Jump to content

Ezio Monitor or Mac Monitor for Printing


Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Exactly….all a waste of time if one doesn't consider the look and feel of the final (displayed) print, which is more about eye and judgment than any scientific process.  A calibrated workflow (including display conditions) only serves to help the otherwise talented and discerning printer.

 

Jeff

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil I would add one more thing to Jeff's comment (screen,print,paper profiles), when judging the accuracy of your calibration no matter what equipment you use you need a proper viewing light source for consistency. This completes the loop. I use a GTI ( graphiclite) PDV d50 desktop viewer. If you are going to the expense of buying the best equipment/software for maximum control then how you view and judge your prints is just as important. Without a consistent light source you are just chasing your tail. I have admired your work on line and applaud you for deciding to do your own printing. For me printing is the most satisfying part of photography.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil I would add one more thing to Jeff's comment (screen,print,paper profiles), when judging the accuracy of your calibration no matter what equipment you use you need a proper viewing light source for consistency. This completes the loop. I use a GTI ( graphiclite) PDV d50 desktop viewer. If you are going to the expense of buying the best equipment/software for maximum control then how you view and judge your prints is just as important. Without a consistent light source you are just chasing your tail. I have admired your work on line and applaud you for deciding to do your own printing. For me printing is the most satisfying part of photography.

 

Allan

This is what I meant by incorporating display conditions into the calibrated workflow….I decided to spare Neil the specifics of a viewing booth, which helps to get there….but I specifically noted the final lighting conditions.  

 

Moreover, the viewing booth doesn't fully help if the final displayed print is then mounted under any sort of glass (non-museum quality) that alters the light.  Everything changes everything….all depends how much control one wants and how much the details matter.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

No argument, what you say makes sense but if you are going to all the expense and trouble to make a print the reflects as close as possible what you are seeing on your monitor then an inexpensive desktop viewing booth will give you that affirmation.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, and that was implicit in my earlier comments.  I mentioned profiling, too, but didn't bother to mention the tools used to do it.  Just as I mentioned the criticality of display conditions, but without getting into the related gear.  I also recommend a viewing booth for a fully calibrated workflow, but it doesn't account for all the display variables, which are inevitable if one bothers to mat, frame and choose glass.  

 

We could go on and on if we got into all the possible components and tools….but the essence comes from the eye of the beholder.  Someone with a good eye can make beautiful prints, and someone with all the tools in the world can still make mediocre prints without a good eye and judgment.  Weston did pretty well with a light bulb.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Not sure if I should start another thread about this but I have a question.

 

So we all know I am new to this printing lark, so lets say I want to print one of my B&W pictures and I want to print it in say A2 size. As we all know A2 paper/canvas is going to be more expensive than say a 4x5 print, so my question is is it better to do a trial print on 4 x 5 first to make sure that the final print is what you are hoping for rather than printing off  half a dozen A2 prints until you get the desired print that you want........

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

That's one of the reasons you need to slow down, learn about soft proofing, learn what an A2 print looks like and what you can expect given your workflow, etc.  There aren't any shortcuts to learn a craft.  Eventually you'll waste little paper…early on, you'll waste a lot more.

 

More specifically, a small print will show some, but not all, characteristics of a larger one…so a lot depends on what you're looking for in a test/work print.  As a wise teacher once stressed to me, different is not the same.

 

Jeff

Link to post
Share on other sites

Neil I'm not sure what editing programs you are using but I would encourage you to print out of Lightroom. It is very easy to save settings and icc profiles for the various papers you will probably use. As Jeff has pointed out there are lots of things to learn to get to being able to turn out great prints consistently. One of the most common errors is forgetting to change print settings when going from matte to gloss papers. We all do it from time to time. Changing image size is lot a easier in LR as well. You will find the print module is as intuitive as the develop module. There are some very good print video tutorials on Julieanne Kost's web site (jkost.com) I think once you get your new printer and get your feet wet you are really going to enjoy the journey to fine printing.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if I should start another thread about this but I have a question.

 

So we all know I am new to this printing lark, so lets say I want to print one of my B&W pictures and I want to print it in say A2 size. As we all know A2 paper/canvas is going to be more expensive than say a 4x5 print, so my question is is it better to do a trial print on 4 x 5 first to make sure that the final print is what you are hoping for rather than printing off  half a dozen A2 prints until you get the desired print that you want........

Neil

 

Yes doing a 4x5 test from a couple of areas of the picture is a good idea. But one thing you should consider is you need to look at any print from the same viewing average distance as a visitor to the show, not with your nose pressed up against it.

 

Size of print has a deeper meaning to the viewer than you may think. If the image can be seen and absorbed in a general sense from the far side of a room that is most likely how it will remain even though you may have some subtle detail in the image that adds to its impact. On the other hand a small print has to draw the viewer in, and when in front of it there will generally be far more leaning back and forth to appreciate the image not to mention discussion with other viewers. The simple test will happen too late in the day, at the show's opening people either gather in a clump in the centre of the gallery sipping wine, or spread themselves out around the walls to really view the work. So ideally prints should be sized to match the average viewing space and if selling them to the average wall space of the purchaser. No doubt a very large print (and it's accompanying mount and frame) could sell in the USA, but a small print may sell easier in Japan. Intimacy and contemplative power of the print aside, there is a reason that one of the worlds wealthy photographers Michael Kenna made his mark by only printing 10"x10".

 

Steve

Edited by 250swb
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a common myth that if you have a profiled monitor you're good-to-go for making great prints.  The truth is that most monitors - including all of the Apple Cinema and retina screens - exhibit significant deficiencies for photography, particularly for printmaking.  They're designed to be operated in too high a brightness range, with too much contrast.  

 

Profile your otherwise-wonderful consumer monitor and you'll simply end up with correctly-mapped colors... at a brightness level that no paper can ever achieve.  Dial back brightness and contrast to match that paper - assuming your monitor has controls for such; some don't - and you'll find that the color and tonal fidelity have collapsed.  Along with introducing uneven illumination and incomplete gamut rendering.

 

The only two display makes that were designed, and are capable of, truly accurate print work are the Eizo CG and NEC Spectraview.  Which is not to say that one can't produce great work without one.  Especially if the web is the intended destination.  But if you're truly serious about making prints, you need a monitor that can render a nearly exact representation of the paper coming out of your printer.

 

And, yes, that GTI viewing booth.

Edited by Jager
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest NEIL-D-WILLIAMS

Jeff

I will pick up the new monitor when I get home, and hopefully the printer in Sept or October as Epson are a wee bitty behind with the launch of the P807.....we'll see

Neil

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm waiting for the P800/P807 as well, Neil.  I've got a 3880 but am running a dedicated, 7-black-ink setup on it.  Splendid for B&W.  But still have the occasional need to print color.

 

Congrats in advance on the new monitor.  If you end up also getting a GTI viewing station to go with it, get one of the models with adjustable illumination.  Set up and profile your new monitor.  Place your viewing station right next to your monitor.  Work in subdued light, in a room with neutral color casts.  Make a soft proof, being sure you check the "Make My Picture Suck" box.  Just kidding.  It's the "Simulate Paper and Ink" box - but it might as well be called that other thing.  Now make a print, being sure to color manage everything properly.  Place that print in the viewing station.  Then slowly dial back the illumination until the print matches what you're seeing on your monitor.  It's uncanny how close they'll be.  You'll shake your head.  Then you'll laugh with the sudden epiphany that all that money you just spent was... well spent.

 

Now, go back to your computer and start working towards that master print.  It's still an iterative process.  You'll still need to make test prints.  But a lot fewer of them then you used to.  Being able to make subtle, nuanced tweaks in tone and color and everything else - knowing that those changes will be accurately reflected on the paper coming out of your printer... is simply beyond measure.

Edited by Jager
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Now, go back to your computer and start working towards that master print.  It's still an iterative process.  You'll still need to make test prints.  But a lot fewer of them then you used to.  Being able to make subtle, nuanced tweaks in tone and color and everything else - knowing that those changes will be accurately reflected on the paper coming out of your printer... is simply beyond measure.

All true, and even then, as I mentioned earlier, simply putting the print under UV glass (if not museum glass) can again change the look and feel of the print.  And that's even assuming one's display lighting is identical to the monitor lighting and viewing booth lighting.

 

Much like the dry down effect with silver printing, you think you have it nailed, then it needs a little bit more tweaking (exposure) to make it 'sing' again.  

 

Never plug and play….at least not until one develops a well honed and disciplined workflow (from camera to display).  And then something inevitably changes anyway, whether one likes it or not…the software, the O/S, the paper, etc.  As you say, iterative.

 

Jeff

Edited by Jeff S
Link to post
Share on other sites

Eizo is better.  Have both.

 

Bought a Mac Pro so I went with the Color Edge 27".   Pro does not have a monitor.

 

Not sure of the technical details,  but I think the iMac is missing the backlight controls.  Definitely does not have on screen controls and contrast controls and does not self calibrate.

 

All that said,  the iMac is much cheaper and can be made to work reasonably well.  I have been doing some off site work with a new Macbook Air and the "tricks" are the same.

 

First off do not rely on visual perception of whether a print to too light too dark.  Put a black point in the photo either with threshold + levels in PS or the over/under indicators in ACR.   Threshold is better,  but for

 

 my quick prints,  sRGB in ACR works. 

 

Then if you have a nice white with detail, make it 245 RGB.   This will get you well on the way.

 

LR is basically only ACR and not well controlled compared to PS.   For the best work,  PS and Eizo is my favorite,  but you pay a lot of money to get that last 10/20 % of perfection.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...