Whatever happened to printing?

[Paul L]

I recently made the transition from film to digital using a Panasonic LX2 at this stage and finally giving up all the Nikon film bodies, lenses and accessories.

There's a long story behind it and much of it is not relevant here. What surprised me though was that it seemed virtually impossible to make any choices based on the material we have to use to make a decision.

By which I mean that there are seemingly hundreds of reviews bemoaning noise, purple fringeing, jaggies and whatever else with parts of photos blown up ridiculously to show these artefacts. I found myself poring over which sensors made most sense, the 4/3 system and countless on-line reviews.

Then a mate showed me prints and pointed out that reviews and forums have lost their relevance because no-one shows how the cameras print, it's not in the interests of the manufacturers. This mate has a background in broadcasting and video editing and explained the inadequacy of our PC monitors and television screens.

Sure enough, printing pictures has been a real shock from 3mp cameras, 6mp cameras and just printing jpegs of 4mb up to A4 size. In our film days we did not judge our shots by the negative (leaving slides aside) but by how they printed.

It's as if printing has become an irrelevance overnight. The use of monitors for critical evaluation and buying decisions has become like the emperor's new clothes and I would expect derision for even pointing it out on many photo forums.

Or am I missing something?

 

[lovejoy]

Couldn't agree more. It does seem that actually printing photos these days has become far less important. More and more people are viewing their shots on their monitors, through their TV's, digital photo frames, iPods etc. Then there's all the online photo sharing and storage websites. Actual printed photos seem to be on the wane. I guess for the most part, it's the convenience factor. Just the other week a mate of mine brought all of his holiday snaps to the pub and was showing them to us on his iPhone. I wonder if he would have bothered if he'd had to go and get them developed and carry them to a pub in an envelope. For the purposes of showing your mates some pics in the pub I don't think you can argue with it.

On the other hand, I lay some of the blame with the developers. Back in the days before I dumped analogue film, which is going back no more than 2 years, the quality of the prints I was getting back from the developers was abysmal. There was a time I got everything developed at Boots and even using cheap film would guarantee at least a handful of really impressive photos, but almost overnight, this stopped and all of the prints I ever got back looked dull, flat and lifeless. Getting the hump with Boots after a few attempts (who I'd assumed must have changed the equipment they use or taken on some new and less qualified staff) I tried different shops - The results were all the same, no matter what camera or film I was using. Moving on through various digital cameras I wasn't finding them any better.

These days, if I want to print out any photos, I do it at home, on my Canon printer. £80 worth of printer which isn't even designated as a super duper photo printer turns out vastly better results than any of the high street developers. I find this pretty shocking.

 

[guybat]

I get really good A4/12x8" sized Fuji prints from Photobox for £1.20 each. 15 x 10" prints for £2.99. The results are still better than test prints I've done on friend's Epson and Canon printers.

 

[Paul L]

Agreed lovejoy. My point though is that on-line reviews and user culture would appear to have us studing minutae of on-screen results and in the process dismiss cameras that will yield damned good results when printed. It's a bit like everyone blindly accepting that when choosing your audio system for your main room, you do so based on listening through cheap and tinny headphones.

Hence, the assumption that I must be missing something? I mean surely people aren't that stupid.

 

[matthewr]

The vast majority of digital pictures are consumed via screens of some sort, though, I think. Also Display Quality and Print Quality are also essentially directly proportional and diaply quality is so much higher I think the point is somewhat moot.

Like Guy, I have also uses photobox for A4 Fuji prints and they are very good and, perhaps more importantly, it's very easy to get good prints every time. The big problem with home inkjets is that it requires a lot of effort and experimentation to get really top class results and most people would be better off with Photobox.

However, premium inkjets are capable of fantastic results, especially when you start using the nicer (and tremedously varied) art papers. I have some prints of Vuk's which are some sort of pigment ink on high quality matte paper and they are gorgeous. The ink sort of sits on the paper making them almost like a painting (which won't suit all types of print obviosuly).

 

[guybat]

I wonder if there are any available figures on how many prints are actually being made. I know there's been an enormous explosion in the number of photos taken - but I wonder if the number of prints has stayed about the same, though proportionately far less of course.

There's certainly vast amounts of money to be made from selling us home printer bits and pieces, I'm surprised there's not more pressure to produce more.

 

[sideshowbob]

I print. It's an expensive business though, you do need really good art papers to get the best results, and a decent inkjet. B&W inkjet printing requires a lot of trial and error and, IME, a dedicated B&W RIP (I use this one - http://www.quadtonerip.com).

Having said that, photographic paper isn't cheap either, so wet printing isn't exactly bargain basement any more.

-- Ian

 

[lovejoy]

I see what your saying entirely. I have to admit that I have been guilty of this trait lately. I think it's a product of digital photography. In a way it was easier with analogue - a good camera with a good lens, decent film, good light conditions and attention to detail in the developing process will more often than not give you good photos.

To illustrate what I am saying, I'm just in the process of getting rid of my Nikon D-50 as I'm fed up of the poor quality colour its rendering, it's tendency to over-expose and I'm getting purple flaring from it quite badly. I quite often look at my pictures on a big screen and these artefacts do tend to jump out at you which is probably a lot less prominent on a normal sized print, but for me, once I know they're there, then the photo is as good as ruined. It's a bit like knowing your turntable cartridge is mistracking but not being able to do anything about it except buy a new cartridge.

So I bought a Fuji S10, which is so far yielding much better results than the Nikon, but now I have a new problem... It seems that taking photos at the highest level of quality that is not raw uncompressed mode seems to employ too much compression and again, looking at them on a big screen will reveal blocking way before the Nikon ever did, whereas if I take the image in raw mode, then compress to JPEG on the computer, the blocking does not happen. This means for the best photos a 2GB memory card = 32 photos.

The amount of variables to consider is rather mindboggling. I imagine this is what the mags are getting at.

 

[Cesare]

... It seems that taking photos at the highest level of quality that is not raw uncompressed mode seems to employ too much compression and again, looking at them on a big screen will reveal blocking way before the Nikon ever did, whereas if I take the image in raw mode, then compress to JPEG on the computer, the blocking does not happen. This means for the best photos a 2GB memory card = 32 photos.

2Gb = 32 photos? 64Mb per image? Are you sure?

My Canon 1D takes 8-10Mb per image, and I find this a bit annoying compared to the old 6Mb RAWs I got from my Canon 10D.

Cesare

 

[guybat]

Lovejoy - I don't think the D50 is any better or any worse than a whole load of bottom/middle range dSLRs. They can all overexpose if you use the built-in meter - but use a light meter and shoot RAW, and you can get excellent results from pretty much any contemporary camera with a decent lens.

 

[cliffpatte]

2Gb = 32 photos? 64Mb per image? Are you sure?

My Canon 1D takes 8-10Mb per image, and I find this a bit annoying compared to the old 6Mb RAWs I got from my Canon 10D.

Cesare

The fuji Super CCD on the S5 Pro generates a file 30% bigger than the D3, even though the number of pixels is about half.

 

[cliffpatte]

I'm happy with the prints I get of my HP all in one scanner, photo printer thingy. I would like to get one of those Epson A3 printers, but need to reorganise my "office" at home to fit it in.

Given that at any one time I have about 10 A4 prints on the wall (including my PFM collection of 2) I don't find it onerous to print them myself using decent paper. For consumption by relatives who want to see holiday snaps, I'm happy using a small HP photo printer or emailing them a web link.

I think you need to process images that look good for the medium they're going to be used in. What looks good on my screen does not look exactly the same on my printer. Generally the printer needs more Ziiinnngg.

 

[guybat]

Cliff, that's pretty true I find. What works on the average screen (and the average screen is probably way off, including mine) is nowhere near what works for print. I had to make something look significantly overcooked on-screen to make it work in print.

So I've now worked backwards, and roughly recalibrated my laptop to what I get from a Photobox print, and not worry about how they might appear online.

I noticed a big improvement when I stopped using output sharpening for prints too. I add some slight capture sharpening in RAW and that's it, though Fuji seem to add some slight sharpening of their own. It gives me much less obvious artifacty digitalia.

 

[cliffpatte]

Guy what do you reckon to the DPI versus Pixel ratio and print size issue? Epson seem to think this is important. Also the D3 does a 5:4 ratio crop as an option which seems to fit in nicely with the 10" * 8" printing "norm" - although it looks like a waste of pixels to me.

 

[guybat]

I've stuck to 300ppi/A4 prints so far, though I did one 15 x 10" at ~200ppi Lightjet print from Spectrum in Brighton that looked fine.

Nikon D3s or Canon 5Ds should make lovely 20/24" prints. Quality of pixel would make more difference than number of pixels I'd have thought. But there's far too many variables to be definitive.

 

[Paul L]

Oh jesus, please don't take this thread to £2K to £5K bricks FFS.

I probably should have created a vote button to the question "is viewing digital pictures/reviews on-line any indication of how a camera will print?"

Of course, if 99% of digital cameras are proven to be complete bo11ocks and photography is a waste of time without a 5D or D3 and £1K+ lenses then I guess we need to know. In which case, best to ignore the marketing lies, let others keep Penikanonpus rich and wait a few years for decent kit at reasonable prices.

 

[Cav]

I use Jessops "do it yourself printing". Works OK. Better than on-screen viewing.

 

[omers]

Just received back prints of some 100s of family pictures from previous years lately, ok it's not pro as only 13x18 or 10x15. Wife insists on hardcopy.

I found the results very very nice, on simple Fuji Crystal archive Super paper or something, nasties like noise etc. don't disappear but are softened, not unlike vinyl vs cd.

FWIW In general the average photographer (me) has a much better compact camera today than 20 years ago with them compact film cameras which were really horrible.
Auto ISO, shutter time, focus, all these are vastly improved. His kids use a camera, his family enjoys pictures more and photography takes a more central part in families' lives, while costs are down.

 

[Mr_Sukebe]

I think the issue about printing really is convenience. So many of today's AV/PC items will happily show a JPG that unless you want to hang something on the wall permanently, then why bother.
e.g. I just got my PS3 to stream from my PC, meaning that I download pics from the camera to my PC, sit in the lounge, access my photos using a PS3 and display them on a 100" screen using the projector. When compared to thumbing my way through some 6*4's, I know which I chose.

Of course that does then result in questions being asked about the requirement for multi-megapixel cameras, if you have a display that even at HD, can only show say 2 Megapixels. If you want to crop images, then higher resolutions would be very useful, but otherwise it makes a bit of a mockery for most users.

 

[vuk]

it's really hard for me to imagine being happy with "mail-order" digital prints. perhaps i am too fussy, but i just don't see how this can be precise. even if you have a profile created, things vary with content of photo: something predominantly blue needs different treatment than something mostly yellow, etc.

i typically print a very small (2X3 inch) version a couple of times (usually only need one and know how to adjust, if necessary, from there) before doing a proper-sized final. when i have used an external source, i make a little 4x6 for them and insist that they match contrast and tones. this way, there is no argument afterwards--it's either correct or not.

after initially dismissing matte paper with ink, a lot of messing around ended up showing it was the best for the painterly, rich look i want. it involves more contrast than looks right on the screen and takes some practice to get right. the very best thing, however, are prints like that which i hand glaze with a mixture of slightly diluted glossy acrylic gel (those of you who paint will know what that is). it adds a bit of contrast (as would glossy paper, though i still don't understand why), so you print slightly more pale pictures to begin with. first you need to dry-mount, then mask off the white border with a VERY low tack tape and finally apply solution with goat-hair brush.

vuk.

p.s. the hand varnishing adds another 500-1000 years of protection against light to the picture. yes, i know that we only have about 50 years left, but it's something that impresses the wealthy cougars in leather pants.