Shooting Film
- This topic has 27 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated Nov 15, 2008 at 10:36 pm by
.
-
Posts
-
I agree with the printing aspect and it sure does put a lot more back into photography, as well as the feel of photography. When you compare the cost of printer and ink to commercial print, you still come out ahead printing your own prints. More than this and along the lines of what David Anderson stated, it gives the photographer back total control of how their photographs appear in final print. It truly is a great tool for proofing and gaining better control/correction of the entire digital darkroom process as well.
Having access to the paper ICC profiles makes all of the difference in the world and printing really adds more to the digital darkroom experience, much more than just pushing the print button. I am a HUGE fan of the Epson printers and even though their paper and ICC profiles are great, White River also has great papers. I poured some water onto one of my Epson Enhanced Matte prints and then dabbed as well as swiped the water off, immediately after printing… No smear at all and looked just as pristine, got to love that! [ch9786] The inks are also tested and showed to not fade for 199 years so; it is great for museum archival prints. As David said, they have come way down in price and dependent upon the size of print, that a person wants, you can get an A3 (13” X 19”) pro printer, that supports ICC profiles, for just a few hundred dollars.
199 years so; it is great for museum archival prints. As David said, they have come way down in price and dependent upon the size of print, that a person wants, you can get an A3 (13” X 19”) pro printer, that supports ICC profiles, for just a few hundred dollars.
I am on board, finally, and now in the literature that goes with a final print puts the archival life at 200 years. There are so many caveats to that – frame, mats,glass, adhesives,temperature, light source, humidity and mounting. Conditions have to be perfect, and the ozone situation here in Dallas – Fort Worth is so bad, there’s the potential to take 100 off that number as soon as it is hanging. I haven’t looked at the site in awhile, but http://www.wilhelm-research.com is the only authority (in my opinion) when it comes to this research. What got so many folks into trouble in the early years, way back in the early 2000’s, was the claims made by and the bogus testing done by the printer / ink manufacturers on their own products.
If I was printing a bit more, I would certainly invest in RIP software.One question – do you use any kind of sealers like Lumijet Imageseal as a final step?
shannon
Shannon, you didn’t say this but you did remind me of something that I am normally very careful about. I normally try to qualify my offerings as my own knowledge or things that I have heard or researched. I really should have said: “In their testing, the inks fade rates were—“ I try to be more precise but you are correct, the tests results and conditions will vary. In my own experience, however, I have some proofs that I stored in unfavoring conditions, for over a year. The inks are still in great condition but the papers have faded. This has caused the whites to shift a bit but the white, printed area, is still more vibrant than the faded yellow tint of the paper.
I have heard and talked to several friends about the RIP printers and some that do have them. Their advice was that it is not worth the extra thousand dollars. For large commercial use and in print environments it is, on the same note, it is also the other functionality that makes it best suited or the larger print shops.
I don’t use the sealers, I leave that up to the galleries and I don’t think that they use them either, mostly UV glass in the frame. When I am stateside, the most that I use this printer for is, for proofing.
Will, The ICC profiles are a bit more complicated than that but they can be fun and is that element of digital darkroom that gives a darkroom bit of feel. Your monitor will have on ICC profile while the printers have a different one. The different types of paper and same types of paper, from different manufacturers, will also have different ICC profiles. For instance; an ICC profile for Cannon Glossy will have a different ICC profile than Epson Glossy, this is because the ink lays down differently and absorb differently. The different monitor settings, RGB, sRGB, CMYK and so on, also have different ICC profiles. The same thing for publishers, unless they use the exact same commercial printing facility, their CMYK ICC profiles will vary, even though the printers use the exact same paper.
Now, to make this simpler and to get to answering your question. You cannot completely duplicate the ICC profile that a particular publisher uses, unless they always use the same commercial printing facility and provide you with their CMYK ICC profile. Then, you would only get complete accurate color match if you printed your proof through their commercial printer. However, there is a way to print your own and get “close enough for comfort”, I do it all of the time.
First, you can do a proof on your own monitor and with the use of CS3; caveat is that a wider gamut monitor becomes more important as an sRGB will display sRGB no matter what ICC profile the user chooses. Under “View”, on the CS3 toolbar, select “Proofing Setup”. In the drop down menu, you can select CMYK for proofing a basic CMYK profile, or you can choose custom and select the ICC profile, from a new menu, that has the ICC profile of the paper that you plan to print on. Keep in mind that converting to a CMYK workflow will not work as you will still be printing to a RGB printer but you can still get close enough in many cases.
I prefer to print my contact sheets, when time allows and if the reps do not mind the extra time, that is unless they are on set and want to take finals the same day and when they leave. Once I have an idea of the type of paper, which final publication will run in, I can print on similar paper and have a good idea of how my finals will commercially print. You have some of the magazines that you have been published in so, you have an idea of the type of paper. Find that and “do not” use document paper as it is a terrible print for proofing. Print several prints and use the advance printer settings “option bar” to adjust the final print until you get a “close for comfort” print on that paper. Save those custom settings, in the advanced printer settings menu, and name them after the publisher. This way you can just pull those settings and print all of your proofs with the same settings and feel more comfort in knowing that they are close enough. Once you send the images to the publisher, they will adjust to CMYK, some now use high-end RGB commercial printers though. The main thing is that they have your final RGB or Pro Photo RGB (for now, I would stay in the RGB with TIFF or DNG though), this allows the GA’s and AD’s to be able to have color comparison and helps in the adjustment process, if they are good and care [ch9786]. The main thing is that you do get close enough and a lot of my proofs seem to be spot on with the final publication.
Yes, you can get a good printer in the $400.-$500.00 Range that does support ICC profiles and prints very good. I will caution on the type of OS that you are running though. Be glad to help you out more, just let me know you OS system and you do not want to get caught up in the bugs of compatibility with the Epson R2400 and Leopard. I have 2 of those printers and managed a good work around on them. They work great on windows based platforms but it seems that Apple and Epson spent more time blaming each other for the issues as opposed to resolving them.
I’m new to the board, but I thought I’d comment on the film aspect. I enjoy shooting film, and still shoot it quite often (about 70% of the time). And I shoot digital – I truly believe both mediums have their distinct advantages. Digital has pushed the learning curve for me in certain situations (especially complex studio lighting), but nothing can replace a well exposed transparency.
Fuji took their Velvia off the market for a bit which bummed me out, but they brought it back and I think it’s even better than before. And from the digital aspect, a good digital scan of a 35mm transparency is effective to about 20 megapixels.
Shooting film is getting cheaper. I just picked up an backup Canon 1n body, with a grip, for $125. So while you may have to pay for film and processing, keep in mind the up-front costs of keeping up with digital (although I think this is slowing down a bit as the megapixel and ISO wars plateau). Canon Mark iii or Nikon D700? It’ll set you back some.
Anyway, just my take on things. Film is still a great medium. I prefer it in the studio so i don’t have art directors constantly gawking over my shoulder. It allows art to continue to be art. But digital is awfully damn convenient, not to mention extremely capable.
If you haven’t shot film for a long time, go grab a roll, and go shoot. You’ll find you slow down and think about things more. You compose and wait for your shot. You savor it. It’s just something a little bit different.
Jacob
Not wrong about the price of film gear.
The cameras cost next to nothing for top of the line gear and there’s a stack of it around.
I get a hankering to get a 10’x8′ and shoot landscapes every time I see one going cheap..
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
There’s a guy here in Sydney (David Kay) who was the king **** dude when it came to large format cameras and quality B&W prints – his stuff always made me want to quit when I compared it to the hack magazine work I was shooting in 35mm tranny.
He also worked at a camera store and was one of the few people around who really knew what he was selling.No he’s into medium format digital and large format printers and his prints are better then ever – the stuff he does with some of the very hi rez backs is again breaking my heart when I compare it to the best I get from work.
I think he proves that it’s the passion and commitment to quality that make photos great more then the camera or medium.
www.dsaphoto.com
A picture is thousand words that takes less than a second while a thousand words is a picture that takes a month.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.