I've seen a lot of advertising about this style lately in magazines and on the Internet. I looked at several websites most recently: Bay Photo, Image Wizards, Mpix, and Magnachrome that offer this service. I've read a lot of mixed reviews. Some people love them and others say it isn't worth it yet.
I am most interested in any experiences/opinions you have regarding this subject focusing on color landscape photography metal prints.
I am considering investing in some for an upcoming art show in lieu of traditional framed and matted glossy light jet prints. Thanks so much for your input.
I saw a lot of them a couple of years ago in booths the last time I attended photo trade shows. My impression from talking to the sales reps and other photographers is that it requires the right image to come off well. In fact that's true about any medium, isn't it? In any case, with the right images they really can be stunning, and with the wrong ones I don't like the results. Sorry to say, this far out I don't really recall which was which.
There's likely to be a learning curve, not only in deciding which images to use, but I suspect also in your choice of post-processing methods.
I'd go for it, but keep us posted too!
Posted by Buck Ward on September 26, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Michael
I don't know about metal prints, but I looked into matallic prints (on paper) a couple years ago.. I saw a sample that was of a quasi-abstract of shiny metal partx, nurs, bolts, gears, etc. It looked pretty good. So I ordered a test print of a night shot, lights reflecting on coppery colored water. I was unimpressed.
I think Hank is right. It very much depends on the subject. Try a small test print.
Posted by Kelly Rowe on September 26, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Contact www.images.com at 800.849.3390 and they will send you samples of one image printed on four different substrates. They are impressive. You did say you wanted to inve$t, if you get my drift.
Posted by Bob Miller on September 26, 2010 at 4:52 PM
I've done a number of metallic prints and the advice above rings true. I'm more an outdoor portrait guy and allow the client to choose media via samples. I found that the the best prints were more on the contrasty side and need a tad more saturation. Black & whites work well too. Metallics tend to give an extra something to the depth of the image. I had mine done through Millers (Mpix) and the clients loved them.
It might work well to offer a couple intermixed with your standard offerings. Sometimes it's the one that stands out amongst the others that catches the customers eye, regardless of the content.
Posted by Kurt Budliger on September 26, 2010 at 7:20 PM
I'll echo Hanks comments above. I did a couple of test prints this summer just to check them out, ordered from bayphoto. I really liked the black and white but didn't care for the color. Sort of gave up after that but think I'll try a couple of outdoor portraits of my kids.
Posted by Rob Graham on September 26, 2010 at 10:55 PM
I haven't tried printing landscapes on metallic paper. However, I did have MPIX print a version of the pheasant feather photo in my gallery and the colors just popped and the customer loved it. A portrait of my mother-in-law and her dog looked really strange printed on metallic paper.
I used imagewizards for a peacock feather and it popped. They will send you hard samples of the different melalic textures, 5 if I remember correctly. They also sent me a hard sample of my peacock feather to make sure I was satisfied with the results. Customer service was stellar. I now have both the sample and the final image hanging.
I then purchased some pearl essence paper to print on my own. You do have to have the right image to make it work but I also found that everything looked better when I turned off the gloss option on my printer.
Thanks everybody. I think I need to clarify what I am referring to. I am not talking about metallic photographic paper. I am talking about printing on sheets of metal. Here is a link to Moose Peterson's blog where he demonstrates what I am talking about:
http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=16021
Posted by John W. Wall on September 28, 2010 at 7:32 PM
There's a slight disconnect in my mind between a natural landscape and a sheet of metal, so I think the type of image would have to be just right in terms of being complementary (as well as other considerations). A very "geological" image might work better than something with lots of trees, for example.
That's an important distinction, Michael. The paper versions were paraded as "metal prints," too.
I'm not acquainted with the prints on metal, but will keep my eyes open for the op to see one first-hand.
Posted by Adam Kavalunas on September 29, 2010 at 1:36 PM
I was really keen on this method about a year ago and did a lot of checking into it. I got samples from most of the companies you listed. I also did some sample printing of my own images. All in all, i was pretty disappointed. The prints lack the sharpness I am used to getting with the FCA papers. They also seemed to have slight color casts. For the price, my opinion was that they were not worth it, and I've since gone back to FCA prints. I've had a few metal prints hanging in a gallery now for months and they've basically gotten no response compared to traditional prints.....
Posted by Anthony Gibson on September 29, 2010 at 2:39 PM
I have tried them, and actually took the time to reproof a few images to get them just right. I showed them alongside other framed images, and the landscapes in nice frames sold everytime. The only success I had was in the city where people were looking for more modern decor. You can get them to look close to a fca print in most cases, but they are not as good. They do not sell as well unless you actually put a frame around it anyway.
Posted by Ben Horne on September 30, 2010 at 8:40 AM
I've seen some metal prints at various shows, but was not very impressed. I have a feeling that this will be a short lived trend. When producing prints on metal, you give up detail and color accuracy. These are things that I strive for with my prints.
Posted by Rodney Ninow on October 4, 2010 at 11:23 AM
The samples I have seen were not sharp to my eye. I do not know if this was the source file, or inherent in metal prints, but it was being shown by the Bay Photo rep, so I would guess it was the best of the best.
Printing on metal from a labs point of view is not for the faint of heart.
The equipment and supplies are only part of the process.
The process is VERY expensive and time consuming, my hat is off to anyone that does it well.
For the consumer it is key to find a lab that has mastered the process and keeps their printer, work space and heat presses impeccably clean.
The "metal prints" that are most popular are done by a sublimation process. The metal receiver material is coated with a polyester substrate and lacquer coating that allow the color to be transfered through heat infusion.
Because the polyester coating and lacquer can be clear the material being printed on is allowed to show through. What would be white or light in tone in a traditional print is now the finished metal or light reflecting through the inks off of the metal.
HP, Roland and a few other large format printer makers have modified their machines to handle the abbrasive sublimation inks (talk about clogged jets!).
Precise color management and a good RIP are a must, no room for error here or the colors will shift.
The image itself is printed on a "transfer" paper in reverse. The RIP applies the paper/printer/ink profiles that are usually custom created and modified by each lab (in my experience the off the shelf profiles by the ink/material manufacturers are not up to par with professional output requirements).
The metal is then cleaned to remove ANY dust or residue otherwise the transfer will have dust spots where the ink cannot transfer.
The transfer paper and metal and are sandwiched together image to face and heated in large press at an exact temperature for an exact amount of time. The heated image turns to gases that permeate the polyester and create the "print". The lab has tested and tested the process to get the time and temperature correct.
Too much heat or time and the gases bleed creating a muddy finished product. Not enough time or heat you get a blah unsaturated image.
When done right "metal prints" are fabulous to look at.
It should be noted that a sublimation "print" will never be tack sharp. The gases that are created during the process bleed into the surrounding areas softening the image.
They are amazingly tough and have good time stability.
The other "metal prints" available are images printed directly on metal.
These are done with sign printers with UV cured inks. Roland and RHO (Durst) are the leaders in manufacturing this equipment.
The "prints" made with this process do not have the luminous glow that the sublimation process yields.
The metal is coated with a white primer ink during the printing process so that the color of the material being printed on does not interfere with finished image. It also means that while you have printed on metal your images do not have that "metallic" look.
I have used both types of systems and both have their place and unique look.
If you want that "metallic" sheen that many describe, you'll want to use a lab that uses the sublimation process.
I don't do them myself Michael. Too rich for my blood (and patience). The ones I have seen from Bay Photo have been up to par as http://www.alliedphoto.com/content/prints-metal
Hope that helps.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on October 8, 2010 at 11:46 PM
I've done some Fuji CA metallic on paper. And I've seen a big name photographer's gallery in Park City where at least some if not all of the prints were on metallic paper. I didn't notice they were metallic until I was almost done browsing.
My take. In normal light, with the right image, it looks pretty good. But with most images I don't think it works under normal lighting. In controlled gallery light, they all looked pretty good, but who actually has that lighting.
Posted by Bill Maile on November 5, 2010 at 6:13 AM
Just saw photos printed on small sheets of aluminum yesterday at a new print lab I'm going to be using. Some he showed, they definitely worked, they really popped!! Others, ehhh... as said earlier, I think it depends largely on the image and the print lab used.
Discussion
20 repliesI am most interested in any experiences/opinions you have regarding this subject focusing on color landscape photography metal prints.
I am considering investing in some for an upcoming art show in lieu of traditional framed and matted glossy light jet prints. Thanks so much for your input.
There's likely to be a learning curve, not only in deciding which images to use, but I suspect also in your choice of post-processing methods.
I'd go for it, but keep us posted too!
I don't know about metal prints, but I looked into matallic prints (on paper) a couple years ago.. I saw a sample that was of a quasi-abstract of shiny metal partx, nurs, bolts, gears, etc. It looked pretty good. So I ordered a test print of a night shot, lights reflecting on coppery colored water. I was unimpressed.
I think Hank is right. It very much depends on the subject. Try a small test print.
It might work well to offer a couple intermixed with your standard offerings. Sometimes it's the one that stands out amongst the others that catches the customers eye, regardless of the content.
and
Sounds like very sound BUSINESS advice to me!
I then purchased some pearl essence paper to print on my own. You do have to have the right image to make it work but I also found that everything looked better when I turned off the gloss option on my printer.
http://www.moosepeterson.com/blog/?p=16021
I'm not acquainted with the prints on metal, but will keep my eyes open for the op to see one first-hand.
The equipment and supplies are only part of the process.
The process is VERY expensive and time consuming, my hat is off to anyone that does it well.
For the consumer it is key to find a lab that has mastered the process and keeps their printer, work space and heat presses impeccably clean.
The "metal prints" that are most popular are done by a sublimation process. The metal receiver material is coated with a polyester substrate and lacquer coating that allow the color to be transfered through heat infusion.
Because the polyester coating and lacquer can be clear the material being printed on is allowed to show through. What would be white or light in tone in a traditional print is now the finished metal or light reflecting through the inks off of the metal.
HP, Roland and a few other large format printer makers have modified their machines to handle the abbrasive sublimation inks (talk about clogged jets!).
Precise color management and a good RIP are a must, no room for error here or the colors will shift.
The image itself is printed on a "transfer" paper in reverse. The RIP applies the paper/printer/ink profiles that are usually custom created and modified by each lab (in my experience the off the shelf profiles by the ink/material manufacturers are not up to par with professional output requirements).
The metal is then cleaned to remove ANY dust or residue otherwise the transfer will have dust spots where the ink cannot transfer.
The transfer paper and metal and are sandwiched together image to face and heated in large press at an exact temperature for an exact amount of time. The heated image turns to gases that permeate the polyester and create the "print". The lab has tested and tested the process to get the time and temperature correct.
Too much heat or time and the gases bleed creating a muddy finished product. Not enough time or heat you get a blah unsaturated image.
When done right "metal prints" are fabulous to look at.
It should be noted that a sublimation "print" will never be tack sharp. The gases that are created during the process bleed into the surrounding areas softening the image.
They are amazingly tough and have good time stability.
The other "metal prints" available are images printed directly on metal.
These are done with sign printers with UV cured inks. Roland and RHO (Durst) are the leaders in manufacturing this equipment.
The "prints" made with this process do not have the luminous glow that the sublimation process yields.
The metal is coated with a white primer ink during the printing process so that the color of the material being printed on does not interfere with finished image. It also means that while you have printed on metal your images do not have that "metallic" look.
I have used both types of systems and both have their place and unique look.
If you want that "metallic" sheen that many describe, you'll want to use a lab that uses the sublimation process.
Hope that helps.
My take. In normal light, with the right image, it looks pretty good. But with most images I don't think it works under normal lighting. In controlled gallery light, they all looked pretty good, but who actually has that lighting.