BetterPhoto.com - Become a better photographer today!
EMAIL:
PASSWORD:
remember me:     
     


Photography QnA: Printing Digital Pictures

Browse by Category | All New Questions | All New Responses | Q&A Home

Category: All About Photography : Digital Photographic Discussions - Imaging Basics : Printing Digital Pictures

Find the best rated printer for printing digital pictures or find tips for making your digital pictures print out better in this Q&A.

Page 4 : 31 -40 of 94 questions

<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...10
Next 10  >>
     
 
Photography Question 
Jim Echols
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/30/2002
  31 .  Printing 4x6 and Cropping
I have a Nikon D50, and when I send out pictures to be printed, some are cropped, others are printed full image. What is the key to getting full images that are not cropped?

11/26/2006 9:52:55 AM

John Rhodes
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/24/2005
  Martin, Your camera has an aspect ratio of "nearly" 3:2. That is, for every 2 units in one dimension, the image has 3 units in the other. I say nearly 3:2 - not exact. If you do no cropping yourself to ensure the image is 4x6, then the folks who make the prints will crop for you. Sometimes, you may not notice any loss of critical parts of the image, but at other times, something important will be lost.
Bottom line: You do the cropping.
John

11/26/2006 2:01:31 PM

Jim Echols
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/30/2002
  Thanks John.....one more question, I'm using Elements to edit my pics, is there an option to specify 4x6, if not how do I know how much of the pic needs to be cropped?
Thanks!!!

11/26/2006 2:40:00 PM

Beverly S. Bogart
BetterPhoto Member
beverlybogartimages.com

member since: 8/27/2006
  When I used to send out film to be processed, I hated they way they cropped too so I would put in a note that said: "Print full frame, no cropping. I realize they will have black portions but that's the way I want them." Then when the prints would come back, they would have black areas on two opposite sides of the photo. They won't be a perfect 4x6 (or whatever size you need) but then it's up to you to crop where you want to or not crop.

11/28/2006 4:54:42 PM

John Rhodes
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/24/2005
  Jim, I used to use Elements, but have been using PSCS2 for awhile--my point being, I'll try to recall the steps in the process. First check the current image size (Image menu) to see what the native file size is. It will be somewhere close to a 3:2 aspect ratio. Check the size in "inches" and crop to the nearest size to obtain a 3:2 ratio using the Crop tool from the tool box. Set the crop dimensions to the specific size desired. Expand the crop to the selected size, then use the Move tool to slide the selection around to retain the best of the image.

Let me know if I wasn't clear or if I can give further help.

John

11/29/2006 4:32:38 PM

Jim Echols
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/30/2002
  John, that was pretty clear, I'll let you know if I can't figure it out. Now one more baffling question, why would some pic have to be cropped and others display at full image with no cropping? The series of pics were all shot with the same settings at the same event and time. Why would some require cropping and others not?

Thanks for any info!!!!

11/29/2006 5:54:07 PM

John Rhodes
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/24/2005
  Jim, the only explanation I can think of is that what you perceive as "cropped” or "not cropped" depends on the composition of the image. Photos that have detail near the edges are easier to detect whether or not cropping occurred. Best advice is to allow some “neutral” space around the edges when you shoot the image so no detail will be lost when the image is cropped.

John

11/30/2006 6:02:13 AM

Linda Buchanan
lindabuchananphotography.com

member since: 4/26/2005
  Can you explain this crop procedure for PCS2? Dumb it down please! I have also struggled with this. Thanks.

11/30/2006 5:53:05 PM

John Rhodes
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/24/2005
  Linda,
I converted a RAW file to a Tiff and opened it in PS CS2. I selected Image Size under the Image menu and set the resolution to 300 per inch. The width (in pixels) was 3760 and the height was 2500 (In inches, 12.533 x 8.333). This is the standard image size for my camera

This is not exactly a 3:2 aspect ratio; close, but not exact. The closest size would be 8" x 12" (2400 x 3600). This allows resizing to 4 x 6 without losing any detail. Now, when I did this, I could see no difference between the original image and the resized image (The difference was so small).

However, when you have a print service print for you, the best way is to set the exact size you want—4 x 6 for example. Don’t just take the unedited image from your camera or card to the printer. Edit first for your desired final size.

John

12/1/2006 6:31:07 AM

Mary E. Heinz
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/23/2005
  Hi all, I have to speak up for my printing company here...I love the
ROES system...you just "fit or crop"
and what you see in the frame is what you get...I LOVE THEM !

Mary
FamilyTies Photography
http://www.pics-ties.com

12/1/2006 10:51:50 PM

Mikael Orbratt

member since: 3/5/2006
  A bit of advice to ensure your photo lab doesn't cut away important parts of your photo. A always add 0.1 inch when cropping. For example, I would crop a 4 x 6 to 4.1 x 6.1.

All labs cut differently so you need to make sure you know what your lab is doing.

Good luck!

Mikael

12/12/2006 8:33:43 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Marirosa Anderson
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/12/2006
  32 .  Difference in Colors: Monitor Vs. Prints
I'm hoping you can help. I have a Digital Rebel SLR 300D. I also have Photoshop CS2 and others. My main problem is that the pictures look great on my monitor with colors, etc., yet when I print them, they don't look the same. Any suggestions? Thanks!

8/9/2006 5:52:14 PM

John Rhodes
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/24/2005
  Marirosa, I had the same problem until I calibrated my monitor. I use Spyder 2 from Colorvision with great success. I have my printing done by a professional lab. I was getting images that were too dark. Once I calibrated, the images are pretty much dead-on with what I see on the monitor.
John

8/10/2006 9:48:01 AM

anonymous A. 

member since: 9/19/2005
  John's advice is spot on, Marirosa. I'd only add that this is the way to go if you print at home, too, and good photo-quality printers will have controls and settings to help match their output to your monitor, so check the manual or the company Web site.

8/12/2006 1:42:50 AM

Glenn E. Urquhart
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/3/2006
  John and David are absolutely correct. One more consideration... paper. Different papers produce different results. After months of trying different papers, I have come up with one that produces the best results with my printer... Cannon I9900. It is a pain, but well worth the trouble. Good luck. Cheers, Glenn.

8/12/2006 4:12:31 AM

Marirosa Anderson
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/12/2006
  thank you so much for all your input....

8/12/2006 5:13:54 AM

  One additional suggestion, if you print at home...in the print diologue box you can choose whether you want your printer, or CS2 to determine colors...choose CS2 and you might get much truer results.

ccc

8/15/2006 5:14:08 AM

Jagadeesh Dev
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/30/2005
  All great advice, I use Huey, by gretagmacbeth, and it's great. I'd tried the Spyder2Express, and like Huey much better. And it continually adjusts for ambient room lighting! Also, I'll echo what Glenn U. said - paper. I make sure I download all the ICC profiles for each different paper I use (the expensive ones, like Ilford and Hahnemulle). For the inexpensive papers, I use Adobe 1998 color profile for printing.

8/15/2006 6:02:14 AM

Jim Manganella
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/8/2005
  Another possible easy solution is to set your monitor to match the print.

8/15/2006 8:34:36 AM

Cathy P. Austin
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/26/2004
  Also, you can soft proof before you print. I can't remember what menu it under in CS2 but you can set up the profile and then get a view on the monitor of what it would look like on paper.

Calibrate, soft proof, profile, print does the job for me all the time.

A great book is George DeWolfe's Digital Photography Fine Print Workshop

Cathy

8/15/2006 8:40:30 AM

Daniel G. Flocke
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/31/2004
  Marirosa - All the answers are correct. But to get pictures as you see them on your screen and your home printer is to calibrate the monitor first, and then the printer.
You will need a flatbed scanner or the more expensive Monaco X-Rite Pulse with Monaco EZcolor. http://www.xritephoto.com/product/pulse/. It is the the only way to get WYSIWYG.

~Daniel

P.S. - Once you spend the money for this you can calibrate all your friends for a service fee and recoup some of your cost.
:~D

8/15/2006 9:01:25 AM

Andrew M. Zavoina

member since: 3/23/2006
  I am in a similar boat. I have two PCs, one with an LCD and one with an older CRT. I calibrated each with my SpyderPro (predessor to the Spyder2Pro). The prints I get are dark off my Epson R800 with Epson paper. I get better prints from a cheapie HP Photosmart.

I am testing things now by sending a print request from each PC to a local WalMart to see how those 4x6s look compared to what I got on my R800 and Photosmart.

If I still have a darkness problem, next I think I'll look for driver updates and printer calibration if need be. But how does that work, does it adjust my drivers based on printer/paper?

My photos are getting better. A few look really good on screen and not getting good prints is frustrating.

8/15/2006 10:27:11 AM

Cathy P. Austin
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/26/2004
  Are you using Epson's profile for the R800 and paper that you are using?

Check out this link. It's similar to the workflow that I use.


http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/profiles.htm#SoftProofing

I was getting dark prints and found that assiging the correct profiles and softproofing really made a big difference.

If you use Walmart, get their printer profiles. I heard that Costco prints really well when you use their profiles.


Cathy

8/15/2006 11:33:17 AM

Daniel G. Flocke
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/31/2004
  Andy - The software you have should suffice for what your trying to do, just remember that the CRT needs to be calibrated on avg. of every 3-6 months, while the LCD 6 months - 1yr+. I re-checked my lcd and no major change after 18 months. You might wnat to replace that old CRT for a LCD.

~Daniel

8/15/2006 2:54:49 PM

Andrew M. Zavoina

member since: 3/23/2006
  Thank you Cathy and Daniel. I calibrate my CRT and LCD before I do any large editing work or make serious prints. The LCD is typical and like your findings, hold its settings well. The CRT doesn't and is barely bright enough to pass the test, but since it and the LCD look similar, I'll limp by for now. I'm thinking of replacing it, but feel I need to focus on the printer first.

Cathy, that link looks helpful. I'm going to go step by step with some of my workshop instructions and see if I can do better. I have gotten some great prints from it in the past. I hope resolution is this easy. Otherwise I'll look to calibrate the printer.

Thank you for the ideas. You're very helpful.

Not to hijack the thread, but I was looking a a special buy in Staples where they have a 19" wide-screen LCD for $190. A great buy, but the resolution is 1440x900. I could also get a 19" for $220 that is 1280x1024. Lastly, the best specs I saw were on another 19" for $260 that was brighter, with a contrast ratio I think of 1400:1 and the refresh rate was equal or better than any of these. For Photoshop work I would think the finer resolution and better contrast ratio would be the most prudent. Thoughts for those of you who've been through this analysis paralysis I seem to put myself in?

8/15/2006 8:06:32 PM

Daniel G. Flocke
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/31/2004
  Sorry to hijack, but to answer andy, if your going to those sizes why not go to a 20.1" wide screen by Dell.

UltraSharp 2007WFP 20.1-inch Widescreen Flat Panel LCD Monitor with Height Adjustable Stand

Dell Part#: 320-4688

$367.20

~Daniel

8/15/2006 9:09:51 PM

Paul Tobeck
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/19/2005
  If it's a true print to screen match you're after, there's one thing to keep in mind before you go blow a chunck of change on a big LCD, especially a computer makers brand. They don't reproduce color as well as a CRT. Sorry, but it's a fact. On an accuracy scale of 1 to 10, most LCD's only come in at a 3 - 5 unless you spend thousands of dollars. Those cheap 17" to 20" Dell and HP LCD's are tempting, and look great on the desk, but they can't come close to a CRT for color accuracy, PLUS you can't adjust all the settings for color temperature, etc. Every Dell LCD I've owned could only be adjusted for Brightness and Contrast. They are designed to appeal to consumers, which means big, bright and contrasty, with a flair for dramatic color. They are not made to produce ACCURATE color, which is what we as photographers need. Even the big Apple Cinema displays don't put out great color when compared to a good CRT. Unfortunately, good CRT's are going the way of the corded telephone, so hopefully the monitor manufacturers will accomodate us and start building lowerm priced, more accurate LCD's. SOON. My advice for now, go find a 19" Viewsonic or Mitsubishi on a refurbished resellers site and calibrate every 2 weeks. Also be wary of Colorvisions products on OLDER monitors (more than 5 years old). I've heard rumblings that the software can't compensate for aging phospors and gives some funky results, compared to Monaco or Pantane products. Just an FYI.

8/17/2006 5:17:02 AM

Brian Cassar
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/25/2005
  Marriosa, I had the same problem when I switched on to digital format some years go. I had my first print totally different with a high bluish tint. I think this one isn't mentioned here. Ask your lab to give you a test card and send you one by email so you can then calibrate your colours with the labs. Only by this you can achieve a fine calibration. The drawback is that if you change lab, you must change calibration. If you print at home you can do the same. Good luck.

12/22/2008 4:49:34 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Joe 

member since: 7/19/2004
  33 .  Do-It-Yourself Framing?
Is there a more cost-effective way to get my photography framed, like doing it myself? The amount of money that professional framers charge seems to be completely ridiculous. Are their tools/education out there to allow photographers to frame their own work? Thank you for your time!
JRD

1/8/2006 8:04:21 AM

Craig m. Zacarelli
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/3/2005
  Yeah get a pretty good compound miter saw (or you can youe a hand miter box, about 9 bucks from home depot. And youll need a router..better yet, get a small router table from sears.. it'll be worth every cent. Then its just a matter of cutting, routering and putting it together and putting the glass in. The glass can be purchased from home depot also, they will also cut it to size..or any glass shop will cut it too. youll might want to pick up four 90 degree corner clamps,, a worth wile purchase too! if you can do some basic woodworking, you can make a frame, go to somewhere like free plans dot comm for more info.
Craig-

1/8/2006 9:40:20 AM

Liza M. Franco
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/26/2004
  Hi Joe,
I had my own picture framing business for 13 years. There are a couple of ways to go.

If you want to get pre-cut frames there is a company called Graphik Dimensions. They will pre-cut metal or wood. Wooden frames have a special cut in the corners that are designed to accept a special peg type piece, that coupled with framing glue holds the frame together. If you choose to do your own framing and desire a mat cutter or any other supplies, United Manufacturing would be the way to go. They have all the machinery needed and any supplies you could possibly need. Mat cutters can run anywhere from $150.00-$2000.00. Don't skimp on glue. For doing matting or papering the back of a frame for a finished look, an ATG gun is an awesome tool. I don't do professional framing any longer, because I needed a change and absolutely love photography and computer manipulation and restoration. However, I held on to every bit of framing equipment for doing my own stuff.
Considering the price of buying glass from a distributor, unless you have one locally, shipping can be outrageous. Craig's suggestion of Home Depot is an excellent one. You might also check at Ace Hardware and Lowe's. When transporting glass, you do not want to lay it flat. It is best left standing between cardboard or wood. If transported flat, it can crack easily from stress.

1/8/2006 10:30:36 AM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  You need to buy mat board. 32X40-inch board in a myriad of colors is available at AC Moore and other art supply stores (not Michael's). You'll need a straight edge and a piece of 1.2-inch plywood to support the mat board when you cut it using a box cutter or shop knife. Mat board costs $5.00-12.00 a sheet.
Buy yourself a mat cutter: Alto's - about $90.00 to start (that's what I've had for years) or Logan's - about $120.00 to start. There are other manufacturers.
You don't need to make window mats. You can use spray adhesive for photographs, if you want. About $20 for a large can; I've mounted about 20 8X10 prints and don't notice a significant weight loss in the can yet.
There are lots of "chop shops" on the Internet that'll sell you precut wood and metal frames. Go to Neilson's Web site to find locals suppliers. I use Neilson metal frames preferentially.
Go to your local hardware store for glass and/or plexiglass. I use the latter for really large framing jobs. My little Alto unit successfully let me frame posters to 34X39. For larger framing, plexiglass is safer. You can use glareproof glass; it's a little more expensive.
I can frame a 12X16 for less than $20. My son is a lawyer who had about 15 citations I framed. I also did his law school diploma and his wife's diplomas from undergrad and grad school. Did all for a materials cost under $300.

1/8/2006 11:28:52 AM

Craig m. Zacarelli
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/3/2005
  Wow... I didn't know there were such easy ways! I just cut and router the wood to make frames... I guess, though, since I have the tools, it's a bit easier to do that, and less expensive. Ya learn something new every day.

1/8/2006 1:26:39 PM

Joe 

member since: 7/19/2004
  Wow, thanks for the wonderful responses everyone!! I never dreamed I'd get that many helpful responses in such a short amount of time. Thanks again!! JRD

1/8/2006 3:16:02 PM

Robert Ankrum

member since: 7/11/2005
  A couple of additional sources for precut frames (requiring assembly) and mats are:
www.documounts.com and
www.americanframe.com
Both have a wide variety of framing materials and supplies. Personally, it's worth it to me to pay for pre-cut mats. I know they're going to do a much better job than I am b/c they have all of the latest equipment...and they do it all day, every day.
For glass, I go to my local window glass supplier. They actually give a 10% discount for artists.

1/10/2006 9:53:17 AM

  I do most of my own matting using precut mats. You can order from several wholesale places online. Also, pictureframes.com (same as Graphik Dimensions) has all kinds of great frames to suit every taste. Anything greater than 8X10 I have professionally mounted by a local framer who gives me a reasonable price.

1/10/2006 3:32:33 PM

Nicole Kessel

member since: 4/30/2004
  Hey all, great thread.

A lot of my prints are full frame and I found it difficult to find pre-cut mats in those sizes at a good price. So, I bought a real inexpensive mat cutting kit for around $60 at the 'Hobby Lobby' which has worked great for me so far. The edges arn't always perfect but, I only use it for my own stuff for right now.

I was also buying 32x40 mat boards from the 'Hobby Lobby' for about $5-10 until one of their associates told me that it isn't acid-free which totally suprised me!

So, I'm wondering just how important it is to get an acid free mat board since the part of picture you see doesn't touch the mat directly anyway. Anyone know?

(I scan a lot of garage sales for old frames that I can re-stain or paint, too.)

1/10/2006 9:13:40 PM

Robert Ankrum

member since: 7/11/2005
  Nicole - You want acid-free mats, foamcore, etc. because when the acid in a non-acid-free product forms a gas (which it inevitably will do as the material ages), it will cause your printed image to degrade. Mind you, it can take many years to have a noticeable effect...so it all depends on how long you want to enjoy your framed image. Cheers.

1/10/2006 10:21:04 PM

Robert Ankrum

member since: 7/11/2005
  Sorry folks, I have to correct my earlier entry. A little additional research reveals that acid-free products last longer and hold their color better (if you're using colored mats, for example).

Didn't mean to mislead anyone. (My only excuse is that my earlier answer is what someone once told me...)

An outstanding resource for "all things archival" is: www.wilhelm-research.com

1/10/2006 10:52:42 PM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  The price range I noted earlier reflects acid-free board at the high side. When you make a side by side comparison of NAF vs AF you might be surprised at how much the former appears like colored cardboard.

I purchased the complete corner set for Crescent Board years ago. That way I can judge whether or not to use a colored mat. Notwithstanding that, soemtimes, colors look great, there are a lot of juried competitions out there whose judges will downscore a print that's not matted on black or white mat board.

1/11/2006 10:42:31 AM

Christopher J. Budny
BetterPhoto Member
chrisbudny.com

member since: 10/3/2005
  I went through a big framing phase several years ago, just for various posters, prints, sketches, etc., that I'd collected. Had a little family-run framing shop nearby; they'd cut a glass and mat to my stated size, while I waited (!) and I just bought the "kit" (sectional) frame pieces, to assemble the frame myself (typically, the black metal "gallery" style frame.) I don't recall those frame pieces being terribly expensive... always less expensive than having them do the full job for me. You just buy the 4 individual side pieces needed, in whole-inch increments, to create the frame size desired. I think Michael's Crafts stores carry this product (tho I can no longer get while-u-wait glass and mats!)

1/11/2006 10:59:56 AM

  I,too, was very disturbed by the high price of framing so I decided to do my own. If you are not looking for the world's best frames, Michael's or A.C.Moore have, by far, the best prices. Most times a lot of their frames are on sale(40%-50%) off. Different frames are on sale at different times. Both stores also have coupons in your local papers for the same percentage off any frames that are not on sale. A.C.Moore also takes Michael's coupons.I used the 40% coupon to buy a mat cutter. Try using a small mat cutter (up to 16"x20"mat) and if you need to mat larger photos get a larger cutter which I just did. It's not really difficult to learn to cut mats in small sizes. Then you can move up to the larger ones. Buy some cheap matboard just to practice. Don't worry about the acid-free board until you have some serious framing to do. You can buy mats cut to the outer dimensions of your frame on e-bay and then cut the inner demensions yourself. It's very handy when you want to mat an odd size picture.Learning to cut mats is very rewarding and not that difficult to do. You can then reap the profits for a framed print.

1/11/2006 2:55:05 PM

Nicole Kessel

member since: 4/30/2004
  You guys all have some great ideas.

Thanks for the information on that, Robert! I had heard not to use anything but acid free but, I did not know why exactly.

1/11/2006 3:22:02 PM

Joe 

member since: 7/19/2004
  Wow guys, this is great stuff, thanks for all of your input!!

1/12/2006 6:43:44 PM

Joye Ardyn Durham
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/1/2006
  There are a lot of ways of doing your own framing. I have owned my shop for 12 years and do mostly conservation framing and since I am a photographer I do a lot of research on the best way to frame photos. Acid free is definitely the way to go. The way to tell (of course there are exceptions but not many) is that the bevel of an acid-free mat is very white and clean and it will stay that way. Non acid-free mats have a tan tone and will continue to get worse through time. And eventually will turn your photo brown on the edges.
Non AF foam cor backing has a shine to it and feels a bit slick. The AF is more dull and smooth.
Another thing to consider is getting conservation glass which is 97% UV protected from sunlight and florescent lights. This glass saves your colors! You can get that cut from your local framer or the local glass shop may carry it. Just beware some photo shops sell AF pre-cut mats that are NOT AF so check the bevel!

1/18/2006 4:44:42 AM

Joe 

member since: 7/19/2004
  Hi Joyce, thanks for the information! That is definately good to know, because I've always wondered how you keep the brown from setting in. Thanks again!

1/18/2006 4:50:58 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Rebecca A. Steed
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/6/2005
  34 .  I Need a Good Photo Printer
I need suggestions, please. I'm working on a home-based (2-bedroom-apartment-based) studio. I need a good photo printer that would be used solely for printing photos and (small) posters. Obviously, it would have to be pretty small to fit here, but I want good quality and know nothing about the technology. I also want to be able to print up to 8x10 or even 11x15. All suggestions are welcome.

12/28/2005 11:35:43 AM

Bob Fately

member since: 4/11/2001
  Becky, if you really need to go up to 11x14 or larger, then your only option is pretty much an inkjet printer. Dye Sublimation printers like the Kodak 1400 produce outstanding output but their maximal size is 8x12 inches.
In the world of inkjets, Epson, Canon and HP are the best known brands. They make a gaggle of models - the Epson 2200 has been considered an excellent photographic printer with sizes up to 13x19 (actually 13x44" if you use roll paper and a Windows machine). And they now have a newer model - the 2800 I think.
Just know that with inkjet printers you want to use quality supplies, because lesser inks and/or papers will probably fade sooner as well as not produce the colors you want. But there's a whole craft to printing with inkjets; you may want to do a little investigation with some color management books at the library.

12/28/2005 12:40:06 PM

  Becky: Both Canon and Epson make excellent 13x19" format printers. The Canon i9900 is less expensive than the Epson R1800, but its prints do not last as long. About 20 years on display vs. 80 years on display.
In other respects, the Canon is a superb printer - $384 right now ... a bargain. The R1800 is $529. You can find specs for both at www.bhphotovideo.com
I have tested both and would be happy with either.
All the best,
Peter Burian, Instructor
Online Photo Course: Mastering the Digital Camera and Photography

12/28/2005 1:31:25 PM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  I just made my first 13X19 print on my new Canon i9900, an upgrade from my Canon S-800 (about six years old, but still very functional.) I used the same file from which I printed on the S-800 a "winner" at my camera club's recent competition (Best of Event). I did nothing but adjust the print size; that is, I did not adjust the file size to try for a sharper print, rather I told the print to make a larger print from the starting file. I was elated with the results.
Peter mentioned the Epson 2200. Many folks swear by this model; however, it's been replaced by the R1800. This model costs almost $100 more than the i9900. But, more importantly, when you link to the Epson site from the printing menus and check out the cost (MSRP) of ink per cartridge, you'll find that Canon ink is significantly cheaper. Like up to $2.00 each.
Since I believe it's the ink and the paper that make the difference, I pay attention to these costs. In a number of threads, I recommended using ONLY the ink provided by the printer's maker. I like Ilford paper, especially for B&W prints, but the cost of ink is key.
The price differential made me get the i9900 for myself and for my camera club. However, many folks will suggest that Epson best. It's not the Nikon vs Canon debate, but it's close. Check out a comparison of three 13X19 printers (Canon i9900, Epson R1800 and an HP model) in the December issue of Pop Photo.
One comment on Peter's reference to print life: Manufacturers' test results "suggest" print life up to 100 years. The wet darkroom produced prints by Matthew Brady and these have lasted well over 100 years. Digital printing has been around for, what, say 10 years (for us amateurs). Time will tell - but most of us won't be around to prove those 100-year claims.

1/1/2006 12:41:57 PM

  John: Yes, Canon ink is cheaper but which lasts longer? I have not done comparison testing nor have I seen any such published tests. Yes, many black-and-white prints are archival. But the color prints we get from a lab last 40 years or less. (A LOT less depending on the paper used.)
Lots of good info on the permanence of prints (of all types) at www.wilhelm-research.com
Epson's other new 13x19" printer is the 2400; a lot more expensive than the R1800; a pro model.

1/1/2006 12:52:33 PM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  Peter -

Once, again, I say - who knows. Life of the ink or print, from an inkjet, is based on a test since no one's been around [waiting for the inkjet's print failure] even that 40 years you describe.

Many commercial photo-finishers, who use an inkjet printer while waiting for their next customer's one-hour processing order, swear by Epson. And, I'm not saying they are right or wrong.

But, at a time when lots of folks [on BP.com and elsewhere] say digital is cheaper than film photography, well then, the price of the ink [wherein lies most of the profit for printer manufacturers] has to be very critical.

As Canon eclipsed Nikon in the digital camera world [for a short time, at least,]so it's possible that Canon has a very acceptable product at $100-200 less capital cost and major savings available at the result of lower priced inks.

1/1/2006 1:23:31 PM

Piotr M. Organa
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/12/2004
  Get R1800. I have R800, same thing but smaller. It's awesome. If you get cheap printer you won't sell a single picture because of ugly candy color.
Good luck in new year!

1/2/2006 5:54:48 PM

Lisa Chatelain

member since: 3/23/2004
  Hi Becky, I have had the Epson R1800 for about 6 months and have been very happy with it.
Lisa

1/3/2006 9:13:56 AM

  The Canon i9900is great.. I have had mine for a month and it prints 13x19 great and of course those sizes in between.. and yes, they're much less money wise now... The fact that I can replace the individual cartridges is great!!!

1/3/2006 10:50:05 AM

  By the way the Epson 13x19 format machines also use individual ink tanks.

And I agree; this is a great concept. (You replace only the single ink that runs out .... not a cartridge that contains three or more ink colors.)

Peter Burian, Instructor
Mastering the Digital Camera and Photography
www.betterphoto.com/photocourses/PBN01.asp

1/3/2006 11:30:23 AM

Rebecca A. Steed
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/6/2005
  Thank you so much to everyone who has replied to my inquery. I hope you all had a good holiday season, and when I get a little money back after all my 'holiday cheer,' I plan to purchase one. In the meantime, I'm going to continue my search for the perfect printer, and now I have some ideas to go off of.

1/3/2006 12:00:49 PM

Kelly Andrews
BetterPhoto Member
thrukellyseyes.com

member since: 12/31/2002
  I am also looking for a new printer. I currently have an Epson 2200 which I love when printing on the Professional Enhanced matte or Watercolor paper. However I really don't like the way the Epson glossy prints look as there is a sheen on the paper and the ink looks like it sits on top. I also have a Canon i950 which only prints up to 8-1/2 x 11 and I love how glossy prints look from this printer. The Canon is also a very fast printer. Unfortunately, my print head went on the Canon and it hasn't been right since I got it fixed.

As I think it makes sense to buy another larger printer so that I have a backup for my Epson, I am leaning toward the i9900. I really just want to make sure that the glossy prints made with the i9900 will be comparable to the ones from the i950. I will mainly be using the Canon for smaller things like notecards and portraits where my customer prefers glossy and I will continue to use my Epson for my large art prints. All of the user reviews I have read on the Canon have been excellent, but I haven't been able to find a retailer that carries this printer and can print a test print for me on glossy stock. Anybody know if the printing is comparable?

1/3/2006 1:49:09 PM

  Kelly: I tested the i9900 and it made beautiful glossy prints.

I also own the Epson 2200 and hate the glossy prints. BUT it does a great job with Premium Luster paper.

That finish is not as shiny which is fine with me. The perfect paper for use with that printer.

Peter Burian, Instructor
Mastering the Digital Camera and Photography
www.betterphoto.com/photocourses/PBN01.asp

1/3/2006 5:03:49 PM

Glenn E. Urquhart
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/3/2006
  Hi Becky - I own a Canon i9900. Have used it over a year, printing 8x10 & 11x14 on Illford Clasic Gloss paper and the results are fantastic. Highly recommend this printer. Cheers. Glenn

1/4/2006 4:59:17 AM

Bryan E. Stark

member since: 12/27/2005
  Picking a printer is like picking a camera.what's the most important features.For cameras I happen to like Nikon.My printer is a Epson 2200,which I chose for the outstanding print quality, longevity of print(pigments not dyes),And individual color cartridges(7),very cost effective.My next printer will be an epson too.If you print a great deal an alternative to cartridges is a tank feed system (Media Street or Lyson)would give you a 70% savings or more.I have also found Ilford smooth gloss and pearl to be more reasonabe in cost than Epson paper with great results. Have fun on your quest.

Bryan Stark@Starkpics.com

1/5/2006 10:10:36 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Mary R. Hess

member since: 12/26/2005
  35 .  Print Quality of Digital Images
When I had some digital images printed at the local photo store, some of the images (faces) had a distorted color appearance. It seems that certain areas of the picture had too much color. The photos were taken with a Canon A95 Powershot and were enhanced (image size, color, red eye, cropping) with MS Picture It. I copied the images to a CD for developing. The pictures do not look the same as they do on the computer. Any ideas about what I am doing wrong?

12/26/2005 7:26:11 PM

Bob Fately

member since: 4/11/2001
  Mary, what you see on your screen and what comes out of a printer can be rather different (different even from coming out of multiple printers). It sounds like the colors printed as oversaturated (red dress is "too red" etc.) - this could be a function of the way the photo store's printer read your digital files. Perhaps when you were doing adjustments in Picture It the software changed color values?
There is a whole craft and science to what is called calibration - where you first use special software and reader on your monitor to "teach" the computer what this certain shade of red really is, then you load so-called "profiles" for each printer/paper combination so the computer can translate that shade of red into the numbers the printer needs to reproduce the same shade. But that can take a bit of effort ... perhaps you can ask the folks at the lab to tone down the colors in a reprint or something?

12/26/2005 8:30:47 PM

  Try making a print from the original and then see what comes from the unaltered file. Then make adjustments as you see fit, but without a calibrated monitor, it may be difficult to anticipate what your prints might look like. Many things can affect monitor color: ambient light around the monitor, brightness, image size, file viewer, and on and on. If you get your monitor calibrated, do so according to the specs of your most-often-used photo printer, so that you will see what they will print for you.
Chris Walrath
Walrath Photographic Imaging
http://home.comcast.net/~flash19901/wsb/html/view.cgi-home.html-.html

12/27/2005 4:27:19 PM

Autumn Hernandez

member since: 8/30/2004
  I have found that a lot of the "quick print" photo labs have different qualities to their photos. Costco, for example, doesn't do anything to the pictures to fix them and will print as is. Kits, on the other hand, automatically uses their software to fix exposure so the pictures often look different from what you see on your computer. Plus, everyone calibrates their printers differently. Some are very careless about it. In my photography class, my teacher suggested taking one particular photo, of a pink rose or something with one basic color, to all the different labs in the area to see which place gives the truest to actual color photo. Hopefully, you can find one that you like. You can have the perfectly toned photo and everything could be right, except for the printer. :/ Unfortunately, sometimes it's the luck of the draw with the fast printing places.

12/27/2005 4:50:15 PM

Denyse Clark
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/2/2002
  Mary- this issue was the very thing that kept me from going digital for quite some time! I had a friend w/ digital, and their prints always came back with these totally obnoxious colors that looked fake. I assumed it was just how digital was. NOPE, it was the cheap photo finisher. I don't know about all the monitor calibration stuff everyone was talking about, but I went to a professional photo printer and the color is outstanding, so my experiment tells me that's a huge factor. I like Autumn's suggestion of taking the same pic to a few places and checking out the results, great idea!!

12/28/2005 5:18:38 AM

Steve Mescha
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/22/2002
  Just to concur, it's not your files, Mary, it's the lab! I'm sure you'll find one that does a better job!

12/28/2005 6:06:25 AM

anonymous A. 

member since: 9/19/2005
  Absolutely the lab. If you are not happy with the results, ask for a reprint, explaining what it is that you don't like. If they won't reprint (free or at minimum cost) go somewher else. Or get a decent printer and do your own! The cost is similar and you are in control; you may have to experiment to get just what you want, but once you have, you should get consistent, predictable results.

12/28/2005 2:06:51 PM

Joe drapeau

member since: 5/25/2004
  MARY I HAD THE SAME PROBLEM WITH A LAB
THAT I USE TO DEAL WITH,THE PRINT ON MY PRINTER OF THE SAME PHOTOS WERE FINE,
TURNS OUT THIS LAB HAD AN OLDER MACHINE ,REFITTED FOR DIGITAL ,AFTER COMPLAINING THEY PUT A SOFTWARE PATCH IN THE MACHINE WICH HELP SOME.
I JUST GO TO RITZ NOW FOR ENLARGEMENT THEY HAVE THE NEWEST MACHINES ,THE COLORS ARE CLOSE TO THE SAME AS MY SCREEN .

12/28/2005 7:58:48 PM

Andrew Laverghetta
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/13/2004
  Just wanted to share my good experience with my local walmart supercenter. Now, I won't take film enlargments there but I feel good about taking my digital files there. They print my files exactly as I have saved them. Usually I bring them in on a CD and have done all the editing and resizing on my computer how I need it.

Some of what I've done are four musical instrument 8x10s through them in which I used PS CS to match the color among the four seperate shots and they were exactly how I saved them. It was great to finally have that control that I didn't have when I was going for a specific color hue with color negative film.

I've also had to take some photo directly out of my 20D this winter when I didn't have access to a computer and the colors that I was going for while shooting were still maintained in the prints.

Anyway, if there's a walmart, try it out with a few different photos. If yours prints digital one hour well, you can get a great 5x7 for just under $2. Fantastic!!

12/28/2005 9:14:20 PM

Bob Fately

member since: 4/11/2001
  To Andrew's comment - it's good that your local Wal-Mart did a nice job for you, but be aware that not all Wal-Marts have the same equipment. The ones with Fuji Frontier lab equipment generally produce the better results, but those haven't been rolled out to all stores.

For that matter, the training level of the techs using the equipment also have great impact on the color consistency and accuracy that is provided. The point is - you need to find a convenient lab that you can trust - if it's Wal-Mart, then groovy, but it might be Costco or Sav-On or a camera store. It depends on a lot of variables, not just the store name.

12/28/2005 9:45:44 PM

Susan L. Vasquez
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/24/2005
  I've tried several online services.
Shutterbug, Ophoto, Imagestation, Snapfish, and Photoworks.
Out of all of these I'm most pleased with Photoworks. I buy matte prints from them and they look amazing.
It maybe a preference on my part, but to my eyes the colors are great and the prints are nice and sharp.

12/28/2005 10:21:39 PM

A C
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 12/6/2004
  It is great that Andrew's Wal-Mart prints turn out great . . . my Wal-Mart prints turn out terrible, sometimes. I used to go to a local grocery store but the colors are dull.

I now go to a local photography studio that also has a one-hour photo. The prints turn out beautifully (as long as I don't let them color correct because they don't know what the heck they're doing!)

12/30/2005 9:35:40 PM

Alton I. Vance
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 11/21/2004
  You've probably heard enough in this area but here is my experience. I had serveral adjusted PS files saved in JPEG that I took to Target. They did a great job the first time. But I took the same files back a second time to the same store and ran them through the same Kodak machine and they came out with way too much contrast, similar to your experiene. I took back my original prints they had done the first time and showed them the difference. The operator was amazed at the difference in quality from the same machine. Until then the new ones looked O.K. to the casual oberver. She kept both copies of one print and showed the technician when he came back the next time and he was amazed at the difference in quality but gave no explanation as to why there was such a difference in detail quality. I haven't been back to see if the quality has improved since. But the point is, you can't always depend on one place. You might get good prints one time and bad ones another. I think it depends a lot on how the software is set in the machines and if someone has changed it since the last time you were ther. Of course a calibrated monitor helps but unless the machines are calibrated in the same way that still doesn't guarantee accurate color reproduction.

When it comes to really large blow ups (8 x 10 to 20 x 30 of even larger) I have had great success with Laser Light Photographics in Aptos CA.

http://www.laslight.com/

They tell you how they want their monitors calibrated and their reproductions come out fantastic.

1/1/2006 3:48:15 PM

Bob Fately

member since: 4/11/2001
  Alton makes a good point - that the low priced places may not have consistent output due to lack of training of the techs and/or sloppy handling of the equipment or sporadic refreshment of the chemistry.

Pro labs (on-line or local) who make their reputations on being able to supply the same output over time cost more, but you're paying for he consistency. WHich is not to say that CostCo or Target et al always does lousy work - only to say that you need to test things out with your local outlet since things can be very very different from store to store.

1/1/2006 6:19:59 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Andrew Laverghetta
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/13/2004
  36 .  Framing for Wedding and Portraits
Hi everybody.
I've got a question on how those of you who shoot 3:2 format cameras (digital or film that use 35mm lenses) frame your subjects for enlargements. I am looking for a way to see the 8x10 format through the viewfinder but I'm not quite sure. Photographers offer a few different formats like 4x6, 5x7, and 8x10 - all of which are different ratios. How do you know which way is the best to frame what's going on? Not everybody is going to want the same size. Do you just frame loosely so you have flexibility either way? In some cases with my 20D, I'm worried about losing megapixels to cropping and that loose framing. What do you suggest? Thanks!

11/19/2005 3:49:51 PM


BetterPhoto Member

member since: 10/28/2003
  I recommend to my clients that they buy 8x12's. I rarely worry about it. Mostly, I sell an album with the wedding package. In the album, I have freedom to make whatever size I might need. Sometimes, the family member, or sometimes the client buys an 8x10, and usually, I luck out. If I don't luck out, I call and explain, and either talk them into an 8x12, or show them what it will look like with the crop, and they can either take it, order an 8x12, or order a different photo.
Since I sell all sizes, from wallets up to 30x40, it's impossible to worry about it too much. Although, 8x10 is a common size.
One thing that helps me a lot is I shoot wide all the time these days. I think I can shoot an entire wedding, almost, with a 24mm on my 20D. I use my 15mm a lot for the reception. So, the cropping for me lately hasn't been an issue. A couple of years ago, when I was shooting super tight, I always had a problem with certain size prints.
Just remember that it's an inch off each of the long sides when you are shooting.
HTH,
Jerry

11/19/2005 4:58:01 PM

John Sandstedt
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/8/2001
  Jerry's right on. 35mm film negatives are in the 2:3 ratio (24mmX36mm). For many, many years, a standard print size has been 8X10, obviously in the 4X5 ratio. When you took your negative to a photo finisher, someone had to make a decision about cropping.
When developing started to become computerized, Kodak and others introduced "jumbo 4X6 prints." Actually, all this did was take the guesswork out of printing (regarding cropping) and allowed prints to be made by the computers or the "chimpanzees" manning the machines. No human decisions were necessary.
When you shoot your picture, don't extend the subject all the way to the ends of the viewfinder; rather give yourself room to crop. That way, when you view your proofs or your images on the monitor, you'll be able to make correct cropping decisions.
But, so long as you're using trade processing, thank Kodak, et al, for the 8X12 prints available today.

11/20/2005 8:24:00 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Kay M. Daniel

member since: 11/13/2005
  37 .  Printing Difficulties at Home
When I print digital images on regular paper, the color is fine. When I print the same images on photo paper, the images are green. I make selections for paper type, etc., and I bought new photo paper. Nothing seems to make a difference. Regardless of settings, color is fine on regular paper, green on photo paper. Any suggestions will be greatly appreciated!

11/13/2005 3:45:19 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Does it get better after each print? Inks don't flow well right away if the printer hasn't been used for a period.
Or one of your tanks could be clogged, like magenta. Photo paper settings will spray more ink than regular paper, so the lack of ink coming from a tank will make the color funny. That's all I can think of right now.

11/13/2005 3:22:10 PM

Justin B. Renshaw
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/27/2005
  Are you using a photo printer?

11/14/2005 9:40:25 PM

Christopher A. Vedros
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 3/14/2005
  Can you give us some more info? What brand & model printer are you using? What brand & grade of photo paper are you using?

My HP printer (CP1700) is great for general purposes, but B&W photos will have a green tint to them. It is more noticeable if you compare the print to a true B&W picture. We have an Epson photo printer now, so we don't use the HP for photos any more.

11/15/2005 12:08:33 PM

David King

member since: 9/12/2004
  It sounds like a profiling issue. Using good old silver-gelatin photo paper in the darkroom where except for slight variations in tone, all were similar because all were silver based, one brand or another varied far less than brand loyalists would argue in terms of D-Max and image tone. But with an inkjet printer, color is a result of the interaction of the ink and the particular coating on the paper. Different brands of ink-jet paper use different formulations for their coatings. Especially with non-photo printers this can be a huge problem. Even with good photo printers however, there is often a significant difference between colors on diffrent media (papers) using the same settings.

The solution is to profile each paper/ink combination. But first you need to make sure your monitor is calibrated so that you can predict that what you see on the monitor will be what the printer kicks out.

David
www.ndavidking.com

11/15/2005 3:42:58 PM

Dan Fogelberg
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/24/2005
  If you haven't tried this already, the easiest thing to do is match the brand of printer and paper. I've noticed that I get the best prints on the premium Epson photo paper in my Epson printer. Even the top quality papers from other companies show a very noticeable color shift. Profiles are best, and of course your monitor can be off, but I'd at least try matching the brands, since they've already done the paper/ink profiles for you.

11/15/2005 4:05:44 PM

anonymous A. 

member since: 9/19/2005
  I think David has it...but some printers/monitors make the profiling procedures very hard to access. My wife's Lexmark P707 produces beautiful prints if the colour space is set to sRGB but not if Windows manages the colour directly: then it gets a distinct green tinge.
My Canon Pixma 5000 has to be set to Manual Colour profile (and ICM on) in the print driver. If not the colours are just not "true".

I'm afraid trial and error is the only way out, although I have seen good result without profiling by reducing the offending colour in software or adding a touch of (in your case,)red. The photo will now look less than perfect on screen, but print better, because you have compensated for the printer's tendency to overemphasize the green. This is only a work around until you can get your profiles right or fix/replace the printer. Have you contacted the manufacturer?

11/15/2005 4:25:05 PM

L. W.

member since: 1/28/2004
  I had the same problem when printing until I was told to match the brand of paper to the printer. I was surprised that the cure was that simple. I do sometimes have to make minor adjustments but nothing outrageous.

11/15/2005 4:50:57 PM

Dawn Penso
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/6/2005
  I have a similar problem with my Canon Pixma i8500, giving very poor greens. Like you I get better results using standard rather than the presets for photo papers. I believe finding a satisfactory ink and paper combination is part of the solution, (other than buying a print profiler for hundreds of pounds or dollars) -but how consistent are the inks from one batch to the next?

11/16/2005 8:40:30 AM

David King

member since: 9/12/2004
  Dawn that's really an excellent question and it raises a sometimes troubling issue. The unfortunate answer is... "It depends."

Just as color film drifted a touch from lot to lot and pros always tested new lots for accurate filtering, so does the color in any dye or pigment color have some variance. The good news is that in the higher end inks designed for photo printers, especially high end photo printers, that drift is minimal. For landscapes, portraits, and normal shooting most would never have a clue it has slightly changed. For pros shooting such things as products with logos that have to be a dead match for the original, or fashion that has to match clothing colors, they will definitely notice the drift however and have to make some slight adjustments now and then to the printer settings to compensate.

A major issue still arises for less critical shooters with the use of 3rd party inks. Many users love these because they are almost always cheaper than the house-brand inks. There is a reason they are cheaper and sometimes that reason is cost savings with less quality control. So not only are they almost certainly going to be different in color respoonse compared to house brand inks to greater or lesser degrees, they can also sometimes be more prone to color drift between batches or lots. Caveat Emptor... let the buyer beware.

Until all other variables are sorted out, I usually advise students to stick with house brand inks and papers. Once the proper system is stabilized and understood, then one can change variables one at a time (like paper, for instance) and experiment to find, ultimately, the best combinations that create the final image effects they need.

David
www.ndavidking.com

11/16/2005 9:10:42 AM

anonymous A. 

member since: 9/19/2005
  I have to say that I couldn't be happier witn the fidelity and consistency of my Pixma 5000, but my demands are not critical. By this I mean that I am not going back to the original subject and holding the print against it to make sure the colours are identical. My work is not so "scientific". I have tried many brands of paper, both 'brand' and third party and virtually all are satisfactory. Three house brand papers were awful (2 for color caste, for drying time and all either jammed or had more than one problem caste, colour off, wouldn't dry). The very best in my printer is Canon's own paper and the very cheapest house brand (a Japanese paper from the MegaMart chain in Australia).
I have found the same with inks. Most are very good and I can't tell the difference from the Canon inks, but those which are not satisfactory show their true colours (sorry)pretty quickly and you don't go back to them.
What I can't say is that they will have the longevity of the manufacturer's materials, but so far, different combinations of different inks and papers has not caused me grief.
Get that tinge under control, then experiment.

11/16/2005 12:56:45 PM

David Robinson

member since: 12/29/2002
  Have you tried printing on Photo grade paper using ordinary paper settings?
If the result is the same as on ordinary paper this would show that it is not the paper that is at fault

11/17/2005 5:35:25 AM

Dawn Penso
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/6/2005
  I think a partial solution would be to buy paper in boxes of 100 sheets, thus reducing the number of variables for a while at least. I have been given a profile by Olmec based on a test print which they evaluated but am having problems loading it into my mac. If I solve that problem and it looks ok - it's based on icc profiles - then I'll stick to Olmec paper, forever more! My other decision is to have prints which I've sold made on photo paper by a pro lab.

11/17/2005 7:09:23 AM

Craig m. Zacarelli
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/3/2005
  what about the same Phot Ink and Photo Paper as the printer? How old is the printer?? what make? Im using a 3 year old HP all in one copier/scanner/printer that makes awesome prints.. I do however, use HP Photo Inks, Photo Papers allways.
Craig-

11/17/2005 9:48:33 AM

Dawn Penso
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/6/2005
  Hello Craig - The printer is a year old, a Canon Pixma I i8500. Until December last year I used an HP but got taken in by all the talk about separate cartridges and how wonderful the Canon was. The problem started right away with Canon ink and paper. I never had this problem with the HP. I started using third party papers. The Olmec profile has now given me a lurid red cast on their paper. Recently I tried some non-Canon inks and now have a mix of both. Maybe I should put the Canon in the attic and bring the HP back...

11/17/2005 11:02:31 AM

anonymous A. 

member since: 9/19/2005
  I assume the i8500 uses a similar printer driver to the 5000, ot at least has a similar control panel. Try this:
open the printer control panel. On the MAIN tab, set paper type to Glossy Photo Paper and color adjustment to manual. Click the Color Adjustment SET button and then enable ICM. Don't adjust the individual colours yet. Click OK then go to the EFFECTS tab. Turn off any special effects, close the driver and print a test page.
If you're not happy, go back into the driver, open the effects menu and enable, in turn Photo optimiser PRO (try a print) Image Optimizer (try a print) and Noise Reduction (try a print). If none of these do the trick, go back into the MAIN tab,Click the SET button and use the sliders to reduce the offending colour. When you are happy with the result, save the combination as a profile and make that profile your default. This will work!

11/17/2005 12:45:23 PM

Dawn Penso
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/6/2005
  I followed your instructions David and they worked! Absolutely brilliant! I finally got a print with the greens looking green. I've only tried one print so far as I'm nearly out of paper. I'm going to Venice tomorrow and really looking forward to coming back and having the water in the canals look green for a change. Thank you so much.

11/18/2005 7:47:18 AM

anonymous A. 

member since: 9/19/2005
  Great, Dawn. Have a fantasic time! But if you get the canals to look green, you'll be one up on the Venetians: they've been trying for years without success.

11/18/2005 12:52:04 PM

Dawn Penso
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/6/2005
 
 
 
Hello David, Here's a pic of the Grand Canal - even greener than I remembered! It was very cold and very sunny and sometimes the water looked like the Caribbean. In the distance. Next challenge now is to print the pix, I'm planning to try some fine art paper so I shall probably have to start the whole colour matching process again. Aaaaa

11/27/2005 10:05:44 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Ric Henry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/29/2004
  38 .  Matte or Glossy - Preference?
Hi everyone,
What are some of you guys and gals printing Matte or Glossy. Is there a difference between the two besides personal preference. What are the pros and cons? Thanks for your help.

10/3/2005 7:36:25 AM

Michelle Ross
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/1/2004
  I prefer matte over glossy for all of my work ... I think matte handles better and stays looking nicer over time. ... I don't print anything of importance myself and send off for all of my work. I think as long as the quality of the paper is good that either will have longevity to it. And, for most, I think it simply does boil down to a personal preference!

10/3/2005 9:23:49 AM

Ric Henry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/29/2004
  Michelle,

Thanks for your input. I seems to me that the glossy pictures like to stick together. I see that you change your icon? How are things going?

Ric

10/3/2005 9:38:12 AM

Michelle Ross
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/1/2004
  Hi Ric. . . things are going well . . . I'm swamped with fall sittings . . which is a great thing . . . which icon did you notice I changed because I still see the same one hmmmmmm

10/3/2005 10:00:31 AM

Liza M. Franco
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/26/2004
  Hi Ric,
This really is a personal preference type thing. I think you get a lot better clarity and a crisp look with glossy. When you think about it, most matte finish paper has little dips and valleys in it. When you think about it in that way, all of those little dips and valleys kind of disperse your photo, which gives it that soft look. Glossy shows finger prints terribly, though, where matte hides them really well. Personally, I prefer matte, because I can't stand to see fingerprints. It also is very nice for portraiture because of the soft look.

10/3/2005 10:06:43 AM

Ric Henry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/29/2004
  Michelle,
That is weird now the icon is gone. You had a icon of some dolls with a yellow backround. Right? What I saw that you responded to my question was a icon of A Old Wind Mill, that is why I commented on you changing icons.

Ric

10/3/2005 10:19:38 AM

Ric Henry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/29/2004
  Michelle,

Now you have NO icon just text.

10/3/2005 10:23:14 AM

Michelle Ross
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/1/2004
  Hi Ric. .. I've been trying to change this silly icon . . . I was still seeing the doll hwen you were seeing the windmill ... but I didn't like the windmill missing the head so I tried to change again so I deleted and will try again later. . that function for me is never an easy thing to do .. . weird! I can't believe anyone noticed. . . you are very observant! :-)

10/3/2005 10:28:42 AM

Debby A. Tabb
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/4/2004
  OK, Now I am going to throw you for a loop: I like glossy for my animal and landscape prints ... as Liza says, they seem more vivid and crisp. And I print portraits in matte - I feel it gives them a richer more real look.

10/3/2005 10:32:14 AM

Kerry L. Walker

member since: 12/21/2004
  For weddings, I get mine printed on texture - sort of between matte and glossy.

10/3/2005 3:44:30 PM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  I print on lustre. It's got a nice coat on it ... meaning it's not glossy for glares and not matte for a sometimes dull look. Plus, matte has no polycontrast features. Lustre is beautiful IMHO. I think Lustre is a Kodak thing. I use Kodak Polycontrast III & IV Lustre finish.

10/3/2005 8:07:37 PM

Ric Henry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/29/2004
  Thanks everyone for commenting on my question. I will try some of these different finishs and see what I think. Thanks for the input.

Ric

10/4/2005 5:46:55 AM

Roy Blinston
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/4/2005
  Matte or Gloss is a personal preference. My preference is for gloss for general work and matte for portraits. The gloss does show up detail much more ... as the matte does have that dispersed look. From a "copyright protection" point of view ... if you supply your pics on matte, this makes it difficult for people to copy via scanning (as the scanner picks up all the bumps and crevices).

10/4/2005 9:52:46 AM

Ric Henry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/29/2004
  Roy,

The copyright protection point of view is some thing I never thought of. Thanks for responding to this posting.

Ric

10/4/2005 10:01:52 AM

Roy Blinston
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/4/2005
  Also ... "textured paper" is even worse for scanning (hence even more protection).

10/4/2005 10:07:43 AM

GARY FESPERMAN

member since: 9/27/2003
  Hi Ric,
I have been doing photography for about 30 years. And I have been doing digital photography since 1993. I'm also a digital photography teacher at the local college.
I discuss this with my students every semester. Usually about 2/3rds of the students prefer glossy up front. By the end of a class, most are not using glossy. Why? Matte prints will outlast glossy by many years. Glossy prints scratch easier and show smudges and fingerprints. Also, for me, they have a look of being plastic. Which I know of no one, or any scenics, that have this look. It's just not a real look.
Epson claims 200 years when a Matte print is matted and framed behind glass. Also with their watercolor paper. This is with newer printers, such as the Epson 800, 1800, 2400, 4800, etc. Also, the Epson 2200 has a good life for prints.
In between glossy and matte are semi-gloss and luster papers. Semi-gloss is a little more to the glossy side, and luster is a little more to the matte side. They have a longer lifespan than glossy, but a shorter one than matte paper. These papers have a slight texture to them.
I usually use the Epson Luster, and sometimes Ilford's Smooth Pearl. My third paper of use is Kodaks Satin,
or their new Pro Luster. I also experiment with other papers.
Some require more color adjustments than others. Example: I often have to take out 15 - 30 Red by going to H & S, Red channel with the Kodak paper. Sometimes other minor adjustments are required. I usually have my students buy 2 packs of 8 1/2 x 11 paper each with a different surface to make sure they do experiment a little.
Hope you have some fun with this. Best of luck!

10/6/2005 11:57:15 AM

Ric Henry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/29/2004
  Thanks Gary,

Sounds like you know what your talking about. I appreciate you responding to the posting.

Ric

10/6/2005 12:30:52 PM

  Hi Ric - I have been studying photography as a result of my husband doing photography work and I really wanted to learn to take my own pictures. I have seen pictures my husband has printed on glossy and I have to agree that they look like plastic or like they have been painted. I really like the Matte paper better, but I am also experimenting with different paper to try and see the differences (a learning thing).

10/11/2005 12:11:50 PM

Kathy L. Pollick
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/14/2005
  Michelle, I'm not seeing dolls or windmills, I see a mailslot with colored postcards in it.... but I did notice you changed it. Just couldn't remember what it was before...

10/11/2005 12:46:08 PM

Ric Henry
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/29/2004
  Thanks Nanette for responding to this posting. I amazed at all the different responces that this posting has generated. I quess its just personal preference.

10/12/2005 6:46:32 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Kelly R. Theobald

member since: 9/15/2004
  39 .  Resizing/Cropping Digital photos
Hello! I need some help! I did a photo of a family of 13, and they would like a 8x10 pic. I use Buckeye Lab to do my prints but I can not get the image to all fit in an 8x10 area. I've tried to resize it but it gets to a point it starts getting blurry. I'm kind of clueless when it comes to the digital ratios and how it all works, but is there any way to get this photo to fit into an 8x10 picture? I'm going to be doing portraits of kids at a daycare and don't want to run into the same problem. Thanks for any help you can provide.

9/13/2005 7:45:43 PM

anonymous 
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/7/2005
  Hi Kelly
Unfortunately, if the photo is of 13 people, you may not have room to crop the picture. Have you offered an 8x12 print explaining that 8x12 is full frame and to get it to 8x10 you are going to have to crop it, and it sounds like you just won't be able to cause you will crop people off on either side?

You won't be able to resize it from 8x12 to an 8x10 as the ratios are different. The only way to resize is to use your crop tool in the tool bar and enter 8x10 in the bar up the top and then crop, this will also lower the dpi a little.
But if it was me, I would be telling my clients that it is a full-frame photo and you are unable to crop it. The photo needs to be purchased at full frame so 8x12 or 12x18 etc.
I hope this helps!

9/13/2005 11:08:34 PM

Ryan Jones
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/14/2005
  I ran into the same problem when I did a shoot for a friend's mortgage company. There were about 10 people and they wanted 8x10 plus some odd sizes. Luckily I took a few good shots zoomed out more than the others and had the room to crop with. My advice is to give yourself some elbow room in your images for just such a situation. If it's too late, photoshop's resizing process (in the help menu) can get the job done although it's nothing fantastic.

9/14/2005 2:20:59 AM

Kimberley Matheson

member since: 9/2/2002
  Hi Kelly,

I was also "clueless" in the beginning as to why the entire photo couldn't be printed any size you wanted. My husband was always telling me that I "zoom in too close" and therefore was not allowing room to crop the photo should I want to print it in a size that was not a 2:3 ratio (i.e. 3x5, 5x7, 8x10 etc). When you have the picture framed the way you like just back the lens off a bit more and this will leave you with some room for cropping. The only way I learned was to take a photo and crop it to the various sizes to see exactly how much of the photo I would be losing. I'll try and find a photo today and will upload it in in a 2:3 aspect ratio as well as 5x7 and 8x10 so you can see exactly what I mean. Hope this helps!!

Kim
www.kamphoto.ca

9/14/2005 5:27:52 AM

Tony Peckman

member since: 8/15/2001
  Everyone is obviously right on the money. I'm certain every photographer ran into this once or twice until they (I!) got a clue and didn't zoom in to perfectly frame the group.
Anyway, Natalie's suggestion is your only way out. Your clients will understand and you don't even have to explain to them that you "didn't realize" your mistake. Just be the approach them with a professional attitude and sell them the 8x12.
Even Costco prints in 8x12. Most printers will. Good luck and learn from your mistakes like I did after the first...or tenth time. :-)

9/14/2005 7:05:04 AM

Steve Parrott
LightAnon.com

member since: 9/4/2004
  The cropping factor can be very aggravating. Like has been mentioned before, the only way to deal with it is to allow room when taking your original photo to allow for the cropping. Some SLRs have grid screens which can be installed which show how the photo will be cropped when printed to the usual sizes. Steve www.parrottimaging.com

9/14/2005 7:09:44 AM

Kelly R. Theobald

member since: 9/15/2004
  Thank you all for the information, I'll just sell them an 8x12 explaining what happened. I had the reverse problem though with those that I had cropped to much and changed the ratio so I couldn't even get a 4x6 without white at the top. I'm slowly getting it and learning as I go. Thanks again for all the info.

9/14/2005 8:10:27 AM

Michael 

member since: 8/29/2002
  My solution is to leave a wide border at the bottom and then add the names of the subjects, the date and the location of the photo. If you use a nice font and colors it can enhance the image and provide valuable information to future generations.

Michael

9/14/2005 11:54:26 AM

Maria Melnyk

member since: 5/2/2004
  Kelly, your lab can print this as a 7x10. I'm surprised they, nor anyone else, didn't suggest this.

9/14/2005 12:49:38 PM

Ken Henry

member since: 9/16/2003
  Very simple, I say..."I use 'wider angle' lenses to bring you more subject without too much wasted sky/ceiling and floor space filling up your picture."

8x12 stock frames are cheeper than custom 6.666x10.

9/14/2005 11:13:38 PM

Maria Melnyk

member since: 5/2/2004
  Ken, the lab prints a 7x10 photo on 8x10 paper; the print WILL fit inside and 8x10 frame just like an ordinary 8x10. All they do is add 1/2 border on both sides.

Some people don't want 8x12's, especially if they're putting the enlargement in an album.

9/15/2005 1:28:54 PM

Ken Henry

member since: 9/16/2003
  Hi Maria, So true for the consumer mindset. My work is architectural and interior design so I am on unfamilier ground here as I do very little poeple photos.
I do have clients who require 8x10 so I compose accordingly.

Now here's a thought, I'm learning something here from you all.

Whenever you are going to photo a small group such as Kelly's '13', compose your group together more asthetically and turn your camera vertical. Crop the top and/or bottem and resize bicubic @ 300 to 500 dpi and print your 8x10.

90% of my prints are 7.5x11". How? I have my own printer and paper is 8.5x11. Small portfolios are 9x11. Larger portfolios larger prints.

in other words I no longer supply 8x12's. THEY DON'T FIT the small portfolio.
How about a 6.25x11 photo? Because I used a 14mm or 17mm lens and cropped out the excessive ceiling ang floor.

So in my work there are more custom sizes.

Regards

9/15/2005 10:00:47 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Martha A. Rumley
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/23/2004
  40 .  Color Management Problems
I am having problems with my color management system. My Rebel is set to adobe RGB. I have a HPPhoto 7960 printer, and my monitor is Adobe Gamma-calibrated. What do I set my printer to print colors so that all match? Do I use SRGB, Adobe 1998, ICC? I am confused. A big thanks for any help.

9/1/2005 10:22:09 AM

Michael H. Cothran

member since: 10/21/2004
  Martha -
I think you are confused thinking you HAVE to set your file to a particular color space. This is not true. You can choose whatever color space you wish - then calibrate your monitor to that space.
That said, I would strongly recommend Adobe RGB 1998. It has the widest color gamut, I believe.
Adobe Gamma is a good way to calibrate your monitor if you don't have a spyder. It is not as accurate, and you may need to tweak your monitor a few times after running test prints.
Also, be sure to use the correct profile set up for your particular paper and ink. If you are using a third-party paper (and/or ink), you may need to have a custom profile made for your HPP printer.
Michael H. Cothran
www.mhcphoto.net

9/1/2005 10:58:53 AM

Martha A. Rumley
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/23/2004
  Thanks, Michael, for your quick response I am still sitting at my computer TWEAKING .I have blue green leaves,yellow green leaves,but I want GREEN GREEN leaves. Why is this sooo difficult. Thanks again
martie

9/1/2005 11:28:08 AM

Michael H. Cothran

member since: 10/21/2004
  Martha -
Do you have a printer profile selected for your paper/ink combo? If you have a printer profile set up, be sure it is activated. AND...TURN OFF ALL color management in your printer driver software. Hopefully, there's a selection button somewhere in your printer driver that says something to the effect - "No Color Management." You NEED to have that selected. You DO NOT want the printer managing your color. In other words, you want and are managing it yourself.
Michael

9/1/2005 7:24:39 PM

Christopher A. Shaw
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 5/18/2004
  Martha, I was having the exact same problems and I tried the same thing you are, calibrating the monitor myself. I couldn't get it correct and it was my birthday so I got the Colorvision Spyder2 Plus. I set it up and it calibrated both my monitors (CRT for my photo editing and LCD for everything else.) Spyder2 also came with a generic version of Profiler Plus software that guides you through the process of profiling your printer/paper/ink. I'm extremely happy with the results, the prints are about 95% accurate now. There are several other brands of calibration software/hardware, I just picked colorvision because of the reviews I read and I got a goood deal.

9/6/2005 8:44:13 AM

Martha A. Rumley
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/23/2004
  Hi Chris,
Thanks for the response. I did go on line to Amazon.com to purchase a spyder 2, but after reading the feed back from recent buyers it seemed that not everyone like it. And for the cost I want to be real sure I buy the correct calibrater. Thanks again, I will look further into the spyder.

9/6/2005 10:33:05 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...10
Next 10  >>

Copyright © 1996-2014 BetterPhoto.com, Inc.® All Rights Reserved.