Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: loonsailor on January 21, 2010, 02:18:52 am
-
I'm just getting in to printing my digital photos, and I've been experimenting with lots of different papers on my HP B9180. Tonight, I printed the same image on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag on 8.5x11 and 13x19. The larger print is much weaker - darks are lighter, generally less depth, less "punch" - even though it's the same paper, same profile, etc. Is this just the nature of digital printing, with the same number of pixels spread over a larger area, or is there something else going on that I can correct?
I'm printing from Lightroom, on a Mac, printer managing color. My monitor is profiled, and I'm using the Hahnemuhle paper profile. It's a D300 image.
-
I'm just getting in to printing my digital photos, and I've been experimenting with lots of different papers on my HP B9180. Tonight, I printed the same image on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag on 8.5x11 and 13x19. The larger print is much weaker - darks are lighter, generally less depth, less "punch" - even though it's the same paper, same profile, etc. Is this just the nature of digital printing, with the same number of pixels spread over a larger area, or is there something else going on that I can correct?
I'm printing from Lightroom, on a Mac, printer managing color. My monitor is profiled, and I'm using the Hahnemuhle paper profile. It's a D300 image.
For a print to be really strong you need to print at not more than (or preferable exactly) 360 (or 240) original camera pixels per print inch, especially if you use a camera with an anti-aliasing filter... so using a triple stitch back, I do not expect to regularly print bigger than 24 * 41".
Raw processing, Photoshop and genuine fractals can help.
-
I'm just getting in to printing my digital photos, and I've been experimenting with lots of different papers on my HP B9180. Tonight, I printed the same image on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag on 8.5x11 and 13x19. The larger print is much weaker - darks are lighter, generally less depth, less "punch" - even though it's the same paper, same profile, etc. Is this just the nature of digital printing, with the same number of pixels spread over a larger area, or is there something else going on that I can correct?
I'm printing from Lightroom, on a Mac, printer managing color. My monitor is profiled, and I'm using the Hahnemuhle paper profile. It's a D300 image.
Hi there,
I could be wrong but I would print with, application such as photoshop to manage my color and not the printer. You may also find that you will need to experiment a bit to get it absolutely perfect. There is a bit of an art to printing.
good luck and enjoy
Henrik
-
I'm just getting in to printing my digital photos, and I've been experimenting with lots of different papers on my HP B9180. Tonight, I printed the same image on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag on 8.5x11 and 13x19. The larger print is much weaker - darks are lighter, generally less depth, less "punch" - even though it's the same paper, same profile, etc. Is this just the nature of digital printing, with the same number of pixels spread over a larger area, or is there something else going on that I can correct?
I'm printing from Lightroom, on a Mac, printer managing color. My monitor is profiled, and I'm using the Hahnemuhle paper profile. It's a D300 image.
Theoretically, there should be no difference of color and contrast between a small and a large print. Spreading the same number of pixels over a large area only reduces the perceived sharpness and detail quality of the printed image. This can affect how pleasing your large prints look compared to the smaller ones. That's why an image should be sharpened accordingly to the final print size.
I guess it could probably make them look less "punchy" (but not brighten the blacks...). One reason that I can think of is the lighting of your display environment may not be suited for large prints.
If you see a big difference between the two there might be a problem in your workflow. Letting the printer manage colors is probably your first problem. I see you have a calibrated screen, so you should definitely let your photo editing software (for instance Photoshop) manage colors instead of the printer. This will enable you to get predictable results on screen. You can (and should) buy the From Camera to Print video tutorial from the Luminous Landscape, it contains all you need to know about fine art printing. The cost of the video is ridiculous compared to the money you save from paper & ink you could waste while trying to figure it out all by yourself.
-
I'm just getting in to printing my digital photos, and I've been experimenting with lots of different papers on my HP B9180. Tonight, I printed the same image on Hahnemuhle Photo Rag on 8.5x11 and 13x19. The larger print is much weaker - darks are lighter, generally less depth, less "punch" - even though it's the same paper, same profile, etc. Is this just the nature of digital printing, with the same number of pixels spread over a larger area, or is there something else going on that I can correct?
It can be the scaling. Read the 4th step of this guide, you have to be a member:
http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/downloads...ue.php#proofing (http://www.johnpaulcaponigro.com/downloads/technique/technique.php#proofing)
half the size, 1% lighter at the midpoint and vice versa
Whether that is always correct is another matter. I guess it has to do with aliasing on the smaller print that disappears on the larger one and with that is related to the pixels available. If easy sharpening for viewing distance becomes available one day, this may be the next thing to tackle.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
The larger print is much weaker - darks are lighter, generally less depth, less "punch" - even though it's the same paper, same profile, etc. Is this just the nature of digital printing, with the same number of pixels spread over a larger area, or is there something else going on that I can correct?
There are only 3 possibilities:
- You (or a bug in the printer driver) are inadvertently changing some setting other than the paper size which is affecting the selection of profile and/or other printer settings.
- Lighting differences.
- It's all an optical confusion in your imagination.
I've printed the same image in a variety of sizes from 4x6 to 24x36, and if the printer settings are truly locked down, the image looks the same (other than overall detail) regardless of what size it is printed. I would recommend not using the printer driver to select profile. Instead, select "no color management" (or whatever the driver calls completely disabling color management) and select the print profile from the Photoshop/Lightroom print dialog.
-
I'm printing from Lightroom, on a Mac, printer managing color. My monitor is profiled, and I'm using the Hahnemuhle paper profile. It's a D300 image.
You've received some good feedback but I have a question.
Why are you letting the printer manage color? It would seem appropriate to let the application manage the color.
-
There are only 3 possibilities:
- You (or a bug in the printer driver) are inadvertently changing some setting other than the paper size which is affecting the selection of profile and/or other printer settings.
- Lighting differences.
- It's all an optical confusion in your imagination.
I've printed the same image in a variety of sizes from 4x6 to 24x36, and if the printer settings are truly locked down, the image looks the same (other than overall detail) regardless of what size it is printed. I would recommend not using the printer driver to select profile. Instead, select "no color management" (or whatever the driver calls completely disabling color management) and select the print profile from the Photoshop/Lightroom print dialog.
This is my experience, too - and what should happen, in theory. As has been suggested, try using PS to manage colors and see if the problem persists.
-
OK, this is embarrassing. It turns out that prints look much better when printed on the correct (coated) side of the paper . Duh - talk about cockpit error!
Thanks for the help, though.
-
OK, this is embarrassing. It turns out that prints look much better when printed on the correct (coated) side of the paper . Duh - talk about cockpit error!
Thanks for the help, though.
You are not the first one :-)
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/ (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/)
-
You are not the first one :-)
…
And not even the second one!
-
OK, this is embarrassing. It turns out that prints look much better when printed on the correct (coated) side of the paper . Duh - talk about cockpit error!
Thanks for the help, though.
Ouch! That hurts! I remember vividly from doing that on a big, expensive piece of paper.
-
OK, this is embarrassing. It turns out that prints look much better when printed on the correct (coated) side of the paper . Duh - talk about cockpit error!
Thanks for the help, though.
Been there, done that.
-
Hi,
Problem solved!
;-)
Erik
OK, this is embarrassing. It turns out that prints look much better when printed on the correct (coated) side of the paper . Duh - talk about cockpit error!
Thanks for the help, though.
-
OK, this is embarrassing. It turns out that prints look much better when printed on the correct (coated) side of the paper . Duh - talk about cockpit error!
Thanks for the help, though.
Think we've all done that.
However, I actually do believe that when you print large you need to crank a little density into the image. I think this is an optical effect and it was worse with conventional darkroom printing. You have to get pretty large before it becomes noticeable (at least to me) ... around 24x30 and larger.
I'll have to read JPC article ...wondering at what scale he starts applying corrections.
-
However, I actually do believe that when you print large you need to crank a little density into the image.
I've found that increasing localized contrast becomes important with prints at or above 44" inches. Smaller prints (think 5x7 inches) have inherently more localized contrast. When the same images are printed quite large (40x60, 60x80 etc) the lack of such localized contrast becomes apparent unless it is increased specifically for these largerprints.
-
I do think you generally need to, at the least, make brightness/contrast adjustments if you greatly change the size of your prints either going bigger or smaller.
I do think it's mostly a subjective thing - most likely - more correction needs to be done when you go much larger - and everything gets spread out.
Howard
-
...Printing on the wrong side, using photo black on matte paper or vice versa... welcome to the wonderful world of printing! We've all done it, and most of us still do it from time to time!
-
I've found that increasing localized contrast becomes important with prints at or above 44" inches. Smaller prints (think 5x7 inches) have inherently more localized contrast. When the same images are printed quite large (40x60, 60x80 etc) the lack of such localized contrast becomes apparent unless it is increased specifically for these largerprints.
I agree, our perception of contrast changes with print size. If you think about it, it makes sense. Contrasting elements in the image are in closer proximity to each other in a small print than a large one, and localized differences play a big role in the way our visual system perceives contrast.
-
All local contrast adjustment does is compensate (somewhat) for lower resolution/detail per print area inherent to larger print size. That is an entirely separate issue from actual colors changing from small print to large...
-
For a print to be really strong you need to print at not more than (or preferable exactly) 360 (or 240) original camera pixels per print inch, especially if you use a camera with an anti-aliasing filter... so using a triple stitch back, I do not expect to regularly print bigger than 24 * 41".
Raw processing, Photoshop and genuine fractals can help.
You can print a big print at 150dpi and it looks great. I always punch up the contrast when I make bigger prints.
-
Think we've all done that.
I've never, never, never, ever done that. It was the very first thing I learned when I got my first printer. But I've made other stupid mistakes .
-
All local contrast adjustment does is compensate (somewhat) for lower resolution/detail per print area inherent to larger print size. That is an entirely separate issue from actual colors changing from small print to large...
Gotta disagree there.
There are significant perceptual differences for color and tone imposed by changes in scale. I first noticed this, oddly enough, way back when I built scale models of airplanes and tanks. (Yes, I was a dork. Went with being a history major.) You could pick the precisely correct paint color for a given subject, an exact match for the real thing, yet when you looked at your completed 1:35 scale model the color looked very obviously too dark. This perceptual problem is well understood by experienced modelers, who end up lightening the paint colors by an amount determined by trial and error to get something that looks right. There are also differences in shadow vs. highlight perception imposed by scale. Larger subjects tend to have perceptually more 'open' shadows; there's enough light bouncing around that we can see into the shadow areas more easily than with smaller subjects. It's true for both prints and 3-dimensional objects. That's why for larger prints you may want to darken the shadows a bit to get back to the same perceived tonal balance.
John Paul Caponigro's bit about adjusting tonality for the scale of the print is addressing exactly this issue. It's a perceptual quirk of human vision, not a principle of physics, so there's no way to measure it. You can measure precisely the same density in the shadows of a large print or a small one with your spectrophotometer; but they will look different to your eye because of the effect of scale on perception. Caponigro's rule of thumb (darken the print with a curves adjustment by 1% at the midpoint for every doubling of print area) generally gets you close; after that it's "season to taste".
-
Gotta disagree there.
Gotta agree here. Additionally, I've actually noticed that there are a number of images which are overprocessed by my taste that begin to work as they get large enough. There's a local photographer who does small mounted prints as well as huge canvasses of HDR-processed scenes, and the small ones hurt. They're really, really bad. The large canvasses though? They work. They're much, much better.
-
Perhaps the "size effect" on perception varies by individual then. As I've said before, I've printed the same image file at 4x6 and 24x36, and not noticed any differences between the prints (other than sharpness/resolution) comparing them side by side. If it's strictly a perceptual illusion, then it's highly unlikely it affects everyone exactly equally.
-
I have found the experience of looking at a 5" x 8" image - as compared to the same image at 22" x 32" - is huge - regardless of whatever way it is printed. (As I have recently experienced with my own work going both quite big and quite small with the same images.) Kind of like the difference between peering at a secret note - compared to entering a doorway.
Howard
-
I'd like to second the comment about HDR. I've frequently noticed that an HDR that has been adjusted to look realistic when viewed full-size onscreen, will look "HDR-ey" when viewed as a thumbnail. (I don't know if this is the same effect as John Paul Caponigro is discussing or not.)
As an aside: there's a kind of interesting article on color perception in the Feb Scientific American.
--Milt--