[DWS1]

I print with a Canon Pixma Pro 100, Windows 10, and Lightroom. Using the print module in Lightroom always resulted in unsatisfactory results. I installed the Canon Print Pro Studio and plug-in for Lightroom which exports the photo from Lightroom to Canon Print Pro Studio where I adjust all the settings, profiles, etc. and print from there. I get very good results, much better than directly from Lightroom. I agree with you about soft proofing. I can't see hardly any differences, and wonder if those I do see is just an illusion created by the changing of the boarder around the photo in Lightroom from grey to white.

[Alex645]

But the problem (as I understood it) is that when you print outside of your RAW editor of choice, it's gonna be a worse file? Especially so if exporting Jpg and then using that as the file from which to print from. So you use your RAW DNG file, edit to taste and print direct from that.

I think it's important to approach printing with the understanding that you are viewing RGB light pixels on a monitor and with the best software, hardware, and user settings will never get the same results viewing CMYK ink on paper. Keys to satisfaction include:

a) Consider the image on the monitor as a reference, but not as an actual preview. The only real preview is more the review of your print drafts.

b) Be open to the notion that the print can look better than the monitor. Most of us tend to think and feel that the original version is the best and true version when objectively, that may not be true at all. When I worked in a photo lab, customers would often bring in a mediocre or even horrible print, and order reprints from the negative. Fluorescent or tungsten lighting or even faded images. After color correcting for the problem, the customer would refuse the reprints because they didn't match the horrible color balance of the original. It wasn't that they had bad taste; psychologically they liked the original and any changes in their mind was 'wrong'.

c) Some software and hardware are easier to use and produce better more consistent results. With that said, they are often at the higher price bracket.

[BruceBanner]

I think it's important to approach printing with the understanding that you are viewing RGB light pixels on a monitor and with the best software, hardware, and user settings will never get the same results viewing CMYK ink on paper. Keys to satisfaction include:

a) Consider the image on the monitor as a reference, but not as an actual preview. The only real preview is more the review of your print drafts.

b) Be open to the notion that the print can look better than the monitor. Most of us tend to think and feel that the original version is the best and true version when objectively, that may not be true at all. When I worked in a photo lab, customers would often bring in a mediocre or even horrible print, and order reprints from the negative. Fluorescent or tungsten lighting or even faded images. After color correcting for the problem, the customer would refuse the reprints because they didn't match the horrible color balance of the original. It wasn't that they had bad taste; psychologically they liked the original and any changes in their mind was 'wrong'.

c) Some software and hardware are easier to use and produce better more consistent results. With that said, they are often at the higher price bracket.

Yes, I understood it that print can surpass the colours 8bit exported Jpgs would allow, thus when printing one should be using the RAW file and not a jpg. A pc that has a capable monitor and gpu to display as much of the gamut as possible will be a better preview of the ink version than a lesser machine.

[BarryE]

Yes, I understood it that print can surpass the colours 8bit exported Jpgs would allow, .

Careful. There are so many different printers and papers, that the printable colours can be smaller or larger, or more normally be both eg say better greens, but less red. Thus rendering intents become important. (I appreciate you said *can* but it's often quite complicated as there so much nuance in the coverage)

[PDL]

I never let the printer take over. I use the software (currently Capture One Pro - stopped using LR years ago) to manage the color space. I have a Colormunki photo that allows me to build icc profiles for both the monitor and the printer. Yes, I have to change profiles for each type of paper but that is just how the world works.

Now, as for experience, I used to print color in the darkroom. Each time you got ready to develop a print you had "baseline" settings that you had to take into account. The settings were YMC values that had to be entered into the dichroic head on the enlarger.

• The light bulb came with settings you had to take into account.
• The paper had settings you had to take into account.
• Each batch of chemistry acted a little be different and required "testing".
• Temperature of the chemistry for prints had to be within a degree of the "ideal" setting for adequate/consistent results.
• The color temperature of the light used to "judge" the image had to be taken into account. (In my case it was tungsten vs fluorescent)
• Dodging and Burning when using color papers could (most would) cause color shifts and other unwanted effects.

Digital printing is soooo much easier. The inks produced by the printer manufactures (I am assuming that you are not buying stuff on the cheap side or refilling your cartridges) are very consistent over time. There is really no need to re-create your icc profiles as you bring in new cartridges (so far). The papers are really consistent in their response to the inks. However, it is most likely best if you run a check on the icc profiles - if you are really paranoid.

I do buy branded paper, but I prefer to create my own icc profiles - because I am a control freak. I print from Capture One, I do not own Photoshop but I do have Affinity Photo and I have NEVER printed from Affinity Photo. Back in the day, I printed images using Costco and LR, I downloaded the icc profiles from Costco and embedded the icc profile into the JPEG. I have not used them for any printing other than my calendars.

In order to do "decent" printing, you need to have a color managed environment from shooting to final printing. If you do not, then your results will vary - a lot. Repeatability is achieved by understanding what all those "buttons" mean and how to use them. It takes work to understand how to do this and it also requires that you can be consistent in how you manage the steps required to achieve the end result.

[stevebrot]

My printer is a pretty budget entry level Canon printer, but capable of decent results and A3+ size

True confessions!

I have a Canon Pixma iP4820 that will do U.S. Legal with decent results, but there is a limit to what might be done with BCMY + photo black. I don't use the iP4820 for anything larger than 4"x5" anymore and not for anything serious, not even note cards.

A few years ago, I picked up a Pixma Pro-100, which on other hand, produces sterling results, is huge (69x22x39cm), weighs a ton (20 kg), consumes from a bank of 8 ink tanks (BCMY + photoCyan, photoMagenta, photoGray, photoLightGray), and is expensive to feed (~$125 USD for a full ink set). Might I add that most paper makers support the Pro-100 with ICC profiles, while only one (Canon) supports the iP4820.

Given the price of ink, it is the ICC support along with soft-proofing and virtual copies in LR that allows use of the Pro-100 with any degree of economy. I learned how from Martin Evening's Lightroom book and have fine-tuned based on tips from user's here, particularly in regards to setting print resolution.

Sadly, this is something that I learned "book-on-lap" using the book for my version of LR and not something that I would attempt to teach through a set of bullet points or even a series of articles here on Pentax Forums.


Steve

[Digitalis]

In some ways printing in the darkroom was easier, even colour balancing a negative print is easier as you can clearly see the result of the selected filtration on the easel.

After a few years of mucking around with printers up until 2014 at which point: I gave up and I outsource my printing*, I think printing is very much at a technologically immature stage. There are too many different systems that interact in disparate ways and it is all to easy for the wrong check box to be filled for it to all go horribly wrong. There are a large number of photographers whom never stepped into a darkroom, notable examples being HCB, Sabastio Salgado, and Vivian Maier. Though it is hard to find people who *get* your work and understand what you want. I send colour profiles of my monitor to the guys that do my printing [though owning an industry standard** Eizo monitor makes this somewhat redundant ] So they can at least see what i'm seeing. I get my profiles from paper manufacturers and I only work with three different papers, all are fiber based : baryta flat matte, a Baryta Semi-matte and Baryta full gloss paper*** : that's it. When it comes to printing: I see the KISS principle as more of a hard rule. If it works for you: Do it. Don't follow some convoluted logic that isn't your own because of some obtuse concept of how you ought to be doing things - that is often a sure fire path to failure (and a lot of wasted money).


Though there are some specialized processes whereby I get my Monochrome photos printed, and that is through piezography although current printers are very good at B&W, I find the depth and tones introduced by multiple layers of inks to be unmatched. And the practical upshot of the piezography process is that the longevity of the image is enhanced. IF I had to start printing my own works, I'd start with a Piezography CIS modified printer and save myself the annoyance of colour management altogether.


* After I send off the files to my clients, I leave the printing to them.
** Though just because these monitors are common doesn't mean they don't experience colour shifts over time.
*** you'll note I like Baryta based papers, there is a very good reason for this as baryta is a very consistent white. Some papers will shift one way or the other over time I find that baryta is inert enough that this is a non-issue.

---

Last edited by Digitalis; 05-26-2020 at 09:52 PM.

[PDL]

In some ways printing in the darkroom was easier, even colour balancing a negative print is easier as you can clearly see the result of the selected filtration on the easel.

-snip-

I must disagree.

After you have dialed in the bulb, paper and adjustments from your tests, color balancing a negative print is virtually impossible for the Mark I eyeball. Color Negatives do not display the final output in any human recognizable form. They are negatives after all with a orange cast and the colors you want are not visible until the print is developed and taken out into the light.

Now printing slides is another thing, although the technique is similar to adjusting colors there were (at least with Cibachrome) paper settings that needed to be taken into account along with bulb settings.

There are many photographers who never saw the inside of a darkroom. Take for instance the NG photographers who shot transparencies, they sent the film back to NG for developing and other than viewing the images projected for review with the editors, the prints were not the responsibility of the photographer. The same goes for the old Look, Life, Time and other magazines of the past, even today photographers are shipping their work out for post production. That is not a big deal.

For myself, I have a set of consistent steps that produce consistent results. Much easier than a darkroom. The thing about darkrooms that I miss the most is shooting B&W and watching the image emerge from the soup. One moment you have a blank piece of paper and in the next few moments you have a image. Pure Magic.

[Digitalis]

After you have dialed in the bulb, paper and adjustments from your tests, color balancing a negative print is virtually impossible for the Mark I eyeball.

It is difficult, but not impossible. My colour vision has a rather unusual defect that turns out to be beneficial when it comes to hue discrimination even with colour negatives. With time you can train your eyes to ignore the base colour, and further practice and training (and a few tricks) you can learn how much colour correction needs to be applied without wasting much paper. Of course the blowback from this training and practice with negatives is in my early days of making cibachrome* prints led to some interesting looking prints.

There are many photographers who never saw the inside of a darkroom. Take for instance the NG photographers who shot transparencies, they sent the film back to NG for developing and other than viewing the images projected for review with the editors, the prints were not the responsibility of the photographer.

Those poor bastards were driving their cameras into the dirt ripping through film like cheap christmas paper, on average they would be shooting well over 20,000 frames a year which is a massive amount of film. NG demanded transparencies because they were easier to look at and easier to print.

The thing about darkrooms that I miss the most is shooting B&W and watching the image emerge from the soup. One moment you have a blank piece of paper and in the next few moments you have a image. Pure Magic.

I hear you. The reaction of first time darkroom students observing the image forming for the first time is something I partake in when I assist in my photography school's darkroom classes.


*thankfully I never made those mistakes when I later moved on to the more intensive (and expensive) Dye transfer technique.

[pinholecam]

I settled for a very layman method of matching print to be close enough to screen and saving the adjustments into pre-sets on Photoshop.
Printing is done with the software provided by the printer company (Epson )
Its not 100% since some situations can vary in warmth or color palette such that my pre-sets don't work as well, but I have been happy enough with the prints to not bother.

Keeping the paper type consistent certainly helps.
I also tend to print a small 4R/5R print using the same paper before I commit to a A3/A3+ print to at least avoid big issues.


Yes, I too found printing w/ LR/ PS a pain and often messed it up, so I gave up.

[3by2]

I used to print in a darkroom and in some ways I still take that approach. I don't expect the first print to come out as I want and I'll adjust in Lightroom accordingly a bit like doing test prints. When I was printing a lot, often the same film and chemical process I could dial in 90% of the colour mix I needed and then adjust for each negative with a look at the film strip. In some ways understanding the requirements of colour printing was relatively simple in that all the variables were in your control. Sending prints off to printers often requires a conversation depending on the process and paper they are using even if you follow their instructions. A recent 16x20 I had made went back and forth between me and the printer manager before we settled on the shadow detail I was expecting to see and could see on my monitor and he recommended the best print process for it. It came back spot on but most printing, in my experience, requires some trial and error.

[BarryE]

... in my experience, requires some trial and error.

Guess this is why printing is often described as art form in its self.

Another factor is the viewing in the home to be considered. When we've got our print in our sticky little hands and we're happy with it, then what next?

I used to send out prints to customers directly from a print house (they'd add my branding etc) and I was confident that their prints would match mine. However, that's where the next problems arose. A paper print needs mounting and framing under glass. I could not guess what glass types my customers chose as different glass types alter contrast noticeably, especially with different viewing angles and reflections. I framed prints for sale with known glass and, this is key, I added a formulaic extra Curves lift to each print to compensate for the slight reduction in contrast that my glass created.

So you might want to consider the "product" all the way to the framed picture, as the "happy with print" ain't the end. A little compensation lift, may well be necessary as a default ...

Personally I am not a fan of so called non-reflective glass as it deadens contrast. Standard plate glass is very good for clarity, but reflections are poor. There are some excellent glass types that I believe come from Germany which are clear and non-reflective, but are extremely expensive, running to over £100 for an A2 print.

[Digitalis]

When we've got our print in our sticky little hands and we're happy with it, then what next?

Which leads to another essential skill: learning you cut your own matte boards. I send my prints to the framer with museum grade matte boards and foamcore backing behind each print, I use archival tape to hold each image in place along the top edge - paper will buckle and shift with humidity so I allow for some movement to prevent serious damage to the print by not attempting to hold the image rigidly in place.

[gatorguy]

Yes. That's because a while back I used to work with color critical prints for interior designers (fussy lot ;-))...
Any print/swatch etc., is massively influenced by the viewing light and angles - both the saturation and hues. I suspect many print concerns involve viewing problems.

It cannot be emphasized enough.

[BarryE]

Which leads to another essential skill: learning you cut your own matte boards. I send my prints to the framer with museum grade matte boards and foamcore backing behind each print, I use archival tape to hold each image in place along the top edge - paper will buckle and shift with humidity so I allow for some movement to prevent serious damage to the print by not attempting to hold the image rigidly in place.

... it would take me upto an hour to assemble an A2 frame. Fully archival techniques etc, takes time, but then there's dust. Grrr. That was the time killer. Worse when a spec had shed off from somewhere after I'd taped up the back of the frame, and fixed the brass wire etc.

With the frame sealed at the back dust ingress was a negligible. However, I don't know what's it like in Australia (or elsewhere), but I live in rural UK and thrips/thunderflies are a big problem with framed artwork. They crawl under the glass, look around, crawl to the most bl***ingly obvious place to die - becoming sticky as they rot. And don't get me onto thrips and expensive monitors !!!