How do you print your images to get those lovely pro looking snaps!

<p>Hello Gurus,</p>

<p> I am a newbie as far as photography is concerned but have learnt quite a bit after buying my DSLR. Now the quality of the images are great on the monitor and to a certain extent look the same after printing. However, I have seen some protrait printouts taken out by pros of people and weddings and the snaps looks excellent. I just send my images online to a company and they print it it "Glossy" finish paper without zooming/cropping (I already do that).</p>

<p>MY question is if you are a Pro and lets say a client asked you to take 10 snaps and print them. What is the care and steps you would take while printing the snaps? Like do you think that Matte finish is better than the shiny glossy print. Does it have anything to do with the color space (Mine is I think sRGB and i use photoshop). Are there only specific places that can print high quality snaps and I should go to them probably it requires expertise and if yes, what should I be looking for as far as a printing shop is concerned? is it the paper they use etc?</p>

<p>As I said, the snaps are great, sharp and good color and the regular 6*4 glossy finish printout are also pretty good. But they still dont look anywhere close to what some pros get.</p>

<p>Please share your knowledge!<br>

Thanks,<br>

Sunil</p>

<p>The first step is to never take 'snaps.' Always take Photographs.</p>

<p>I'm not a pro by any means, but you need to be careful using 'snaps' as a description of a photo.<br>

<br />I've been known to take two types of photo's. Some I think about which I call 'Photographs' and some I may take on a whim without any thought to exposure or composition - these are 'snaps'.<br>

<br />Snaps are usually taken using an in phone camera. Photographs are taken with a real camera.<br>

<br />Anyway, back to your question - If I were taking photographs of a wedding (been there and done that) I would shoot RAW for key photos and JPEG for the obligatory guest shots.<br>

<br />I would develop the RAW photos in lightroom and send to a photo lab for printing on real photographic paper. Paper choice (matte vs gloss) is up to the customer. Glossy paper does tend to have better blacks.<br>

I tend to use Adobe RGB rather than sRGB but that is a choice based on the software I have to hand.<br />As far as I can tell, any print shop that uses real photographic processes to print the images should be okay - beware any place that uses inkjet/bubblejet prints. I always use Fuji Frontier labs as they can print to 11x14.</p>

<p>Its not only the end result that count.. You need to get amazing image to start to get amazing resutl in the end also...not a magic trick.</p>

<p>I would suggest you concentrate your effort on getting better picture to start, better light, better cropping, better subject (50% of your end result) etc... then do the best you can or hire someone to do your digital darkroom (the other 50% of work)..then you should get the amazing print you see from other photographer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>beware any place that uses inkjet/bubblejet prints.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Why?</p>

It starts with great light/lighting during capture. Without that, the results will always be compromised no matter how your

image is printed.

<p>Most online printing at places like Walgreen's, etc. takes no effort at all in improving photos. They set their printers for medium values because of the volume of work they do. Most come back looking all the same in tone, color, and contrast...no matter how good the masters files...<br>

If you want good prints you'll either have to work with a lab that takes on your work as an individual project or make your own...<br>

In other words... you get what you pay for...</p>

<p>thanks everyone!</p>

<p> Correction - I meant Photographs and not Snaps. I did not know the the difference to be very honest. I guess being a newbie, I can take that as an excuse :)</p>

<p> As I had mentioned, I am already seeing to it that all my other parameters are decent. Like lighting (I use elinchrome dlites), composition, levels, contrast, etc. I generally use photoshop to correct the levels, contrast, convert to b&W etc. I currently shoot JPEGs fine on a nikon D40 but plan to do a little RAW also to learn that.</p>

<p>I guess, I am going to take a couple of matt finish prints and see. The glossy ones are not bad, but they just look well a bit too glossy :). I remember the professional wedding snaps which i saw, was matte from what i remember.</p>

<p>I will also try to get some information from the place from where i print about the equipment they use. I see thje paper they use is Koday Royal and I remember the person mentioning that sRGB is what they use.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Sunil</p>

<p>Regarding "snaps," several great (and successful) photographers have published books with the title "Snaps." In particular, Elliot Erwitt and Ellen von Unwerth have books titled "Snaps." I have von Unwerth's book, it's a terrific collection of shots she did "off-set" when around models she was shooting. There is nothing wrong with the term, it's only an effort to make photography into something that isn't that causes the derision of the term. One of the best photographers to have frequented these forums, PJ Rob Appleby, uses the term also. Don't fall for the dogma, "snaps" is a perfectly fine word.</p>

<p>Regarding printing, if you have a good print shop (I use White House Custom Color and mPix right now), the printing isn't the problem, it's your photos and your prep work.</p>

<p>Assuming you've done your homework and captured the image properly AND PP'd properly; your next step is to find a pro lab. Establish a relationship with the lab so they have one or more profiles in their data base fore YOUR work.</p>

<p>Nothing will ruin all your hard work faster than taking award winning images to a 1 hr lab.</p>

Just wanted to weigh in after Jeff on the term "snaps" - on which I'm in complete agreement.

 

In fact, there's a recognized genre called "snapshot aesthetic," with work from many great photographers falling in that

category, including Winogrand, Klein, Shore, Goldin, Lee, Tilmans, Waplington, and many more.

 

I like the term myself and use it all the time. Indeed, my daily photoblog is titled Citysnaps.

<p>it was said above by someone...but it is worth repeating. The Light! Photography is all about light. Most of the time (unless you're doing a job) the subject doesn't even matter. Learn how to see light. Go to museums and gallaries and look at the established photographers (and painters for that matter) way of seeing light....either natural or artificial, it doesn't matter. Then assuming that you composed, exposed, and post processed the picture properly, all that's left is finding a qualified printing place. But if the light sucks....nothing can help.</p>

<p>And regarding the word "snaps".....don't worry about it....lot's of people I know use the word. I personally don't see anything wrong with the use either. And by the way, Elliott Erwitt's book "Snaps" is excellent</p>

<p>I like the unpretentious term "snaps", although perhaps there is a touch of reverse snobbery about it, much as a concert violinist may refer to their "fiddle".</p>

<p>Thank you!<br />The first response was to use the term photographs and not snaps . I have seen, some of the Pros, are very particular about the terminology, words etc used. So I thought this thread is going to take a beating because I used the word snap! :).</p>

<p>I am checking with my lab to see what they use. As I mentioned i will try the same photographs on matte and get back.</p>

<p>Thanks to all you gurus for taking some time out to answer our questions! I have learnt a lot(and still learning) on this particular website thanks to the amazingly talented photographers!<br />Sunil</p>

<p>You didn't provide a link to us showing your accomplished-amateur work and the pro quality to which you aspire, so we fumble blindly in the dark complaining about snaps. There are three things pros do that amateurs typically don't, so I'll toss them out:</p>

<p>First, fill flash with a rig that lets you put the light right where you need it, light diffusers or modifiers, and often a way to get the flash off the camera so it can be placed and angled as you want it. If it's fill, you dial it well down so it doesn't do anything but hold detail in your shadows and crisp things up, and use ambient lighting as your main light.</p>

<p>Second, use one of the many commercial packages for processing wedding software with things like Kubota effects, glow effects, and so on. Nothing you can't do in PS, but you have to be an accomplished PS master of depth and perception like Patrick.</p>

<p>Third, after you've done the standard Levels thing to set your black point, white point, and gamma, add a Curves adjustment layer and pull the midtones up just a little, and a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer and goose up the saturation--again, just a little. The Kodak touch. ;-)</p>

<p>Thanks Charles,</p>

<p> Well, I have posted another thread to get some critique probably real harsh ones :) from all of you,<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00Tsem">http://www.photo.net/portraits-and-fashion-photography-forum/00Tsem</a></p>

<p>You can also take a look and provide your feedback! I know the snaps may not be anywhere close to the level that all of you are used to seeing, but I have just started a couple of months back and got my DSLR only 3 months back so hopefully will learn things with time</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

Sunil</p>

<p>Winogrand, Klein, Shore, Goldin, Lee, Tilmans, Waplington never took 'snaps.' Always took Photographs.</p>

<p>mac vs pc / nikon vs canon / film vs digital / adobe rgb vs srgb / apple vs orange ...now snap vs photograph..something never change ; )</p>

<p>I like to take snap / images / photo / photograph / picture / with my camera / kodak / nikon / canon / dslr / tool / ... i should be politicaly cover with this sentence. LOL</p>

<p>Looks like most people have picked up on the snaps vs photograph argument... I'll jump in with something about printing.</p>

<p>You complained that your glossy prints looked too "glossy", and that you thought matte would be a better choice. </p>

<p>Matte won't hold fingerprints, but doesn't really shine very well. <br>

Glossy, as you noticed, is very shiny... sometimes too much so. It also shows each and every fingerprint possible<br>

Lustre is a good medium, although usually a little more expensive. Not quite as shiny as Glossy, but doesn't hold fingerprints either<br>

Metallic is my favorite choice for specific photos... blues, greens, and yellows seriously POP off the page. It also seems to have the darkest blacks. Not suitable for all photos though.</p>

<p>I'd suggest finding a good site and printing a few test photos to see what you like under what circumstances. Hope this helps!</p>

<p>I always take Photographs and then make Images out of them. I have never,ever taken 'snaps.' Past, present or future.<br>

But more to the point, Sunil, what might help you in getting the great prints you're after is Colour Management. Which means an IPS monitor calibrated with an Eye One Display 2 (others are available as well but this is the one I use so it must be good), a knowledge of soft proofing techniques etc. I would suggest starting a search here by typing in colour management. Also in the digital darkroom archive there are several categories for this topic. As well, Andrew Rodney who posts here frequently, is very knowledgable so you might google his name. There's an excellent video tutorial by him somewhere (I think it might have been on the Adobe website) that actually might be the best place to start.<br>

Good Luck!</p>

<p>So, what's the difference between snaps and Photographs?<br>

<br />Regards</p>

<p>Alan</p>

>>> So, what's the difference between snaps and Photographs?

 

No difference. I and many other photographers use both terms.

<p>It's a state of mind.</p>