›

Prints

Linwood
in PixInsight
I've seen a couple of minor comments, but I would like to suggest a relatively untapped topic is producing prints, choice of labs, choice of media, subcategories of media (glass, matte, etc), impact of these things on prints, variations by labs, etc. 

Some in our club including me have been heading down this path, and it is not as easy as one might think.  For example, I tried one lab (WHCC) that simply could not seem to print without clipping the background (and highlighting the bright areas).  Even on a (paid) remake they produced the same problem. I changed to another lab (ArtBeat Studios) with the exact same file, and it came out perfectly (well, it matched what I sent, so imperfections were my fault). Bay also did a good job a couple years ago, but since their buyout I think their quality has fallen badly. 

I've also tried canvas, acrylic and metal; the former was pretty awful (but cheap) as it hid a lot of detail, the acrylic was OK but pricy, and the metal would be my choice.  But I have not tried paper, and not tried variations on finish, preparation differences, etc. 

And oh so many labs out there to choose from other than the three I have tried. 

I think there may be a lot of interesting in a video that covered some of these topics, maybe you could negotiate some deals for members at some labs that do this well, some recommendations on media and preparation and/or soft proofing for them, etc.  Even maybe a bake-off of some of the labs that you judge. 

Just a thought.

Linwood

Comments

  • BlockHeadBlockHead
    Hi Linwood,

    Thanks for the suggestion. If I were Tony Hallas or Steve Cullen..this would be a natural thing to do... but alas this is not an area I think I would dive into- I agree with you it is a challenge. The only thing I would suggestion is that for whatever company you use, you need to get them to send you samples. You then learn the degree of "compensation" (adjustments) to your images necessary to make them look good. You then work with the company to *not* make any adjustments... and your adjustments are what makes a print look good.

    -the Blockhead
  • Linwood
    Yes, done that for years with terrestrial photography, while soft proofing is the "right" way, I find it much more effective to get a small print of a typical photo, view it in light it would normally be in, and have it next to my monitor and adjust to make it similar enough (after color calibration - mostly it is about brightness). 

    That gets more expensive though if talking metal or worse acrylic (haven't found any that will do samples of non-paper free). 

    But with astro I found it was necessary to sample the media also.  Which I've done, and for my taste decided on metal (I have yet to decide on glass, semi-gloss or matte). 

    But I was very surprised to find the difference in labs, as for terrestrial prints (on any media) I could really find minimal difference in various pro labs - not talking Walgreens here, but those that do commercial work.  I was really surprised to be unable to get one to stop applying what appeared to be a strong S curve to the print. Whether AI based or just a fixed curve, they just apparently cannot make a star strewn sky dusty grey, it has to be black. 

    Thanks for listening, maybe others may be spurred into some lab comparisons, or will point me to ones already done.

    Linwood
  • Scott Badger
    Maybe here’s the review you’re looking for? https://www.mattpaynephotography.com/page/best-photography-print-labs/

    I tried Nevada Art Printer and was pretty happy with both acrylic and print tests of M51, though like you said Linwood, the background was a bit clipped in both (a little less so with the print). When I asked about it, the recommendation was to set my screen brightness at 0% and brighten from there. The galaxy looked pretty good, so maybe just adjust the black point? Haven’t had a chance to try a second round yet.

    Cheers,
    Scott
  • Linwood
    Thank you Scott, that's an interesting review.  I do find fairly regular bake-offs for terrestrial photos. I'm convinced though that doing astro well requires some different skills.  What surprised me was that WHCC and ArtBeat had similar quality (i.e. detail, evenness of transfer to metal, flat metal, dust free), there was just a huge difference in how their process handled the same exact print file.

    To me I am much happier getting a lab that will come closer to "print as sent" and not try to "fix" it, as such fixes are unlikely to be consistent.  My guess is they have some kind of "auto" settings (actually two, they label them portrait and vivid if I recall), and I suspect they may then adjust some images more strongly than others. They could not offer me, even after I complained, a "print as sent". 

    But Artbeat did not provide ICC profiles either, for soft proofing, which is a bit of a surprise. Though I personally have always found a physical print a much better mechanism for soft proofing, since it allows you to light that print to view it the way it will will displayed. 

    But the more interesting thing I learned in this process was frankly how non-astroimagers react.  Universally everyone that saw both the "bad" image which had a strong contrast curve applied liked it much better than the "good" image which was faithful to my image.  So maybe what I'm hanging on the wall is closer to a science paper than art.  

    Linwood
  • Scott Badger
    You could add a bunch of saturation if you really want to impress!……: )

    Back when I had a $4,000 printer (inherited from my business when we stopped using it) I really preferred doing my own (terrestrial at the time) and would do it now, but apparently sitting dormant in my basement for 5 or 10 years……

    My favorite print lab was the one at the med-school associated with my college, way back when…. They enjoyed a break from surgical and lab imagery and would put a way more effort and test prints into mine than the price warranted!

    Cheers,
    Scott
Sign In or Register to comment.