Can a ink jet printer really resolve all the detail from a Leica image?

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

12 hours ago, dpitt said:

@elmars Let's not hijack this topic too much. The OP asked a question about printing 60MP at 300 ppi. Question is... if you are new to a digital workflow and to printing, would you get results where these subtle differences would show?

IMO the OP has 3 domains to master before we can speak of subtle differences between 300ppi and 700ppi prints.

1. Switch from using film to a digital camera.
   Not that it is very hard. But it takes a while before you get the best out of digital in general. And then it takes a while to master a particular digital camera model to get the most out of it.
2. Then switch from a wet darkroom to PP on computer. If you want to get to a point where this topic matters, or even to a point where it makes sense to spend a lot of money on new Leica gear, IMO that involves a RAW work flow and 'developing' your shots in PP.
3. Printing and getting consistent results is an art in itself. I have a lot of experience in the first 2 domains, but I admit that I am just above beginner level on this point. I have an expert in the family who invested in his printer, inks and papers in a way that I will never be able to match. And most important, he is willing to spend a lot more time than I do to master his printer and the differences in the types of paper that he uses. My best keepers are safe in his hands if I want to get them printed.

@thebarnman I did not want to scare you. You sound like someone who is perfectionist enough to master these domains, but I think that you are focusing too much on the MP count now. My advice is to start with a good digital camera (which 60MP Leica one are you thinking about?) and see where it gets you. Then "project" your results on a good large 4K TV, or even better on a good PC monitor once you have processed them. That will be the easiest path to get similar results as with your projected slides. Then in a later stage, you can worry about getting the most out of prints.

Hi dpitt, 

Please let me clarify in my post I meant to say DPI not lines per inch (when it comes to printing) so I didn't mean to confuse anyone.  

I like very much your detailed outline of what to expect and follow.  I didn't even think there would be much of a learning curve going from my R9 to the SL3 (to answer your question)  if I was to use a 90mm like I'm used to using on my R9.  I've watched a few videos about the SL3 and there does seem to be an awful lot of menu options on the back even though I understand it's laid out much nicer when compared to the earlier versions of the SLs.  Regardless, I usually shoot aperture priority (so that part would be the same) and I thought changing ISO on the fly might be nice under some circumstances. 

I've done lots of darkroom and Photoshop work (five years worth) when I was interning at a model and talent studio.  Mostly the digital work I've done has been on Photoshop and I would touch up the B&W negatives and prints using a little brush!  For personal work, I'd use digital scans of negatives and work with them in Photoshop.  When I wanted to work on more than one image, I tried Lightroom.  The big thing I learned between the two programs is it seems Photoshop is great for extreme detail work and Lightroom is great for organizing and working on overall images without all the super detail work one would normally do in Photoshop.  Lightroom can get really detailed if it's really called for on a certain images but Photoshop seems to be really built for that kind of work.  

What I don't like is darkroom work...I did plenty of that in my years at the studio.  Photoshop to me is like working in a darkroom...it can take lots and lots of time to get a finished look.  Lightroom is not so bad but still takes time depending if I let my OCD run away with me!  If there's many images I want to work on, I've learned it's just best to work on about one or two per evening till it's completed regardless how long it takes.    

Personally I think I made a BRILLIANT move when I decided to move away from digitally working on scanned negatives and concentrate on shooting transparencies.  Much easier than anything else since there's no time spent working on adjustments or touching up any of the images and the pictures are HUGE on the screen with of course fantastic looking color!  Easy, when the slides are developed I simply keep the images I like, organize them and put them into the carousels and view.  On a rare occasion, I'll do a slide show for someone about once a year or so.  

Here's where my story might get interesting to those reading this; I've always felt the weakest point of any analog photography is the scan of the negative for digital work.  I'm never really sure if it's really capturing all the detail (and dynamic range) of what's been captured on the negative.  I'm guessing of course all that is eliminated with digital photography.  All that's originally captured in camera is available to work on as you say in PP.  I had to look PP up, so I'm sure you're talking about post processing. 

Your right, I'm not used to working with RAW, but I'm guessing I could do that in Lightroom.  

Also, your suggestion of projecting the images on a good large 4K TV I think is a GREAT idea!  It's kind of like what I'm used to doing and I already have a professionally calibrated Sony 83" A90J OLED (home theatre is a big thing for me.)  That would be an easy way to save time on all that PP and just pick the images I like in a way I'm already used to doing. 

I know now and then I'll want to print those special images (like you said, focus on that later) as that would be nice to share and that's where my question comes in about printing the all the detail originally captured from the camera itself.  I know if I take the time to do it right, the prints will look incredible.  Also, I will admit, I really don't like working on images all that much but I will if there's something I really want to present in a nice way. 

People are not used to viewing slides and people are also not used to looking at prints.  Most are used to viewing images on a little hand held smartphone and are blown away when they see those large images on the screen or on a greatly detailed beautiful print.   

By the way, I like the idea of 60 megs particularity if I need to crop.  It's good to know there's still enough information to make a quality print or that the image still looks good on a 4K TV or smartphone.  

My TV is capable of Rec. 2020.  Is it possible to save an image using that format?  Or should it be DCI-P3 or Rec. 709?  sRGB I would only use for sharing on smaller displays.  

I did not know there were two types of printing qualities (300ppi and 700ppi.)  The only printer I'm familiar with is what I used at the photo studio the Epson 4900.  I remember we would calibrate the monitor (and make a icc color profile for that) and a icc profile for the paper we were printing on almost always Epson exhibition fiber paper.  

It's been about 10 years or so that I've worked that way and I guess there's probably been some advancements in printing technology since then.  I later learned that printer has a native resolution of 360dpi, and I guess we were doing the prints a disservice by sending the files to the printer using 300ppi causing the software to do some scaling.  
 

By the way everyone, sorry for any confusion about dpi, ppi etc.  It's been a while!  Dots I'm guessing is for printing and Pixels is for electronic screen.  

 

Edited April 23, 2024 by thebarnman

[dpitt]

3 hours ago, thebarnman said:

answer your question)  if I was to use a 90mm like I'm used to using on my R9.  I've watched a few videos about the SL3 and there does seem to be an awful lot of menu options on the back even though I understand it's laid out much nicer when compared to the earlier versions of the SLs.  Regardless, I usually shoot aperture priority (so that part would be the same) and I thought changing ISO on the fly might be nice under some circumstances. 

I've done lots of darkroom and Photoshop work (five years worth) when I was interning at a model and talent studio.  Mostly the digital work I've done has been on Photoshop and I would touch up the B&W negatives and prints using a little brush!  For personal work, I'd use digital scans of negatives and work with them in Photoshop.  When I wanted to work on more than one image, I tried Lightroom.  The big thing I learned between the two programs is it seems Photoshop is great for extreme detail work and Lightroom is great for organizing and working on overall images without all the super detail work one would normally do in Photoshop.  Lightroom can get really detailed if it's really called for on a certain images but Photoshop seems to be really built for that kind of work.  

What I don't like is darkroom work...I did plenty of that in my years at the studio.  Photoshop to me is like working in a darkroom...it can take lots and lots of time to get a finished look.  Lightroom is not so bad but still takes time depending if I let my OCD run away with me!  If there's many images I want to work on, I've learned it's just best to work on about one or two per evening till it's completed regardless how long it takes.    

Personally I think I made a BRILLIANT move when I decided to move away from digitally working on scanned negatives and concentrate on shooting transparencies.  Much easier than anything else since there's no time spent working on adjustments or touching up any of the images and the pictures are HUGE on the screen with of course fantastic looking color!  Easy, when the slides are developed I simply keep the images I like, organize them and put them into the carousels and view.  On a rare occasion, I'll do a slide show for someone about once a year or so.  

Here's where my story might get interesting to those reading this; I've always felt the weakest point of any analog photography is the scan of the negative for digital work.  I'm never really sure if it's really capturing all the detail (and dynamic range) of what's been captured on the negative.  I'm guessing of course all that is eliminated with digital photography.  All that's originally captured in camera is available to work on as you say in PP.  I had to look PP up, so I'm sure you're talking about post processing. 

Your right, I'm not used to working with RAW, but I'm guessing I could do that in Lightroom.  

Also, your suggestion of projecting the images on a good large 4K TV I think is a GREAT idea!  It's kind of like what I'm used to doing and I already have a professionally calibrated Sony 83" A90J OLED (home theatre is a big thing for me.)  That would be an easy way to save time on all that PP and just pick the images I like in a way I'm already used to doing. 

I know now and then I'll want to print those special images (like you said, focus on that later) as that would be nice to share and that's where my question comes in about printing the all the detail originally captured from the camera itself.  I know if I take the time to do it right, the prints will look incredible.  Also, I will admit, I really don't like working on images all that much but I will if there's something I really want to present in a nice way. 

People are not used to viewing slides and people are also not used to looking at prints.  Most are used to viewing images on a little hand held smartphone and are blown away when they see those large images on the screen or on a greatly detailed beautiful print.   

By the way, I like the idea of 60 megs particularity if I need to crop.  It's good to know there's still enough information to make a quality print or that the image still looks good on a 4K TV or smartphone.  

My TV is capable of Rec. 2020.  Is it possible to save an image using that format?  Or should it be DCI-P3 or Rec. 709?  sRGB I would only use for sharing on smaller displays.  

I did not know there were two types of printing qualities (300ppi and 700ppi.)  The only printer I'm familiar with is what I used at the photo studio the Epson 4900.  I remember we would calibrate the monitor (and make a icc color profile for that) and a icc profile for the paper we were printing on almost always Epson exhibition fiber paper.  

It's been about 10 years or so that I've worked that way and I guess there's probably been some advancements in printing technology since then.  I later learned that printer has a native resolution of 360dpi, and I guess we were doing the prints a disservice by sending the files to the printer using 300ppi causing the software to do some scaling.  
 

By the way everyone, sorry for any confusion about dpi, ppi etc.  It's been a while!  Dots I'm guessing is for printing and Pixels is for electronic screen.  

 

Thanks for explaining. That helps very much.
It looks like you have a good grasp of PP tools (yes post processing), and for in a digital workflow that is one area covered. One thing that you might find is that with digital you will probably end up with lots more images. They are 'free' anyway. Of course that is not really the case, since keeping them safe (backups) is not free and culling and processing them will take time.
I recommend either going for LR or for something like C1P to manage them all. Since you know Photoshop, LR seems the obvious choice.

I am confident that you will master the SL3 menu's. They are more complicated than your R9 (great camera BTW) but Leica has done a great job in finding the balance between flexibility and ease of use. Still, I think that there will be a learning curve, mostly in the way you shoot with it compared to the R9. e.g. exposure techniques will be completely opposite to using film. With film you expose for the shadows, with digital for the highlights. The DR and detail will probably blow you away, and shooting at ISO 6400 without grain even more... But to get the same natural look of your images shot with the R9 will probably take some tweaking.
If you add auto focus and IBIS and OIS lens that adds more to think about, and set... One of the reasons I still like to shoot MF Leica R lenses on my SL.

So, I think that you are ready for digital and I am confident that you will get good results on screen quite easy. I had to look up Rec. 2020 🙂. Maybe some others can help about exporting for that. In any case it helps to tweak your crops for the exact dimensions of your preferred display. Both LR and C1P support setting up export profiles to do that. They also support making slide shows.

Regarding printer, it is probably best to dive in and see what you get. My friend prints with a Canon 1000 Pro with max resolution of 600 DPI.
I have no issues with the quality of his prints, but it always takes time for each individual image to get the best results out of it. It usually takes a few test prints with different settings and papers, possibly even PP tweaks...
That is the learning process I would expect.

[01af]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

I've watched a few videos about the SL3 and there does seem to be an awful lot of menu options ... 

Many of the camera's menu options deal with in-camera JPEG settings and are irrelevant for shooting in raw format (i. e. DNG for Leica cameras).

.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

... and I thought changing ISO on the fly might be nice under some circumstances.

It definitely is.

.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

Personally I think I made a BRILLIANT move when I decided to move away from digitally working on scanned negative [...] I've always felt the weakest point of any analog photography is the scan of the negative for digital work.

That's right. Shooting film has its own virtues ... but only if it stays in the analog realm—that is, projecting the traditional way with an analog slide projector or printing in the wet darkroom. Scanning, and working with scanned negatives, is just a pain in the ... rear end, and it takes away most of the magic inherent to film. When digital images is what you need then better shoot with a digital camera to begin with; it's quicker, cheaper, more convenient, and better.

.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

I'm not used to working with raw ...

You're not!? Ugh! You should definitely change that.

.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

My TV is capable of Rec. 2020.  Is it possible to save an image using that format?  Or should it be DCI-P3 or Rec. 709?  sRGB I would only use for sharing on smaller displays.

Rec. 2020 is not a format but an RGB colour space (JPEG, TIFF, PSD, and DNG are digital image formats, among others). If your TV screen is capable thereof then use it! It's a very large colour space so it's perfectly well-suited as a general working space. ProPhoto RGB is even larger but only slightly so which would not make any difference in real life. ProPhoto RGB is the usual working space when aiming at prints; Rec. 2020 is the ideal working colour space for anything that ends up being presented electronically, i. e. on a high-end monitor or via digital 4K or 8K projection, especially video (provided you're using a digital video camera capable of shooting raw, e. g. CinemaDNG). For low-end monitors or projectors, better export your finished images to Display P3 or sRGB.

For digital raw images, your working colour space must be  selected at post-processing time in Adobe Camera Raw, Lightroom, or whatever raw converter you're using. It is not set in the camera at shooting time! Most digital cameras offer the choice between sRGB and Adobe RGB in their menus but that's for in-camera JPEG only.

.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

... the Epson Stylus Pro 4900. [...] I later learned that printer has a native resolution of 360 dpi ...

Sigh.

No, it hasn't. Instead, it has a native input resolution of 360 ppi.

.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

... and I guess we were doing the prints a disservice by sending the files to the printer using 300 ppi causing the software to do some scaling.

In theory, that's correct. In practice, it just doesn't matter. Do not worry about an ink printer's native input resolution—which for most printers is 300 ppi; only Epson uses 360 ppi. After all, if your image isn't 360 ppi to begin with—it usually isn't—then someone has to do some re-scaling. It totally doesn't matter whether you will do it using Lightroom or Photoshop, or leave it to the printer's internal rescaling algorithms (which do a VERY good job by the way). So don't bother doing your printer's job. Just send him what you have.

[Jeff S]

01af provided all the helpful and accurate technical information, so I’ll skip that part and just add for the OP that prints are the best way for me to experience photos, whether silver/darkroom or inkjet.  When the pic is worthy, and the print ‘sings’ (more due to the photographer/print person than the gear used), no digital display or slide projection can equal the viewing and tactile appeal. Modern day printers, inks and papers are more than capable of supporting beautiful prints by a capable user. Or mediocre prints when technique and judgment fail. For me, the learning curve for printing is not only worth it (and still continuing), but the absence of prints would leave a huge void in my photographic process and output.  
 

And when I pass, the only way others will likely experience my work, if at all, will be from prints left behind, not slides or negatives or digital files.

Jeff

[adan]

Bottom line here: the unaided human eye can resolve about 14-15 line pairs ( || ) per mm. Or ~375 line pairs per inch.

Under ideal conditions - 10 inches/250mm from the (in this case) print. And eyes probably no older than 18 years. And corrected for near vision where needed.

View fron 50cm/20 inches, and that will drop by half (7.5 lpmm/188 lp/inch).

And the late Leica lens maven Erwin Puts suggested 5 lpmm (125 lp/inch) was his expectation, in the real world.

____________

The 300ppi (not dpi) standard dates back to the dawn of digital image reproduction (1980±), when it was recommended that a digitized image have at least two pixels for each dot-width in a regular analog halftone screen. Or 300 ppi for a high-end magazine screen quality of 150 dpi (not ppi - and newspapers used 65-85 line-screens).

To avoid moiré patterns between the pixel-array and the CYMK ink-dot-arrays, and other artifacts. (click image for better clarity)

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!

it really has no direct application for inkjet printers using pseudo-stochastic** digital screening algorithms (re/downsampled. dithered, and sharpened, by the printer-drivers themselves, to best match the printer's capabilities and settings).

And I estimate that my Epson P900 (nominally 2880x2880 ink-dots/inch) actually prints everything at about 240 ppi - in order to have enough dots-per-pixel for reasonably wide-gamut color reproduction. But that is still easily enough to show the difference in edge sharpness/finest detail between an 18-Mpixel M9 Monochrom picture and a B&W conversion of a demosaiced 18-Mpixel color M9 image.

(BTW, in earning an MA in Visual Communications and working as a newspaper photographer, graphic designer/editor, picture editor, and AME/Graphics 1984-2009 - I kinda had to learn all this stuff in detail as it was invented - punishment for my sins, I guess. 🤪)

___________
**
https://www.brumleyprinting.com/what-is-stochastic-screening/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_screening

 

[thebarnman]

On 4/23/2024 at 1:47 AM, 01af said:

Rec. 2020 is not a format but an RGB colour space .

That is what I meant.  I forget the exact numbers but my Sony 83" A90J can only reproduce about 75% of Rec. 2020...so maybe it would better to do DCI-P3 or just do Rec. 709.  

 

On 4/23/2024 at 1:47 AM, 01af said:

Sigh.

No, it hasn't. Instead, it has a native input resolution of 360 ppi.

.

In theory, that's correct. In practice, it just doesn't matter. Do not worry about an ink printer's native input resolution—which for most printers is 300 ppi; only Epson uses 360 ppi. After all, if your image isn't 360 ppi to begin with—it usually isn't—then someone has to do some re-scaling. It totally doesn't matter whether you will do it using Lightroom or Photoshop, or leave it to the printer's internal rescaling algorithms (which do a VERY good job by the way). So don't bother doing your printer's job. Just send him what you have.

So what exactly is native INPUT resolution of 360 ppi compared to the native printing resolution?  Of course I think it would be best to offer an image with the printers native resolution and if it's not that important, at least make sure it's higher than 360 ppi than lower than 360 ppi.       

 

[thebarnman]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

14 hours ago, Jeff S said:

01af provided all the helpful and accurate technical information, so I’ll skip that part and just add for the OP that prints are the best way for me to experience photos, whether silver/darkroom or inkjet.  When the pic is worthy, and the print ‘sings’ (more due to the photographer/print person than the gear used), no digital display or slide projection can equal the viewing and tactile appeal. Modern day printers, inks and papers are more than capable of supporting beautiful prints by a capable user. Or mediocre prints when technique and judgment fail. For me, the learning curve for printing is not only worth it (and still continuing), but the absence of prints would leave a huge void in my photographic process and output.  
 

And when I pass, the only way others will likely experience my work, if at all, will be from prints left behind, not slides or negatives or digital files.

Jeff

Hi Jeff, 

The only issues I've had when printing with a jet ink printer in the past is matching brightness levels.  Matching color has never really been the problem (what I see on the screen is the same as the print) except for it's brightness levels.  I've always had to increase the brightness by 10 just to get the print to look the same as it's seen on the screen. 

I know the type of light used to view the print makes a difference but matching brightness levels has always been a problem for me.  

 

[01af]

vor 2 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

So what exactly is native INPUT resolution of 360 ppi compared to the native printing resolution?

Ink printers take pixels for input and emit dots as output.

For most photo-quality Epson ink printers, the native input resolution is 360 ppi and the output resolution is 2,880 × 1,440 dpi. It can be reduced to 1,440× 720 dpi for draft-quality printing (saves ink). The latest-generation Epson ink printers (e. g. SureColor SC-P700 & SC-P900) print at 5,760 × 1,440 dpi.

What does native input resolution mean, anyway? I am not perfectly sure ... I think it means the printer driver will re-scale any input up or down to 360 ppi and then go from there. But from the user's point of view it simply doesn't matter. You have a digital image file, you want to have it printed at a certain size, and that's it.

.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

Of course I think it would be best to offer an image with the printers native resolution and if it's not that important, at least make sure it's higher than 360 ppi than lower than 360 ppi.

As I said: Don't bother.

If your image file is 360 ppi or more then fine. If not then there's nothing you can do about it ... other than interpolating new pixels by upscaling. And the printer driver probably does a better job upscaling for print than you will.

.

vor 2 Stunden schrieb thebarnman:

The only issues I've had when printing with an ink printer in the past is matching brightness levels.

Yes ... monitors are luminous; they emit their own light. Paper just reflects existing light, and the ink on the paper takes away from that, to create colours.

When I'm done preparing my picture for print in Photoshop then I will select the top-most layer and hit Shift-Ctrl-Alt E (i. e. "stamp all visible (layers)"—that's for Windows, no idea how to do it on Mac). This will create a new layer atop all others, containing the finished picture. I'll adjust the opacity to 20 - 25 % and set the blending mode to "Screen". This will lighten up the whole picture for print. Enable this layer to do the printing, disable it to compare the print to the image displayed on the monitor. It's a tongue-in-cheek make-shift solution but it works for me. If someone knows a better method then I'm all ears.

Edited April 24, 2024 by 01af

[Jeff S]

5 hours ago, thebarnman said:

Hi Jeff, 

The only issues I've had when printing with a jet ink printer in the past is matching brightness levels.  Matching color has never really been the problem (what I see on the screen is the same as the print) except for it's brightness levels.  I've always had to increase the brightness by 10 just to get the print to look the same as it's seen on the screen. 

I know the type of light used to view the print makes a difference but matching brightness levels has always been a problem for me.  

 

A common problem with different types of illumination.  A web search using terms like “why are my prints too dark” will bring up tons of articles and discussions.  The most common solution  is turning down monitor brightness levels for print sessions, and standardizing room and display lighting conditions. A good screen from Eizo or NEC will help control brightness levels.  Regardless, display lighting conditions can vary greatly, so some goes as far as using a small print viewing station, under which one can place a print under specific light levels to simulate display conditions.  But this can be expensive, and a bit of overkill.
 

Over time, one can develop a workflow through a bit of trial and error to better match brightness levels.  My most helpful aid for printing, however, has been through the use of ImagePrint (Black) software, which among other benefits, offers full time soft proofing, superb profiles for virtually all papers, and the ability to adjust profiles for different display lighting conditions. It also eliminates the sometimes confusing  Adobe-Apple-Epson software update and compatibility chain, and automatically optimizes print settings.  It’s pricey, but I wouldn’t print without it.

Jeff

[adan]

8 hours ago, thebarnman said:

The only issues I've had when printing with a jet ink printer in the past is matching brightness levels.  Matching color has never really been the problem (what I see on the screen is the same as the print) except for it's brightness levels.

As Jeff S says.....

The problem here is that computer displays emit light - paper only reflects light. "Print white" under ambient room light will usually be darker than "screen  white" - unless one adjusts for the difference.

Screen calibration systems can only do so much, since they have no idea how bright (or dark) your actual viewing conditions are, or will be.

It can be shocking how "dark" white-white paper can look, compared to computer screens. See examples below.

My solution for this (for over a decade) is to lean a sheet of the paper I will print on up against the monitor/screen. And then adjust the computer display brightness until its whites matche the reflected paper-white brightness in my working environment. And/or adjust the room lighting (raise the blinds, turn on more light bulbs) until the paper "white" brightness matches the screen "white" brightness. In my space, the usual "Goldilocks best match" is with the screen brightness set about halfway between brightest and dimmest. (Apple Studio Display).

If one knows the print will be displayed under conditions that are brighter or darker than one's workspace, some "windage" can be applied. Or just carry a print to the intended display place as a double-check. But ideally, one should simply have a well-lit workspace in the first place.

Another tip is to avoid the "dark color theme" layout in editing software. A black/dark display background is horrible for judging how bright a picture really will look, printed on white paper. I make sure that both my Photoshop "theme" and fullscreen background mode - and my overall OS (desktop) tone/"wallpaper", is a pure and very light gray, just barely distinguishable from pure white. No colors, no wallpaper photo/pattern - just plain near-white, corner to corner.

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!

 

 

Edited April 24, 2024 by adan

[pgk]

35 minutes ago, adan said:

My solution for this (for over a decade) is to lean a sheet of the paper I will print on up against the monitor/screen. And then adjust the computer display brightness until its whites matche the reflected paper-white brightness in my working environment.

I've done this for years. Works surprisingly well although I do tend to raise shadows marginally as a matter of course to help ensure that they don't block when printing.

But to get back to the original question, its not easy to asign any absolute numerical values simply because the biggest variable is the subject matter. A very detailed, well lit subject which has high micro contrast will print bigger than a less detailed subject with less, and lower contrast detail in it. Tying to determine exactly how big a print can be made is often an estimate which needs fine tuning by empirical trial and error. FWIW I have slightly larger than ~24" x 16" inkjet prints off my M9 files which have as much detail as they could possibly need. 

[thebarnman]

On 4/24/2024 at 7:50 AM, Jeff S said:

A common problem with different types of illumination.  A web search using terms like “why are my prints too dark” will bring up tons of articles and discussions.  The most common solution  is turning down monitor brightness levels for print sessions, and standardizing room and display lighting conditions. A good screen from Eizo or NEC will help control brightness levels.  Regardless, display lighting conditions can vary greatly, so some goes as far as using a small print viewing station, under which one can place a print under specific light levels to simulate display conditions.  But this can be expensive, and a bit of overkill.
 

Over time, one can develop a workflow through a bit of trial and error to better match brightness levels.  My most helpful aid for printing, however, has been through the use of ImagePrint (Black) software, which among other benefits, offers full time soft proofing, superb profiles for virtually all papers, and the ability to adjust profiles for different display lighting conditions. It also eliminates the sometimes confusing  Adobe-Apple-Epson software update and compatibility chain, and automatically optimizes print settings.  It’s pricey, but I wouldn’t print without it.

Jeff

Interesting you mentioned Eizo or NEC.  Currently I'm using a NEC PA271W.  I can't even tell you how old it is but I'm guessing at least over 10.  The hours on it is almost 33,000!  I can no longer reach 120 nits due to the light source but I can calibrate it if I set it for 75 nits (about as high as it will go.)  If I set the nit level to 120 (where I've had it for years) the calibration totally fails!

I was checking out a new NEC monitor recently and just learned it's from about four years or so ago and it's no longer being made.  So I see there's a nice one from from Eizo...the ColorEdge CG2700X that seems like it could take the place of what I have now.  

Actually I'm not concerned about the fact my current NEC monitor can only be calibrated out to 75 nits, it's not such a bad thing to get used to.  The thing I can't get used to is the left looks cool (about 7000k and the right side about (I forget the value) but it's cooler than the 65k that's in the center of the screen.  So it kind of looks cool on the left and warm on the right.  It's not really bad but it is noticeable when looking at an image...so I guess it IS bad!  Yea, the uniformity was much better some time ago but today...forget it! 

That software sounds nice.  I was reading about something like the earlier today.  Just drop the image to a place on the screen, and when your done, just print (I guess.)  Sounds much easier than messing with all those print settings in Photoshop.  I'm guessing you would still need to select a colorspace.           

     

[thebarnman]

On 4/24/2024 at 10:35 AM, adan said:

As Jeff S says.....

The problem here is that computer displays emit light - paper only reflects light. "Print white" under ambient room light will usually be darker than "screen  white" - unless one adjusts for the difference.

Screen calibration systems can only do so much, since they have no idea how bright (or dark) your actual viewing conditions are, or will be.

It can be shocking how "dark" white-white paper can look, compared to computer screens. See examples below.

 

 

Thanks for those examples.  I have in the past just walked outside in pure daylight to look at a print!  Usually indoors it's much darker light than what is seen on a screen.  I've always thought working on a monitor with lower light levels would help like you say if the final viewing place is a regular room without direct light on the image.  Sometimes a combination of both lowering screen brightness and increasing the light inside while viewing the print. 

Sometimes I think it's just best to increase the brightness on the print after the first test print so it finally looks in the room like how it does on the computer screen.  So far that has worked for me...I don't see too many people in their homes blasting light onto their prints to view.  

Funny how a print made in a dark room looks fine under normal home lighting conditions but make a print from a screen?  Watch out!  

 

[hansvons]

On 4/23/2024 at 10:47 AM, 01af said:

That's right. Shooting film has its own virtues ... but only if it stays in the analog realm—that is, projecting the traditional way with an analog slide projector or printing in the wet darkroom. Scanning, and working with scanned negatives, is just a pain in the ... rear end, and it takes away most of the magic inherent to film. When digital images is what you need then better shoot with a digital camera to begin with; it's quicker, cheaper, more convenient, and better.

Hi @01af, your knowledge and insights are evident, and I find myself in agreement with most of your points, except for the one mentioned above.

Film negatives can be scanned without pain and integrated into a digital workflow with excellent results. I did that for over a decade when shooting TV commercials. We shot on 35mm negatives and got them scanned to video by a dedicated telecine system and a colourist as the operator. When films died in my industry around 2009-10, everyone felt that even the best digital cameras were not remotely close to what Kodak and Fuji could reproduce regarding colour, skin tones, and dynamic range at the time. 

That got incrementally better but never caught up completely, reflected by the new surge of film use in the professional realm today. Many of Hollywood's best directors turned their backs on digital and use film again, always with digital intermeds in the pipeline. Similar things can be said about fine art photographers. Digitising film does not take away most of the film's inherent magic. When well done, it brings out the best a negative can offer.

Digital may be better by the numbers, but it's not better artistically; on the contrary, for many highly knowledgeable people. And I share the same view. 

---

I now have a Canon imagePROGRAF PRO-4600 and explore many of the comments mentioned above on printing convincing prints. One major factor is, of course, the viewing environment. I use these lights and have my Eizo on the same 5000K, matching the room's brightness.

[01af]

vor 4 Stunden schrieb hansvons:

Digital may be better by the numbers ...

That's what I meant.

.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb hansvons:

... but it's not better artistically ...

I cannot disagree with that.

.

vor 4 Stunden schrieb hansvons:

... on the contrary, for many highly knowledgeable people.

And that's the catch. I never got my negatives scanned to video by a dedicated telecine system and a colourist as the operator; I have to do it myself, using affordable hardware, with no specific education. Sure it's possible to scan film at very high quality—at very high cost. And if you do that then film may keep its magic. But most hobbyists can't afford this, at least not on a regular basis. For me—and I guess for most hobbyists—, scanning is a tedious task and yields mediocre results.

I understand that for a commercial user who has access to the finest equipment, operated by specialists, things are different from what they are to me.

[irenedp]

My Epson 7500 definitely can. And I reckon that the 9890 coming when the lease expires will too. 

[pippy]

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned here but using a top-quality paper (such as those produced by Hahnemuhle or Canson) can make the most ENORMOUS difference in final print I.Q.

Philip.

[Einst_Stein]

It depends on the equivalent resolution and color depth of your eyes. And your brain. 

[hansvons]

17 hours ago, pippy said:

I'm not sure if this has already been mentioned here but using a top-quality paper (such as those produced by Hahnemuhle or Canson) can make the most ENORMOUS difference in final print I.Q.

 

I’d love to know what papers are your favorites. Thanks!!

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[pippy]

4 hours ago, hansvons said:

I’d love to know what papers are your favorites. Thanks!!

Of course, Hans, happy to give them a mention (I have no affiliation to either marque).

From Hahnemuhle I use their 100% Cotton Photo Rag (either in 188 or 308 gsm depending on end-use);

https://www.hahnemuehle.com/en/digital-fineart/fineart-media/matt-fineart-smooth/p/Product/show/8/1.html

From Canson my favourite is their 'Infinity Baryta Photographique II';

https://www.canson-infinity.com/en/products/baryta-photographique-ii

These paper-stocks are quite dissimilar in terms of feel / handling and also surface texture. Having said that they do have a few qualities in common such as the ability to print over a very wide print-gamut giving very deep blacks and clear highlights as well an exceptional ability to resolve very fine detail.

The choice of which paper will be used is determined by the image to be printed. If you wish to hear my decision-making criteria then please read on (I will refer to the Hahnemuhle as HPR and the Canson as CBP).

The HPR - as explained in their own blurb from the link posted above - has a surface which is almost perfectly matt and which has a luxurious 'Velvety' texture to the fingertips. Although this might sound a bit strange when handling prints made on this stock they don't feel like 'Photographs'; more akin to a fine-art print such as a Silverpoint Engraving or an Etching. If a print is intended to be mounted behind glass then the 188gsm paper is chosen but if the print is to be left as loose-leaf then the 308gsm is preferred as there is an unmistakeable air of Quality when in the hand.

Conversely prints made using CBP feel exactly like old-school wet-room photographs made on good heavyweight stock such as Agfa's Record Rapid. The texture - and even the smell(!) - of the paper is uncannily like an (un-glazed) fibre-based print. Again; being on heavyweight paper handling a print made on this stock has a reassuring feeling of being a high-quality piece of work.

Not sure how much help that might be but there it is. Any specific questions you may have please do ask.

Philip.

Edited April 30, 2024 by pippy