[csa]

I used to print a lot of photos. Now, I found an online place that makes canvas prints of your photos. They are absolutely beautiful, and very reasonable, with very fast service. I find for myself; that I like this "look" better than just a photograph. They are mounted on your choice of thickness of wood internal frame.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[normhead]

I used to print a lot of photos. Now, I found an online place that makes canvas prints of your photos. They are absolutely beautiful, and very reasonable, with very fast service. I find for myself; that I like this "look" better than just a photograph. They are mounted on your choice of thickness of wood internal frame.

That is one of the issues for sure... how much do I have to practice, to be as good as the professional printers? And how much work do I have to do to match their framing and mounting services. Considering that I often printed 3 to 4 versions before I got one I liked. When I was selling prints, I got my money back. Once I stopped selling prints and it was all out of my pocket, the printer didn't last long.

There are very few prints that I actually prefer print paper to canvas. Maybe those who prefer paper prints feel differently.

On my walls right now 12 canvases. 8 prints, 4 oil paintings. Almost all the prints were done or could have been done on my 3 in 1 office printer (8x10 or smaller.) Canvases take up most of the wall space. 19x13 turned out to be an odd size. Too big for small spaces (where I prefer 11x14 frames) , too small for big spaces(where I prefer 30x20 canvases.) I also found at craft shows it isn't terribly popular either. People with money go for the big canvases, people with less money go for the 8x10 and less prints.

I'm currently not displaying one image on my walls for which a 13x19 printer would have been the optimum size.

[Bob 256]

I have to say that I still do print my own but on an irregular basis. When friends want a photo taken and I need a print to give them right away, I always use my photo printer. The downside is issues with head clogging which has trashed one printer for me over the years, and the longevity of inkjet prints which is limited, especially depending on the environment they are stored or displayed in. I've seen some of my prints after a few years and despite the claims by printer manufactures, age has taken a toll upon them. I have photochemical prints hanging on my wall some 40 years old which still are in pretty good shape. To sum up, I use my printer for those prints I want yesterday and some special prints like panoramas or special surfaces, but for ones I want to display, I resort to a lab which scans the file onto a photochemical print media (usually Kodak). Medias available are glossy, lustre, canvas, and metallic (as well as actual metal and glass prints) which cover most of my needs. Prices are affordable and turn around time is very reasonable for these, and they have the longevity I want in a print (I put an overcoated metal print outside in full sun and it's as good as new after two years!). I've compared them side-by-side with my photo-printer output and there's not much visual difference (can't say which is best because that can vary print to print) so if I'm willing to wait a bit longer, I go the lab route. And then there are photo chemical prints I do myself - used to do that quite a bit but almost never anymore. The chemicals, the paper, the time and effort to get a print right - just not worth it with my limited time.

The one interesting exception is printing photomasks for printed circuit boards. I start with a digital master and print that to a photo-negative using inkjet and transparent media, and then contact print that to a photochemical transparency which I develop the old traditional way. I used to have that done by a lab but the lab went broke and the service is no longer available (even checked on-line), so I do it myself. I barely get the resolution I need (because of the inkjet limitations), but it works so I still do this process which makes use of inkjet and photochemical end products.

[beachboy2]

Do A3 prints for club exhibitions. Have new Canon Pro 100s. Surprise is that prints are better than high res digital images. A bonus.

[normhead]

Do A3 prints for club exhibitions. Have new Canon Pro 100s. Surprise is that prints are better than high res digital images. A bonus.

What resolution is your monitor?
My 55 inch TV has become my output media of choice and my 28 inch 3840x2160 monitor is a very sharp display, at a normal viewing distance.

So, I'm wondering what you mean by "better".

[Bob 256]

What resolution is your monitor?
My 55 inch TV has become my output media of choice and my 28 inch 3840x2160 monitor is a very sharp display, at a normal viewing distance.

So, I'm wondering what you mean by "better".

Most printers output at least 300 dpi which is considered the "gold standard" for prints. With a UHD monitor, you only get a 7.2x12.8 inch area with that resolution. If you do the math on a 28 inch monitor, the spatial resolution (about 157 dpi) falls well below 300dpi (and 300 dpi still holds true for a print even beyond 28 inches, assuming the original file supports that resolution).

[normhead]

Most printers output at least 300 dpi which is considered the "gold standard" for prints. With a UHD monitor, you only get a 7.2x12.8 inch area with that resolution. If you do the math on a 28 inch monitor, if falls well below 300dpi which still holds true for a print even beyond that size (assuming the original file supports that resolution).

My monitor is 21 inches wide.
That's 184 DPI.
The lighting is consistent across the image, and there is more contrast which adds to the impression of sharpness.
None of my own testing has shown people prefer 300 DPI to even 144 dpi if the 144 images have been resized to 300 DPI before printing. The print standard is based on what looks good on paper. Not what looks good on your monitor or HD TV.
Both media have their advantages.

I'd warn against using math to evaluate different media. How about the maximum 120:1 contrast values in analogue media as opposed to up to 400:1 on digital media?
I use both, sometimes I prefer the prints, sometimes I prefer digital. As one invested in both media, I don't one as better than the other. And for immediate impact, monitors and HD TV are definitely better.
Math is technical. Your eyes are analogue. They don't see things the same way. Better mathematically does not mean that it's necessarily better for viewing.

Print images have a sort of archaic analogue feel that I enjoy sometimes.
Digital has a jump off the screen immediacy I more often appreciate.

My opinion would be, if you're only doing one you are missing out.
And if you aren't a pixel peeper, stay digital. Run a slide show, you'll see a lot more of your images a lot more often. And sitting on your lazy boy 6 feet away, you won't see a difference pixel wise.

---

Last edited by normhead; 04-19-2020 at 09:12 AM.

[Bassat]

My wife prints 200-250 photos a year. Mostly 4"x6" and 5"x7" for home display. She uses a Smart Phone app called Free-Prints. They give 1000 4x6 FREE for a year. Other sizes cost. I PP in LR6 and she get prints she is happy with.


My printer of choice is the local Walmart. Dirt cheap, and they do it until you like it. Photo manager has even let me tweak the machine myself if he doesn't get it to my liking in a try or two.

Shameless plug. I shoot mostly film these days; 35mm and 120. I use TheDarkroom.com for all of my developing and scanning. They follow instructions included with the order, and... this one is huge... density adjust EVERY SCAN. I can under/over-expose to my hearts content and get good results. Of course, they will also scan 'as-is' if so instructed. They pay for inbound shipping. Return shipping is $5.99, for 1 roll, or 10.

[dms]

1. My printer let me evaluate settings and printer paper choices. When I went out for large prints (about 2'x3'), this was important, and I also used my print to check the larger printer test strip before they print the full image.

2. I make prints that my college theatre producer gives to the director, lighting designer, costume person, etc. Nothing would be as good as prints!

3. I too find working on the prints a major part of the photo process--something that was not possible for me before digital (I worked mostly with color slide film). So really now with digital I would think more people do printing (to some degree) than pre-digital.

4. A print is different, of course (reflected versus transmitted light) and for many images just looks better. It is also the case many images just lack something on the print. Vive la différence.

[Alex645]

It begs the question, does anyone print any more?

13x19" A3+ color inkjet enlargements? Yes.
16x20" black and white prints? Yes, but gelatin silver in the darkroom.
4x6" or 5x8"? No, I use Shutterfly or Costco.

And although I feel I will regret not printing more, I now make at least one photo book per year, usually on Blurb.

[biz-engineer]

None of my own testing has shown people prefer 300 DPI to even 144 dpi if the 144 images have been resized to 300 DPI before printing. The print standard is based on what looks good on paper. Not what looks good on your monitor or HD TV.Both media have their advantages.

Of course. Paper, canvas and display are fairly different media. I like the back-lighting and contrast of my monitor, I can tell the details until I compare to a higher pixel density such as the one on my phone or notebook. On 4K TVs, after many years of trendy bumping contrast, luminosity and saturation, most OLED TVs are very flattering and punchy, so flattering that colors are completely shifted and unrealistic.

---------- Post added 19-04-20 at 21:28 ----------

I used to print a lot of photos. Now, I found an online place that makes canvas prints of your photos.

Photos and canvas have pros and cons. Canvas are pretty good and no that much more expensive than a photo print, certainly cheaper than classy print and quality framing of a photo. Frames photos have a more classy look, near high resolution files and can be (re)cycled. Whereas canvas print can't be cycled, one I'd have about 8 canvases I'd have no space to display more. With photos I just open a frame and place a new photo inside, put the previous photo back to storage folder.

[Zooland]

I have to print my films in order to see the photos.

[Bob 256]

My monitor is 21 inches wide.
That's 184 DPI.
The lighting is consistent across the image, and there is more contrast which adds to the impression of sharpness.
None of my own testing has shown people prefer 300 DPI to even 144 dpi if the 144 images have been resized to 300 DPI before printing. The print standard is based on what looks good on paper. Not what looks good on your monitor or HD TV.
Both media have their advantages.

I'd warn against using math to evaluate different media. How about the maximum 120:1 contrast values in analogue media as opposed to up to 400:1 on digital media?
I use both, sometimes I prefer the prints, sometimes I prefer digital. As one invested in both media, I don't one as better than the other. And for immediate impact, monitors and HD TV are definitely better.
Math is technical. Your eyes are analogue. They don't see things the same way. Better mathematically does not mean that it's necessarily better for viewing.

Print images have a sort of archaic analogue feel that I enjoy sometimes.
Digital has a jump off the screen immediacy I more often appreciate.

My opinion would be, if you're only doing one you are missing out.
And if you aren't a pixel peeper, stay digital. Run a slide show, you'll see a lot more of your images a lot more often. And sitting on your lazy boy 6 feet away, you won't see a difference pixel wise.

I'm not questioning the image quality of display versus print. beachboy2 made the statement that prints exceed display resolutions and indeed they do in most cases. As you state, both have their advantages but if you're in close, that image on a large screen might not show details a similar sized print would, again assuming the original file is capable. Printing an image form a file capable of 120dpi at 300dpi will not produce any additional details beyond what 120dpi shows, although as you said, many prints done this way can be excellent prints.

[Fenwoodian]

Most printers output at least 300 dpi which is considered the "gold standard" for prints. .

Sorry, but I don't agree. It depends on the brand of printer you are using. 300 is best for Canon printers. While for my large format Epson printer,(photo below) 360 is "the gold standard"..

.

[ChrisPlatt]

Last year I bought an Omega B66 enlarger. Does that count?
It's the same exact model I first learned on in high school in the 1970's.
On vacation in June I plan to build my bathroom/darkroom enlarger table for it.

I have a large quantity of Ilford MG IV RC paper to use up before I try the new MG V.
By this time next year I should have prints galore!

Years ago I tried an Epson photo printer connected to my home PC.
I used more of that expensive ink cleaning the heads than I ever did printing...

Chris