Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Schewe on April 13, 2011, 07:05:23 pm
-
Folks, next week I'm off to Toronto to shoot a new version of Camera To Print. Since we are still in the what the f$%^&k are we gonna do stage, it would be useful to get feedback on what the f$%^&k we should do. So, what top level issues would you all like to see addressed? Yes, we'll cover the basics again...but if there are top level issues people are having (and wanting to learn about) we would like to address them.
So, the more feedback we get, the better we can work towards giving you all what you want...so what do you all want?
-
Jeff, from the stuff I've been reading on the forum, I think a huge emphasis on colour management is essential. Andrew's piece on "why are my prints too dark" provides a nice framework for encapsulating key issues, while in a video you can demo how to get it right and the kinds of things that happen when the most obvious mistakes are made. This would really help a large number of people and cut down the frustration level. While on colour management, there's a terrible amount of confusion abounding about the right tools for getting decent display profiles, and what people really need in terms of custom printer/paper profiling once they leave (or never entered) the cozy world of the Epson papers which have great profiles for Epson printers. Apart from knowing what you're doing in LR and PS, these colour management factors really are the cornerstones of successful print-making and they continue to cause people lots of grief.
A second area that could be further developed is comparative workflow strategies between LR and PS. We see a lot of questions about this. It would be good to compare printing out of LR with printing out of PS, including the steps you would do in either one, to get comparable results. This of course would take in the places and sequencing to do any noise reduction and sharpening.
I think it would help a lot of people to know how much they need to spend on what to get incremental levels of quality and predictability, starting from basic packages which deliver decent results, up to the pro packages which enable, well, pro results if one knows how to use them properly. One sees lots of questions on the forums about how far they need to go in profiling packages for displays and printers, what are the options short of buying this stuff, how good are they, and how expensive a printer do they really need for what they intend - well of course answers depend on requirements, but that's exactly the territory to parse - what do you really need for what you want to do, what you can spend and what you expect.
-
I have the 1st edition, and it's been very helpful as well as entertaining. The huge effort shows, and I'm really looking forward to the next version!
Here's a few to get you started:
- How to test papers, proper sharpening for an image without wasting ink and paper unnecessarily
- How to identify what's the "best" level of sharpening for each image type and paper
- How to choose optimal rendering intent for each image and how to manage out-of-gamut colors in general
- How to prepare and print images which don't have the same requirements as "traditional" landscape images, eg. high-key portraits, soft-focus images from old lenses or Lens Babies, sepia, etc. - in case it's any different
- Adding noise/digital grain is popular for a certain look, or to hide edits and banding, but how much is a good amount to add for print and screen - it's clear the amount should be different
- How to adjust noise reduction from for-screen to for-print
- How does paper choice work with different image content and end-use - glossy, matte, baryta, canvas, etc.
- Updated guidance on when to upres/downres, and does paper choice or image content impact that choice
- To spray or not to spray (longevity, protection, gloss)
And I'm sure I'm not the only who expects a shirt challenging the gamut of our monitors :D
edit: fully agree with Mark on color management (and other points). My modest dye Canon i9950 with affordable Red River Papers went from disappointing to wow when I got a custom profile made, and calibrated my monitor. Emphasizing the need for a fully color-managed workflow and the basics of it is probably the #1 thing to improve one's prints.
Expanding on his last paragraph, it might be useful to have tiers of print output quality, along the lines:
Tier 0 - Have printer, press print, pray
Tier 1 - Invest in color-managed workflow
Tier 2 - Above + sharpening and noise reduction
Tier 3 - Above + testing papers
etc.
The idea would be to prioritize what makes the biggest difference in output quality, and building up on that towards the perfect print - if such a thing exists - while being mindful of diminishing returns on time and money the higher tiers one reaches.
-
Adding/augmenting the already great info:
1) Since the first video came out there's been an explosion in paper options. For people new to printing it's a dizzying array and they have no clue what the variables are with paper. An overview of the major decision points (paper base, warm/cool, weight, etc.) and then some recommendations for a handful of solid papers to start with, would be valuable.
2) I'll second the colour management piece, except with a focus on what the latest available tools are for display and paper profile creation. Huey, ColourMunki, Spyder3, etc. Compare and contrast and recommend a good option.
3) Canvas is big. Some discussion about the ins and outs specific to printing on canvas, spraying canvas, etc. (probably out of scope for the video, but hey, it's definitely a big market now!)
4) Media types media types media types. How do you *really* decide which media type to use for a given paper if you're building your own profiles.
5) Agree with Mark's last comment regarding the varying levels of printers to pick from. Ron's printer series (http://www.ronmartblog.com/p/printing-series-articles.html) is a nice written thing to point potential printer purchasers to, but the new videos should cover this as well. IIRC the last round started with big (17"+) printers and didn't really talk much about the 13x19"-style printers that are now on the market with the same inksets as the big boys.
Hope this helps,
Neil
-
Show how to use soft proofing in LR4 Beta.......:)
-
For rudimentary printmakers:
paper choices/canvas/coatings
PROPER soft proofing-
color management was one of the first things I thought of, but it has been mentioned
UPREZZing- dpi/ppi/proper manipulation in more detail
talk of monitors, screen types, and luts and bit depth. Graphic Cards for this work
gamut, ink, lighting
& fish shirts
-
Pretty much what Mark said. Fine tuning and testing monitor and print profiles.
In-gamut shirts :)
-
Thanks for the feedback folks...this is exactly what will be useful when determining what to cover and in what depth.
Just to let you all know, in addition to the big printers, we'll also be doing work on 13" wide printers (both Epson and Canon). Mike and I realize that 17, 24 or 44" printers are not as mainstream as smaller printers.
Rest assured we'll be diving deep on color management. We'll be working with a variety of displays (NEC and Apple) and talking about the importance of the display and the viewing environment...
We'll also cover sharpening and image optimizing in depth as well as image/print resolutions.
It'll be interesting to talk about substrates (papers). Mike and I have some differing opinions. We will be talking about canvas because it's fast becoming an optimal way of dealing with really large prints.
Keep the ideas coming...it helps!
As for shirts...at least for me, there will be many :~)
-
While this may be better suited to a where the #$%^& are my pictures update perhaps some suggestions on best practices for ranking pictures and general organizational issues. I've done this and that but it is time for me, at least, to come up with a more consistent organizational workflow. Such as what gets printed, what are pano components, and related use of publish.
thanks for asking.
-
It's a small addition, but a quick mention of good ways to package and present and/or ship finished prints would be worthwhile. A cheap bag from clearbags.com and some interleaving tissue from Archival Methods does wonders for perceived value of the finished print from a customer's perspective. I learned the bag source from Bill Atkinson on that LLVJ so long ago where he showed how he mats his prints for presenation.
Neil
-
I'd like to add a vote to do more on soft proofing - not just how to DO soft proofing, but examples of the steps to go through to get your image looking good again AFTER turning on soft proofing.
Kevin
-
Here are some of the topics that people come to my studio to learn more about:
Soft proofing
paper selection
printing on canvas
output sharpening options, as well as how to use each of the solutions
why are prints often too dark?
and understanding of how ink is actually put down onto paper
screen to print matching
how to evaluate a print, but subjectively and objectively (by using a standard evaluation image with different 'tests' on the printed image). This is a huge one, to be honest, and one that requires a step by step approach so people can easily understand.
-
A section on the latest advances in Black and White printing.
-
The content of the original was so good. I would encourage that, as you add new content, don't throw the baby out with the the bath water.
But do update - I don't know how often I have the following dialog with myself:
"Wait, what is the optimal way to do this?"
"This is how it's described in Camera to Print..."
"But all the hardware and software is different now.?."
I would be greatly interested to hear if you or Mr. Reichmann have more to say about different presentation media for prints. I mean things like Brooks Jensen's folios and less expensive wall hangings for us mainstreamers.
-
I'd like to see some advanced postprocessing.
- In depth sharpening.
- Toning (Midtone contrast, saving highlights and shadows in a way that it looks good, etc ...)
- Processing of high-key and low-key images
- Processing of special light situations: Night photography, High contrast and low contrast situations.
- B/W Conversion
I know some of this had been covered in the old video. E.g. I was was happy when I saw that "Push the blacks and add fill light to add shadow detail" trick, which I had discovered for myself before, but not used that much so far. But I'd like to see much more of this kind of stuff.
Cheers
~Chris
-
A small point.
An update about the color gamut of dye vs pigment printers would be interesting.
Go for it with the shirts.
Graeme
-
There are so many great (and not so great) Adobe Photoshop plugins out there, I'd be very interested in seeing which ones, if any, you and Michael use and where they fall into your workflow.
I realize that detailed tutorials are out there on how to use them but as they're an important part of many people's post processing (mine included, especially Nik and Topaz) I'd be very interested to see this topic addressed to whatever degree is possible, given your time constraints.
The first C2P was GREAT and as I was just beginning in Photography when it came out, I can not tell you how many mistakes it saved me from making and how much better my images and prints looked after watching it. Thanks so much to the two of you for all that you do to assist photographers like me!
Phil Weber
-
I'll be contrarian-
I think there's enough information out there already on color management and the nuts 'n bolts of the imaging chain. I'd like to see a bit more about the artistic side of things- not so much the 'how' of masking and curves moves, but the 'why' of interpretive image editing and printing. More conceptual stuff on leading the viewers' eye through the image and orchestrating its impact.
-
I'll be contrarian-
I think there's enough information out there already on color management and the nuts 'n bolts of the imaging chain. I'd like to see a bit more about the artistic side of things- not so much the 'how' of masking and curves moves, but the 'why' of interpretive image editing and printing. More conceptual stuff on leading the viewers' eye through the image and orchestrating its impact.
+1
-
-1 :o
I think the discussion of artistic issues is best left to a different series.
the existing Camera2Print series has always (IMO) stressed a more technical 'how-to' path.
-
I think this isn't an "either or" situation.
I'd not wish a tutorial on photography as an art, of course - thats really something different, I believe.
But there are techniques in postprocessing which help to achieve a certain look, whatever the artistic idea behind may be or not.
E.G. it took me a long time to start using local adjustments seriously. The whole issue of midtone contrast control, the use and abuse of clarity took me ages to understand halfway correctly. Sharpening still has a lot of open questions for me.
Thats why I called what I'd wish "advanced postprocessing" - techniques on how to control important
parts of the look of an image, whatever the artistic intention behind may be.
I often feel like being much on my own when postprocessing images and trying to achieve a certain look.
-
-1 :o
I think the discussion of artistic issues is best left to a different series.
the existing Camera2Print series has always (IMO) stressed a more technical 'how-to' path.
I agree. There have been excellent suggestions here so far and they pretty much cover my own wish list.
I would very much like to see a separate video in which Michael and Jeff (and perhaps one or two others) each pick a few images that they like and discuss the aesthetic decisions involved in making each, and perhaps how each might have approached a scene/subject differently. Each participant should be willing to say something about what they want viewers to get from an image, and the others should comment on how successful they think the photographer was.
Questions of B&W vs. color, centering vs. "rule of thirds", etc. might be touched on, too. But not in the Camera2Print series.
Eric
P.S. Jeff's shirts would be a primary tie-in between the technical and the arty series. ;)
-
…I would very much like to see a separate video in which Michael and Jeff (and perhaps one or two others) each pick a few images that they like and discuss the aesthetic decisions involved in making each, and perhaps how each might have approached a scene/subject differently.…
Yes, I agree 100%. Let's keep C2P a technical thing and have a different tutorial for more aesthetic related topics.
-
Soft proofing
paper selection
printing on canvas
output sharpening options, as well as how to use each of the solutions
why are prints often too dark?
and understanding of how ink is actually put down onto paper
screen to print matching
how to evaluate a print, but subjectively and objectively (by using a standard evaluation image with different 'tests' on the printed image). This is a huge one, to be honest, and one that requires a step by step approach so people can easily understand.
Andy pretty much sums it up AFAIC, some are "old" subjects but new insights. Just as much as Jeff and Michael closed the discussion about resolution in C2P I (although technology moved forward) maybe it is time to close the discussion on "why are my prints too dark" in C2P II (guest appearance Andrew Rodney?).
Additionally:
-B&W printing
-File preparation for books and offsite printing (labs and photobooks like Blurb)
-Photokit sharpener 2 (local contrast)
-In C2P I it was difficult to see subtle changes on the laptop screens and differences between prints (matte and lustre) I suppose the new videocameras are able to record these differences much better. Now let's hope Mike's shirt doesn't show moire patterns ;D
Jaap
-
-In C2P I it was difficult to see subtle changes on the laptap screens and differences between prints (matte and lustre) I suppose the new videocameras are able to record these differences much better. Now let's hope Mike's shirt doesn't show moire patterns ;D
That's one of the main reasons we decided to reshoot the whole thing. The first C2P was shot in HD but not cut and released in HD. The last couple of videos we've shot are now shot, edited and released in HD so what we show on screen will be much better. And yeah, I am worried about Mike's shirt having moire...I think we need to hire a stylist :~)
As far as the art/tech debate, we are planning on talking about the "art of printing" which will go into some of the aesthetic aspects of determining what a good image and print is all about. We'll also be doing a site visit to a working gallery where we'll talk with the gallery owner about the commerce of selling prints. Mike no longer has his gallery so we decided to visit a successful gallery to talk about that.
-
I'd like to add a vote to do more on soft proofing - not just how to DO soft proofing, but examples of the steps to go through to get your image looking good again AFTER turning on soft proofing.
Kevin
Absolutely on this!
-
But I keep hearing from some of the guru’s that soft proofing doesn’t work.
Absolutely on this!
-
But I keep hearing from some of the guru’s that soft proofing doesn’t work.
Good for them. When the video is produced they should buy it and learn something.
-
One thing I didn't see mentioned is how to specifically deal with non-printer maker papers. Most of us who use Epson/Canon printers use papers from Canson, Hahnemuhle, etc. We then need to decide on whether to use the manufacturers suggestion for paper setting and their profile or do it ourselves. The profiling part is straight forward and I understand the science and technology behind that. However, the paper settings are somewhat of a black box. I remember a post from Mark Dubovoy on why he doesn't use manufacturer's settings but I found it a little opaque to understand. I know that Jeff and Michael being excellent pedagogues will illuminate this issue for the rest of us.
-
I know that Jeff and Michael being excellent pedagogues will illuminate this issue for the rest of us.
Yes, we will be covering working with 3rd party papers...
BTW, I had to look up pedagogue to see whether or not I should be offended...seems I "might" be offended depending on which meaning you meant; a teacher or educator, a pedantic or dogmatic teacher...also wondering a little bit about; A Roman slave who took children to school and on outings, but also taught them—from Greek ped, "child," and agein, "to lead."
:~)
-
Yes, we will be covering working with 3rd party papers...
BTW, I had to look up pedagogue to see whether or not I should be offended...seems I "might" be offended depending on which meaning you meant; a teacher or educator, a pedantic or dogmatic teacher...also wondering a little bit about; A Roman slave who took children to school and on outings, but also taught them—from Greek ped, "child," and agein, "to lead."
:~)
That will teach me to use the $50 word when the 10 cent word, "educator" would have sufficed.
-
An update about the color gamut of dye vs pigment printers would be interesting.
Seconded. Every year I have an urge to update my dye i9950, but every time I get discouraged by the lack of deep blacks with glossy and (some claim) smaller gamut. I'm aware of longevity and other advantages of pigment printers, but since they are more expensive per print at printer widths up to 17" last time I checked, I need a compelling reason to move to pigment since I print for myself. So once again instead of moving to 17" pigment I replaced the print head on my i9950.
I bet many looking for a proper photo printer are struggling with the pros and cons between dye and pigment, and getting that sorted out for this generation of inks and printers would be very helpful.
-
That will teach me to use the $50 word when the 10 cent word, "educator" would have sufficed.
True, but a pedagogue is a real sophisticated educator, so I thought it was most appropriate! Just too bad it starts with "ped". :-)
-
Seconded. Every year I have an urge to update my dye i9950, but every time I get discouraged by the lack of deep blacks with glossy and (some claim) smaller gamut. I'm aware of longevity and other advantages of pigment printers, but since they are more expensive per print at printer widths up to 17" last time I checked, I need a compelling reason to move to pigment since I print for myself. So once again instead of moving to 17" pigment I replaced the print head on my i9950.
I bet many looking for a proper photo printer are struggling with the pros and cons between dye and pigment, and getting that sorted out for this generation of inks and printers would be very helpful.
I agree it would be useful to cover that topic, but I'm not sure how many are really struggling with this question. I have a sense that this debate is essentially over-with. From all I hear and see these days, it would appear that pigment has AT LEAST caught-up - but sure, let the gurus tell us as they understand it.
-
I agree it would be useful to cover that topic, but I'm not sure how many are really struggling with this question. I have a sense that this debate is essentially over-with. From all I hear and see these days, it would appear that pigment has AT LEAST caught-up - but sure, let the gurus tell us as they understand it.
They could at least tell that spectrometers are on their limits with measurements of both pigment and dye gloss black Dmax. Not to mention our eyes in normal display conditions, if you have to get outdoors to see the shadow details of a 2.5 Dmax print that is then framed behind glass for indoor use you may wonder who is fooling himself. There is a better Dmax of black dye on matte art papers but it isn't a lasting Dmax, not even when framed.
Seems a nice topic for the print video: How to estimate best shadow detail/tonal range for framed and unframed prints, gloss, satin or matte, FBA effect change, adapted softproofing for all cases. Whether a gloss print should be framed.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
In addition to the technical topics above, I think a mention of a camera to web workflow would also be very interesting. After all, the web is a big part of the way by which most of us interact with other photographers and with the public, and to me producing quality images for the web is as important as producing quality prints for sale.
Looking forward to the new video!
-
As I still shoot some film and have a lifetime of negatives and slides that I occasionally want to print from, I would like to have you talk about scanning. If this is too complicated to go into, in depth, as part of this video, perhaps you would consider doing a standalone video on this subject. You could do a survey or e-mail to see how much of the LL readership would be interested/purchase such a video.
-
Jeff, thank you for asking. I recall that you did this (asked for input) for the first video, and I could see some of the comments addressed in the video.
Most commenters have spoken well on the "process" and "how to" topics.
Let me take Andy Biggs suggestion: "how to evaluate a print" a bit further. Most of us are pretty skilled and we think we're doing a pretty good job at C2P, i.e. we've learned the process. But I suspect most of us would have a hard time looking at a given print and assessing whether the print is "good", "excellent", or "best possible." What if you and Michael took say six prints, each done by a thoughtful Lula photographer, and evaluated them in terms of C2P issues, and then did a subsequent evaluation of the image reprinted per your suggestions. It could be a powerful conclusion to the process/how-to instruction. And for at least myself it might make some good prints become excellent prints.
Mike Coffey
Prescott, Arizona
-
Printer TLC. Dealing with and preventing clogs. Head and paper path cleaning and maintenance.
-
Let me take Andy Biggs suggestion: "how to evaluate a print" a bit further. Most of us are pretty skilled and we think we're doing a pretty good job at C2P, i.e. we've learned the process. But I suspect most of us would have a hard time looking at a given print and assessing whether the print is "good", "excellent", or "best possible." What if you and Michael took say six prints, each done by a thoughtful Lula photographer, and evaluated them in terms of C2P issues, and then did a subsequent evaluation of the image reprinted per your suggestions. It could be a powerful conclusion to the process/how-to instruction. And for at least myself it might make some good prints become excellent prints.
Strongly seconded (thirded?).
If we need a video, we are relatively new to printing. If we are new to printing, we need help evaluating prints and knowing quality when we see it.
-
I would like to see something about how to recognize when something has gone wrong and how to troubleshoot the C2P process to see where I've messed up. Perhaps demonstrate common problems--poor sharpening, banding, plugged nozzles, color management failure. Many of us make a print that just doesn't quite look as good as we think it should, but don't know how to determine if we messed up sharpening, profile choice, or whatever.
Also since Michael so highly recommended the xrite ColorChecker Passport it would be nice to have a discussion of how to make best use of it in the C2P workflow.
Les
-
I also second the suggestion for in-depth discussion on what makes a proper print and how to evaluate them. Many people have never actually seen an original exhibition Fine Print made by a darkroom or printing Master and have no visual memory of what is possible against which to judge their own work, a situation made even worse today with the demise of the chemical darkroom. For many, a 'photograph' is a jpeg viewed on a monitor and physical prints are relatively rare. I remember back in the day, Fred Picker offered some hand-printed B&W reference prints of a few typical scenes through his Zone VI catalog, expressly for the purpose of allowing one to see what a full-range fine print actually looked like in real life. Not quite sure how one might accomplish the same thing in a video, especially since what the viewer will see on his screen is as dependent on his hardware and its setup as it is on what the filmmaker does on his end but an in-depth discussion of the evaluation of the artistic and technical qualities of a print would certainly be welcome.
-
I always wish I had the your custom settings available for my use. I would love access to your most important custom LR Presets, your favorite photoshop actions, custom brushes & print profiles...those customized tools you use repeatedly in your workflow process. A companion set of download files as it relates to the C2P discussion topics would help me get the most out of these lessons.
I would like a document that lists all of the vendors mentioned in the videos. I know I took notes as I watched the first version - it would be so nice to have crib notes pre-printed as I watched the videos.
I have been reading through your Ultimate Workshop book with Martin Evening and have been so impressed with the content. It brings home the need to fully visualize a project - how PS and image capture should work together. While this book is technical it also served as a source for creative inspiration! Well done.
-
I also second the suggestion for in-depth discussion on what makes a proper print and how to evaluate them. Many people have never actually seen an original exhibition Fine Print made by a darkroom or printing Master and have no visual memory of what is possible against which to judge their own work, a situation made even worse today with the demise of the chemical darkroom. For many, a 'photograph' is a jpeg viewed on a monitor and physical prints are relatively rare. I remember back in the day, Fred Picker offered some hand-printed B&W reference prints of a few typical scenes through his Zone VI catalog, expressly for the purpose of allowing one to see what a full-range fine print actually looked like in real life. Not quite sure how one might accomplish the same thing in a video, especially since what the viewer will see on his screen is as dependent on his hardware and its setup as it is on what the filmmaker does on his end but an in-depth discussion of the evaluation of the artistic and technical qualities of a print would certainly be welcome.
I think even in video format one can go a long way to describing and showing the attributes of what makes a fine print; in the final analysis, however, there really is no substitute for going to good galleries and seeing some. What the video can do is instruct people on what to look for as markers of print quality.
-
I use an out-of-the-box print viewer with variable brightness and I am comfortable with it and can depend on the results. But what I would like to see in the CM section of a new video would be some visual examples of setups using Solux lamps, also adjusted for brightness by distance from the prints. If possible, show examples from the shoestring budget level to the more sophisticated, and what they look like in use.
I'm on the board of a very large camera club with many people interested in color management, and if something like the above were included they would be eager to purchase a DVD or download it when it comes out.
-
I use an out-of-the-box print viewer with variable brightness and I am comfortable with it and can depend on the results. But what I would like to see in the CM section of a new video would be some visual examples of setups using Solux lamps, also adjusted for brightness by distance from the prints.
And how one needs to calibrate the display for either/both, the advantage of having a display system that allows one to load on the fly, either when appropriate (something one can easily do with SpectraView).
You have a printer profile, you use it to soft proof. It has two tables (one for output, one for soft proof). There’s a disconnect (common). Do you (and how do you) ‘fix’ this using the custom display calibration, do you edit the preview portion of the profile?
-
I also second the suggestion for in-depth discussion on what makes a proper print and how to evaluate them. Many people have never actually seen an original exhibition Fine Print made by a darkroom or printing Master and have no visual memory of what is possible against which to judge their own work, a situation made even worse today with the demise of the chemical darkroom. For many, a 'photograph' is a jpeg viewed on a monitor and physical prints are relatively rare. I remember back in the day, Fred Picker offered some hand-printed B&W reference prints of a few typical scenes through his Zone VI catalog, expressly for the purpose of allowing one to see what a full-range fine print actually looked like in real life. Not quite sure how one might accomplish the same thing in a video, especially since what the viewer will see on his screen is as dependent on his hardware and its setup as it is on what the filmmaker does on his end but an in-depth discussion of the evaluation of the artistic and technical qualities of a print would certainly be welcome.
Actually what Michael and Jeff could do is distribute one or more JPEGs that are full developed and sharpened so that users can print these out on their own printers to see what the print looks like (they could also distribute some less than perfect prints (though for Jeff that would be quite hard as it goes against his grain) for comparison). I don't think that anyone will get an understanding from watching a video clip because of the limitations of the filming and display. Just a thought as I've received a free image from Ronny Nielsen who posts to LuLa and it was quite nice when I printed it out.
-
I apologize for not reading the entire thread, but I think taking different types of images from camera to print would be nice. I mean step by step, take a photo of a person, process it and then print it, do a landscape, a sunset, architecture, water, a beach scene, art reproduction etc. show all the adjustments from camera to print and then print the image. I agree with Alan, maybe allow us to download some images you have completed showing the steps involved to get there. Naturally they would be images with little or no value (everybody has one, right? :-) )
-
Actually what Michael and Jeff could do is distribute one or more JPEGs that are full developed and sharpened so that users can print these out on their own printers to see what the print looks like (they could also distribute some less than perfect prints (though for Jeff that would be quite hard as it goes against his grain) for comparison). I don't think that anyone will get an understanding from watching a video clip because of the limitations of the filming and display. Just a thought as I've received a free image from Ronny Nielsen who posts to LuLa and it was quite nice when I printed it out.
Problem with that is the optimum print is made from a file tailored to the specific printer/ink/paper combination that is used to print it. No way could they send a jpg that would print the same on my printer as it prints on theirs, unless we happen to have absolutely identical setups. The only way to do that would be to send both a paper fine print and the original source file so the user could attempt to duplicate the print result on his own setup. Of course that might not be out of the question - there's no reason they couldn't offer an actual physical reference print delivered by snail mail at some nominal cost, along with a download of the unprocessed original source file.
-
I would like to see you guys explain how you cut prints. A nice discussion on what resolution to send to a printer and your thoughts on that. Often times I struggle with uprezzing in fractals or just sending the file to the printer and letting it Ypres.
I agree with others saying color management talk would be great. I struggled with dark prints for years before I got it right.
Advanced topics you could discuss like the options on Epson printers for color density, and the proper paper to choose when making custom profiles with non third party papers.
-
Problem with that is the optimum print is made from a file tailored to the specific printer/ink/paper combination that is used to print it. No way could they send a jpg that would print the same on my printer as it prints on theirs, unless we happen to have absolutely identical setups. The only way to do that would be to send both a paper fine print and the original source file so the user could attempt to duplicate the print result on his own setup. Of course that might not be out of the question - there's no reason they couldn't offer an actual physical reference print delivered by snail mail at some nominal cost, along with a download of the unprocessed original source file.
To make it simple they merely need to sharpen for gloss paper (this would encompass most of what all of us print) and let the end use pick the particular brand of paper, profile and printer setting. I can think of no easier way to do this. I don't think Michael and Jeff want to set up a print shop just to send out sample prints; there are enough sources (including many members of LuLa) where one can purchase quality prints. For teaching purposes, the JPEG approach makes sense.
-
Lots of good thing to be covered have already been mentioned. A big one for myself would be more detail and examples on tweaking the images so they print what we see on screen. Curves tweaks, saturation and so on.
Well back to packing as I am moving at the ens of the month. So much to be done yet.
Andrew
-
there's another thing that seems to be a pressing concern for so many of us;
work space-
table, chair, desk, storage, environmental conditions etc.
Hope this isn't too late or too esoteric :)
-
A section on the latest advances in Black and White printing.
I'd 2nd this and would even have Mr Eric(madman)Chan discuss his soft proofing technique with ABW in the Epson printers.
-
Yes, black and white printing issues - please.
Maybe impossible but, as above - an overview of how much is enough on various equipment levels. Which level of printer, level/specs of monitor, etc. per level of intent. Like, some kind of matrix showing as many variables as possible. (Now there's a project for someone.)
And, I can't wait for this! The first was so helpful.
Will this have to be a stand-alone effort? Or could you build it assuming folks already had the first set of videos? That might be risky from a marketing standpoint but it seems a shame to have to repeat the parts that still stand. Like a "Volume II" ?
-
Will this have to be a stand-alone effort? Or could you build it assuming folks already had the first set of videos? That might be risky from a marketing standpoint but it seems a shame to have to repeat the parts that still stand. Like a "Volume II" ?
Yes, C2P-2 will be stand-alone: a complete re-do of most of what was covered in C2P. Some things have changed, some not. However as is the way with our fairly freeform approach, I am certain that there will be different styles of approach to many of the topics that are unchanged.
Also, recognizing the great support the original C2P received from customers - it remains our biggest seller - there will be a healthy discount offered buyers of C2P-2 who already own the original.
Many thanks to all who have contributed to this thread - it is invaluable.
Chris
PS No repeat of old shirts is anticipated...
-
I often deliver my larger pieces directly to buyers' homes and workplaces. I am constantly struck by how dismal the lighting is in many of those places! Solux bulbs are NOT common in the field. Might be useful to touch on how to "punt" in processing for those kinds of situations. No easy task.
And dare I recommend some discussion on the presentation of photographs in the context of decor? Photographers seem to have a willing blind-side to that really very important topic which has a big effect on sales.
Also, is there is a checkbox somewhere in the printing dialogue that will turn my boring, pedantic images into prize-winning best-sellers? If so please cover it in exquisite detail. Haven't been able to find it.
-
Also, is there is a checkbox somewhere in the printing dialogue that will turn my boring, pedantic images into prize-winning best-sellers? If so please cover it in exquisite detail.
Alas...no. There is however a button in the soft proof viewing conditions to make your image look like "crap". Maybe somebody could come up with an inverse :~)
-
I would also request for "the art of upres" be covered in detail. Though Mr. Schewe has written a very good detailed article I do believe that it could do with updating.
Also there are several software options available..I do hope that some comparisons can be made with alternates to bicubic smoother and give your suggestions on best practice
Thanks and really look forward to the new C-P video
Siddharth
-
I never purchased the first video -but I could use the help! Should I wait for the second, or is the first still valuable after all these years ? :) (Also, how much money would I save by waiting for the second?)
Thanks
-
I would like to see a list of minimal requirements of monitor functionality for a color managed system, and a list of features grouped by level.
For example, what should one demand of the highest level of monitor in the way of features (that would justify, say $2000 plus in cost)?
What would be the next level monitor, say for for serious photographers who don't necessarily need some of the highest level features ($1000 up to say, $2000)?
What features are an absolute necessity for basic color management, and what monitors substantially below the $1000 level would qualify at the time of writing the tutorial?
While very pleased with our NEC 3090 and NEC PA241, we get questions all the time from people wanting to have their prints match their display but may not be able to budget more than a few hundred dollars for a monitor
-
I would like to see something on b&w printing. Discuss paper types, do you use icc profiles, etc. I have a Canon 6300, do I use monochrome printing, No Color w/icc color profiles, No color w/icc b&w profile. I use a Color Munki, how does that fit into making both color and b&w profiles?
It seems easy to say "something on b&w printing" but it leads down many paths. It would be nice to have some kind of workflow steps and then I could go from there.
Thanks,
Mike
-
Yes,
I've yet to see an unbiased sophisticated black and white comparison between the following?
1. Studio Print linearization on the Epson 9900 (which I've seen from someone who knows what they are doing) and it can be extremely impressive for both awesome neutrality and precise dither on fiber gloss media).
2. Canon IPF 8300 with the Bowhaus True Black and White software designed specifically for this purpose. Does it set a new standard?
3. And the HPZ series using their Quad set up or RGB set up with toned monochrome that results in easy on the fly hue control and an unmatched dmax on fine matte rag papers.
Then of course there is the issue of permanence data which is good on all of them (apparently) but depending on how much color ink is used (magenta- the weak link).
I don't see any reviewers doing these kinds of comparisons. It is always this kind of mushy, I didn't have the printer long enough to really do the subtle testing....
But, of course it all takes time and nobody has that.
john
-
The option to download files so that we can better see the before/after effects of the various subtle steps in say sharpening, upres, softproof..
Chris
-
I'm particularly interested in getting optimum balance and methods of sharpening between raw processing stage and final print output.
-
From the responses I have seen to date (A very long list.) You could do the new version from scratch with almost none of the content from the first version.
This is only my opinion and you may disagree. Is it really necessary to start from scratch and redo everything.
I would take that first video and add a dozen or more updates to it. Maybe re-edit it as version l. (Its now not out of date and still very marketable.)Then start version II from scratch as a more advanced in depth new product with many of the posted suggestions. You now have 2 versions for sale,one revised and one brand spankin new.
Market them seperately and as a 2 video printmaking set.
My 2 cents.
-
Is it really necessary to start from scratch and redo everything.
The cameras used to shoot the first video are now vastly outclassed by what Chris is shooting with now. The first video was not finished as HD video. The codecs are better now as well. So yes, we decided to redo the whole thing (and will have lot's of all new content while still touching on what we did before).
We have over 1/2 shot already but will do additional shooting end of May to pick up stuff we didn't get last week. So, there's still time for new ideas not yet mentioned...and the ideas posted here were very, very useful. (course, it means the finished video will be even longer :~).
-
The cameras used to shoot the first video are now vastly outclassed by what Chris is shooting with now. The first video was not finished as HD video. The codecs are better now as well. So yes, we decided to redo the whole thing (and will have lot's of all new content while still touching on what we did before).
We have over 1/2 shot already but will do additional shooting end of May to pick up stuff we didn't get last week. So, there's still time for new ideas not yet mentioned...and the ideas posted here were very, very useful. (course, it means the finished video will be even longer :~).
Sounds like good progress has been made. There are a lot Schewe shirt fans waiting to see how sartorially resplendent you will appear on video!!! ;D
-
Hey, New Contest.
Let's send Schewe all are old/unwanted Hawaiian shirts and Schewe gets to pick one or two or three and wears it/them during the shoot.
The winner (picked by Schewe) gets a free copy of the new 'Camera to Print' video. ;D
Don
-
Hey, New Contest.
Let's send Schewe all are old/unwanted Hawaiian shirts and Schewe gets to pick one or two or three and wears it/them during the shoot.
The winner (picked by Schewe) gets a free copy of the new 'Camera to Print' video. ;D
Don
Good idea but one drawback. I don't think any of mine would fit him!
-
Oh, I don't know....are you basing this on the videos? Everyone knows the camera adds 10 pounds....
Good idea but one drawback. I don't think any of mine would fit him!
-
Oh, I don't know....are you basing this on the videos? Everyone knows the camera adds 10 pounds....
Oh, there's no shortage of my shirts for this video...but if you happen to have any nice designs (I like Tommy Bahama designs a lot) in 3XLT send them along...I have dropped 50lbs in the last year, but I still like my shirts loose...
-
Oh, there's no shortage of my shirts for this video...but if you happen to have any nice designs (I like Tommy Bahama designs a lot) in 3XLT send them along...I have dropped 50lbs in the last year, but I still like my shirts loose...
Here's yet another way I've been trying my best to emulate Schewe. I've lost 20 lbs in three months, so I've got a ways to go.
Sorry i don't have any 3XLT shirts to send along.
Eric
-
One more idea for the videos (since this came up yet again today in a discussion I was having):
DPI vs. PPI, what size your image should be to print, and whether matching the PPI to some mythical "DPI" for the printer really matters.
Neil
-
I would like to see a discussion on how large a target is required to create a good printer profile and what patches it should contain.
Jim
-
I would like to see a discussion on how large a target is required to create a good printer profile and what patches it should contain.
Jim
ROFL, this same question was just asked on the ArgyllCMS listserve. The answer is going to be highly software dependent. With ArgyllCMS you can run targets containing several thousand patches; but you better have an automatic chart reader to do it as it gets tedious really quickly doing it manually!
-
Up to this point, I have been using a 2 page 1053 patch target (I added 50 patches to an existing target) with PM 5 (probably upgrading to i1Profiler) and it seems to be working well. Would be interested to hear what Michael and Jeff have to say on the subject of profiling with X-Rite software.
Jim
-
All the bases have been covered above (at least for me), but admittedly, you've got a very hard act to follow.
-
Last Call!
We shoot the final segments today and tomorrow.
Many thanks to all who have contributed.
-
Last Call!
We shoot the final segments today and tomorrow.
Many thanks to all who have contributed.
What is the ETA on the release?
-
And more importantly, Chris, if we bribe you appropriately will you produce an outtakes reel?
Neil
-
Up to this point, I have been using a 2 page 1053 patch target (I added 50 patches to an existing target) with PM 5 (probably upgrading to i1Profiler) and it seems to be working well. Would be interested to hear what Michael and Jeff have to say on the subject of profiling with X-Rite software.
Ideally, 16.7 million color patches. Then there’s no extrapolation used to build the profile from the measured data. Obviously that would take a bit of ink, media and time <g>. The profile itself would be huge.
Depends on the software, instrument, device being profiled etc. I’d rather use 1485 patches, two sizes per target, rotated 90 and 180 degrees and from a few dozen pulls off a press than one target with one patch size that has 10000 patches! For an ink jet, 1500 to 3000 is usually going to do the job, there’s a point of diminishing return.
-
I cannot wait to hear Michaels new "Canadian-Spanish" accent! :)
-
Have not got the time to read all the requests, so if these points are already included thats a plus.
I have the first series and I don't recall anything about head height or platen gap/vacuum settings and how they are catered for in todays printers.
Specific to head strike issues with different papers, and the amount of ink applied, ghosting , etc.
Do the media settings actually do anything much? I was told by one techie at a show that head height set to auto meant effectively it never moved regardless of media setting.
Lets assume some user input and experimentation. How to judge if these mechanical setting are spot on?
I use a Canon iPF6100 and think I am missing a trick by not experimenting more but worry about moving off the default line.
The last series concentrated on Adobe products. OK but a nod to others like the Canon plugin and other solutions would help. The Canon 9500pro has the test pattern option to print out colour and brightness plus a contrast sheet to nail those difficult images. Is there another software solution that can do this?
Regards
-
Don`t have any idea if this would be possible but I would like to be able to step across a print with variations of sharpness levels so you could zero in on what level of sharpness would work best for the image.You could make five different two inch wide strips of sharpness levels on an 8x10 crop of say a 30x45 inch print.Does this make sense?