Leica S prints

[sincurves]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Printing our photos is to many of us an important part of the creative process. I would love to see some of your prints and understand how you present and archive them.

[Stuart Richardson]

Hi. Of course things are best viewed in person, but I can share some things soon. I just got back from a trip, so I am still settling in. I also would be interested in seeing what others are doing. I do not have many photos of the prints themselves (for rather obvious reasons, I guess), but I can show some installation shots.

 

[sincurves]

14 hours ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Hi. Of course things are best viewed in person, but I can share some things soon. I just got back from a trip, so I am still settling in. I also would be interested in seeing what others are doing. I do not have many photos of the prints themselves (for rather obvious reasons, I guess), but I can show some installation shots.

 

Thanks, Stuart, that would be great. I'll share some of mine as well and hope other printers here will chime in.

[Stuart Richardson]

I tend to work alone, so I do not have a lot of documentation around my printing, and I always seem to forget to document my shows, which is really poor for one's career, but anyway...

Most of my more recent shows have been primarily on film, so not relevant here. But here are a few featuring the S prints. The one of the print on the floor is a composite of the same S photo mirrored and manipulated. It is a bit tricky to hang, as it is paper only and held up with magnets, so I was laying out the print to rest in the ambient temp of the room and decurl before I hung it. The paper works on the wall are that photo and a film composite. The S one is 140x170cm, and they are printed on Japanese scroll paper. In order to match the film works, the S file has a grain overlay from scanned film. In the other two photos, there are some streetlight photos from a series I did in 2012-14. The large print on the wall is a 100x150cm image in a larger frame, and the small prints in pairs in on the back wall are a series of diptychs that were also with the S. The big print coming out of the printer is from my show at the National Museum of Iceland in 2014, but bafflingly I cannot find images of that show (mildly worrying). That print is 100x150cm on Hahnemühle Photo Rag Baryta. It was framed the same way as the large print in the black and white image of the museum (that was a group show...the paper only prints were not mine).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[Dsauro]

A few examples of the S3 

All in all, seeing the prints in real life is quite different.  There us something I can't put my finger on (some say "cinematic") when using the S glass.

I actually had the first print below (mountain and snow) put on Acrylic using the Lumachrome process from Nevada Art Printers.  Its stunning is real life.  The rest I print on various substrates using my Epson printer.  

I don't know if this helps but can only say, print print, print.  Its an amazing camera

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[sincurves]

On 8/18/2021 at 3:41 PM, Stuart Richardson said:

I tend to work alone, so I do not have a lot of documentation around my printing, and I always seem to forget to document my shows, which is really poor for one's career, but anyway...

Most of my more recent shows have been primarily on film, so not relevant here. But here are a few featuring the S prints. The one of the print on the floor is a composite of the same S photo mirrored and manipulated. It is a bit tricky to hang, as it is paper only and held up with magnets, so I was laying out the print to rest in the ambient temp of the room and decurl before I hung it. The paper works on the wall are that photo and a film composite. The S one is 140x170cm, and they are printed on Japanese scroll paper. In order to match the film works, the S file has a grain overlay from scanned film. In the other two photos, there are some streetlight photos from a series I did in 2012-14. The large print on the wall is a 100x150cm image in a larger frame, and the small prints in pairs in on the back wall are a series of diptychs that were also with the S. The big print coming out of the printer is from my show at the National Museum of Iceland in 2014, but bafflingly I cannot find images of that show (mildly worrying). That print is 100x150cm on Hahnemühle Photo Rag Baryta. It was framed the same way as the large print in the black and white image of the museum (that was a group show...the paper only prints were not mine).

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Beautiful prints, Stuart. And impressive size - are these from S 007?

[sincurves]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

On 8/18/2021 at 8:41 PM, Dsauro said:

A few examples of the S3 

All in all, seeing the prints in real life is quite different.  There us something I can't put my finger on (some say "cinematic") when using the S glass.

I actually had the first print below (mountain and snow) put on Acrylic using the Lumachrome process from Nevada Art Printers.  Its stunning is real life.  The rest I print on various substrates using my Epson printer.  

I don't know if this helps but can only say, print print, print.  Its an amazing camera

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

The mountain and snow look special even on a laptop. Agree with your statement on 'print, print, print'!

[Stuart Richardson]

1 hour ago, sincurves said:

Beautiful prints, Stuart. And impressive size - are these from S 007?

Thank you! The S006...the base files start to break down at that size though, so I added scanned film grain to cover up the unnaturally digital smoothness. At that size, the eye needs something to bite onto a bit and the grain helps. For this size print, an S3, SL2 or especially a GFX 100 would help. But none of those cameras existed at the time.

[sincurves]

16 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thank you! The S006...the base files start to break down at that size though, so I added scanned film grain to cover up the unnaturally digital smoothness. At that size, the eye needs something to bite onto a bit and the grain helps. For this size print, an S3, SL2 or especially a GFX 100 would help. But none of those cameras existed at the time.

I'm a big fan of S 006. I have the S3 and H6D which are stunning in their own right, but the S 006 still have it's strengths. SL's never got me hooked. I have just got my S 006 back with new mirror box and sensor - will use it in studio and good light. Never printed the size you work with which must have its own challenges. Are you using any particular software for when preparing and printing, like a RIP? 

[Stuart Richardson]

No. I did the interpolation manually in Photoshop and added a film layer using TrueGrain, but otherwise I printed via photoshop and the Epson ABW mode on the printer, with a few tweaks to make it work better with the thin paper. The sharpening took a few tries to get right though, as it is a bit odd at such a huge size. It was more of an issue in the mountain and tree prints though, as they had more visible detail. The cloud was easy because there was no real detail to speak of, just a few edges.

The S006 is amazing for color and the sharpness of the detail, but past 100x150 (and even a bit smaller), higher resolution cameras show their advantages...but only if the character of their detail is equally pleasing. I have not shot the GFX100, but I think that is where the advantage of the 100mp would be clearly visible.

Edited August 22, 2021 by Stuart Richardson

[Jon Warwick]

49 minutes ago, Stuart Richardson said:

Thank you! The S006...the base files start to break down at that size though, so I added scanned film grain to cover up the unnaturally digital smoothness. At that size, the eye needs something to bite onto a bit and the grain helps. For this size print, an S3, SL2 or especially a GFX 100 would help. But none of those cameras existed at the time.

I agree about “unnaturally digital smoothness”. My preference quite frequently is to add grain via PS to try to match my 5x4. I’d agree that a 100mp sensor helps a lot (I have the GFX100S), because I find its resolution and color depth at 60” wide feels remarkably similar to my eyes to my well-executed 5x4s. I get those drum scanned at 4000dpi to open natively at roughly 62”x50” for printing on a 300dpi printer. The main difference being edges of objects are better defined and “truer” on the digital camera. But I still find I prefer the look even more by adding just the slightest amount of grain on the digital camera files (to match 5x4, which I find really isn’t a lot even at 60” from a film like Provia 100 or the new Ektachrome). As you say, just to add texture for the eye to bite into, even if I’m finding the amount required in post is pretty subtle to match the 5x4. But it’s much better than a “squeaky clean” digital look IMHO!

 

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by Jon Warwick

[sincurves]

These are entirely different type of prints, but also from S 006. They are test prints from calibration of my platinum/palladium printing setup which is improving. The process puts some hard limits to size since it's a contact print using a digital negative (these are 8x10). I have been printing with a Canon PRO 1000 until now, however Epson ink is needed to make an acceptable negative which got me on to an Epson SC-P900. The PtPd process is taking most of my time now. A lot to learn and a lot of fun. Next step is to find a way to present them in a nice way  

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[mgrayson3]

I'm always astonished at the realistic work of great painters - Vermeer, Rembrandt, Velásquez, Sargent - looked at closely, the detail vanishes. What looks from viewing distance like a beautiful lace collar is just a splotch of white paint. Sargent's faces are made of very visible brushstrokes, yet live. Rembrandt's images disintegrate one step closer than viewing distance. Truly amazing!

An impression of detail is more pleasing to the eye than actual detail. What do you do with a tiny speck in the frame that is actually a perfect airplane? It doesn't add to the picture's impact. It's detail for detail's sake. (This isn't universal. An 8x10 camera's image of a hillside after a forest fire is stunning printed 2m wide, but all the detail is on the same scale.)

Disclaimer: I've never printed larger than 44" wide, and that rarely, so I may just not appreciate the art of larger prints. I have a 25,000 x 8,000 pixel stitched image from the GFX 100. (The remarkable GF 100-200 zoom) It's a very tall building under construction. I should try a 24" x 96" print. That's about 300 pixels/inch ...

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

This is NOT a 100% view. It is about 25% to give an idea of final print size. (If I did the math correctly, which is doubtful). The stupid thing is sharp at 100%.

 

Edited August 22, 2021 by mgrayson3

[mgrayson3]

Whoops. Can't edit it anymore. Meant to say that I haven't printed it because it's not a very interesting picture. Just has more pixels than I can shake a stick at.

Matt

[sincurves]

49 minutes ago, mgrayson3 said:

Whoops. Can't edit it anymore. Meant to say that I haven't printed it because it's not a very interesting picture. Just has more pixels than I can shake a stick at.

Matt

Your point about details for details sake is good - it’s  easy to get caught up in. 

[shanefking]

Here’s something different!

I made an 11”x14” cyanotype from a shot taken with my S2. 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

[AHPZuazua]

Very nice read. I have not printed and Im finally getting a lens for my S2. I was working with what I had and mounted a Hasselblad C lens from my 501c. The images look nice when on my computer. BW especially pleasing to look at. Need to read up more on Leica ProFormat of 3:2 and seeing what sizes are available to me. I did print a 30x40in on Canvas from an H3D--39 and that was nice. 

[davidmknoble]

@sincurves, I’m a little late to the post, but I wanted to share how I archive my prints. First, I agree with everyone here that printing, for me, is the best end point of any photograph.  I love to share on social media and I have an electronic frame in my office, but printing takes some finer adjustment to the colors and contrast than digital showings.

I love my Epson printer, but the tools there make a difference as well.  I use ImagePrint Black which is not inexpensive, but produces better color and black and white prints than LR, PS or native EPSON drivers.  I also love the Canson papers for the most part.

I frame and store my prints using materials from Archival Methods.  They have some portfolio boxes that are really sturdy and have a long side that folds down.  I use the black buckram covered ones for 13x19 and 17x232 print storage, leaving everything flat.  I put some prints into archival sleeves in those boxes, it depends on the print.  I also use their museum framing systems which are all archival quality.

Seems like today we have to have redundant backups of our digital files, which didn’t really happen in the negative world, so I feel like archival quality for prints is a good way to store something more akin to a negative.

[shanefking]

On 8/22/2021 at 6:00 AM, mgrayson3 said:

I'm always astonished at the realistic work of great painters - Vermeer, Rembrandt, Velásquez, Sargent - looked at closely, the detail vanishes. What looks from viewing distance like a beautiful lace collar is just a splotch of white paint. Sargent's faces are made of very visible brushstrokes, yet live. Rembrandt's images disintegrate one step closer than viewing distance. Truly amazing!

An impression of detail is more pleasing to the eye than actual detail. What do you do with a tiny speck in the frame that is actually a perfect airplane? It doesn't add to the picture's impact. It's detail for detail's sake.

Mgrayson you bring up a great point, thank you.
 

 I think the f64 club would argue that extreme detail gives a more ‘real’ depiction of objects as they are in reality, and highlights a particular quality that separates photography from painting.  
 

At some distance, any painting becomes a smattering of brush strokes or smudges, but a flawless print (especially a contact print) will be detailed to the size of particles of silver, far beyond what an unaided eye can resolve.  The result can be a work that takes the eye on a journey not just across a scene but into it, rewarding viewers who dive in and obsess over the details.

Certainly you are correct that detail for detail’s sake will not ‘add’ anything to a lousy composition, but it can be a way to enhance an experience or even simply show off one’s technical prowess (if that is something the artist cares about).

 

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[mgrayson3]

18 minutes ago, shanefking said:

Mgrayson you bring up a great point, thank you.
 

 I think the f64 club would argue that extreme detail gives a more ‘real’ depiction of objects as they are in reality, and highlights a particular quality that separates photography from painting.  
 

At some distance, any painting becomes a smattering of brush strokes or smudges, but a flawless print (especially a contact print) will be detailed to the size of particles of silver, far beyond what an unaided eye can resolve.  The result can be a work that takes the eye on a journey not just across a scene but into it, rewarding viewers who dive in and obsess over the details.

Certainly you are correct that detail for detail’s sake will not ‘add’ anything to a lousy composition, but it can be a way to enhance an experience or even simply show off one’s technical prowess (if that is something the artist cares about).

 

I wrote a long response, but it all amounted to - I agree. 😇

Edited September 30, 2021 by mgrayson3