p.9 #1 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
dclark wrote:
Forums are full of contentious discussions about printers, inks, papers, soft proofing and lots of other stuff about making prints, but nothing about how to properly illuminate them. "Experts" critique soft proofing mainly my telling others to turn down the brightness of their monitors, rather than turn up the illumination of their prints. Nothing about the spectral content of the illumination source. Lots of BS about impossibility of matching "internal glow" compared to reflected light. The single most important improvement most can make to the appearance of their prints is to turn up the illumination, even if you have no idea what the spectral content may be....Show more →
I’m very much in favor of turning down monitor brightness if you are working toward prints. That’s actually a key practice in trying to predict how your image will work as a print. (Cranking the brightness way up will, for example, make it seem like you have plenty of detail in the shadows… but they will often end up getting buried in the actual print. Similarly, whites will look dazzling with the monitor brightness cranked… and then look — to use the common concern — flat as prints.)
Another useful technique is to consider what color/luminosity you use as a background on your screen when working on a file for printing. A lot of people love the look of a very dark screen background, but unless you are going to place your prints in a black mat that is very misleading. At a minimum use a light gray. Better yet, make the background white. First off, there’s a good chance that you surround your print with a white margin and mounting. Second, if you can get the image to glow and look bright with a white background on the screen there is a much better chance that your prints will look bright, too.
The “ impossibility of matching "internal glow" compared to reflected light” is very much not “BS.” We simply don’t see glowing things the same way we see top-illuminated things. For a mundane example, look at restaurants that now put menus on screens and them compared that to what a poster of the same size in the same ambient lighting will look like. Or take a picture of your TV screen and try to make a print of it match what the actual screen image looks like.
Properly illuminating prints is important, of course. Serious exhibitors put a lot of work into this, specifying specific types of a colorations of lighting and so forth. Unfortunately, unless you print exclusively for such exhibits — and even then you can’t count on the quality of the lighting — the reality is that a print is going to have to look good in a range of types and qualities of lighting. Sad, but true.
p.9 #2 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Imagemaster wrote:
"Better" to me means more realistic colors emanating FROM the images, not ONTO the images, just like what you see in the real world. Light from the sun, moon, stars, man-made lights all are direct light, not reflected light. A computer screen can do the same, a print can't.
Artists did not haves the choice through the centuries of using TV screens or computer screens. Does the Mona Lisa look more realistic as a painting or on your monitor
One thing I appreciate about all those old famous paintings is that the artists did not put big ugly white mats between the paintings and the frames....Show more →
I appreciate your analogy of the master painters although it's difficult to invoke the Mona Lisa as an example since it is tucked beneath alternating layers of UV absorbing glass/PVB nearly 4cm thick. Anyone who has seen the work as displayed is likely to be underwhelmed.
That being said, I frequently alternate my methods of displaying prints including no frame (back mounted to a rigid surface), face mounted to acrylic, framed no glazing, framed glazing with mat, etc. Some images look great with mats and in fact many famous drawings, watercolors etc. are framed with mats. Additionally, some paintings are mounted in offset frames which take on an appearance similar to a mat. The beauty of art is there really are no absolutes other than what the mind (or these days AI) can achieve. Cheers!
And since you like Leonardo, most of his drawings that I've seen are mounted with mats...
p.9 #3 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
gdanmitchell wrote:
We simply don’t see glowing things the same way we see top-illuminated things.
Years ago, I first visited the Tom Till gallery in Moab. He strived for that neon, over the top red saturation that would shock the visitors and create sales. Highly saturated prints was a part. Bright lighting was another part. I forget what he did for printing but it was some special technique he had a speciality print shop do for him. The prints glowed. Certainly not my taste, not realistic, but they sold well. Later he switched to metallic and then soon after to acrylic prints which glowed even more.
p.9 #4 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
armd wrote:
I appreciate your analogy of the master painters although it's difficult to invoke the Mona Lisa as an example since it is tucked beneath alternating layers of UV absorbing glass/PVB nearly 4cm thick. Anyone who has seen the work as displayed is likely to be underwhelmed.
That being said, I frequently alternate my methods of displaying prints including no frame (back mounted to a rigid surface), face mounted to acrylic, framed no glazing, framed glazing with mat, etc. Some images look great with mats and in fact many famous drawings, watercolors etc. are framed with mats. Additionally, some paintings are mounted in offset frames which take on an appearance similar to a mat. The beauty of art is there really are no absolutes other than what the mind (or these days AI) can achieve. Cheers!
And since you like Leonardo, most of his drawings that I've seen are mounted with mats......Show more →
Well you quoted me correctly, but misconstrued what I said. I saw the Mona Lisa at The Louvre in 1964 and the painting itself never particularly impressed me. I never said I liked Leonardo, I just grabbed that image off the Web.
I also never said I did not like mats around either paintings or photos. I said I liked that they did not use "big ugly white mats".
Sure, you can present your prints in any mat, frame, or lighting you wish. My point still remains that you can't make a print as bright, brilliant, lustrous, and radiant as a backlit image.
p.9 #5 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Sorry I'm late Dan, don't visit this side of the forum as much. When I moved to the PNW, I found a lot of "artisan" markets that pop up all over the place and had several images printed to be offered as "matted prints" at a couple of the events, sold a few, and now have a box full of matted prints in my garage. Photography, or art really, is so subjective that trying to sell prints isn't that rewarding for me. Most of the vendors at these events are desperate to make a buck off their hobbies - that just doesn't appeal to me.
I recently set up a studio space to do portraits and headshots and expect 99% will simply be delivered via a download for use on websites and company profiles, but I can send an image to WHCC for a print if needed.
I do have images printed and hanging in my home, family homes and at my wife's shop, but all of them were printed by someone else.
Wait, I do have a Canon Selphy printer for passport photos. Does that count?
p.9 #6 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
gregfountain wrote:
Sorry I'm late Dan, don't visit this side of the forum as much. When I moved to the PNW, I found a lot of "artisan" markets that pop up all over the place and had several images printed to be offered as "matted prints" at a couple of the events, sold a few, and now have a box full of matted prints in my garage. Photography, or art really, is so subjective that trying to sell prints isn't that rewarding for me. Most of the vendors at these events are desperate to make a buck off their hobbies - that just doesn't appeal to me.
I recently set up a studio space to do portraits and headshots and expect 99% will simply be delivered via a download for use on websites and company profiles, but I can send an image to WHCC for a print if needed.
I do have images printed and hanging in my home, family homes and at my wife's shop, but all of them were printed by someone else.
Wait, I do have a Canon Selphy printer for passport photos. Does that count?
One of the big secrets that people don’t like to talk about is the fact that it is nearly impossible for all but a very, very small number of people to make real money selling prints. The overhead is way higher than most understand — starting with the cameras and lenses, adding in the costs of traveling to locations, the time spent on post-processing, the costs of printers and paper and ink, the surprising costs (in money and time) of mounting prints, and the fact that you generally make way more prints than you sell. And if you sell through a gallery, they’ll take up to 50% of the gross off the top — sometimes a bit less for mounted prints if you do the mounting.
And even the people who DO sell a decent number of prints mostly make a good portion of (if not the majority of) their income doing other things, ranging from workshops to commercial work of various types.
The most profitable photograph sales are those where a client contacts you and asks for a downloadable file and a license to use it for some specific application. The payments are often as high as or higher than what you might get for a print, yet you basically negotiate a price, get them to agree to licensing terms, and email/upload a file!
I’ve done some of those “artisan markets” in the past. For years I was part of a group showing work at San Francisco Artspan every year. It was completely unpredictable. Some years I’d sell several rally big pieces, then another year I’d sell almost nothing. It was the same story for my colleagues.
One problem is that there’s a disconnect between buyers’ cost expectation and sellers’ actual costs, especially when you realize that pricing has to be high enough for your gallery sales. You can discount a little from that in “live” sales settings without a gallery intermediary, but galleries aren’t thrilled when they find out that you are undercutting them.
p.9 #7 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m not sure what post your reply references…
One of the big secrets that people don’t like to talk about is the fact that it is nearly impossible for all but a very, very small number of people to make real money selling prints. The overhead is way higher than most understand — starting with the cameras and lenses, adding in the costs of traveling to locations, the time spent on post-processing, the costs of printers and paper and ink, the surprising costs (in money and time) of mounting prints, and the fact that you generally make way more prints than you sell. And if you sell through a gallery, they’ll take up to 50% of the gross off the top — sometimes a bit less for mounted prints if you do the mounting.
And even the people who DO sell a decent number of prints mostly make a good portion of (if not the majority of) their income doing other things, ranging from workshops to commercial work of various types.
The most profitable photograph sales are those where a client contacts you and asks for a downloadable file and a license to use it for some specific application. The payments are often as high as or higher than what you might get for a print, yet you basically negotiate a price, get them to agree to licensing terms, and email/upload a file!
I’ve done some of those “artisan markets” in the past. For years I was part of a group showing work at San Francisco Artspan every year. It was completely unpredictable. Some years I’d sell several rally big pieces, then another year I’d sell almost nothing. It was the same story for my colleagues.
One problem is that there’s a disconnect between buyers’ cost expectation and sellers’ actual costs, especially when you realize that pricing has to be high enough for your gallery sales. You can discount a little from that in “live” sales settings without a gallery intermediary, but galleries aren’t thrilled when they find out that you are undercutting them....Show more →
Maybe I missed it. Dan was asking if people print their photos themselves, and I was simply replying that I don't and the reason why (as you pointed out, no money to be made investing in expensive printers, ink, and paper), while sharing how I learned that very lesson (lots of leftovers). Did I miss something?
p.9 #8 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
gdanmitchell wrote:
I’m not sure what post your reply references…
One of the big secrets that people don’t like to talk about is the fact that it is nearly impossible for all but a very, very small number of people to make real money selling prints. The overhead is way higher than most understand — starting with the cameras and lenses, adding in the costs of traveling to locations, the time spent on post-processing, the costs of printers and paper and ink, the surprising costs (in money and time) of mounting prints, and the fact that you generally make way more prints than you sell. And if you sell through a gallery, they’ll take up to 50% of the gross off the top — sometimes a bit less for mounted prints if you do the mounting.
And even the people who DO sell a decent number of prints mostly make a good portion of (if not the majority of) their income doing other things, ranging from workshops to commercial work of various types.
The most profitable photograph sales are those where a client contacts you and asks for a downloadable file and a license to use it for some specific application. The payments are often as high as or higher than what you might get for a print, yet you basically negotiate a price, get them to agree to licensing terms, and email/upload a file!
I’ve done some of those “artisan markets” in the past. For years I was part of a group showing work at San Francisco Artspan every year. It was completely unpredictable. Some years I’d sell several rally big pieces, then another year I’d sell almost nothing. It was the same story for my colleagues.
One problem is that there’s a disconnect between buyers’ cost expectation and sellers’ actual costs, especially when you realize that pricing has to be high enough for your gallery sales. You can discount a little from that in “live” sales settings without a gallery intermediary, but galleries aren’t thrilled when they find out that you are undercutting them....Show more →
---------------------------------------------
gregfountain wrote:
Maybe I missed it. Dan was asking if people print their photos themselves, and I was simply replying that I don't and the reason why (as you pointed out, no money to be made investing in expensive printers, ink, and paper), while sharing how I learned that very lesson (lots of leftovers). Did I miss something?
p.9 #11 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Just spotted this post and by chance have something to contribute: I do portrait / headshots for models and recently did a second shoot with a newish model. She showed me, on her phone, her favourite shots from our earlier shoot. It was clear she had never seen any photos from any shoot with anyone other than what she had on her phone.
During the next tea break (I have a lot of them), I set the printer to produce a lustre A3+ print of the one she particularly liked....and gave it to her soon after.
To say she was amazed would be an understatement; I had to pry her away from staring at it to continue the session. I often shoot tethered and people see large images of themselves on my 27" monitor; but whenever I do a print the reaction is always similar....genuine surprise / appreciation.
Linked to that...I personally don't know if an image is good until I see it printed to a decent size...the print is my commitment to the image. Everything until then is a bit transitory...always available for a bit more fiddling with.
p.9 #12 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Just ordered two photography books, Countdown by Adam Reynolds and Jeanine Michna-Bales, and Natural Light by J. John Priola. I enjoy collecting and looking at printed works. Visiting websites and Instagram not so much, and certainly I would not pay to visit them, no matter how much I like the photographer. I already spend so much time looking at a screen to edit photos, play games, watch sports, post on FredMiranda forums, etc. Nice to take a break from the glare.
Ultimately, the photographers that I respect the most have their work printed in some form, and so that is what I must aspire to as well. Maybe printing is too expensive, but that is relative to the worth of the photo. Maybe one day my photos will be worth printing.
p.9 #13 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
For me, printing is an essential part of photography. There’s nothing quite like experiencing your images as large-format prints—it gives your work a presence that screens can’t replicate. Long after the phone is turned off or the computer goes dark, a print remains, tangible and enduring.
p.9 #14 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Printing doesn't have to be expensive....for example, I use an old Epson R3880 A2 printer that I bought for £100 three years ago and it works perfectly. Lots of 3rd party papers on the market the match the big brand names for quality...inks too; although I have stuck with Epson inks.
As for the 'improvements' modern printers have made in recent years....maybe they are marginally better...but I suspect in most cases it would need the same image printed on both new and older printer to be compared side by side to see any difference.
That said...a skilled operator using an older printer will probably get better prints than someone with a new printer but with less skill.
I have recently bought a new printer..the Epson ET 8550. Cost £500...but ink costs are negligible and image quality is surprisingly good. Worth check out vis Google.
p.9 #15 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
As to the improvements in printers, I think it depends how far back you look for your comparisons.
These days the image quality differences from generation to generation seem pretty small. I’m glad the printer companies continue to fine tune things, but we certainly don’t need. to buy each new model.
On the other hand, some of the functional differences can be more significant. I think ,for example, of how printers handle switching between different types of black ink, how long they can work before clogging kills them, and so forth.
p.9 #16 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Hello everybody,
I still send photos to print for a very few friends, since when I do the recipient is far away I would use an online service like WhiteWall who takes care of it all including shipping but for local stuff, which also happens once in a very while I used to use a very skilled guy across the gulf, I would go to him and witness the process, he was reasonably priced and for the amount of prints I would do in a year it would have never been of any financial convenience for me to think of printing myself not to mention when the need is for something in the 20" range there would be no chance to buy such a big printer.
Now the guy moved and it has become a journey to go to him then to the other guy who does my frames (he still does matte handmade which is an hypnotic process to witness) so thinking of a printer for stuff up to A3+ but still afraid of cost of the printer and even more the inks, also, when I leave home (when it happens and if it will still happen) for a while, say 4-6 weeks, do print heads go still dry and bad or they are longer lasting now?
p.9 #17 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
GiovanniAprea wrote:
Hello everybody,
I still send photos to print for a very few friends, since when I do the recipient is far away I would use an online service like WhiteWall who takes care of it all including shipping but for local stuff, which also happens once in a very while I used to use a very skilled guy across the gulf, I would go to him and witness the process, he was reasonably priced and for the amount of prints I would do in a year it would have never been of any financial convenience for me to think of printing myself not to mention when the need is for something in the 20" range there would be no chance to buy such a big printer.
Now the guy moved and it has become a journey to go to him then to the other guy who does my frames (he still does matte handmade which is an hypnotic process to witness) so thinking of a printer for stuff up to A3+ but still afraid of cost of the printer and even more the inks, also, when I leave home (when it happens and if it will still happen) for a while, say 4-6 weeks, do print heads go still dry and bad or they are longer lasting now?
From what you are describing about how many (or few) and how large the prints you may want, I think a printer would be a major expense and a nuisance with little payoff. You should probably just focus on good ways to get your prints made and matted for you as the need arises. In addition to the sources that you already have, there are many othe sources.
p.9 #18 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
I’ve been printing since the Dektol days.
I went with a Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4600 44” printer. At the time, it was discounted to $5,299 with a $300 rebate check.
Originally, I wanted the 1100 because I had an earlier version years ago that printed great; however, I’ve read a few reviews stating that banding was an issue, so I looked into the 2600.
The 2600 is a great printer, but for $1,000 more, I could get the 4600, so I did, and wow. Talk about superb printer output, zero issues, and gallery-quality printing.
I figured my ink and paper cost for a 33“x44” print to be about $20, not bad. Not that I’m going to print a bunch of huge prints, but the couple I’ve printed didn’t disappoint.
I’ll even go out on a limb and say this printer has upped my game, taken my photography to a different level. With these huge prints, I can easily find imperfections and file differences between my Canon R5 and my Hasselblad X2D.
The R5 can easily print 24 “x36” prints, while the Hasselblad isn’t even breathing hard at 33 “x44”. I hate to imagine the size of a panoramic print.
That said, these are differences I couldn’t detect pixel peeping on my 32” IPS monitor—one word of advice: footprint. I made darned sure I had enough room in my home office for this beast, and I’m not disappointed.
p.9 #19 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
shutterbug guy wrote:
I’ve been printing since the Dektol days.
I went with a Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4600 44” printer. At the time, it was discounted to $5,299 with a $300 rebate check.
Originally, I wanted the 1100 because I had an earlier version years ago that printed great; however, I’ve read a few reviews stating that banding was an issue, so I looked into the 2600.
The 2600 is a great printer, but for $1,000 more, I could get the 4600, so I did, and wow. Talk about superb printer output, zero issues, and gallery-quality printing.
I figured my ink and paper cost for a 33“x44” print to be about $20, not bad. Not that I’m going to print a bunch of huge prints, but the couple I’ve printed didn’t disappoint.
I’ll even go on a limb and say this printer has upped my game, taken my photography to a different level. With these huge prints, I can easily find imperfections and file differences between my Canon R5 and my Hasselblad X2D.
The R5 can easily print 24 “x36” prints, while the Hasselblad isn’t even breathing hard at 33 “x44”. I hate to imagine the size of a panoramic print.
That said, these are differences I couldn’t detect pixel peeping on my 32” IPS monitor—one word of advice: footprint. I made darned sure I had enough room in my home office for this beast, and I’m not disappointed. ...Show more →
Very inspiring to read. I can only imagine big prints come out perfect on such a printer! Congratulations!
p.9 #20 · How Many Members Still Print Their Own Photography?
Though I didn't do the printing myself, the last ones produced of my photos were bus ads and billboards in Washington, Oregon and Idaho for an insurance campaign this year.
I also produced a commissioned 40x60" acrylic print of a fine art photo. My giclée prints tend to be smaller, in the 20x30" or 30x45" range and done by the same print shop in Seattle. I have a decent printer at home to make proofs, but generally just build in the cost of a proof print when I'm getting a client print made to make sure colors are where I want them.
For me, learning how to print has been an incredibly important aspect of my education as a photographer. It's helped me understand values of color, saturation and black levels in ways that would not be possible if I only saw my images on a screen.
Photography, or art really, is so subjective that trying to sell prints isn't that rewarding for me. Most of the vendors at these events are desperate to make a buck off their hobbies - that just doesn't appeal to me.