Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: michaelsh on February 11, 2018, 01:07:38 pm
-
I do the processing of my (digital) pictures on a Thinkpad P70 with 4k display, calibrated with xRite i1Display (nearly 90% Adobe RGB) and also print them on an Epson SCP 600, using Tecco's PUW285 Glossy Ultra White and Tecco's ICC profile.
I'm always quite disappointed, to be honest, by the prints as compared to what I see on my display.
In most cases the prints are rather dull and underwhelming (regardless of BW or colour prints).
To me it looks like the fact that prints depend on the 'quality' of the reflected light as opposed to displays depending on proper calibration and having the advantage of light emitting rather than light reflecting is becoming more and more of a disadvantage for print as displays / monitors become better (i.e. being able to accurately display colours, basically).
To add to this: I'm quite disappointed about the various 'fine art' papers (Hahnemühle, Canson etc). I've tried a lot of them and spent a lot of money printing with them. The main disappointment has always been the same: they are not neutral and print snow white (any white actually) always with an ugly (to me) colour cast. And shift any other colours accordingly, and in most cases not to the best.
I would really like to hear and, if possible, learn in case you disagree with me and have advice on what I might have got wrong.
-
It sounds to me like you have a colour management problem. If both your display and your printer/paper combination were correctly calibrated and profiled and you were using correct settings, with that glossy paper the prints should come out looking very close to what you would see under soft-proof in a properly calibrated and profiled display.
Traditionally, laptop displays are notoriously difficult to work with because with every small change in the angle between the screen and your eyes the projected image looks different. Not sure to what extent a 4K version changes that, not having tried it.
-
I'm afraid I don't have a colour management problem. I've educated myself about colour management under Win 10 and as I have said in my initial post xRite agrees in that it confirms a nearly 90% Adobe RGB coverage of my display. I understand that this still means that saturated colours will not be displayed accurately but it should not mean that most pictures (where I take it that most pictures are not over-saturated) should not display such a marked contrast between display and print.
I have a feeling that viewing and appreciating prints depends too much on the (reflected) light under which one views the print, as opposed to a proper display, where the light is emitted in a controlled fashion. Add to this the rather different 'white points' of the different (especially fine art) papers and the colours on a print start changing quite drastically.
-
The viewing conditions of the print are part of colour management. And you are correct that you need appropriate viewing conditions. The reason why I considered that you may have a colour management problem is because of your statement that there is a large disconnect between what you see on your display and what you see on paper. I'm assuming that when you mention what you see on your display, you are looking at the image with soft-proofing active, and paper white and black ink both simulated. With correct colour management right through the chain, what you see on the display should be a reliable indicator of what the print will look like. A whole industry and colour consortium as been devoted to this matter for many years and is generally considered to have succeeded. Where you will never get a close match is comparing a print on matte paper with a display image absent soft-proofing. In that case, all bets are off - the display image will look snappier. But you are using a gloss paper. Appearances should be able to converge rather nicely.
-
'I'm assuming that when you mention what you see on your display, you are looking at the image with soft-proofing active, and paper white and black ink both simulated. With correct colour management right through the chain, what you see on the display should be a reliable indicator of what the print will look like.'
I don't do soft proofing. That doesn't make sense to me if the display (as in my case) displays only 90% Adobe RGB. And even if I had a 100% Adobe RGB display (assuming for the sake of argument that Adobe RGB is the 'gold standard'), it's an RGB display with emitting light vs. a CYMK model printed on paper with a (in most cases) not quite white 'white point', shifting all other colurs accordingly.
The colours are not really wrong when comparing print to display, rather 'snappy' or perhaps 'lively' as opposed to 'dull' or 'diminished' or better 'muted' in the print convey some of the disappointment I regularly experience when printing.
-
There are inherent differences between transmitted and reflected light which are best mitigated by using gloss media as you are, but doing your edits under soft-proof. That will help you to add the snap you want to see in the print.
-
The colours are not really wrong when comparing print to display, rather 'snappy' or perhaps 'lively' as opposed to 'dull' or 'diminished' or better 'muted' in the print convey some of the disappointment I regularly experience when printing.
Since you say the colors are accurate, it sounds as though your issue is that your pictures appear "punchier" when displayed on a high-dynamic-range transmissive medium—your monitor—than on a low-dynamic-range reflective one—the paper—which is inevitable unless the image has very low inherent contrast. You're migrating it from an output device with a contrast ratio of ~1000:1 to one which, even under ideal lighting, has at most perhaps a third of that.
I don't do soft proofing.
There's more to soft proofing than accurately reproducing color. As Mark points out, comparing the original image with a soft-proofed one allows you to modify the tones—as well, perhaps, as some color attributes—in order to reproduce on paper a reasonable simulation of what you're seeing on the monitor. I often find I need to bump up the "clarity" adjustment in Lightroom and fiddle a bit with the tone curve tool in addition to any adjustments that may be necessary to get a good color match for the paper I've selected for that particular image. The result may not be an exact correspondence between monitor and paper, but the print may seem just as punchy, even if it creates that impression in a different way. Of course you can perform those same adjustments without soft proofing by making test prints, but you're likely to burn through a lot of time, paper, and ink before you get a result that satisfies you.
-
Since you say the colors are accurate, it sounds as though your issue is that your pictures appear "punchier" when displayed on a high-dynamic-range transmissive medium—your monitor—than on a low-dynamic-range reflective one—the paper—which is inevitable unless the image has very low inherent contrast. You're migrating it from an output device with a contrast ratio of ~1000:1 to one which, even under ideal lighting, has at most perhaps a third of that.
There's more to soft proofing than accurately reproducing color. As Mark points out, comparing the original image with a soft-proofed one allows you to modify the tones—as well, perhaps, as some color attributes—in order to reproduce on paper a reasonable simulation of what you're seeing on the monitor. I often find I need to bump up the "clarity" adjustment in Lightroom and fiddle a bit with the tone curve tool in addition to any adjustments that may be necessary to get a good color match for the paper I've selected for that particular image. The result may not be an exact correspondence between monitor and paper, but the print may seem just as punchy, even if it creates that impression in a different way. Of course you can perform those same adjustments without soft proofing by making test prints, but you're likely to burn through a lot of time, paper, and ink before you get a result that satisfies you.
Exactly.
-
....
To add to this: I'm quite disappointed about the various 'fine art' papers (Hahnemühle, Canson etc). I've tried a lot of them and spent a lot of money printing with them. The main disappointment has always been the same: they are not neutral and print snow white (any white actually) always with an ugly (to me) colour cast. And shift any other colours accordingly, and in most cases not to the best.
I would really like to hear and, if possible, learn in case you disagree with me and have advice on what I might have got wrong.
Mark has offered very good opinion and I agree with the sentiment that there is/may be a Color management issue. Not least of which may be monitor calibration luminance vs print luminance.
What are your editing conditions re ambient lighting?
How are you illuminating your print when comparing with monitor?
The highlighted comment about printing white is a little confusing. Your printer cannot print white and white is limited to the paper base colour. If monitor neutrals (measured equal data values) are not neutral then there is a CM issue - monitor calibration, icc profile etc.
Regardless of the limitations of your monitor gamut you should soft proof using the correct paper profile if you hope to get any meaningful, consustent and repeatable results.
I would also suggest that you test your paper, ink (you are using OEM ink?) with the correct icc profile under soft proofing conditions using a known test image rather than your own. There are many but one you may find useful is the Pixl image which has useful information boxes in Photoshop explaining what you should see on screen and in print in a correctly managed workflow
http://www.pixl.dk/download/
Finally check your profile settings X Rite defaults to V4 and has been reported as potential problem area. I would suggest calibration to V2 may be the better option
-
A couple observations from my particular vantagepoint:
I don't think there's a "best" way to display photos. Different tech allows for different looks, and you may just prefer screens to paper.
If you like the look of other folks' prints, the issue is likely more about finding a processing approach + printer + inkset + paper that works better for you than about prints per se. In my case it took years of trial & error experimenting, compounded by the fluid state of what was then a new printing technology, before I could consistently make something I was happy with. (Nowadays I mostly process for display on my 4K TV!)
-Dave-
-
Thing is, in an instagram and snap chat addicted world, especially with people under 30, that often couldn't care less about how long their prints last, or whether they are even sold and collected, showing work on a good 4K and soon 8k led screen, in a public place, is going to become more and more popular all the time. They don't even need paper, period ( especially if they want sound as well).
Especially if you are doing high gloss super vibrant photography like people are doing with "digital cibachrome" face mounted or backlit in a light box type of work. It's really no different than the Getty
Stock landscape imagery you see on Google Chrome it looks fine ( until it all starts looking the same ) Personally I hate that kind of soulless textureless presentation but a lot of people love it. If you are going to adopt that kind of aesthetic, might as well do it on tv. Same thing as viewing on your display in the dark. Just cycle through these hd slide shows with no framing involved and when a 16k screen comes along go for that too.
A couple observations from my particular vantagepoint:
I don't think there's a "best" way to display photos. Different tech allows for different looks, and you may just prefer screens to paper.
If you like the look of other folks' prints, the issue is likely more about finding a processing approach + printer + inkset + paper that works better for you than about prints per se. In my case it took years of trial & error experimenting, compounded by the fluid state of what was then a new printing technology, before I could consistently make something I was happy with. (Nowadays I mostly process for display on my 4K TV!)
-Dave-
-
I would really like to hear and, if possible, learn in case you disagree with me and have advice on what I might have got wrong.
Hi,
Welcome to the Forum.
Now that you are a forum member, you have access to some rather very useful video tutorials (they are free to you) in the Luminous Landscape Home: Camera to Print; Back to the print; LR and Capture 1… Watching and learning from those may be the fastest way to alleviate your frustrations.
And, do print. Prints will survive the obsolescence of the digital equipment and storage we now use; jpg, tif, dng, psd, gif. files will not.
-
And, do print. Prints will survive the obsolescence of the digital equipment and storage we now use; jpg, tif, dng, psd, gif. files will not.
SO true. Add VHS, Hi8, Bernoulli disks and a hundred other obsolete data and image formats to that list. Prints are forever.
-
SO true. Add VHS, Hi8, Bernoulli disks and a hundred other obsolete data and image formats to that list. Prints are forever.
Yes, I think this is indisputable. HOWEVER, that said, I think there could be a generational perception issue at play here. I would be very curious to see a correlation of age versus preferred photo format - it would come from data responding to two questions: (1) how old are you, and (2) do you value photographs more on paper or seen on an electronic device?
-
Darn good question. I have an appointment to give a talk to some high school kids next week. I'll ask 'em.
-
Super - please do tell us what you learn from them!
-
Yes, I think this is indisputable. HOWEVER, that said, I think there could be a generational perception issue at play here. I would be very curious to see a correlation of age versus preferred photo format - it would come from data responding to two questions: (1) how old are you, and (2) do you value photographs more on paper or seen on an electronic device?
Well, yes.
1- I was born in 1948, a fine vintage year, says I :-)
2- I think that I value both fairly equally. Almost from the every beginning of my photography studies, in the late 60's and early 70's, I saw photography as belonging as much in books than on walls. Wasn't that the main achievement of Fox Talbot's Pencil of Nature? Disseminating photographs in books, magazines, newspapers, and now in the various electronic formats gives access to whatever the photographs is about (art, news, etc.) to many more people than a single print in a gallery, museum or home. However, the electronic image is more ephemeral, seen in a flash, gone in a flash. So, yes, in the end I prefer a hard copy of the image. All we need to look at a print are open eyes, no electricity, battery, smart phone, or computer needed.
And try this sometime: in a small gathering show a picture of your new baby or whatever on your smartphone, pay attention at the group's dynamics. A little bit later take out a print of the chubby newborn or latest fun thing bandpass that along. You will find that the group will act much differently and animately. Try it.
Now back to dissolving silver in nitric acid to make some film emulsion!
-
My photographs look better printed than they do on a monitor. I spend a lot of time on them and use a variety of papers. Different images look better on different papers. But the op's photos may be an entirely different image that looks better on the screen. It's hard to judge without seeing the work.
-
Yes, I think this is indisputable. HOWEVER, that said, I think there could be a generational perception issue at play here. I would be very curious to see a correlation of age versus preferred photo format - it would come from data responding to two questions: (1) how old are you, and (2) do you value photographs more on paper or seen on an electronic device?
I casually asked this question last year (2017) to about 20 final year biology undergraduates. About half never printed their images, the other half felt it was important to have something "real" and they still put together photo albums. The half who "never" printed were the students doing my Digital Imaging in Biology Module. The other half, who "did" print were doing a Nature Conservation Module.
I also work with someone who has just completed a photography degree, and in discussion (again last year) it seemed obvious that prints were an important final product for her and her peers, but then again so was using film. A lot of film photography was done while an undergraduate and her personal photography was now being done with a Hasselblad 500 using colour negative film, which end up as prints.
Given the sample I would hesitate to draw any confident conclusion, but it certainly seems the print is far from dead amongst young people.
Graham
-
The highlighted comment about printing white is a little confusing. Your printer cannot print white and white is limited to the paper base colour. If monitor neutrals (measured equal data values) are not neutral then there is a CM issue - monitor calibration, icc profile etc.
That was indeed a sloppy remark on my side: as you pointed out above white on print is determined by the paper base colour. That is the reason why I prefer to print on ultra white paper, because all the fine art papers I have tested never gave me a 'neutral' white and they also shifted colours (some less some more) depending on the paper base colour.
-
Thing is, in an instagram and snap chat addicted world, especially with people under 30, that often couldn't care less about how long their prints last, or whether they are even sold and collected, showing work on a good 4K and soon 8k led screen, in a public place, is going to become more and more popular all the time. They don't even need paper, period ( especially if they want sound as well).
Especially if you are doing high gloss super vibrant photography like people are doing with "digital cibachrome" face mounted or backlit in a light box type of work. It's really no different than the Getty
Stock landscape imagery you see on Google Chrome it looks fine ( until it all starts looking the same ) Personally I hate that kind of soulless textureless presentation but a lot of people love it. If you are going to adopt that kind of aesthetic, might as well do it on tv. Same thing as viewing on your display in the dark. Just cycle through these hd slide shows with no framing involved and when a 16k screen comes along go for that too.
I see your point (to some extent), but please don't assume I fall into the 'under 30 people' category'.
I'll be 63 this coming October ;)
-
My photographs look better printed than they do on a monitor. I spend a lot of time on them and use a variety of papers. Different images look better on different papers. But the op's photos may be an entirely different image that looks better on the screen. It's hard to judge without seeing the work.
Let me summarize: I have a very good semblance between what I see on screen vs. what I see on print.
But the difference between the additive RGB representation using emitted light (the display) vs. the subtractive CYMK representation depending on the quality of the reflected light (the print) is enough for me to prefer the display representation in many cases.
-
That was indeed a sloppy remark on my side: as you pointed out above white on print is determined by the paper base colour. That is the reason why I prefer to print on ultra white paper, because all the fine art papers I have tested never gave me a 'neutral' white and they also shifted colours (some less some more) depending on the paper base colour.
Your "neutral" white is not the neutral white the IEC described based on empirical test results many decades ago. Before mobile phones with 8000K displays became the norm. However there should be less shifting of colors on art papers that are near neutral (IEC) than on the ultra white papers you prefer, the last usually have a high Optical Brightening Agent content where the white point say Lab 98 0 -12 either creates a break between the white point and the neutral grey areas in the image or with another profiling approach the grays and less saturated colors have to shift a hell of a lot to suit the OBA white point. The actual white light reflectance is not that different between the paper types.
You do not belong to the young ones but it would not surprise me if Millennials and Generation X could shift the average experience of neutral white compared to the generations dating back to the great war that set that standard. However that new neutrality if used on paper tends to be less constant in changing light conditions due to the OBA content needed and will shift in time too due to the degradation of the OBA dyes. On one hand the gadgets and habits of younger generations may shift their perception of neutrality, on the other hand cataract in an older and older becoming population adds a yellow filter.
The preference for cooler or warmer white-points/ímages is also influenced by the luminance levels, check the information on the Kruithof Curve.
Edit; The paper you use is really loaded with OBA, I added the spectral plot of it here. That and the laptop screen, the older i1 Display and no specific description of the calibration/profiling numbers and no mention of the viewing light makes me wonder whether it is just the display's dynamic range that is making the difference here. I see the P70 has (optional) internal calibration so should be adequate for the job depending on the settings.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I don't understand the premise. It is not a question of either/or. Or which is the best way possible objectively to look at a photograph (notwithstanding the fact that from the invention of photography, the photograph has been a print.) If I ask a gallery to display my work, they don't give me an option - would you like to hang 20 Samsungs or 20 picture frames. I, so far, only have one choice. Better make prints for that one. If you want to hang your pictures in your house, are you able to hang monitors all over the place like Bill Gates? Well then you have a choice. Until then, do the best print you can make when it is the print that is needed. Otherwise share the rest of the thousands of images we take like everyone else - on a mobile phone screen.
-
Thing is, in an instagram and snap chat addicted world, especially with people under 30, that often couldn't care less about how long their prints last, or whether they are even sold and collected,
I'm not sure there is really much difference in how the casual camera user behaves now compared to pre-digital. The difference is really the technology. Before digital you took your 36 exposure roll of color film to Costco for development and 4x6 prints. You shared a few print with family and friends and then forgot about them Now you take a few 100 photos with your phone and share them immediately with family and the world and then forget about them.
If you were serious about prints, you had a darkroom or access to one--a moderate (few hundred $) lifetime investment. You went through a few dozen at most photos to select the few to print. Now if you're serious about prints, you have hundreds of images to go through to select what you want to print. You have a reoccurring short term (5 or so years) investment of several hundred to thousands of dollars in printer and software. The time and $ investment in printing can become a serious concern when a person decides to get serious about printing.
-
But the difference between the additive RGB representation using emitted light (the display) vs. the subtractive CYMK representation depending on the quality of the reflected light (the print) is enough for me to prefer the display representation in many cases.
There ya go. For color I agree with you. I mostly prefer prints for displaying b&w, and for each pic I choose a paper with a base tone that helps give me the look I'm going for.
Use the tech that gives you the results you like best.
-Dave-
-
Let me summarize: I have a very good semblance between what I see on screen vs. what I see on print.
But the difference between the additive RGB representation using emitted light (the display) vs. the subtractive CYMK representation depending on the quality of the reflected light (the print) is enough for me to prefer the display representation in many cases.
From your posted image you may have an issue either with your calibrated monitor's display of shadow detail or you like plunging shadow detail into black with your edits.
Your image can't possibly look better as a print because you've crushed and reduced the tonal contrast so that a print can't possibly ramp out of those shadows without making the midrange and highlights gold detail over saturated.
Images with that level of contrast will print with milky, flat looking shadows and garish saturated color which isn't the printer's fault but a perceptual issue with how you tone map a scene shot in low light. The appearance is similar to viewing a movie in a theater with lights on or off. It can show up in prints as well.
Tonemap that image so it appears lighter from the shadows up gradually increasing in lightness from absolute black.
-
From your posted image you may have an issue either with your calibrated monitor's display of shadow detail or you like plunging shadow detail into black with your edits.
Your image can't possibly look better as a print because you've crushed and reduced the tonal contrast so that a print can't possibly ramp out of those shadows without making the midrange and highlights gold detail over saturated.
Images with that level of contrast will print with milky, flat looking shadows and garish saturated color which isn't the printer's fault but a perceptual issue with how you tone map a scene shot in low light. The appearance is similar to viewing a movie in a theater with lights on or off. It can show up in prints as well.
Tonemap that image so it appears lighter from the shadows up gradually increasing in lightness from absolute black.
These are quite astonishing conclusions drawn from a jpeg very much reduced in size and posted on the web.
Would you believe me if I told you that none of your conclusions - either about the picture or the print, are correct?
-
These are quite astonishing conclusions drawn from a jpeg very much reduced in size and posted on the web.
Would you believe me if I told you that none of your conclusions - either about the picture or the print, are correct?
Then post a photo of the print you're complaining about looks better on the display. It's not hard to do. I do it quite a lot here only I get screen to print matches even from a Walmart print submitted in sRGB. You see I don't think any of my prints look worse or better than on my display.
And that image sample you posted is a lot bigger (4721x3161) pixels than you've indicated. That's big enough for me to see plenty and stand by what I said. Or maybe your eyesight is going bad. Who can tell? You don't give very much info so we can help you. And BTW...you're welcome!
-
Tim has a point - but perhaps it's a bit exaggerated. I have Michael's photo from inside the Rococo church up on my secondary display as I write this - both displays are properly calibrated and profiled. It's actually a good choice of a photo for the context of this discussion, precisely because it has such a large and difficult tonal range to deal with. I don't know how the original raw file (if there was one out of the camera) looked, nor do I know how much editing Michael did with it to produce this JPEG. It's a printable resolution (180 PPI - the lower limit I would print) but has about 4700x3100 pixel dimensions, so resizing it to 360 PPI without resampling would allow me to make a very decent (resolution point of view) 13 x 8.6 inch print. So Tim is correct that the resolution is adequate for at least discussing this photo. But reverting to the main point about the tone mapping and how to make it print so that it will look good on paper, I've prepared a series of exercises in Lightroom 7.1 which I think gets to the heart of screen versus print and what paper suits what kind of photo. There are 8 screen grabs and we are allowed only 4 per post, so this spreads over two posts.
Screen grab 1 shows the photo on display without softproofing. As Tim observed, there is some blocking-up of shadow detail, as confirmed by the bunching up at the left side of the histogram. But I know from experience that this shadow detail could be further revealed if one wanted to do so. I also know from experience that this kind of photo should be printed on a gloss/luster medium because of its shiny appearance and wide tonal range. So screen grab 2 shows it under softproof for Ilford Gold Fibre Silk (IGFS) in an Epson SC-P5000 (the largest gamut inkjet printer on the market along with its larger-format siblings). You will notice there is very little difference of appearance between illustrations (1) and (2), meaning that with the right printer/paper combination you could be about equally satisfied with the tonal depth seeing it in a print or on display with no softproofing. However if I repeat the same softproofing exercise but this time using the profile for a high quality matte paper (e.g. Canon Premium Fine Art Smooth) having respectable gamut for a matte paper, I could be disappointed because the dark tones would come out on paper rather muddier than suits the photo (Screen grab 3). So the moral of the story thus far: if you are going to print this, don't make a matte print and then complain that it lacks the tonal range of what you see on a non-softproof display version; use something like IGFS. Or do specific matte-based edits under softproof that make the best of a disadvantaged situation from the point of view of tonal range. That can get you a good part of the way to bridge the difference between matte and glossy, but not all the way. (And for all those who pooh-pooh the usefulness of softproofing, this demonstration might get you to think otherwise about this important procedure.)
So let us turn to some "playing around". In the IGFS softproof version, my top-level analysis of how it could be improved (to my taste) would be to tame the highlights a bit and open the shadows some. I did this to the IGFS softproof as seen in screen grab 4. You can see the adjustments in the menus to the far right. I still thought the shadow detail at the very bottom of the photo could be brought out more, so I used the graduated filter to further open that dark area (screen grab 5). The "final" photo is in screen grab 6. By the way, I really do like corrected perspectives, so I used Lightroom's superb Upright controls to get the verticals right (screen grab 7). Now before we leave this version, there remains a question in my mind about whether the colour balance is right. Is the interior of the church really that blue, or is this a case of the camera sensor seeing dark areas "blueishly" as they often do, but when we are in the scene our brains adjust to not be seeing blue. I could easily rebalance these colours by clicking the white balance eyedropper on a suitably blue area and the photo's whole colour scheme changes dramatically, but not knowing the scene appearance I won't bother with that here.
Turning to the question of matte paper for this photo, I created a proof copy in Lightroom of screen grab 7 and changed the softproof profile to Canon Premium Fine Art Smooth. Then I set about to converge its appearance as closely as I could to that of the IGFS softproof. The strategy is to increase contrast in the darker tones by upping the lower-mid tone brightness and lowering the deep shadow tone brightness, then increasing clarity which further separates at a micro-contrast level between the various darker tones in the lower part of the tone scale. Finally, I applied a graduated filter to the highlight area at the top of the photo and dialed back both the highlights and Clarity a bit to appropriately counteract the slight exaggeration of the highlights from the immediately previous adjustments. The end result for matte (screen grab 8) is snappier relative to where we started, but I would still prefer this particular photo on IGFS, and if it were printed on matte I would agree with the OP that the screen view is more satisfying than the print view. However, printed on IGFS, I would not agree with the OP's basic premise that prints can't match the screen for tonal range. So as usual, a profound conclusion here: "it all depends............." and perhaps some deep ends too. It depends on the photo, it depends on the paper/printer combination, it depends on how well you know how to edit the photos for optimum appearance on the chosen media, etc. I could have taken this further, but an hour later, and we see the main points - at least to me - at issue in this discussion.
-
And the last four screen grabs.
(BTW, these screen grabs may have lost some of their precision in the conversion to the reduced format more suitable for forum posting, but the main distinctions remain visible.
-
I think the only solution to the OP's problem is for him to buy a dozen monitors to display his photos. Forget paper! If your images only look great on monitors then hang monitors around the house. Problem solved. :o
You can set them to rotate images.
-
and especially Mark's tremendous work and explanations in how he worked on the rather unsatisfactory sample (in terms of size and jpeg quality) I had posted.
Some background perhaps: originally captured with the Sigma DP2 Merrill in RAW, converted to 16 bit TIFF (ProPhoto RGB) and then edited in Photoshop and Nik Viveza. Then printed the final TIFF on my Epson SCP-600, letting Photoshop do the colour management and using Tecco's ICC profile for the PUW285 paper.
But I'm afraid that you both might have missed the most important aspect about this picture (most important for me, that is): to capture and display the glorious Autumn morning sun, illuminating only the Altar and Chancel and leaving the rest in (comparable) darkness.
If I may use a rather grand word in this respect: it's an artistic choice to not (as Tim put it) 'ramp out the shadows' and accept the 'garish saturated colour' (again Tim's words) as this is exactly how gold looks like when bathed in abundant morning sunshine.
I rather feel that you have been looking a bit too much at the pure technical side of the picture rather than appreciating it (as I do) as a memory of a special, rather magic morning (by the way: this is the Marienmünster in Dießen, Bavaria. One of the most important and beautiful Baroque buildings in Bavaria).
That is not to say that your technical criticism and especially Mark's work and step by step explanations are not valid. Quite the opposite. But I think in this particular case they lead to images (Mark's final ones) which are not representative anymore of what I saw that morning and tried to capture with my camera.
I've been thinking about what I have wanted to ask with my initial question and maybe this captures it best:
Prints for me sometimes lack a luminosity which a very good, calibrated monitor delivers by default.
It is only under very good lighting situations where prints begin to shine. And that can be a bit hard to achive if, as in my case,
you have nearly two dozen A3+ print hanging on your living room walls.
And I simply can't afford to hang two dozen monitors instead.
Does that make any sense at all, or is old age slowly catching up with me? In which case I do apologize.
-
Hi Michael,
Yes - that's the risk of a second-party tinkering with a first-party's work. I would have no way of knowing what you had in mind without your present explanation, and indeed there are innumerable ways of interpreting a photo depending on one's artistic intent. And I do appreciate the sunlight effects on the alter. My intent was a more technical matter of demonstrating the conditions in which one can get *almost* whatever effect one wants whether on screen or in print depending on how one approaches the media and the editing, and in this particular case to see how amenable the photo was to unpacking shadow detail pursuant to Tim's comments. But the idea that you really don't want those shadows unpacked is of course totally legitimate. By the way - what about the bluish cast? Is that how the interior looked when you made the photo? Or is it a matter of rendition and you decided to keep it that way?
-
It is only under very good lighting situations where prints begin to shine.
I followed Andrew Rodney's advice and I custom made a lighting set up for viewing my prints with Solux 4700K lamps. My prints look better than my monitor. Actually the first time I put a print under the Solux light I was amazed. It's not expensive.
-
Hi Michael,
By the way - what about the bluish cast? Is that how the interior looked when you made the photo? Or is it a matter of rendition and you decided to keep it that way?
Hi Mark, I was rather transfixed by the golden light and didn't really notice the interior apart from the fact that it was quite dark.
Personally I prefer a slightly cool touch to my pictures (as a rule, so there are lots of exceptions) and in this particular case I quite
like the bluish cast :)
Perhaps another twist to my intitial question, which might make more sense:
Have we already achieved the best technology can deliver in terms of print quality (by which I mean the whole chain: software, paper, ink and printer)?
Cheers
Michael
-
I followed Andrew Rodney's advice and I custom made a lighting set up for viewing my prints with Solux 4700K lamps. My prints look better than my monitor. Actually the first time I put a print under the Solux light I was amazed. It's not expensive.
Thanks for the tip. Cabling might become an issue in my case, since I have too many prints hanging. We'll see.
-
Hi Michael,
By the way - what about the bluish cast? Is that how the interior looked when you made the photo? Or is it a matter of rendition and you decided to keep it that way?
The thing I was intrigued by too. Calibration or cataract? The shadows suit OP's OBA paper white point but the same paper is not so suitable for the sun lit gold in the center. If it is edited that way to increase the color contrast between the shadows and the center then a neutral paper would do both extremes a favor. The paper used measures Lab 95.5 1.3 -10.2, there are neutral satin RC papers delivering near Lab L 97 white reflectance, there are alpha cellulose/cotton fiber/baryta glossy varieties that yield values between Lab L 98/99. Do not underestimate a gain in dynamic range by paper white, in practice better than a similar gain in Dmax.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Turning to the question of matte paper for this photo, I created a proof copy in Lightroom of screen grab 7 and changed the softproof profile to Canon Premium Fine Art Smooth. Then I set about to converge its appearance as closely as I could to that of the IGFS softproof.
Your work on the file and the detailed explanation is very useful for me. Thank you. If I may ask a question off topic. How did you compare the two soft proofs? I ask this because when I put two soft proofs/virtual copies side by side in Lightroom develop module's compare view I believe that only the "Proof copy" is under softproof mode and the "Master" is not.
-
Have we already achieved the best technology can deliver in terms of print quality (by which I mean the whole chain: software, paper, ink and printer)?
No, I doubt it. Over the past 18 years since Epson introduced the first desktop-sized archival inkjet printer, there have been steady improvements along this whole chain. They have generally tended to be not terribly dramatic from one model to the next, but when you add them all up over time and compare prints we can make today with what we made using an Epson 2000P back in the day, we can appreciate how substantial the accumulating improvements have been. I see no reason to assume that this process won't continue, much as the quality standards the industry has achieved become harder and harder to improve upon given how good it has become. On a completely separate tangent, I see no reason to assume that these companies are not working on totally different materials technologies that will usher-in yet better outcomes again. We don't know what we don't know from the outside looking in, so I think based on experience of watching technical change happen (for example the computer industry) it's not a good idea to believe that we've reached the end of time with this simply because what we now have is very good.
-
Your work on the file and the detailed explanation is very useful for me. Thank you. If I may ask a question off topic. How did you compare the two soft proofs? I ask this because when I put two soft proofs/virtual copies side by side in Lightroom develop module's compare view I believe that only the "Proof copy" is under softproof mode and the "Master" is not.
You are welcome.
I do this by flipping the profiles, and viewing the different profile versions one after another under softproof. So it's sequential rather than parallel. It's a bit awkward, but with some experience it works. Of course the more usual situation is comparing a master with a soft-proof so that is what the application is primarily designed to deal with.
-
You are welcome.
I do this by flipping the profiles, and viewing the different profile versions one after another under softproof. So it's sequential rather than parallel. It's a bit awkward, but with some experience it works. Of course the more usual situation is comparing a master with a soft-proof so that is what the application is primarily designed to deal with.
Thank you.
-
If I may use a rather grand word in this respect: it's an artistic choice to not (as Tim put it) 'ramp out the shadows' and accept the 'garish saturated colour' (again Tim's words) as this is exactly how gold looks like when bathed in abundant morning sunshine.
I rather feel that you have been looking a bit too much at the pure technical side of the picture rather than appreciating it (as I do) as a memory of a special, rather magic morning (by the way: this is the Marienmünster in Dießen, Bavaria. One of the most important and beautiful Baroque buildings in Bavaria).
Oh! That's gold bathed in morning sunlight?! Didn't know it looks a burnt orange. Had no idea going by your posted image so I guess the print isn't going to show what it should look like either. Doing a search on gold lit by sunset in a number of religious cathedrals I didn't come across not one picture of gold looking burnt orange. This is what gold lit by the sun or sunset looks like...
http://c8.alamy.com/comp/DCTBK3/gold-domes-and-spires-of-church-of-nicholas-ukrainian-orthodox-church-DCTBK3.jpg
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-l0Q7wdvGmGw/URWPJG_SF1I/AAAAAAAACR0/ojpgTT5CMuM/s1600/Green+%2526+Gold+Dome+Basilica+di+San+Marco.jpg
So the print isn't the problem. It's your post processing and/or camera profile you're using. May I suggest you try out other camera profiles to see if you can get more yellow in that burnt orange gold. Below you'll see orange turn to yellow in clouds between a custom dual illuminant vs Adobe Standard profile.
-
On the original posted 4721 x 3161 image, just hit "image", "Auto color" in photoshop and much of the marble loses much of its its blueish tint. You'd have to see the original building before deciding if the gold is "wrong". Early morning sun looks very different to mid-day sun.
-
Michael, that is a beautiful scene. I don't see any garish colors - it's lovely. I would print this on hahnemuhle gloss baryta 320 as it would give the scene the tonal depth it needs. You can get this to look better on print - whether it looks better on a monitor is a personal choice. I sell prints so they have to look better when printed. :-)
-
Can someone show me where the gold is in this screengrab of the full size shot? When did gold become brownish, reddish orange?
-
Can someone show me where the gold is in this screengrab of the full size shot? When did gold become brownish, reddish orange?
Well Tim, on my calibrated and profiled NEC PA271 display, when I enlarge the image I can see quite clearly a number of regions that show gold tones. I do agree that some midtones and deeper tone are bordering on the red/orange cast, but certainly not the whole image. Of course there is one rather important difference between my setup and your's. As mentioned, my display is indeed properly calibrated and profiled. Some of your replies on this thread and others tend to give the impression that your display has probably never seen an i1 Display Pro in action, and certainly not any sort of profiling. The FACT that you relentlessly expound the excellence of the Walmart prints(always the same ones) that you use to make your point, in itself makes a glaring point. I will give you credit though, since you seem to have found a perfect match of print to display by sending sRGB files to the local Walmart and not bothering to try printing them yourself. I suspect that your recent addition to your volume of Walmart stocks are doing quite well, since you would seem to be their most voluminous photo customer.
Have a great evening Tim,
Gary
-
Can someone show me where the gold is in this screengrab of the full size shot? When did gold become brownish, reddish orange?
I don't think this is worth spending a heap of time discussing. You would need to have been at the scene at the time to know whether the photographic representation is a reasonable facsimile of the scene, and in particular after allowing for a certain amount of "artistic license" in the rendition. The time of day, any tint in the windows through which the sun's raised would have passed, and indeed the native colour of the alter finishing itself would all influence the rendered colours in ways that those not present could only speculate about.
-
Yes, your responses Tim are antagonistic and inappropriate. There is no reason to be so insulting.
-
Michael, that is a beautiful scene. I don't see any garish colors - it's lovely. I would print this on hahnemuhle gloss baryta 320 as it would give the scene the tonal depth it needs. You can get this to look better on print - whether it looks better on a monitor is a personal choice. I sell prints so they have to look better when printed. :-)
I don't have the Hahnemühle but have Canson Baryta 310 and will give it a try.
And I have just rediscovered my MultiSync PA242W (bought a couple of years ago and for reasons I can't remember (sigh) dismissed in favour of my Thinkpad P70 with 4K display) and found out that it allows me to create 3D LUTs based on specific paper ICC profiles and that it emulates the final prints quite nicely - better than softproofing in PS, in my opinion!