What is the real difference between home prints and pro lab prints?

[lenny_eiger]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"the technology is just marvellous"</em><br>

I have no problem acknowledging the debt owed to the technology for my own ability to create prints I could not previously (i.e with darkroom technology) have created. I'm happy to say I work hand in hand with technology and my own vision of what the print should be.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I agree wholeheartedly about the marvelous part. However, I will add that I am one of those people who was able to create excellent results in the darkroom, and in alt process before I took up this latest technology, which I also like very much.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Your Kozo test print if it came out requiring some recalibration for the particular circumstances of the day would eventually print to your satisfaction and presumably on that day from that point you could print any number of prints with repeatability and no further need for test prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It did come out - but I added a little tweak anyway, one last adjustment to the mask. However, I will say that no, that is exactly what I mean. While I am pretty sure that today I would not make another adjustment, I would not assume that when I change to a new roll of paper, or replace a damper or two, that nothing will change. This stuff is quite sensitive. Coating has an absorption factor, which changes depending on temperature and humidity. In a few months, if I was requested to supply additional prints, I would run a test print.</p>

<p>If you don't, its because you are relying on the lower level of print. Nothing wrong with that, as you point out in your post. Not everyone is printing to museum quality.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>It may in fact be totally inappropriate to refer to such levels when answering the majority of the types of questions that get asked here. So although it's nice and esoteric to dabble here with people who do high end, it might be that the <em>"good enough"</em> printing of some will still be better than the majority would be satisfied with and often times will indeed be ... "good enough", particularly if good enough is used without a pejorative nuance.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I agree, good enough is fine for many. The OP did ask about "exhibition printing" if I remember correctly.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>There is artistry involved in the print making but it is the artistry of commanding the technology and not the creative artistry of the photographer.<br>

There's nothing wrong with using technology but it doesn't need to be diminished by mystique and mystique it is when presented as the holy grail of printing within a context of forum readers/responders who have no need of such aspirational levels of printing for the majority, or indeed any, of their work. A Costco print works just fine for many/most.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You can look at it all as just technology. However, for me there is a collaboration. I may make a move, or suggest something and the photographer may like it, may see something they hadn't anticipated, or not, and take us all in a different direction. It's a very old tradition, printing with someone...</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>What I am questioning is the relevance of these sort of responses to questions in this kind of forum.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I always liked it when I was in a forum on a subject where people knew more than I did and were willing to share their expertise. There's nothing wrong with a print pulled off a 3800, and the OP did ask for the higher level of quality. Costco shouldn't be considered for exhibition printing. Others may enjoy it...</p>

<p>If the forum participants sincerely only want to hear comments relating to a lower level of photography, then I will just be on my way. But there are plenty who have appreciated my comments, from time to time... and I think its useful to set the record straight once in a while, on a topic like repeatability, for example...</p>

 

[Tim_Lookingbill]

<blockquote>

<p>I always liked it when I was in a forum on a subject where people knew more than I did and were willing to share their expertise.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Still waiting to see some evidence that reflect the results of your expertise. So far I've learned nothing from your waxing eloquently on the value of custom printing that I hadn't already known.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>However, for me there is a collaboration. I may make a move, or suggest something and the photographer may like it, may see something they hadn't anticipated, or not, and take us all in a different direction. It's a very old tradition, printing with someone...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You couldn't be more specific than just relying on the use of the word "something"?</p>

<p>And you mean to tell me you don't have any print of your own where you could take a before/after shot with a digital camera to show us these nuances and tweaks of personal vision and post it here? I've done it quite a few times with the idea coming across quite well. The dynamics of a transmissive display and digital camera are a wonder to behold.</p>

<p>However, the one thing I've noticed about editing on a transmissive display is that you have to make huge moves to even see a difference show up between a before/after print under viewing lights which is the reason I'm asking why your "slight tweaks" are necessary. It makes folks wonder what you're talking about. Or maybe you have a different perception on what constitutes a "slight tweak".</p>

<p>So can you see from my line of questioning that I'm hoping to come across someone in these forums who knows more than I do on this subject who can back up what they're talking about and not just rely on statements centering around their accolades and decades of experience?</p>

<p>And no, I never needed to print something 20 times to get it right because I have a perspective on life that makes me keenly aware of what is really important, my time and sanity.</p>

 

[mac_hordam]

<p><em>"The OP did ask about "exhibition printing" if I remember</em> correctly"</p>

<p>No he didn't, that was another thread. That said I can now see some of the motivation for the direction of your answers in this one if you thought you were still answering the previous thread. But that brings me back to tailoring one's answers to the question in hand...in hand:-)</p>

<p><em>"There's nothing wrong with a print pulled off a 3800, and the OP did ask for the higher level of quality. Costco shouldn't be considered for exhibition printing"</em><br>

<em> </em><br>

The OP didn't specifically ask for higher level of quality, he asked about the difference between his 3880 prints and those he might get from a pro lab. Now you may consider your services to be those from a pro lab but I don't for one moment think he would be thinking of the high end of pro lab you appear to be, more likely the sort of pro lab where cost considerations are paramount and certainly not one where endless test prints might be made in search of the perfect print.</p>

<p>If you have gained the idea that I was suggesting Costco as a source for exhibition prints (remember we weren't talking exhibition prints in this thread) then you have failed to understand that I was talking about the spectrum of print quality that various people who appear on this forum or elsewhere for that matter would settle for, particularly those who, as I said, have "...<em> no need of such aspirational levels of printing..."</em></p>

<p><em>"I am one of those people who was able to create excellent results in the</em> darkroom"</p>

<p>With the same degree of repeatability as with inkjet printing? Come on now be honest.</p>

<p>Time's short haven't any left to respond to other points at the moment, I expect I'll feel the need to participate some more though.</p>

<p>There's something to look forward to.</p>

<p>Before I go could you answer for me <em>"There's nothing wrong with a print pulled off a 3800" </em>is that a disdainful way of referring to making a print on a standard/basic/good enough printer or do you also describe prints from your Rolands as having been "pulled off"? Just curious, I like to keep up with the techy terms.<br>

And on the topic of disdainful <em>"If the forum participants sincerely only want to hear comments relating to a lower level of photography, then I will just be on my way"</em> Probably 90% or more of participants here will be doing photography at the "<em>lower level" </em>(some even lower) and whilst it is interesting to hear about experience with the cutting edge of technology they quite likely don't want to hear their own work characterised as lower level. We don't all have access to the very best of equipment but that doesn't mean we can't be every bit as serious about what we do and strive for the very same type of perfection you do but within the limitations of our supposedly inferior tech. I for one wouldn't wish you to be on your way as it does add to these discussions having input from a variety of sources, perhaps a little humility wouldn't go amiss when addressing the proletariat though.</p>

[lenny_eiger]

<blockquote>

<p>And no, I never needed to print something 20 times to get it right because I have a perspective on life that makes me keenly aware of what is really important, my time and sanity.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Tim, I will go as far as it takes to get it right, for me. There are images that have taken me years to understand. If you want to see what I am talking about, come on over and visit next time you're in the SF Bay Area. I am not trying to be vague, or mysterious. A great print doesn't show up in a jpeg.<br>

<br>

The "moves" I am talking about are generally curve adjustments. Lighten this area, soften this area, etc. I do a lot of masking and controlling specific areas.<br>

</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Before I go could you answer for me <em>"There's nothing wrong with a print pulled off a 3800" </em>is that a disdainful way of referring to making a print on a standard/basic/good enough printer or do you also describe prints from your Rolands as having been "pulled off"?<br /><br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Mac. I meant no disrespect to a 3800. They are fine, as far as i am concerned. Excellent, in fact, in the right hands. Fully capable of making an exhibition print. In fact, I mean no disrespect to anyone. I spent a lot of years teaching and I wouldn't have been much good at it if I talked down to my students. I don't have this lack of humility you imagine. However, when the words highest quality are mentioned I do know what they mean, whether is be scanning or printing. <br>

<br>

There are a lot of people on this forum who gush about an Epson 750, for example. It's usable, in certain circumstances. I can also appreciate that many people don't have the budget to afford something else, and have to use a tool like that. We all do what we can. The only time I get into it is when someone says its the best there is. i'll point out that no, it isn't, there are other options. Done. In my world, there are lots of people who paid $50K or more for a scanner, and I am certainly not going to tell them they bought a piece of junk - even if I thought so, or am glad I didn't choose that specific one. One has to find a way to point out differences in things without invalidating them.</p>

<p>I celebrate seriousness, and excellence in every endeavor. It's all good.</p>