I just got back from Vegas and went to the Lik gallery in Caesar's Palace. His web site says there are two locations in CP, but the lower level location is boarded up.
Went upstairs to a far smaller gallery, but was impressive nonetheless. I have got to give him Kudos for his marketing skills. The shots are displayed to perfection. The images look back-lighted, but I am told they are not. I asked what paper and print process was involved but all the gal knew was they are "Fuji Crystal Archive" paper. She did not know if they were glossy or pearl. The secret was the track lighting, and perfectly adjusted and whitebalanced light. Prices for his work range from $3,000 to $8,000 per image UNFRAMED!!. Each is limited edition, about 250 prints per image. His printed materials hint that they will increase in value.
But the part that was genius was that there were three incredibly gorgeous young women salespeople in tight jeans standing ready to smile, answer any question and, of course, fill your order. These women were not knowledgeable in photography, only in sales. Whatever works.
It's interesting to note that this economy has impacted even him; At one time he had 4 galleries, and now is down to one small one in Caesar's Palace.
I would still like to know what paper he's using and print process. On very close inspection they appear to be simple glossy Fuji Crystal Archive paper printed with some lightjet printer, ala Chromira, etc. But I've never seen a paper reflect that much luminance, other than Pearl surface.
Question, does anyone REALLY know what he does in the print process? I asked the gals in his gallery, but they were clueless.
Printed on FujiFlex gloss paper. Regular track light will give the back lit look with this paper but Solux 4700K bulbs work best. Face mounted prints to Lucite.
My love of scouting, shooting, and unending PP is more than matched by my loathing of printing. I am sure this is based in equal parts of laziness and ignorance. The local shop that did all my printing closed and am relegated to Wal-Mart. Have not used any online services. Anyone with advice about their favorites that print with the FujiFlex paper? Forgive the further ignorance but the phrase "face mounted to acrylic"... can someone explain or refer me to an explanation?
I have been busy Googling "FujiFlex Durst Lambda prints" and I found PC Color in LA. They want JPGS!!!!! What IS it with labs that won't print 16-bit TIFs Why go to all this trouble to find the finest print surface and printer only to print JPGs? My camera shoots 14-bit images, and JPG's are 8-bit AND compressed. Why do otherwise good labs restrict the types of images they will print? I have never understood this.
thanks phil, found my answer about front mounting as well. Had not heard about this previously. Agree about the 8-bit jpegs, same with most places wanting the file in srgb, why would I want less colors?
Oct 15, 2011 at 05:16 PM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
phil hawkins wrote:
I have been busy Googling "FujiFlex Durst Lambda prints" and I found PC Color in LA. They want JPGS!!!!! What IS it with labs that won't print 16-bit TIFs Why go to all this trouble to find the finest print surface and printer only to print JPGs? My camera shoots 14-bit images, and JPG's are 8-bit AND compressed. Why do otherwise good labs restrict the types of images they will print? I have never understood this.
there are a lot of great labs that will do tiff. West Coast is popular. Enjoy. I love making prints as much as shooting itself sometimes!
phil hawkins wrote:
What IS it with labs that won't print 16-bit TIFs
Because there is plenty of image data in the 8 bit file for printing. You certainly would not want to shoot jpg and you definitely don't want to do any extensive work in post on 8-bit files, but once you finalize the image and create a printable file there is little or not advantage to greater bit depth.
By the way, labs that do tiff usually want 8-bit tiff files, too.
I kind of feel that if you want full control over the presentation of your photographers that you should look into doing your own printing. The method under discussion here is one "look," but it is not necessarily the look that everyone will want to go for.
Mark, what process do you use to face mount on acrylic? Diasec, or one of those transparent film? Do you send it out to some lab or you do it yourself? If you sent out, what lab do you recommend?
8 bit because of the printers. The Lambda, the LightJet the Chromira and the Noritsu printers that all use the same process. Laser light to paper then through an emulsion. All of them call for 8bit printing. (yeah...I know drives me nuts too) you just have to make the best .jpg file you can and send it to them.
A couple weeks back, I ventured into the La Jolla (San Diego) gallery because I was in the neighborhood. I've been there many times before, but wanted to see what was new. This time, I brought along my fiancee.
I made an observation this time around that was quite interesting. There was a large panoramic print (frameless) right at the entrance that suffered some strong warping. This is something that was easy to notice when viewed from an angle other than straight on. For such an expensive piece, it sure didn't have much of a backbone to keep it flat.
Another piece hung near the door also showed significant warping. This was a framed piece, but the ripples were very strong.
I'm sure many other people would not notice this, but it is something I have become far more familiar with now that I have begun to produce some very high end work myself. My goal is to produce a very flat print without signs of ripples or warps. This is surprising difficult to do. As Mark mentioned, a great solution is to rear mount to dibond, and face mount to acrylic.
While in the gallery, I mentioned to my fiancee that all of his prints are face mounted to acrylic. This is an important step to ensure the print lays flat. However, it should also be noted that acrylic will SCRATCH very easily. Even the most gentle attempts to clean the acrylic will lead to micro scratches. For example, a swiffer or a feather duster could potentially drag a contaminant across the surface, resulting in a fine scratch.
Imagine the swirl mark scratches you see on your car hood when you look at the reflection of the sun. This is what that acrylic will look like over time if you try to dust it.
To avoid double reflections, Lik chooses not to use a protective sheet of anti-glare acrlyic/glass over the face mounted print. If you so much as "clean" the print with a swiffer, you will scratch the acrylic that is permanently bonded to the photo. The result is an insanely fragile print.
Though I do like Fuji FLEX, I don't use it for all my prints. If a print has rich dark tone, it's best not to use FLEX because the dark tone will reflect too much light, resulting in a murky print. Standard gloss is still best for this -- though it has a bit of an orange peel texture when mounted.
My process is to rear mount the print to dibond alumimum (rigid, flat, and light weight), face mount to a thin sheet of acrylic (this helps avoid mounting imperfections from the flex print being adhered to the dibond), then frame the print behind UV resistant, anti-glare acrylic (large pieces) or museum glass (smaller pieces) with an archival 8 ply mat.
Expensive? Yes. But you really have to think long term with this kind of stuff.
Sadly, Lik's prints are highly susceptible to fading and damage. From what I understand though, you own that number of the edition. Therefore, you could conceivable have it reprinted for a fee. So much for a long term approach....
Oct 16, 2011 at 12:16 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
roman.johnston wrote:
8 bit because of the printers. The Lambda, the LightJet the Chromira and the Noritsu printers that all use the same process. Laser light to paper then through an emulsion. All of them call for 8bit printing. (yeah...I know drives me nuts too) you just have to make the best .jpg file you can and send it to them.
That pearl paper is pretty wikid.
Roman
The lightjet/chromira/lambda do 8 bit TIF. I never send Jpeg to them.
If you want total control then do as follows:
Get a custom profile. Load it into Photoshop. Making sure you profile your monitor specifically for prints, Softproof the image in Photoshop. Very last thing convert the image to the custom profile space (if you can get a company that will allow you to do this) then 8 bit. Send it to them and ditch the rip fee and have them print totally as is. This allows me to control everything.
Oct 16, 2011 at 01:51 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
Ben Horne wrote:
A couple weeks back, I ventured into the La Jolla (San Diego) gallery because I was in the neighborhood. I've been there many times before, but wanted to see what was new. This time, I brought along my fiancee.
I made an observation this time around that was quite interesting. There was a large panoramic print (frameless) right at the entrance that suffered some strong warping. This is something that was easy to notice when viewed from an angle other than straight on. For such an expensive piece, it sure didn't have much of a backbone to keep it flat.
Another piece hung near the door also showed significant warping. This was a framed piece, but the ripples were very strong.
I'm sure many other people would not notice this, but it is something I have become far more familiar with now that I have begun to produce some very high end work myself. My goal is to produce a very flat print without signs of ripples or warps. This is surprising difficult to do. As Mark mentioned, a great solution is to rear mount to dibond, and face mount to acrylic.
While in the gallery, I mentioned to my fiancee that all of his prints are face mounted to acrylic. This is an important step to ensure the print lays flat. However, it should also be noted that acrylic will SCRATCH very easily. Even the most gentle attempts to clean the acrylic will lead to micro scratches. For example, a swiffer or a feather duster could potentially drag a contaminant across the surface, resulting in a fine scratch.
Imagine the swirl mark scratches you see on your car hood when you look at the reflection of the sun. This is what that acrylic will look like over time if you try to dust it.
To avoid double reflections, Lik chooses not to use a protective sheet of anti-glare acrlyic/glass over the face mounted print. If you so much as "clean" the print with a swiffer, you will scratch the acrylic that is permanently bonded to the photo. The result is an insanely fragile print.
Though I do like Fuji FLEX, I don't use it for all my prints. If a print has rich dark tone, it's best not to use FLEX because the dark tone will reflect too much light, resulting in a murky print. Standard gloss is still best for this -- though it has a bit of an orange peel texture when mounted.
My process is to rear mount the print to dibond alumimum (rigid, flat, and light weight), face mount to a thin sheet of acrylic (this helps avoid mounting imperfections from the flex print being adhered to the dibond), then frame the print behind UV resistant, anti-glare acrylic (large pieces) or museum glass (smaller pieces) with an archival 8 ply mat.
Expensive? Yes. But you really have to think long term with this kind of stuff.
Sadly, Lik's prints are highly susceptible to fading and damage. From what I understand though, you own that number of the edition. Therefore, you could conceivable have it reprinted for a fee. So much for a long term approach.......Show more →
Excellent points Ben!
Yes the acrylic (the non scratch resistant) is very susceptible to scratching. But you can clean it with a microfiber rag and some mild plastic cleaner. Then if it is handled well it will be fine.
Being high end as well, I never back mount to acrylic anymore (I tried black acrylic which looked nice). Too much warping. It is dibond and dibond alone these days. This works excellent. Dibond is two sheets of thin aluminum with polypropylene in between. A killer flat and stable substance creating no orange peel effect.
Mark Metternich wrote:
The lightjet/chromira/lambda do 8 bit TIF. I never send Jpeg to them.
If you want total control then do as follows:
Get a custom profile. Load it into Photoshop. Making sure you profile your monitor specifically for prints, Softproof the image in Photoshop. Very last thing convert the image to the custom profile space (if you can get a company that will allow you to do this) then 8 bit. Send it to them and ditch the rip fee and have them print totally as is. This allows me to control everything.
I know that Fatali does traditional printing so I'm not commenting on his paper, just his mounting techniques. When I was last at his gallery, it looked like he surface-mounted to Gallery glass. He then used a mat that did not come up to the print but allowed the viewer to see back to a mounting board. Somewhat like a shadow box. Can anyone else comment on his technique because you will certainly not get anything out of him.
PeterLik just boasted he sold a print for 1 Million Dollars...remarkable salesman. His images do pop on print. A combination of paper choice and multi image composites - I'm assuming this is how he gets high dynamic range shooting Velvia film probably blurs/unfocus one shot then blend to get that "glow." otherwise called Orton effect.
adonis_abril wrote: PeterLik just boasted he sold a print for 1 Million Dollars...remarkable salesman. His images do pop on print. A combination of paper choice and multi image composites - I'm assuming this is how he gets high dynamic range shooting Velvia film probably blurs/unfocus one shot then blend to get that "glow." otherwise called Orton effect.
The vast majority of his work these days is shot on medium format digital. He sales staff still clings to the "he shoots on film" mantra though.
The image that sold for a million is not what you would think would sell for that much! I believe it is a reflection of fall colors in a lake. It was a Lik collector that bought it however.
He uses a Mamiya according to his gallery info, as well as other formats. In his show, he used a 7D with some L lens (got shattered).
Why are lightjet printer still used for professional landscape prints and not inkjet printers like the EPSON 9900? Inkjet printers are offering full controll over the printing process. Is there still a quality issue with luster papers?
ManfredSchu wrote:
Why are lightjet printer still used for professional landscape prints and not inkjet printers like the EPSON 9900? Inkjet printers are offering full controll over the printing process. Is there still a quality issue with luster papers?
IMO, lightjets still have the best print quality. It has to do with the tonality (gradients), as well as the way they render light tones. You will have dots of ink spaced far apart for light tones on an inkjet. These same tones are more seamless on a lightjet. Also, it sounds a heck of a lot nicer to tell your collectors that you are selling a print on traditional light sensitive paper produced on a million dollar machine run by an expert--- rather than an inkjet produced in your basement. :-)
Why go to all this trouble to find the finest print surface and printer only to print JPGs? My camera shoots 14-bit images, and JPG's are 8-bit AND compressed. Why do otherwise good labs restrict the types of images they will print? I have never understood this. 