How do you know that you produced the correct print for an image? My concern is regarding technical matters, not personal taste. Aside from deep black, what other aspects can help me know if my print is "correct" or not?
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 23, 2011 at 12:47 AM
Wow Mohsen, that is a gigantic question! If you're up for it, this 6-hour downloadable course by Michael Reichmann and Jeff Schewe is the best 35 bucks I've ever spent, I can't believe this info is that cheap. You will know every aspect of proper printing after you watch it.
i know, I know, total easy-out answer, lol! I couldn;t answer your question, but the tutorial sure will.
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 23, 2011 at 12:58 AM
Mohsen,
I'm not sure if the term "oxymoron" is an international term, but basically there is no right or "correct" answer to your question. "Deep black?" You've seen "high-key" images - they typically don't have any dark values. And even dark shadows can be interpreted differently by different photographers. Ok, I know the phrase "black blacks and white whites" for great tonal range in a b&w print - but who says that's "correct."
Even in technical matters such as "sharpness." There are "soft focus" lenses and camera movements or processing that produce softness on purpose - so one can't judge "sharpness" as a correct or yes/no feature of a photograph. The same goes for any other element; contrast, color cast, composition, etc. etc. All is fair game and leads to the answer of your question as, "it depends." AND of course, this is just MY Opinion! (which further justifies my case.)
Making a print is an expressive process, i.e. what do you want to show? You may need a textureless black and a textureless white...or maybe not. A 'technically correct' print may not express your intent for that particular photograph.
The bottom line is this: Does the print 'sing'? If, in looking at the print, you hit a sour note, you then need to correct for it. Printing is not a 'one size fits all' proposition and, like your original images, your prints will have their own look and feel; their own style.
Truly, the only real way to make fine prints that meet your intent is to make prints, and ask trusted and knowledgeable folks to review them. Photography, like mathematics, is not a spectator sport; you can't figure it out by just reading the book.
Come on Lon, it is obvious that there is no black in high key images. I mentioned black because it is one of the difficult color to produce especially with inkjet printer, I know many print expert judge the quality of print/ink/process combination how deep is the black (if there is intended deep black in your print).
Paul, I do have that tutorial since one year, and yes it helped me very much, but I think there are issue that was not covered in Michael/Jeff's tutorials.
Printing an image is not 100% expresive, otherwise why we see landscape masters depend on print experts like those in West Coast Imaging & others to produce top quality print? It is not only because they have the expensive equipments, I am sure they have clear knowldge.
Posted by Paul DeCesare on February 23, 2011 at 1:36 AM
With regards to the blacks, that is purely a function of the paper and ink combination you use, and a proper monitor as well as paper/printer calibration.
Perhaps one of the best things you can do is go see some prints in person by a wide variety of photographers, and look very closely. That will help you get a feel for what is possible, and what your preferences are, so you will know what to strive for in your own prints.
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 23, 2011 at 2:24 AM
Mohsen,
Of course you are right. I was only trying to draw attention to the fact that no matter what technical aspect you choose for printing, it is still subjective. That's all I was trying to say.
Lon
Posted by David Bostedo on February 23, 2011 at 9:09 AM
Mohsen - I've struggled with the same thing. I think, though, that the correct way to think about it is not whether or not something is "correct". Instead, the question I have is this : "My print is good, but is it the best it can be?". Any good workflow will give good prints, but how do I tell if they could be sharper, or better tonally, or more accurate in color?
I think the answer is to print one thing over and over - I know when I first got my printer, I took an image I liked and printed it with different papers/processing/settings to try to figure out if I was getting good results. That will start to give you some idea of what things on your screen will actually look like when they show up on the paper.
The other issue is that the file you start with may not be ideal for printing. I don't typically process my images with printing in mind exactly, so sometimes I think going back and sharpening differently, or setting a different curve, would be better for a print. There are times when I have multiple versions for different uses.
The other advice here is good too - look at other prints that are considered to be good. I know that's helped me, because I realized that mine weren't bad. Seeing "expert" prints (including a few I've purchased), I was expecting some sort of "wow", but while some are great, I don't find anything surprising or amazing about the print itself. (I know some people do, and maybe minute print differences just don't resonate with me like some other people.)
I wish I could get some expert to process and print one of my images at 13x19, so I could have a reference point for what's possible with my system, but I've never explored that. I have had a couple of images made around that size at West Coast, and I think mine compare favorably.
And, of course, some images are much harder to print well than others. I have some of buildings and street lights at night with subtle detail in the dark areas. I made quite a few prints with adjustments to the file trying to keep that area from just going pure black. Soft-proofing was some help there, but basically there was trial and error. I'd love to see a real expert take a crack at that one.
"Printing an image is not 100% expresive, otherwise why we see landscape masters depend on print experts like those in West Coast Imaging & others to produce top quality print?'
I did not say that printing is 100% expressive. My intent was to say that an artist needs to know what they want to show and then apply craft (the technical aspects) to reach their goal. Simply stated, one cannot cleanly separate the expression of an idea from technical skills, procedures, and equipment.
Discussion
9 repliesi know, I know, total easy-out answer, lol! I couldn;t answer your question, but the tutorial sure will.
I'm not sure if the term "oxymoron" is an international term, but basically there is no right or "correct" answer to your question. "Deep black?" You've seen "high-key" images - they typically don't have any dark values. And even dark shadows can be interpreted differently by different photographers. Ok, I know the phrase "black blacks and white whites" for great tonal range in a b&w print - but who says that's "correct."
Even in technical matters such as "sharpness." There are "soft focus" lenses and camera movements or processing that produce softness on purpose - so one can't judge "sharpness" as a correct or yes/no feature of a photograph. The same goes for any other element; contrast, color cast, composition, etc. etc. All is fair game and leads to the answer of your question as, "it depends." AND of course, this is just MY Opinion! (which further justifies my case.)
Lon
The bottom line is this: Does the print 'sing'? If, in looking at the print, you hit a sour note, you then need to correct for it. Printing is not a 'one size fits all' proposition and, like your original images, your prints will have their own look and feel; their own style.
Truly, the only real way to make fine prints that meet your intent is to make prints, and ask trusted and knowledgeable folks to review them. Photography, like mathematics, is not a spectator sport; you can't figure it out by just reading the book.
--P
Paul, I do have that tutorial since one year, and yes it helped me very much, but I think there are issue that was not covered in Michael/Jeff's tutorials.
Printing an image is not 100% expresive, otherwise why we see landscape masters depend on print experts like those in West Coast Imaging & others to produce top quality print? It is not only because they have the expensive equipments, I am sure they have clear knowldge.
Hope you find your answer!
With regards to the blacks, that is purely a function of the paper and ink combination you use, and a proper monitor as well as paper/printer calibration.
Perhaps one of the best things you can do is go see some prints in person by a wide variety of photographers, and look very closely. That will help you get a feel for what is possible, and what your preferences are, so you will know what to strive for in your own prints.
Of course you are right. I was only trying to draw attention to the fact that no matter what technical aspect you choose for printing, it is still subjective. That's all I was trying to say.
Lon
I think the answer is to print one thing over and over - I know when I first got my printer, I took an image I liked and printed it with different papers/processing/settings to try to figure out if I was getting good results. That will start to give you some idea of what things on your screen will actually look like when they show up on the paper.
The other issue is that the file you start with may not be ideal for printing. I don't typically process my images with printing in mind exactly, so sometimes I think going back and sharpening differently, or setting a different curve, would be better for a print. There are times when I have multiple versions for different uses.
The other advice here is good too - look at other prints that are considered to be good. I know that's helped me, because I realized that mine weren't bad. Seeing "expert" prints (including a few I've purchased), I was expecting some sort of "wow", but while some are great, I don't find anything surprising or amazing about the print itself. (I know some people do, and maybe minute print differences just don't resonate with me like some other people.)
I wish I could get some expert to process and print one of my images at 13x19, so I could have a reference point for what's possible with my system, but I've never explored that. I have had a couple of images made around that size at West Coast, and I think mine compare favorably.
And, of course, some images are much harder to print well than others. I have some of buildings and street lights at night with subtle detail in the dark areas. I made quite a few prints with adjustments to the file trying to keep that area from just going pure black. Soft-proofing was some help there, but basically there was trial and error. I'd love to see a real expert take a crack at that one.
I did not say that printing is 100% expressive. My intent was to say that an artist needs to know what they want to show and then apply craft (the technical aspects) to reach their goal. Simply stated, one cannot cleanly separate the expression of an idea from technical skills, procedures, and equipment.
--P