps to save me from repeating the mistakes down the line.

And then, when you think you have it as you want it, and start coating prints, well, you will probably make more test prints as the changes that coating brings about are another entire level of education one must work through.

And that doesn't address the many nuances related to getting a good uniform coating on the work, which is a topic onto itself.

One thing that has to be done from the outset is to make sure that you have control over color and luminance accuracy. This includes using a colorimeter on the monitor to make sure it is properly calibrated, and doing much the same on the printer. Any time color is even a little wonky at one end or another of the process, the problems resolving it will seem endless. I don’t know how well canned profiles work but they can at least get you close. My HP can create it’s own profiles and I've found that capability an invaluable tool. Even the differences between canvas batches can make for vast differences in the end result.

But this said, the task is far from an insurmountable issue and only requires testing and attention to detail and process control.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Well, how about preparing an image for a canvas printed by a lab? What profile to use for soft-proofing?

For instance, Costco provides fairly current, professionally done profiles for their various printers and various paper media, but not for canvas. In absence of canvas-specific profile, should I use printer's matt or glossy one? Or just send an sRGB one and hope for the best?