Giclee vs Chromira
pbrom...@aol.com
Minolta X-570 with Velvia ISO 50 and scan the slides on an Epson
4490.
After 5 years of trying, I finally have a landscape stitch that I want
to blow up to about 3' X 5' and put over my fireplace. It has taken
this long because I do only the most minimal photoshoping - just
stitching, croping, maybe a little color adjustment. I want the image
to stand on its own.
I plan to take it to a proffessional imaging place recommended by pro-
level landscape photographers I have talked to in the Denver area. I
am told that, while they may charge more than other places, they will
work with you a lot more to make sure the final image is what you
wanted. Since this is my first time going beyond my home-printed
8X10s, I think I need the extra hand-holding.
Another issue is printing process - chromira vs giclee. Giclee costs
about double Chromira. It seems to me it is just a fancy word for ink
jet. I have read about each process, but can't quite grasp the
relative benefits.
My questions:
1) Does anybody have any suggestion or recommendations for dealing
with the printer? I am a virgin at this and even though it is a
single image, to me it is a major project
2) Which process should I use? In other words, what would be the
difference if you compare the same image using chromira and giclee,
side by side? I am thinking that Chromira will produce a better, more
long-lasting final product for half the cost. Am I missing something
here?
Thanks for you comments.
pbromaghin
>
> After 5 years of trying, I finally have a landscape stitch that I want
> to blow up to about 3' X 5' and put over my fireplace. It has taken
> this long because I do only the most minimal photoshoping - just
> stitching, croping, maybe a little color adjustment. I want the image
> to stand on its own.
You can see the pic here
John McWilliams
Going back to your OP, I'd suggest finding a printer who has both types
of machines, and going with their recommendation. Or getting a couple of
12 x 20 prints done in each process.
And, yes, Giclee is a French slang term for spurt, which is what most
ink jet printers do. It should not be used in polite company, at least
the French speaking ones.
--
John McWilliams
Annika1980
>
> You can see the pic here
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/43478390@N06/4054260480/
I think if you clean up the color casts you'll have a photo worthy of
the mantle.
pbromaghin
>
> I think if you clean up the color casts you'll have a photo worthy of
> the mantle.
Thak you for the kind comment, but could you explain that a bit
further? So far in photography, I have concentrated on composition
and capture. I don't really speak the language of post-processing
yet.
Do you mean the pinkish color, most notable in the beach and the scree
across the lake, even in the lake itself? The whole Maroon Bells
region is made of Colorado red sandstone, which has a lot of iron
oxide and pink feldspar. What you are seeing is what it looked like
in those lighting conditions. In reality, the water is a dark red,
the 2 peaks often glow a bright pink in sunrise photos but only show
only a very little here due to the overcast. I suspect a lot of color
reflects back off the clouds, too.
For arts sake, I am open to just waiting until next year to get some
better light. It shouldn't be too hard to do better than this. But
this picture falls more into the category of capturing a moment in
ones life. While my wife had been there a few times as a child, it
really is a picture of her on my first experience of Maroon Bells.
Standing by that lake you are in an impossibly gigantic cathedral
(before vatican II removed the rail), ridges rising thousands of feet
on either side, extending for miles behind you, with the peaks as the
alter. Until that moment I never understood the words "grandeur" and
"majesty". I hope this pictures captures how small one feels in this
place, like the way a Chinese landscape painting juxtaposes tiny
people and gigantic nature.
I found this view from the other end of the camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/aubandjen/1263021006/in/pool-637578@N22
pbromaghin
> Nice shot.
Thank you.
> Going back to your OP, I'd suggest finding a printer who has both types
> of machines, and going with their recommendation. Or getting a couple of
> 12 x 20 prints done in each process.
Good point. This printer has both. As I understand it, they will
print small sample slices of the image for your approval. I'll try to
get these done in both processes.
> And, yes, Giclee is a French slang term for spurt, which is what most
> ink jet printers do. It should not be used in polite company, at least
> the French speaking ones.
Spurt, as in vital bodily fluids?
John McWilliams
> On Oct 29, 10:53 am, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Nice shot.
>
> Thank you.
>
>> Going back to your OP, I'd suggest finding a printer who has both types
>> of machines, and going with their recommendation. Or getting a couple of
>> 12 x 20 prints done in each process.
>
> Good point. This printer has both. As I understand it, they will
> print small sample slices of the image for your approval. I'll try to
> get these done in both processes.
Thanks, but my approval will be a logistical nightmare.
>
>> And, yes, Giclee is a French slang term for spurt, which is what most
>> ink jet printers do. It should not be used in polite company, at least
>> the French speaking ones.
>
> Spurt, as in vital bodily fluids?
Er, quite possibly, but one type of fluid, "precious bodily fluid" per
Dr. Stangelove's Slim Pickens' character.
--
john mcwilliams
David Nebenzahl
> pbromaghin wrote:
>
>> Spurt, as in vital bodily fluids?
>
> Er, quite possibly, but one type of fluid, "precious bodily fluid" per
> Dr. Stangelove's Slim Pickens' character.
Wrong character; it was Buck Turgidson, played by [slight memory lapse;
look it up on IMDB].
Slim was the one who rode the bomb down like a buckin' bronco. "Yeeeee-ha!"
--
Who needs a junta or a dictatorship when you have a Congress
blowing Wall Street, using the media as a condom?
- harvested from Usenet
Savageduck
Actually it was the Sterling Hayden character, General Jack Ripper who
had the issue with bodily fluids.
Slim Pickens was Major King Kong, who took the bomb for a ride.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
David Nebenzahl
> Actually it was the Sterling Hayden character, General Jack Ripper who
> had the issue with bodily fluids.
Yep, that was the one. I misremembered.
Alan Browne
That's Gen. Jack D. Ripper.
John McWilliams
> On Oct 29, 7:21 pm, Annika1980 <annika1...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I think if you clean up the color casts you'll have a photo worthy of
>> the mantle.
>
> Thak you for the kind comment, but could you explain that a bit
> further? So far in photography, I have concentrated on composition
> and capture. I don't really speak the language of post-processing
> yet.
>
> Do you mean the pinkish color, most notable in the beach and the scree
> across the lake, even in the lake itself? The whole Maroon Bells
> region is made of Colorado red sandstone, which has a lot of iron
> oxide and pink feldspar. What you are seeing is what it looked like
> in those lighting conditions. In reality, the water is a dark red,
> the 2 peaks often glow a bright pink in sunrise photos but only show
> only a very little here due to the overcast. I suspect a lot of color
> reflects back off the clouds, too.
While difficult to make great judgements on color in a small rendition
of a landscape, I am thinking you might want to bump up the saturation
of blues and decrease exposure of the sky. Whether there's too much red
overall, maybe.
Very nice composition, and it should look fine printed as is.
--
john mcwilliams
John McWilliams
Indeed. Thank you all for the corrections. Shoulda quit after
"Strangelove's". It was the line Pickens delivered when he was going
through the survivor kit on the airplane that made me think of those
fluids.
--
john mcwilliams
Savageduck
Ah! THAT essential survival kit item.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Jeff R.
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2009103113502529560-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
=========================
Maj. T.J. "King" Kong:
"... Survival kit contents check. In them you'll find: one .45
caliber automatic; two boxes of ammunition;
four days concentrated emergency raisons; one drug issue
containing: antibiotics, morphine, vitamin pills,
pep pills, sleeping pills, tranquilizer pills; one miniature
combination Russian phrase book and bible;
one hundred dollars in rubles; one hundred dollars in gold;
nine packs of chewing gum; one issue of prophylactics;
three lipsticks; three pair a nylon stockings.
Shoot, a fellah could have a pretty good weekend in Vegas
with all that stuff. ..."
=========================
Note: "Vegas" dubbed over the original "Dallas", due to dead Kennedy
sensitivity.
Easy to see in the print.
One of the all-time best-ever movies.
--
Jeff R.
Frank ess
Definitely part of the cultural heritage.
--
Frank ess
John McWilliams
Gentlemen!! No fighting in the War Room!
--
john mcwilliams
pbromaghin
> While difficult to make great judgements on color in a small rendition
> of a landscape,
Did you click on "all sizes" above the picture? It brings up a bigger
version.
>I am thinking you might want to bump up the saturation
> of blues and decrease exposure of the sky.
> Whether there's too much red
> overall, maybe.
Thanks for the tips. On a test version, I just added a little green
and blue along with higher saturation and brightness. This whited the
sky out a bit and put more emphasis on the foliage. It looks a lot
better, now.
> Very nice composition, and it should look fine printed as is.
Wow. I've been lurking here for a while. That's high praise coming
from this audience.
pbromaghin
>
> I am thinking you might want to bump up the saturation
> of blues and decrease exposure of the sky. Whether there's too much red
> overall, maybe.
> Very nice composition, and it should look fine printed as is.
Here is the latest test version with your suggestions included.
Increased green and blue, saturation, brightness, and darkened her
hoody.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/43478390@N06/4072893622/sizes/o/
Much improved. Thank you!
John McWilliams
Indeed it is! You still have detail and color in the sky that doesnt'
show well, at least on my screen. You could try some duplicate layers,
with a masking in of the sky (ie, masking out the forground), and then
lowering exposure, or try different blending modes.
--
John McWilliams
pbromaghin
> pbromaghin wrote:
> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/43478390@N06/4072893622/sizes/o/
>
> > Much improved. Thank you!
>
> Indeed it is! You still have detail and color in the sky that doesnt'
> show well, at least on my screen. You could try some duplicate layers,
> with a masking in of the sky (ie, masking out the forground), and then
> lowering exposure, or try different blending modes.
You've gone so far beyond my current capabilities it's comical.
I am an absolute beginner with PS Elements and only have it because it
came free with my scanner. Does it have all the functionality you are
talking about? The help text walked me through photomerge and the
resulting file is about 300 meg. The version on flickr is a greatly
shrunken resize with all the mods done using a copy of MGI Photosuite
I got free after rebate 12 years ago. Yes, 12 years ago, and it pukes
all over itself just opening that 300 meg file.
So, to do this work will require some serious education. I got a book
about PS Elements from the library this weekend. With the learning
curve and my time budget, the final full sized version should be ready
for the printer by spring. What you have done is help me create the
prototype, the example for the production model.
Thanks a lot.
pbromaghin
> > Much improved. Thank you!
>
> Indeed it is! You still have detail and color in the sky that doesnt'
> show well, at least on my screen. You could try some duplicate layers,
> with a masking in of the sky (ie, masking out the forground), and then
> lowering exposure, or try different blending modes.
The problems in the sky are definitely caused by shrinkage and
compression. It sucks on my monitor, too, but the original looks
perfectly natural.
The library book on Photoshop Elements was a waste of time. I just
gave up and took a look at the help text and some tutorials on
youtube. After about an hour (with judicious use of the undo button)
the full-sized version started taking shape with the mods you
suggested. Call it prototype 2.0 I'll do some more poking around and
then start over with the original to make better use of the knowledge
gained.
The sophisitication of Photoshop has been very intimidating for quite
some time, but this is not nearly so difficult as I thought. Just
getting started was the hardest part.
Again, thanks for your help.