What makes a 'good' print?

[Julia]

Hi,

I would like your advice/ option on what makes a good print.

I have been looking through some of my photos and a few of other peoples' and I seem to have a higher option of the latter.

I want to print a few of my photos to 10" by 12" (32 cm by 22 cm) approx. They have all been shot in RAW on a DSLR so I believe there isn't a problem was file size.

Please let me know.

Thanks

[coupekid]

Hi,

I would like your advice/ option on what makes a good print.

I have been looking through some of my photos and a few of other peoples' and I seem to have a higher option of the latter.

I want to print a few of my photos to 10" by 12" (32 cm by 22 cm) approx. They have all been shot in RAW on a DSLR so I believe there isn't a problem was file size.

Please let me know.

Thanks

Hi Julia,

Well, theres a question if ever I saw one! I think it really depends on what you like, its really all down to personal taste.

Its like asking, what makes a good record, or what makes a good film.

Firstly, its down to who the print is for, if it is for you, and you like the photograph, then it will make a good print for you.

:)

[Pol]

Hi,

I would like your advice/ option on what makes a good print.

I have been looking through some of my photos and a few of other peoples' and I seem to have a higher option of the latter.

I want to print a few of my photos to 10" by 12" (32 cm by 22 cm) approx. They have all been shot in RAW on a DSLR so I believe there isn't a problem was file size.

Please let me know.

Thanks


That's a HUGE question and I dunno if there's any definite answer - but here are my own thoughts, based on how I 'manage' my own 12x8 or 10x8 prints.

First off - I should add that none of my prints are used for competitions, commercial use or anything other than personal/family and friends' purposes. I do nothing professional - but I do aim for good quality prints that are intended for archiving, long term family albums etc.

I've always preferred the final print of pictures that have been carefully processed with a final large print in mind. I say that because you can get away with 'harder' shapening for a file intended for printing. I also like to spend some time making sure the colours and contrasts are the best I can possibly manage. In short - I aim to process so that the picci 'pops' off the screen and has good, clear, clean and sharp lines. Even better if I can get it so that there's some hints of '3D' in it.

I have a couple of large ring binder 'albums' and a portfolio case I keep for the larger prints that I want to archive - pictures I don't want to risk fading or deteriorating too badly. One file for family/personal stuff, another file for what I call the 'arty-clarty' stuff - meaning the sort of thing I may want to frame and hang on a wall, use for calendars, cards etc - as opposed to pictures for the sole use and viewing family and friends.

I usually get a batch of pre-paid print credits from Photobox each year when they do their special offer (4p per standard print) then I use some of those for 'testing' and looking at a standard print to see how it looks. I may then do more tweaking of the file before finally getting the 12 x8, 10 x8 or 10 x7 for the print archives. Needless to say I like post-processing as well as getting the shot in the first place ... so I don't mind taking my time over tweaking and faffing to get the best emlagement I can manage. Besides - it's a hobby rather than a job for me so that's ok. :D

I also do some home printing - but I never regard the home prints as permanent archive prints because I don't trust them to last as long as and well as the ones I get from Photobox. So home prints are used more for 'proofs' and temporary 'stick-on-a-wall' rather than a final photograph for albums, prtfolio or archives.

So to sum up - it's good and careful contrast, colour, good and sharp/clean lines - that's the way I think and go about things anyway. I also process according to how I want the print to look - not necessarily what some may term 'technically correct' (ie using the full histogram). The PRINT is what matters most to me in the end because, for me, a photograph is a hard copy print - not just a digital file for viewing on a screen.

Pol

[peter]

Hi,

I would like your advice/ option on what makes a good print.

I have been looking through some of my photos and a few of other peoples' and I seem to have a higher option of the latter.

When you say others look better is it just you being to harsh on your own work?. I think we are all our worst critics I look at a lot of my stuff and just think there is no way I am showing that to anyone.

I have just ordered two posters from a website that will print the photos that I uploaded to them. The main reason for this is not really to show them to loads of people but just to see what they look like. They have been posted out today so I am looking forward to seeing them any day soon.

[Stephen]

Hi,

I would like your advice/ option on what makes a good print.

I have been looking through some of my photos and a few of other peoples' and I seem to have a higher option of the latter.

I want to print a few of my photos to 10" by 12" (32 cm by 22 cm) approx. They have all been shot in RAW on a DSLR so I believe there isn't a problem was file size.

Please let me know.

Thanks

Julia, I've been musing this question since this morning, and I'm still unsure what you are asking. When you use the word "option" I feel confused as to what you are getting at. What do you mean by 'a good print"? What have other peoples photos ot to do with anything? Sorry I'm totally confused :confused:

[Julia]

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the confusion, Stephen. I do look at other people's photos and think - "wow - that would look nice on a wall" and "I wish my photos were that good".

What I was after was how others made decisions as to what to print (thanks - Pol) and why.

I know it is very subjective - I am interested in the thought process having not done it before.

[Stephen]

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the confusion, Stephen. I do look at other people's photos and think - "wow - that would look nice on a wall" and "I wish my photos were that good".

What I was after was how others made decisions as to what to print (thanks - Pol) and why.

I know it is very subjective - I am interested in the thought process having not done it before.

Gotcha :) From a personal point of view, the pictures of mine on the wall at home, all invoke some special memory, and usually have some sort of impact that grabs the attention of the viewer. Perhaps also the images are what I consider to be some of my better work and give me some sort of personal satisfaction

[ash]

I think all of what Pol said is important, having a great pic what looks fabulous on your expensive monitor is the first step to getting a great print, but just printing it out thinking it will look as good is not the way to go, test prints on a smaller scale first not only tests your calibration but will give you an idea how the image is going to look to the viewer.

Then theres the sharpness, how much to add for the size of print and how it will look, it can be a nightmare.
Printing b&w, I find is especially difficult because with different types of paper you tend to get different tones, then if you dont use the proper makers ink, that can also add a different tone to the image, very frustating sometimes, when you just want b&w.
I will confess I recently tried printing some b&w images and they were just aweful, I was not using epson inks, my monitor was not calibrated and experimenting with different types of paper well, need I say more.

After all this I dont think ive answered your question but hopefully you realise all the things to take into consideration when doing large prints.

Just changing the subject slightly ide love an a3 printer, does anyone have one for sale cheap:D or recommend one?

cheers
Ash.

[Pol]

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the confusion, Stephen. I do look at other people's photos and think - "wow - that would look nice on a wall" and "I wish my photos were that good".

What I was after was how others made decisions as to what to print (thanks - Pol) and why.

I know it is very subjective - I am interested in the thought process having not done it before.


I wasn't sure if you were asking about getting a print of good quality or whether you were referring to choosing what to print according to content - so I tried to address both points. :D

One thing I must add though - I make very sure I get a regular supply of standard prints so that I/we ensure the family albums continue to be maintained - just as they have been all down the years. Those are the ones that use up a lot of my advance print credits. Never mind if they don't demonstrate top-notch photography because they're the ultimate family record of cherished memories, kids growing up, family outing and events - irreplaceable and precious ...... the ultimate 'social history' for future generations.

The 'arty' stuff is lovely to have and enjoy - but it's the family stuff that is truly priceless imho.

When I talk about "Album" that's exactly what I mean too - a genuine photograph album that lives on a shelf or in a cupboard.

My personal favourites are the Ring Binders from Picture Lizard (http://www.picturelizard.co.uk/) and they also have a good supply of refill pages of for all sizes up to 12 x 8 and also in various styles (pockets, classic, self adhesive etc). I also filled a few of their small pocket albums for small Christmas gifts for friends, relatives and a few friends of our youngest son - which were all very well received and much appreciated.

It's just so quick and easy to repeat a Photobox order or have copies sent to an alternative addresses so that grandparents etc can have a few snaps of the extended family throughout the year.

I always say - "if in doubt - print it out!". Don't risk losing the family history because CDs or an external hard drive may not work 20 years from now. Go for professional prints that are much more likely to survive for decades and are easier to thumb through and talk about if the viewer can be turning the pages of an album rather than needing some sort of electronic device to enable the pictures to be seen.

Sorry about the waffle - I'm always banging on about making sure peeps have good quality, lasting print their digital photos. It's so important imho!

Pol

[Patrick]

Hi,

Thanks for the feedback and sorry for the confusion, Stephen. I do look at other people's photos and think - "wow - that would look nice on a wall" and "I wish my photos were that good".

What I was after was how others made decisions as to what to print (thanks - Pol) and why.

I know it is very subjective - I am interested in the thought process having not done it before.

I have been following this thread with interest, and one thing is clear we all have different criteria, family shots which are by type are quite personal, the arty stuff not personal in the same way and by extension pictures for display, exhibition or sale. Each category will have its own approach to printing. The family stuff requires enough quality to satisfy the family and no one else. The arty stuff the same can apply, however for display higher standards could apply and exhibition and sales most certainly will.

So what makes a good print, content is the first obvious element and almost totally subjective.
Sharpness yes, but depends on the subject matter and what is the intended mood and as uch can become subjective.
Tonal quality and accuracy of colour, much the same can apply.
Some of the most beautiful pictures I have seen have been blurred and strange colours, but that puts then in the arty farty area.
Archival life of the picture, a nutty one this much depends on the printer used, if its sent away for printing you don't necessarily know the type of inks used, so we have a question mark, unless the professional printer is using a system that converts the digital image to produce a traditional chemical print. This type of print is still not archival the dyes making the colour will fade slowly over the years, particularly if in strong sunlight, but will last very much longer in an acid free album. For true archival quality a Black & White dark room prints toned with selenium, gold or sepia toner done properly will last 200 years and more stored carefully.
From a dye ink printer pictures shown covered with glass or sprayed with a protector will not last as long as traditional chemical pictures but will still last for many years, I have some that have been on display for almost 9 years and they are now just starting to go, and dye inks have improved in that same period of time, so will do much better these days.
Different story with pigment ink printers, here we have claims of 80-200 years depending on the manufacturers, trouble is few of us will be around to see if the claims are good or not. Choice of paper here is also important for both ink types, high quality acid free paper is going to give better life than some cheap stuff picked up at a computer fair or supermarket, this applies to the inks as well. Third party inks are of unknown quality, other than the known tested quality brands like Permajet, Fotospeed, and Marrum (there are others) if in doubt stick to the official brand of the printer.
Before printing its essential to profile your monitor, whether you are sending them to someone like Photobox or doing them yourself, you want to get what you see on the screen, or as near as is humanly possible.
File size is important, a very small file can look absolutely fabulous on the screen but will print dreadfully, the reason is the screen displays at 72dpi but a printer requires a great deal more. My average file size when printing for exhibition will be around 30 Mb to print 12x9, I can manage with less if required.

Sorry it rambles on so long but hopefully there is something of interest in what I have said.

Patrick

[Pol]

<<Read but snipped for brevity>>

File size is important, a very small file can look absolutely fabulous on the screen but will print dreadfully, the reason is the screen displays at 72dpi but a printer requires a great deal more. My average file size when printing for exhibition will be around 30 Mb to print 12x9, I can manage with less if required.

Sorry it rambles on so long but hopefully there is something of interest in what I have said.

Patrick


All very interesting so thanks a lot for that, Patrick. :)

I'm interested to know if you print your own display, exhibition and sales photos? If not, which service do you use - is it Photobox?

I'm also interested to know what resolution you use for those files? Are they higher than 300ppi (which is what I currently use for all my prints).

I very much doubt I'll ever be exhibiting or selling but I'd still like to know just in case I ever decide to have a huge print framed and hung somewhere special. *LOL

Pol

[Patrick]

All very interesting so thanks a lot for that, Patrick. :)

I'm interested to know if you print your own display, exhibition and sales photos? If not, which service do you use - is it Photobox?

I'm also interested to know what resolution you use for those files? Are they higher than 300ppi (which is what I currently use for all my prints).

I very much doubt I'll ever be exhibiting or selling but I'd still like to know just in case I ever decide to have a huge print framed and hung somewhere special. *LOL

Pol

I always print my own work. I like to select the appropriate paper for the image more often than not a silk finish or an art paper, rarely gloss.
I have recently experimented with the new Hahnemuhle Bambo, lovely cream colour paper beautiful for arty subjects. Also Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl wonderful for B/W in particular. Ash was commenting earlier on this thread the trouble he has with B/W, its simply not possible to get true results with colour inks. I have the Epson R2400 printer, this printer has along with the usual colour inks three shades of black for B/W prints and will challenge a darkroom print for quality if printed on a top class paper, although there are give away signs its an ink jet print for the experianced.
I am about to start experiments on coating my own paper, the advantages are that it opens up possibilities for different effects and finishes that are not available otherwise. Its possible to coat even wood or metal but I cant see myself pushing a piece of MDF through my valuable printer.
As to resolution I aim for about 300dpi, but often get quality results with as low as 150dpi even for exhibition. Its interesting to note that Adobe if you click the best quality button for resizing defaults to 266dpi. My file sizes can often be much bigger than this, the printer simply makes its own adjustments to accommodate over sized files.

Printing my own and seeing the image through from pressing the shutter release, working on the image to making the final print is to me the real joy of photography. I simply wouldn't be happy leaving the final part, the printing to a third party. Printing your own certainly isn't an economic option in fact it works out quite a bit more expencive.

Patrick

[Pol]

I always print my own work. I like to select the appropriate paper for the image more often than not a silk finish or an art paper, rarely gloss.
I have recently experimented with the new Hahnemuhle Bambo, lovely cream colour paper beautiful for arty subjects. Also Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl wonderful for B/W in particular. Ash was commenting earlier on this thread the trouble he has with B/W, its simply not possible to get true results with colour inks. I have the Epson R2400 printer, this printer has along with the usual colour inks three shades of black for B/W prints and will challenge a darkroom print for quality if printed on a top class paper, although there are give away signs its an ink jet print for the experianced.
I am about to start experiments on coating my own paper, the advantages are that it opens up possibilities for different effects and finishes that are not available otherwise. Its possible to coat even wood or metal but I cant see myself pushing a piece of MDF through my valuable printer.
As to resolution I aim for about 300dpi, but often get quality results with as low as 150dpi even for exhibition. Its interesting to note that Adobe if you click the best quality button for resizing defaults to 266dpi. My file sizes can often be much bigger than this, the printer simply makes its own adjustments to accommodate over sized files.

Printing my own and seeing the image through from pressing the shutter release, working on the image to making the final print is to me the real joy of photography. I simply wouldn't be happy leaving the final part, the printing to a third party. Printing your own certainly isn't an economic option in fact it works out quite a bit more expencive.

Patrick


I had a feeling you probably did all your own printing but hadn't realised you were so advanced with all of it! I'm hugely impressed and I dare bet you have some fabulous 'works of art' hanging.

I've never tried any art papers - either for home printing nor from any commercial printers. Maybe I should be a bit more adventurous in the future -even though it is just for my own enjoyment. I certainly agree about the pleasure of holding the finished article in your hand - more so if you can create the entire article from start to finish!

>

>

I feel more ignorant and inferior than ever now! :o :D


Pol

[Patrick]

I feel more ignorant and inferior than ever now! :o :D


Pol

Now Now Pol no need for that.

Patrick

[Pol]

Now Now Pol no need for that.

Patrick


It's true! I've often told Ian I'm just a "poophead with a camera" and I mean it, honestly! I depend on David for help and advice much of the time and you should hear the debates heating up as he 'blinds me with science' - meaning I canna grasp half of what he's wittering on about. He's technical but I'm not - to put it mildly!

I won't lie down and be totally outdone or outclassed though. I've just started plodding my way through one of Dan Margulis' lab colour books - just arrived this morning. It probably won't help my photography but I like to aim for more understanding about processing, manipulation, printing etc - even if it's mostly just in my head rather than evident in my albums.

Fascinating stuff so far but please don't ask me any questions about it or I might go into meltdown. It's quite heavy going! :eek: *LOL

Pol

[Pops]

After reading through this thread it appears to me that the foremost considerations are
(a) the thickness of your wallet ;)
(b) printing for commercial or personal use
(c) subject matter
Those who print for commercial reasons will no doubt recover their expense through revenue and will endevour to use top quality equipment at all times with the subject matter meeting their own particular market requirements. This is only to be expected from someone who relies on that income but is not a realistic option for the amatuer. (IMO)
Others, like myself, will be fully satisfied with using an online source such as 'Photobox' or self printing with whatever resources are affordable. I use both these methods with a great deal of self satisfaction.
The original question appears to be, How do you decide what to print. To my mind the answer is ... I print the photographs that I like and I print others that I feel add something to the family album. i.e. family and pet shots. Many of these I don't particularly like myself but other family members do.
I usually make the initial print at 300dpi at 5 x 7. If I like it I then go to 10 x 8 and at this point I decide if I want to go for a professional print.
I do have a set of 8 self printed floral photograhs which have been hanging in the hallway for around 18 months. None of these are showing any signs of deteriation, fair to say they are under glass and away from direct sunlight.
Just for the record I use a Canon MP600 which meets my requirements