What printing methods preferred?
Steve
Before spending money on printing, I would like to know what landscape and
nature photographers prefer. Cibrachrome, Inter-neg, Digital, IRIS or
Gzclay for professional printing? What is used most?
Thanks
Keith Clark
Steve wrote:
It depends on your market.
We all have our personal favorites for printing, but you need to think about
your target market and tailor your printing to fit that market. Limited
edition, fine-art, art/craft shows (don't laugh), each have their own
requirements.
Ilfochrome (Cibachrome) will give you the best saturation and longevity
(arguably), but you will want to use a contrast mask for most shots which does
add to the cost. Ilfochrome prints tend to be very expensive and you'll want
to find a lab that specializes in them, because not all labs do them justice.
Holland Photo has an excellent reputation, and would be a good place to start.
Interneg is OK from medium format and larger, but not very much from 35mm (at
least not for prints larger than 16x20). At any rate, use 4x5 internegs for
professional results (never, ever use 35mm internegs). You will have less
contrast gain and lower saturation overall than with Ilfochrome, but your per
print price will be lower. If you're doing *high volume* sales, that may be
the best route.
When you say "digital" you open up a whole can of worms. If you are going to
use digital tools to basically retouch, do dodging burning or even compositing
before printing photo quality images, you will probably want to work with
files 75 MB or larger from drum scans. Drum scans are spendy ($1 per
megabyte), but you can't beat the quality. Output your digital files to an
LVT (4x5 size), neg or chrome film, and then any lab can "print" your digital
creations from the new negatives. Anything smaller than about 75 MB is suspect
if you will be printing large enlargements from the negatives (but of course
it depends on your quality standards and what your customers are used to).
Iris and "Giclee" (pronounced zee-clay) are the same thing. "Giclee" was
coined by the fine arts community because nobody wants to say they paid $600
and up for an inkjet print. When using Iris you want to have a long talk with
your service bureau to make sure they use the archival inksets and archival
paper. Some combinations supposedly far outlast traditional photographs in
high UV environments. Again, using this method will be determined by your
market and your work. Iris gives you a lot of flexibility because you can
print on watercolor paper, canvas, and more fine-art media. It's not for
everybody or every image. Prints tend to be on the expensive side and in some
cases there is a "RIP" (or processing) fee in addition to the per-print
charge.
Hope it helps... (and not confuses ;>)
Keith
http://www.spiritone.com/~kclark/
Douglas Vincent
What format are you photographing in - 35mm, medium format, large format?
What's your price range? These are two important factors in making your
choice.
Even though digital printing has arrived, if I had the money, I would
probably go for Ilfochrome (cibachrome). Check out http://www.fatali.com if
you want to get an idea of what good photography combined with good
Ilfochrome printing can create. This type of printing is an artform in
itself and a lot of custom labs don't do the process the justice it deserves.
On the digital side take a look at http://www.evercolor.com The luminage
direct digital printing process is expensive up front (scanning and refining
your initial prints) but, if you want to have total control over your images
in terms of color correction, dodging, burning etc., this is the way to go.
Of course, you also have some expensive up front costs in terms of computer
equipment.
Iris and Gilcee are other digital alternatives but I've yet to see any really
incredible nature or landscape photography that I consider better than either
cibachrome or luminage. Since you mention inter-neg I assume you are
photographing in 35mm - an inter-neg professionally made can have an
advantage in making bigger enlargements (I seen some pretty impressive work)
but I would argue that you might as well go digital since scanning methods
(drum scans) are now much more affordable and can be stored on CD and
duplicated at your leisure.
My thoughts.
Regards,
Monti Vincent
Light Visions - Visual Artistry of the Western US
http://www.light-visions.com
_______________________
paintbr...@my-dejanews.com
ClarkPho...@spiritone.com wrote:
>
> Steve wrote:
>
> > I am new to photography printing.
> >
> > Before spending money on printing, I would like to know what landscape and
> > nature photographers prefer. Cibrachrome, Inter-neg, Digital, IRIS or
> > Gzclay for professional printing? What is used most?
> >
> > Thanks
>
not have to be 75 megs. Most of the files I use has a range from 20 to 50
megs. If the image is 50 megs (around 12" x 12"), the images can be enlarged
and printed up to 400% during the printing process without loosing any detail
on water color media. The artist can print the image 10 x 10 and than use the
same file to print 30 x 30. It is not advisable to print over 600% on water
color media and 400% on gloss or semi gloss media.
2nd point. As small as it may seem, the correct term is "set up time" for
preping images for printing. The files are not "RIPPED". "Ripping" usually
means putting the image into a computer language format called "Postscript".
To the artist, this is tech talk and most artist don't want to hear about it.
But to those who know the term, the cost and possible problems in ripping a
file it is nice to know the images are not "Ripped". Why? - As the images
are sent from the MAC (in Photoshop CT format, CMYK) to the IBM computer (the
IBM computer control the functions of the Iris printer) the software program
maintain the Photoshop CT format. No ripping is required with Photoshop
files.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Howard A. Cubell
print that looks like it is made from a photographic image is a print
made on regular photographic paper that is printed using a digital
enlarger such as the Lightjet 5000 or the Durst Lambda. Then, you can
dispense with the cost and loss of detail etc. that results from the use
of an internegative. Relatively few labs have these enlargers because of
the cost, but the results are exceptional. Also, note that some labs use
Fuji Type C paper and some (but far fewer) use or can use Ilfochrome. By
the way, do you know if an Iris printer is in fact an inkjet printer by
another name ? If it is, it is interesting to note that Epson, which
may have the best ink jet technology , has just announced a wide format
ink jet printer using the six color technology of the Epson 5000, for a
MSRP of $8,000. An Iris printer made by Scitex goes for about $ 40,000
at a minimum I believe.
David L. Glos
I know someone with a Durst Lambda, and the results are pretty darn good. As
you say, it is an expensive toy, and he claims it needs to run 16-24 hours per
day to really be worth keeping. Just the service contract runs a cool 4K per
month.
David Glos
Univ. of Cincinnati
513.558.6930