Exhibition quality prints

Here is a question for you Photoshop aficionados out there.

 

Is it possible to produce an exhibition quality color print on a

digital printer?

 

If so, what is the minimum printer that can do this, and if you are

scanning from (1) 35mm slides and (2) 6x45 slides, what is the

minimum scanner you can use?

"Exhibition Quality" is an elusive term, but as well as resolution and colour fidelity it surely encompasses archival permanence. On this basis I'd argue that the Epson 2100/2200 delivers the goods. A 4000 dpi film scanner offering over 8 bits is required for 35mm, and would be more than adequate for 645.

<P>It's very much a subjective decision based on the nature of your photography, and your intended audience. I don't agree the prints need to be archival to be "exhibition quality", since no one will know the difference at the exhibition, and they aren't going to fade during the exhibition -- unless it lasts several years (at least)!

 

<P>I recently showed b+w and color 13x19" prints (12x18" print area), from scans made with an old Polaroid SprintScan 35 (2000 ppi slide/neg scanner), and a new Epson 1660 photo (3200x1600 ppi flatbed w/transparancy lid), and printed on and Epson 1270 (6-color dye-based inks -- i.e. non-archival) photo printer.

 

<P>A knowledgeable gallery owner, and a professional/art photographer were both surprised when I told them they were inkjet prints. I framed them under glass and this made an enormous difference in their perceived quality (which I suspect is what fooled my two friends).

 

<P>The photos I showed are online <A HREF="http://members.rogers.com/dsmith01/show_photos/">here</A>. After much experimentation I discovered that certain types of images (subject matter/exposure/film) printed very well with this system, and many others simply did not.

 

<P>If you had more expensive gear (notably the scanner) you could probably print photos that carry a lot more fine detail, and use the pigment-based, archival inks. I don't believe that is necessary, unless dictated by the particular venue/market you wish to show in.

 

<P>Incidentally, I've read here on PN (and elsewhere) that medium format can work well with the flatbed scanners, certainly better than 35mm.

 

<P>A good place to begin serious research into this subject is at <A HREF="http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint</A>

<i>Here is a question for you Photoshop aficionados out there. </I>

<P>

Well, really for printing and exhibiting afficionados, but PShop usually does work its way into that process...

<P>

<i>Is it possible to produce an exhibition quality color print on a digital printer? </i>

<P>

Judging by the number of people who do this, the answer has to be yes. But "digital printer" makes the question a little vague, I'm afraid, because Lightjet's, for instance, are digital printers; they just use lasers to expose photographic paper, starting with a digital file (just like Frontier prints). If you mean inkjets, well then the answer must still be yes. Again, IRIS digital prints have been hung in galleries and museums for years, and arguably desktop inkjet prints have surpassed IRIS prints in quality.

<P>

<i>If so, what is the minimum printer that can do this, and if you are scanning from (1) 35mm slides and (2) 6x45 slides, what is the minimum scanner you can use? </i>

<P>

A search of the forums will show much discussion on this topic, with opinions ranging from the idea that only a drum scanner is really up to the task (well, it is better, but maybe not always necessary) to the idea that a 2700dpi film scanner can produce big prints (questionable, really).

<p>

Right now, Epson and Canon inkjets lead the way in the home market, with the Epson 2200 widely-but-not-universally considered the cream of the crop. Many people make high-quality scans with the Nikon 4000ED, many with the Canon 4000 (can't remember the model number), and a lot of people are looking to try the new Minolta 5400.

<p>

Good luck.

These questions always make me smile because it is just like

saying that if you buy a Cannon EOS whatever and a couple of L

series lenses then you'll start making great photographs.

 

To make exhibition quality prints you'll need to demonstrate a

mastery of scanning, the photoshop skills to prepare your scan

for printing and make any tweaks it may require, a thorough

knowledge of your printer and what sort of papers/inks suit your

images best, and a very well calibrated system. Otherwise put

there's a learning curve that's likely to take more than a few

minutes or days. It's what the people at places like West Coast

Imaging do, and you might be right if you assume that it took

them longer than a few evenings to learn it.

 

I'm sure there are people working at home who are making

prints from their own scans that are every bit as good as you'd

get from the best labs. But they had to invest time and thought

and tests, much more than the money, to get there.

 

My suggestion. Send WCI one of your best images and get them

to scan it and make a LightJet or Epson 9600 print at Exhibition

standard. When you can do as well as that, you're making

exhibition prints.

Good God, Norman, that is a <B>RIDICULOUSLY</B> vague question! Do the other Mormons know you're embarassing them in this manner?<P>

 

Define: "exhibition quality"<P>

 

Define "digital printer"<P>

 

What size print?<P>

 

I see color inkjet prints in fine-art galleries all the time.

The question may be vague but many people do ask it.

 

The question comes up because I have yet to see an image produced digitally (other than with a Lightjet) that didn't look inferior upon close examination. Sometimes, mounting it behind glass will fool people, as someone noted, but I find the look of inkjet ink on top of paper hideous.

 

When it comes to B&W, the problems are compounded. And with the Lightjet, the problems are different, though not as severe as inkjets.

 

Regardless, I do plan to keep learning Photoshop because it is very useful, and one day the prints will be up to my standards.

 

Thanks for the replies.

If your idea is to replicate traditional darkroom prints with inkjet you are probably going to be dissappointed. These are very, very different technologies, each of which imparts its own character to the result. If you can't accept that inkjet photo prints 'are what they are', so to speak, then don't bother. Like traditional darkroom prints, inkjet output runs the gamut from abyssmal to astoundingly good. Neither technique is a guarantee of 'exhibition quality' (however you or your guru defines it).

 

I am personally of the opinion that by handing off your work to a custom printing lab, you are surrendering control over a crucial part of the photographic process, and don't merit full responsibility (or blame) for the result; it's no longer entirely your own work.

Back Shooter,

 

That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the insight.

"If your idea is to replicate traditional darkroom prints with inkjet you are probably going to be dissappointed"

 

What a sensible comment.

<<If your idea is to replicate traditional darkroom prints with inkjet you are

probably going to be dissappointed>>

 

In most cases i agree, and in all cases inkjet is different. However, i still

maintain that IRIS is a viable solution for art prints, photographic or not. IRIS

has in the past reproduced paintings from many artists, but my friend Eric has

printed an IRIS portfolio from 35mm slides of urban scenes (sharp edged

buildings) on Somerset paper, they didn't look worse than a Cibachrome, but

they were very different.

 

In my opinion it is something like certain high quality alternative processes, it

isn't that the image quality is worse on IRIS, just different.

PS: After paying $125,000 for a [new] IRIS G printer, it better look better than a

$2000 Epson.

I recently saw a show of large (probably 20x30 inches) inkjet prints (I think they were done on a 9600) on "canvas" textured paper. The subject matter was various brightly-painted objects - cans of paint, marker buoys, etc, on a weatherbeaten surface. The detail in the woodgrain was excellent and the color saturation in the paint splashes and droplets was extraordinary. The overall effect was better than anything I've ever seen on a photographic print.<P>

 

On the other hand, I've yet to hear any well-articulated reason why a black and white inkjet print cannot equal or exceed a darkroom print. There aren't that many variables. There's basically the contrast range and shape of the transfer curve. If the input was scanned film then the grain should look the same digitally printed as analogue-ly printed.<P>

<I>they didn't look worse than a Cibachrome</I><P>

 

That's not saying much - Cibachrome is terribly contrasty and suffers loss of shadow detail AND blown out highlights. I don't think I've EVER seen a good Cibachrome print. I think Iris, or for that matter, an Epson 1280, is way better than Cibachrome.

<I>The question may be vague but many people do ask it. </I><P>

 

Is that suppsed to be an excuse? Many people do lots of stupid things. We notice you still didn't answer the questions.

<<Cibachrome is terribly contrasty and suffers loss of shadow detail AND

blown out highlights.>>

 

ehm, very good points, I was more refering to color fidelity.

anno,

 

I'd like to know more about IRIS prints. I hear they're quite expensive. Does your friend have an online gallery?

 

Peter,

 

I've seen stunning Cibachrome prints. Blown out highlights can occur with a contrasty slide, so careful exposure is required. But with the right subject, there is hardly anything that equals Cibachrome.

"On the other hand, I've yet to hear any well-articulated reason why a black and white inkjet print cannot equal or exceed a darkroom print."

 

Here's one: a darkroom B&W print can be made on fiber-based silver.

 

Here's another one: a darkroom B&W print can be made on fiber-based platinum.

 

Here's another one: you can tone a darkroom B&W print in selenium.

Norman-

 

That says nothing at all. Plus, investigate lightjet (with b/w fiber paper) and

film transfer, everything you mentioned can be done.

IRIS prints run in the $200-500 range for a 32x40" sheet on the larger, more

prevailing models.

 

As far as image galleries go, can you get the full "platinum experience" on a

scan? even moreso with IRIS, you'll just have to see one to appreciate it. I'd

scan some of mine, but they are too big.

A good IRIS gallery is at http://www.philipmichelson.com/iris.htm ... but the

quality is better in real life.

<<I am personally of the opinion that by handing off your work to a custom

printing lab, you are surrendering control over a crucial part of the

photographic process, and don't merit full responsibility (or blame) for the

result; it's no longer entirely your own work.>>

 

Normally I do agree with you, but in a properly set up open loop system, or

even a closed loop system with a good technician you are not really letting

the work out of your hands. In an open loop system, how hard it is to press

"convert" then "print".

 

What the technician's job is to make good profiles, make sure they are

updated and keep the printer from tracking, banding and running out of ink,

yes, it's a skill, but it has nothing to do with *your* print specifically.

 

What i am saying here is all the technical printing in the digital darkroom is

done before the "enlarger" or in this case printer is turned on. If you took an

enlarger, unplugged it, packed the film in an air-tight chamber, managed to

duplicate EXACTLY the chemistry, it's strength, it's temperature and the

atmospheric conditions, recorded all the exposures, filters, paper used,

dodging, burning, vignette ect then moved the whole shaboodle to New

Jersey and had your friend's wife's cousin's uncle who as close to a darkroom

he has gotten is a Polaroid Spectra, have him follow your exact directions,

could Uncle Jerry realisticly claim that he had any part of that print other than

pressing the "expose" button on the timer?

Anno,

 

The print you (or whoever) creates is a physical object: that's an inescapable fact. No matter how good your (so-called) 'soft-proofing' set up may be, with the digital process, as with the traditional darkroom, you have to make final judgments about color, tone, dodging, burning etc. based on the physical result -- on a particular paper, viewed in a particular light.

 

You could get custom prints made for you from digital files, then tweak your files and take them back, praying that you get the same technician with the same batches of ink and paper, and they haven't tweaked their printer settings in the meantime -- that's the hard, and expensive way. Or you could tell yourself that the first print is 'exactly what you want'. Whatever.

When I bring my digital files back to our local printing lab which has a very tightly controlled process for Lightjet5k, I like others that our using it are expecting prints to be essentially identical. This was not true just a few years ago. Some fine art photography labs understand how extremely important that is in order for their clients not having to eat bad output that otherwise might be rejected by clients customers. A few have set up calibration processes, tight environmental, and machine controls to deliver such. -David

Backshooter- I think you need to do some reading on profiling. The idea is

that you build a profile for that printer, paper, atmosphere, batch of ink used

that day AND your monitor. A good tech will profile his printer every week if

not every day.

 

The voodoo in the color management system matches your soft file to the

specifications of the profile made from a hard swatch of about 64-128 colors

and shades. A good profile will get within 5-10% of the soft proof.

 

Using precanned profile does not permit extremely accurate soft proofs.