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 7 : 61 -70 of 94 questions

<< Previous 10 skip to page
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | >> ...10
Next 10  >>
     
 
Photography Question 
Connie Niehaus

member since: 8/31/2004
  61 .  Scanning Prints to CD - And Printability
I want to scan some older photos and save them on CDs for my family. I also want the family to be able to print out any they'd like. Is there a good guideline for dpi and image size to do this successfully?

9/4/2004 2:06:46 PM

Vince Broesch

member since: 6/5/2004
  If you are scanning prints, scan at about 300 dpi (otherwise known as samples per inch, SPI). Then people can print them out at 300 dpi. Save as 8 bit per channel (total 24 bit) RGB TIFF ... that is, if they are in color. If B/W, save as 8-bit grayscale TIFF.
Vince
www.PhotoAgo.com

9/4/2004 4:03:09 PM

Connie Niehaus

member since: 8/31/2004
  TY, Vince (TIFF as opposed to JPEG?)

9/4/2004 4:33:15 PM

Vince Broesch

member since: 6/5/2004
  JPEG makes neat small files, but at the cost of tossing out data. If a file is going to be printed, it is best to save as TIFF. The file will be much larger, but there is no loss of the data, which is so important in printing. Since you are writing to CD, the larger file size should not be as much of a concern as the print quality. Also, a TIFF can later be opened, edited and saved with no loss of quality, whereas a JPEG will lose even more quality with each edit/save that it goes through.
Vince
www.PhotoAgo.com

9/4/2004 4:45:59 PM

Connie Niehaus

member since: 8/31/2004
  Oh, boy. This is probably Photography 101, but you've just answered a question I had about some pictures I fooled and fooled and FOOLED with that ended up blurry and undefined. Now I know why. Thanks a million!!

9/4/2004 4:59:46 PM

Steven Butterworth

member since: 8/24/2004
  However is it not the case that one makes a picture, review it amend it and save it. Never to be messed with again? This is how I do it.

I have done this with 100 or so old black and whites going back in time to 1920's onwards until 1949. I scanned them all in with the small battery operated HP Photosmart 1200 (http://www.dealtime.co.uk/xPF-Hewlett_Packard_HP_PhotoSmart_1200_Photoscanner)
and edited in The Gimp under Linux, and Mac OS X.

This was one of my best buys of computer equipment for doing such jobs.

So what should we all be doing for longevity of our images? If we take pictures in .jpg format should we be saving them after editing as TIFF??????

9/7/2004 12:17:46 PM

Michael Kaplan

member since: 5/27/2003
  You can find out a bit more about TIF vs JPG vs PSD which I and others have answered at this thread:
http://www.betterphoto.com/forms/qnaDetail.asp?threadID=11419
Michael Kaplan
Canon EOS-20D
http://www.pbase.com/mkaplan

9/18/2004 4:40:45 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Patrick Patton

member since: 6/9/2002
  62 .  Salable Prints
Is there an ink jet printer out there that has quality good enough to sell prints to the public? Or should I shell out the bucks for a laser, or dye sub?

9/2/2004 5:35:40 PM

  Folks, myself included, have been selling inkjet prints made from Epson printers for several years now. Any of the printers with the Ultrachrome ink will do. They include the 2200, 4000, 7600 and 9500.

9/2/2004 9:24:34 PM

Jill A. Johnson
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/20/2004
  We do all our prints on the Epson 2200 ... excellent quality but can only print up to a 13X19 (which is non-standard) but can print up to 13X44. The 4000 will be our step up hopefully in the next year, for it can handle the more standard size like 16X20. I have not had anyone unhappy with their prints from the Epson 2200
Jill :)

9/3/2004 5:59:02 AM

John 
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/10/2004
  A little late but I would highly suggest the EPSON 2200.....unless of course you could fit the 4000 into your budget!
I was in the same boat and now I am having no problems with selling prints!!!
Best Wishes...

10/26/2004 2:59:23 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
J. L. White

member since: 6/3/2003
  63 .  More Printing Questions
I shoot digital, Nikon D100, and have been asked to take pictures at an outdoor wedding as a favor for a family member. I'm wanting to know what might be the best way to get really nice matte finish prints. I normally shoot in jpg fine (L). I don't have software to process RAW files, should that be acceptable. I'm sure there will be no prints larger than 8 x 10. I'm in Oklahoma, if anyone has any experience in labs here. Thanks for any info you can offer.

7/8/2004 11:46:59 AM

Dave Cross

member since: 4/8/2004
  Hi, JW. The RAW converter should be available from the Nikon website. I REALLY recommend that you use RAW - it is so much easier to fix problems (white balance, etc.). Particularly with a one-off event such as a wedding, you can't go back and re-shoot if the bride's dress looks yellow in your pictures. That said, jpeg fine should be OK, but if you need to do any editing, save the file as TIFF so that you don't get any additional compression artifacts. Remember, every time you edit and save as jpeg you throw away a little more data.

As far as your matt finish is concerned, check out the various inkjet papers, look at matt acrylic varnish (also adds protection to the print), or talk to your local photo lab - they should be able to do silver-halide prints with a matt finish.

Let us know how you get on. Don't forget the large white card and assistant to hold it, get some reflected light under the ladies hats. Cheers,
DC

7/9/2004 7:12:23 AM

J. L. White

member since: 6/3/2003
  DC: Thank you so much for the information. I had not even thought about the reflector ... I will add it to my list of things to take! I will think on the RAW format a bit. I don't have a lot of cards, or large ones at that, wouldn't get too many shots on them in RAW, but will experiment a bit. Thanks again!

7/9/2004 12:06:10 PM

Micah Unruh

member since: 10/13/2003
  J.W.
I've used True Color lab out of Oklahoma City. They've printed all of my senior portrait work. I'm an amatuer and they have worked with me and educated me on several things. They do work for some of Oklahoma's finest photographers.
-Micah

7/13/2004 6:24:42 AM

LYNN CLUESS MANZIONE
clickimages.org

member since: 5/31/2004
  Hi-
My answer to you is regarding the printing of your files. Since it is a wedding you will be shooting- I assume you have a lot of printing to do. My suggestion is to go to shutterfly.com. You can upload your images, manipulate them to a degree, and let them do the printing. You will have your prints mailed to you within a few days. You can choose matte or glossy and your proofs will all be numbered. Hope this helps. Lynn Cluess-Manzione

7/13/2004 9:50:06 AM

Morgen T. Thruston

member since: 2/24/2004
  Hi J.W.,
I also have a D100. I have a 1 gigabyte microdrive and when I shoot in L mode I can get enough for a wedding (about 322 pics). Look on the internet for some, mine was only $175. The next thing would be developing, I wouldn't suggest shutterfly only because they are too expensive and they don't go large enough. If the family will be paying for the prints they may want to go up to 11x14 or even 20x28 and you can't get that from shutterfly. I use photoaccess.com and I have been pleased with their work for jpeg but if you shoot in RAW then you should use True Color Lab in Oklahoma. They are more money but you will like the end reults. Happy shooting!
-Morgen

7/14/2004 9:12:31 AM

farrah 

member since: 7/12/2004
  HELLO
I always go to sams club. It is a reasonable way to develop those digital pictures. And still get a great quality with a matte finish. Go to sams club one hour photo center The prints in 4 x 6 are only 18 cents and 5 x 7 are only 68 cents and then you can do 8 x 10 for a $1.96. And wallets for 20 cents each. You can add text and do black and white or sepia. This way you can get the prints quickly and are resonable. They can take an hour. You can also edit them on there and add them to a cd for the couple or yourself. It is really fun.
Then if you want to order 11 x 14 or 20 x 30 You can order them at samsclub.com. For under $4.00 for 11 x 14 and under $18 for 20 x 30. They do a really good job. I am sure you would be happy with them and the newlyweds would be too!!!

hope I helped!!
-Farrah

7/19/2004 3:40:51 PM

J. L. White

member since: 6/3/2003
 
 
 
I survived the wedding, took 250 pictures in jpg fine. I did make one mistake but thanks to the wonders of digital the photos turned out okay:) I switched to program auto, chicken that I am, and forgot to shift my metering to matrix so some of the pix were overexposed from metering off the black tuxes. But all in all it turned out okay and what is most important, the bridal couple were thrilled. I'll try to upload three pics here if I can figure it out.

8/22/2004 10:03:40 PM

J. L. White

member since: 6/3/2003
 
 
  Bride
Bride
side light from a window with warm reflector
 
  during the ceremony
during the ceremony
bride and groom during the ceremony 300mm lens
 
  Bride and Groom
Bride and Groom
after ceremony, 50mm 1.8 lens
 
 
I survived the wedding, took 250 pictures in jpg fine. I did make one mistake but thanks to the wonders of digital the photos turned out okay:) I switched to program auto, chicken that I am, and forgot to shift my metering to matrix so some of the pix were overexposed from metering off the black tuxes. But all in all it turned out okay and what is most important, the bridal couple were thrilled. I'll try to upload three pics here if I can figure it out.

8/22/2004 10:16:10 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Nicole C. West

member since: 10/1/2002
  64 .  Digital Print Protection
Hello, I am looking for some kind of a protective coating (spray?) that I can put on my digital photos after I have printed them. Does such a protective coating exist? If so, who makes it, and where can I get my hands on some? Thank you so much for your help!

7/4/2004 10:38:52 PM

Dave Cross

member since: 4/8/2004
  Hi Nicole: Modern inkjet paper and ink are reasonably water-resistant in their normal untreated form, at least for home/office environments. For additional protection, try one of the acrylic varnishes sold for protecting water-colours. Visit your local art shop - there are literally dozens of different brands of the stuff. It's not expensive, so you can afford to experiment to find one that suits your ink/paper/environment combination. Cheers, DC

7/5/2004 4:15:17 AM

Ben M. Trapnell
BenTrapnell.com

member since: 5/5/2004
  DC - the only experience I have is with Canon (960) and my prints are definately not waterproof. Very hardly water resistant! I took a print from my home to my vehicle and one drop of a very light misty rain immediately floated away the ink. I'm pretty sure the print had more than a couple of days drying time. I, too, would like to know if there is anything short of lamination that can help. I'm very hesitant to spray anything on my prints.

7/6/2004 4:05:30 AM

Nicole C. West

member since: 10/1/2002
  Thank you, Dave. I will check into a few of the acrylic varnishes. My pictures really do not stand up to much on their own. I'm excited to see if this works.

Benjamin, try the spray on some practice prints before spraying on the "keepers". Then you will know if it works without destroying anything you would regret. If it doesn't work, you can always reprint the photo. That is what I'm going to do anyway.

Thank you so much for the responses!

Nicole West

7/6/2004 9:05:22 AM

Fax Sinclair
BetterPhoto Member
fax-sinclair.com

member since: 1/3/2004
  You could go to InkJetArt.com It is a great place for paper, ink ,printers and information. The newsletter is full of info and you can search back issuses for info on different spray coatings and archival ratings for various papers and inks.

7/6/2004 9:08:50 AM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  I have the solution! Have your digital images printed by a lab using photo paper and regular chemistry. No ink jet. Buy some lacquer spray by McDonalds Surgaard. You can get matt, semi-gloss, glossy, pebble and a few more. It's about $12.50 per can from a photo dealer for 12 ounces. After spraying and allowing too dry you can run the prints right under water and no damage. It also protects against UV and fingerprints. Ben Franklin craft stores also have a photo protection spray that works but only in semi-gloss. I use the flat matt as do most professional studios for a more formal appearance to the final print. Go to tallyns.com if you can't find a local dealer or search the web. Have good ventilation when spraying as this stuff kicks quite an odor. After 24 hours the prints won't smell. Remember, emulsion photo paper, not ink jet.

Good Luck

7/6/2004 2:56:03 PM

Fax Sinclair
BetterPhoto Member
fax-sinclair.com

member since: 1/3/2004
  I had a lot of trouble with photo labs. Hated the colors I was getting back. The Epson 2200 is fully archival and uses photo papers and you can get the colors you want. Prints at 13 by 19 or longer if you use roll paper and although ink jet the clarity and colors are fabulous.
And Cannon is putting out a lettersize archival photo printer for under $100. Ink jet has come a looooong way.

7/7/2004 9:31:08 AM

Scott Pedersen

member since: 11/18/2001
  Get your prints done by a lab on Kodak or Fuji paper. Don't trust any home printer and paper to do that. I just don't see how the manufacturer can make claims that their prints can last 100 years when this stuff has only been around like four years. The print might turn yellow in ten years or fade to nothing. When you figure the actuall costs in the Lab will run the same or maybe cheaper. These lab people, for the most part do know what they are doing. OH, once in a while you will hit a boneyak, but developing film or making good prints does take quite a bit of knowlege and experiance. Trust them

7/8/2004 4:25:48 AM

Fax Sinclair
BetterPhoto Member
fax-sinclair.com

member since: 1/3/2004
  Hi Scott,
The big company that does the archival testing (can't remember the name, sorry) has been doing this a loooong time and they have ways of testing the inks and papers for longevity.
You can buy Kodak paper or Epson paper or INKJETART.COM papers.
I have had my Epsom 2200 for close to two years. Took a bright image and tacked it on the wall in sunlight with no covering (spray or glass) as a personal test and that image has not changed.
I used to upload my pictures to Kodaks digital "arm" -- Ofoto and was never happy with the colors I got back. Greens were always grey.
Now I control EVERYTHING! HA HA HA HA! (Sounds of mad scientist in lab.)

7/8/2004 9:12:15 AM

Nicole C. West

member since: 10/1/2002
  The pictures I'm trying to print (and need the spray for) are all odd sizes. Do you know of a place that will print in the sizes you request? These are all 6X6 squares.

7/8/2004 9:36:25 AM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  With digital you can drag the image to a larger and have it printed. (photosop) When done use a paper cutter to trim. I still think the photo paper and Surgaard spray is the way to go regardless of what all the ink jet people are saying. I send all my work to a pro lab that uses a $300,000 Noritsu and the flesh tones are perfect. No magenta cast which use get from ink jet.

7/8/2004 10:52:08 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Susan 

member since: 3/24/2004
  65 .  Printing in Black and White with Digital Camera
I am having trouble printing black and white photos from a digital camera. The pictures are consistently blue toned, and I can't get the deep rich blacks I am seeking. I am using the Canon Digital Rebel camera and the Canon S820 printer. Also, I have been using color photos and converting them in PhotoShop using the greyscale command. Any hints?

3/25/2004 9:39:23 AM

John Wright

member since: 2/26/2004
  Have you tried desaturating the photos? I've had better luck doing that rather than going to greyscale.

3/25/2004 11:43:28 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  There's a box to click for greyscale printing when you look under the printer properties - the page set-up stuff when you're about to print, not the "my computer" icon stuff.

3/25/2004 1:23:06 PM

Susan 

member since: 3/24/2004
  I tried desaturating after I received your answer, and it didn't really improve the printed picture. I have already been clicking the greyscale printing option under printer properties. Neither have given me the results I want. Things look fine on my screen but bluish on the printed paper. Any other ideas to try?

3/26/2004 4:57:58 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  I have an i850 that will print the first copy with off color if I haven't used it in a while. Printing the first try on draft will take care of it. So if several tries are always blue, if you go to greyscale, then go back to RGB, the photo will still be black and white, but you can adjust the color. Maybe you can take some blue out with curves, levels, or color balance and get what you want. Hopefully, it won't go to brown, though. But I didn't have problems with going to greyscale and clicking the greyscale box on print properties.

3/26/2004 5:09:56 AM

John Wright

member since: 2/26/2004
  One other question...
Are you using canon ink and paper in the i850?

3/26/2004 6:24:00 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  canon ink. first choice for paper is olympus pictorico. But not all stores have it so a close second is canon photo paper pro.
I just bought some graphica to see how that turns out.

3/26/2004 9:41:46 PM

John Wright

member since: 2/26/2004
  I'm wondering if Susan is using Canon ink and/or paper. I've seen prints from Canon printers (as well as others - mainly HP) that tend to have a blue cast to them when printing black and white and not using the manufacturer's ink and paper. Canon usually does very well at printing black and white, but it wouldn't surprise me to see a blue cast.

3/26/2004 9:50:14 PM

Susan 

member since: 3/24/2004
  Thanks for all your advice! I am using Canon Photo Paper Plus Glossy and Canon ink in the printer. What's next?

3/27/2004 3:36:20 PM

Bob Ashby
BetterPhoto Member
Contact Bob
Bob's Gallery

member since: 3/25/2004
  Hi Susan, you have entered the world of color management and it is not simple. There is a color profile that you camera uses, another profile for the software and hardware that you use to process and a profile that the software uses to talk to the printer. And in some cases a profile that display's the color on your monitor. The profile that is currently casueing you the most grief is for the printer.
First desaturate you image, do not just do greyscale. THe system likes dealing with the idea of color even though you have removed most of it. Now you must create a custom profile in the Adobe printer control just for black and white. When you do this reduce the amount of blue. Save it and call the profile black and white or something like that. Also make sure that with in print preview you select color management and your printer. Now print a image that has not work correctly for you. A 4 X 6 should work. Review the results, go back and make adjustments to your saved profile resave and try again.

If you happen to have the finds to spend get your self a color calibration system. For the money spent it is well worth the effort if you are going to be printing for customers and don't have the time to go through the above procedure.
Regards
Bobby
WolfGrafx

3/30/2004 12:15:28 PM

Irv 

member since: 9/18/2003
  I have been plagued with the same problem. I have scanned 4x5 b/w negatives into Photoshop and had this problem in many cases. Sometimes the color cast can be blue,or purple, almost like a selenium tone!. I went to the Photo Show last November and made prints on several brands of printers and none gave me a pure crisp b/w effect to equal that obtained by silver chemistry in the darkroom.

The only consistent solution I have found in Photoshop is to use Dutones.

Irv

3/30/2004 3:03:17 PM

Ray Sweeney

member since: 10/7/2002
  Hi Susan, Just a thought but maybe it has somthing to do with the white balance setting on the camera.As a color picture does it have a blue tint to it?I also have a digital Rebel & canon i850.Give this a try(I use psp8).Bring up your image in color,go to image-split channel,split to hsl.x out saturation & hue (do not save)keep the lightness channel.Go to layers and adjust curves etc.flaten all images and your ready to print.Print in color not grey scale.Hope this helps you.check out my gallery Ray Sweeney

3/30/2004 6:19:38 PM

Steve Mescha
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/22/2002
  I agree with Gregory that you might try converting to grayscale, back to RGB and then experimenting with adjustments. Another option is to go to hue&saturation, check the colorize box and adjust your saturation sliders. A little more contrast might give you the black you're looking for also. Keep notes on your adjustments and once you find something that works you should be able to use the method consistantly.

3/31/2004 4:25:23 PM

Deb Booth

member since: 3/13/2004
  Just a quick thought: have you tried using a matte, heavyweight (watercolor) paper? Epson makes a great watercolor paper that does a really wonderful job of making black a dark, velvety-looking thing with life and vibrance. I use an Epson PhotoStylus 825, and it works best when using the "matte paper, heavyweight" choice in the printer set-up box.

4/2/2004 1:12:35 PM

Steve Mescha
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 1/22/2002
  different papers definately make a huge difference in print color. My absolute favorite paper for printing photos, either color or B&W is Epson Matte Heavyweight. It works fine in my HP printer set at "other photo paper". The only problem is that the prints MUST be kept under glass or they will fade.

4/2/2004 3:26:07 PM

Michelle B. Prince
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/16/2004
  Have you tried to click... Image, adust, channel mixer. Then click monochrome and adust the top three sliding bars to get the color you want.

11/25/2004 7:07:52 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  Many ways to a destination.

11/26/2004 2:12:32 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Penny Deig

member since: 1/8/2004
  66 .  Camera Settings for Best Prints
I am using Sony Mavica CD200 camera and Epson cx5400 printer. What are the best settings for each to get the best quality pictures? I read that tif setting was best, but what about fine/standard, etc. Thanks.

1/8/2004 9:03:36 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  You are lucky if you have a tif setting. That means that your image is not compressed at all, giving you more to work with in the imaging software. (If you don't have an imaging software, go with Elements 2.) The down side of tif is that the images take up a LOT more space on storage cards, so you have to buy bigger cards. I consider that a worthwhile trade-off, others disagree.
Your fine setting probably gives you some JPEG compression, but hopefully not enough to wreck the structural and color integrity of the image. Most people would find pictures shot with your camera in the fine mode perfectly acceptable. Standard and lower settings compress your pictures for the sake of convenience, and you must be careful not to do a lot of edits and saves in your software, or you will wreck them.

1/9/2004 6:34:33 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  I failed earlier to address your print settings. Go into the imaging software and in Image/Image Size uncheck Resample, check Constrained Proportions, and enter 240 for the resolution. You will see the image size shrink to a printable size. If the print size that comes up is not to your liking, enter the long dimension, and the shorter dimension and the resolution will be calculated for you. If the resolution falls between 240 and about 300 you're good to go. If it's over 300, don't worry about it. Use the printer company's photo quality paper. If your resolution is 240-300, a 720 dpi setting wil be fine. If it's over 300, use the printer's highest dpi setting and see what prints out. I am not familiar with that printer; I am basing it on my Epson 870. See the article on Printing on my web site.

1/9/2004 6:44:14 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Julie L. Curiel
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/6/2003
  67 .  Suggestions for Professional Photo Labs
I am needing suggestions for a photo lab that has the ability to print from a digital file onto quality papers (i.e. specialty papers, texturing, mounting on art board etc). Currently I don't do my own printing and until I puchase my own high quality printer and figure out what papers to use, I need something to tide me over. WalMart does a good job but just doesn't cut it for wanting to do more professional sales. Thank you for you suggestions!

12/31/2003 1:57:31 PM

  Hi Julie: An excellent question! Here are some general guidelines for finding a good lab:

- Check the Yellow Pages or an Internet listing for photo labs in your area. Look for words like "custom" or "professional" ... I'll bet WalMart won't pop up!

- If possible, ask local professional photographers - or serious amateurs - for recommendations.

- Is there a full-fledged camera store nearby (but NOT the camera department of a drug store or WalMart)? Ask for suggestions.

- Camera clubs or photo galleries are also good sources of information.

- In a good custom or professional lab, by the way, the work is done on-site ... as opposed to being sent off to another location. That way - if necessary - you can talk to the actual person who will be doing the developing, printing, scanning, etc.

- Most (all?) pro or custom labs nowadays work with digital ... of course, you might want to verify ahead of time that the lab can perform the tasks you want.

Another resource is an excellent BetterPhoto article: "Working with Mail-Order Photo Labs." Here's the direct link:

http://www.betterphoto.com/exploring/workingwithmolabs.asp

Hope this helps, Julie, and good luck!
Kerry

PS: If you (or anyone else who might be interested) live in Northern California, check out Cali-Color in Sacramento, or the New Lab in San Francisco, which also handles mail-order - www.newlab.com.

1/1/2004 9:41:52 AM

Julie L. Curiel
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/6/2003
  Thanks so much for your suggestions Kerry! I'll check into some of those options. My problem is I live in the middle of no-where KS where there is no local camera store, camera club, well, you get the idea. I'll definately check into some mail order photolabs to do my work.

1/1/2004 1:04:49 PM

Robert Wagner

member since: 6/19/2003
  When you are in the middle of nowhere sometimes you have to be inovative when you print your pictures.

I have found that printing large prints on an inkjet printer using watercolor paper gives the print a pleasing soft look. It also covers up the printer and photograph short comings.

I have been able to print a 16 x 20 print from a 1.2mpx file and have people tell me that it looks like a painting.

1/5/2004 5:45:46 AM

Julie L. Curiel
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/6/2003
  Robert- what kind of printer do you use? I am going to invest in one here eventually so I can print on my own. I've just been trying to decide which printer is right for me. Where do you get your paper from also? Thanks for the suggestions.

1/5/2004 6:17:23 AM

  Hi Julie,
I work for Precision Camera in Austin, Texas www.precision-camera.com and we have a fabulous photo lab on site which you can download your photos with our fotowire service and have the images mailed to you. I think you will find that the quality you get with us is exceptional. I hope this helps!
Roseann

1/5/2004 11:50:40 AM

Debora  S. Miller

member since: 1/4/2004
  do you have a local college nearby - it is amazing the abilities of young college students nowadays, and alot of them have serious equipment at home due to disposable income from living with mommy and daddy. a friend of mine uses a student, saves alot of time (no waiting) and money (charges underrate) also the enthusiasm is amazing, and the quality is first rate. good luck, debora

1/7/2004 4:14:12 PM

Julie L. Curiel
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 4/6/2003
  Debora- great suggestion. I'll have to check at K-State which is an hour away but do-able. Hadn't thought of that route.

1/7/2004 7:33:04 PM

Debora  S. Miller

member since: 1/4/2004
  hi, call ahead and talk to the professor or head of the department, they always recommend the talented students. and the college might be an hour away, but that student might live nearby with all that equipment in their bedroom. I have a student do all my desktop publishing-piece of cake for her, drudgery for me. try bartering also - money might not be an interest but there is always something that will get them. for her I do b&w of whatever she wants, christmas photos of her and her dog, etc. etc. great trade off and keeps my costs at a minimum. debora

1/8/2004 12:28:35 AM

Reid S. Mason

member since: 1/6/2004
  Julie,

Most of the high end photo labs offer this type of service. I've been doing some research myself, and checked into a place called Full Color. They offer a range of services, complete with ftp capability for getting your files to them. Check them out at www.fullcolor.com.
Hope this helps you out!

Reid

1/9/2004 12:33:46 AM

Vander 

member since: 1/28/2011
  As I know that photographic prints matter when you are making a professional painting or snapping a picture. http://www.photolab.ca Whenever I start making a picture then first I check for the prints which I am using.

2/3/2011 3:14:42 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Ken Im

member since: 12/30/2003
  68 .  Printing Digital Pictures
I took some pictures with my Sony DSC-V1 camera, with the setting set to 4.5 megapixels. This produces pictures that are 3:2 in ratio, width and height. The pictures are 2592 x 1728 pixels (3:2), 72 dpi. This was exactly the size (ratio) I wanted, because printing them on 6x4 prints would print out the pictures without any cropping -- at least this is what I understood to be.
When I took the pictures to Costco to have them developed on 6x4 inch prints, I noticed all my pictures were cropped around the borders. I ask the person working at Costco, why the images were cropped. I explained my pictures were 2592 pixels x 1728 pixels, so they should have printed on 6 inch x 4 inch paper without any cropping, since the ratios were the same. The person working at Costco explained that the computer needed to adjust the picture because it was too big to be printed on 6x4 inch prints.
This does not make sense too me. Can someone explain this? Why was my 3:2 ratio pictures cropped when printed on 6x4 (3:2) prints? Is the computer Costco uses to develop pictures misconfigured?

Thanks,

12/30/2003 7:58:54 PM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  borderless prints or bordered? putting a 1/4 inch border on a print changes the ratio to whatever 5.5:3.5 is. Or I could be totally off on the theory.

12/31/2003 12:40:02 AM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  The industry is going through some growing pains here. I don't see any reason your images should not have printed out right, since the aspect ratio was correct. Would it have made a difference if you had gone into Photoshop/Elements/whatever imaging software and done the Image Size drill and actually sized them to 4 x 6's? Maybe. For me, Fuji's Frontier kiosk machine works better than Kodak's in several respects. Try a store that has the Fuji and see if that helps.

12/31/2003 6:13:35 AM

Thea Menagh
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/9/2001
  Hi, Ken. I know exactly how frustrating that little bit of cropping is when you've designed your layout 'perfectly'! I use a Canon SLR 10D and the ratio works out the same as yours for the 4" x 6" print. Same thing happened! I use the Kodak machine at our Futureshop around the corner! Now I convert my 4" x 6" and 5" x 7" photos to 300 dpi and the exact dimensions in Photoshop. I also do the colour adjustments, etc. (which took awhile to get used to how the photos should look re contrast & brightness on my monitor to print the way I wanted them). AND, each time I bring my CD with images in (which I do several times/week), I have to tell them "No cropping; no colour adjustment; just print!". Now I get exactly what I want, and my clients are thrilled! If you don't use another printer (I use a different printer for my clients' business cards, postcards & brochures), you can calibrate your monitor so you'll see exactly what Costco prints ... but remember ... there are likely 500 different people operating the machines, and each one does something just a little bit different. Getting your prints exactly right may be impossible ... especially if you're as finicky as I am! Happy New Year and best wishes with your shoots!

1/5/2004 8:28:14 AM

Ken Im

member since: 12/30/2003
  Great response, Thea. Thanks. I actually told the machine operator not to crop anything, but the operator told me that everything was programmed into the computer and that there was no human intervention in the development process. Is this not true? I've never seen what they do behind the glass window, in front of the machine. Do they have control over things like cropping, exposure adjustments, and color adjustments? I figured it was some average Joe working the machine, simply feeding the machine pictures to develop, while the pre-programmed computer did everything.

Ken

1/5/2004 10:12:48 AM

David DeWitt

member since: 1/2/2004
  I have been taking media cards for printing to Sam's Club's over the last year, and have experienced all of your same frustrations. I have been impressed by the print quality, especially for only 20c per 4x6. But, the amount of "negative" that is lost in the cropping is just unacceptable. When I asked, the photo lab person suggested using the touch screen editing to reduce cropping, but that did little to no good. When I complained about how much of the frame was still being cropped she said that they had no control and the the printer was pre-set. I asked if there was a manager or photo tech that I could talk to, all she would share was that it was a Fuji system, and that they have a tech number that they call when they need help. She said she couldn't share that number, however. It sounded like they have a support contract with Fuji or the company that sells them the systems. I'm so curious about the manufacturing details because that's likely where we would get any good technical answers to our over-cropping problems. I'm optimistic that there is an adjustment or tweak that can be made by someone who understands the printer well enough? It certainly doesn't seem like the photo lab people at these places are all that familiar with the inner workings of their print systems? I wonder if anyone has any knowledge or contacts with Fuji or Kodak or whoever, that might shed any light on a fix or a work-around to our problem?

I have discovered that I can manually reduced EVERY picture and add a croppable border. Then when it is printed, I get the entire frame. But, it just seems like there MUST be an easier way to print lossless pictures. It would be nice to see your pictures the way you took them in the first place!

1/5/2004 10:19:29 AM

Thea Menagh
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/9/2001
  Hi, again! They're pulling your leg! First of all, I've been let behind the glass in the photo lab area of our Futureshop. These people are very eager to please and have spent a great deal of time with me (Yonge & Eglinton). They use the Kodak system ... and there's LOTS of human intervention (at least with this system). People who know nothing about digital imaging bring in their cameras and have the memory card taken out there and transferred to the equipment. They do all colour adjustment and cropping, unless asked not to! I firmly believe the cropping is a 'paper-saving-thing'. When I first brought my CD's in and found my photos cropped, I was told the machine was set to do that automatically. When I insisted and persevered, I found that if you ask that your photo NOT be cropped, they can adjust things. Adjusting the equipment for one order is time-consuming and not something they prefer to do. You might also want to measure your photo dimensions to make sure you're actually getting the 4" x 6" or 5" x 7". Sometimes they're out by about 1/8", and that's not a good thing either, depending on the frame! If nothing else works, I'd suggest what David (above) suggested ... very good idea! I'd go one step further, and create a new file with black background (for dark photos) or white (for light ones) 4.125" x 6.125". Then drag the 4" x 6" photo onto it (Photoshop). Borderless prints of any kind are difficult. It takes a great deal of practice and co-operation! How about blurring the edge of your photo? Just an idea! For samples, see my website at www.AFittingImage.com Hope that helps!

1/5/2004 10:35:27 AM

Ken Im

member since: 12/30/2003
  Wow. Great responses. Surprised that other people have experienced and actually noticed the frustrating cropping problem. I actually took my photos to Japan Camera Centre and Blacks. The pictures were cropped at both places, even though at both places they assured me that cropping shouldn't occur.

I thought about making my pictures a bit smaller and adding a border, to be cropped by the machine, but that would take too much time. I have over 350 pictures to print.

I'll take Thea's advice, and persuade the person at Costco, to develop my pictures without any adjustments... no cropping, no exposure adjustment, no colour adjustment, no anything!

Ken

1/5/2004 4:20:53 PM

Thea Menagh
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/9/2001
  Hi, again, Ken. Just one more time before I shut down for the evening! I'm usually up at about 5am, so am starting to sag a little!! Whatever you do ... try with 2-5 photographs first. Can't hurt to see what they do with it, especially if you promise bringing in a huge order! And it never hurts to speak to the person in charge. Exchange business cards. Tell him you're usually pleased with the service, but have this one problem you'd like to resolve before bringing in the bulk of your order. Good luck, and nighty-night! Thea

1/5/2004 4:27:03 PM

Ken Im

member since: 12/30/2003
  Good suggestion. Some very good feedback, especially from Thea and David.

Thanks guys,

Ken

1/5/2004 6:32:54 PM

Derek Holyhead

member since: 12/26/2003
  Hi All,
I have just purchaseda EOS Digital Rebel and I have to say that the quality is much better than I expected as a avid 35mm user I found this q&a a real help in my search for the perfect print size. I am shooting at the large setting and this gives me a 3072 x 2048 image in Photoshop and if I resize it using the inches not pixels it equals 6x4 but I can't get it to resize to 10x8 which is the size I have always used for my 35mm prints (actually comes out to 10x6.667)and after reading Thea's comments I tried 7x5 and this came out as 7x4.667 this is of course maintaining the aspect ratio so the pictures don't become squashed. So Thea can you please tell me what I am doing wrong, what resolution to you shoot at and how do you size 10x8 and 7x5? Any help would be appreciated.
Regards,
Del

1/11/2004 3:15:22 PM

Thea Menagh
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/9/2001
 
 
 
Hi, Del ... Congratulations! Digital's definitely come a long way! Personally, I NEVER shoot at anything less than the largest setting. Twice, a client asked me to do a photo shoot STRICTLY for images for a website! Both times, I was asked to provide copies of the photos for print ads. That was a LONG time ago. Never make that mistake again!! Sorry about having mislead you earlier (I think!). The only dimensions you can skip down to with absolute correct ratio is 4" x 6". For the 5" x 7", I resize the shortest side to 5". The long side is then 7.5" - which I crop (via IMAGE, CANVAS SIZE in Photoshop). Just anchor your image where you want the cropping to occur. Similarly, for the 8" x 10". I resize the shortest size to 8". That means the longer side is 12", necessitating a 2" crop ... which isn't peanuts. Whereas years ago I'd frame my photo before shooting, I now allow extra space and spend a little more time 'designing' the photo. Remember, digital cameras aren't the only thing changed over the years. Frames can be purchased in many 'standard' sizes, many with matts already included. And clients will appreciate something a little different. In my own case, I've found that square photos are all the rage! Go figure!! Hope this is some help, and that I'm not running you around in circles. Nighty-night, Thea

1/11/2004 3:53:16 PM

Derek Holyhead

member since: 12/26/2003
  Hi Thea,
Thanks, I think I am begining to get the idea. Square prints seem a good idea (after all I've been told many times before that I should shoot 2 and a quarter square to be a serious photographer!) Can I ask you if you ever shoot in the RAW mode? Just wondered that's all. Thanks again for the advice.
Regards,
Del.
PS I looked at your web site, excellent work I must say and very inspiring.

1/12/2004 7:38:01 AM

Thea Menagh
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 8/9/2001
 
 
 
Hi, again, Del ... Please don't get me wrong! Square is good, but I do a great many 8" x 10", 8" x 12" and 'poster-size' 18" x 24" for my clients! Just don't chuck a photograph which is off-centre or something because it doesn't fit into the 'should be' size. Actually, lately I've done a great many 4" x 6" for clients. They have them matted HUGELY, and on a huge wall, several of these can be very interesting when they contain little children's faces or such! Remember - size does not a serious photographer make!!! Now ... RAW ... YES!! The main reason for shooting in RAW mode is that it retains EVERYTHING (lossless compression)! The files will be larger, but if the possibility exists that the client will want a very large print, it's the only way to go. RAW saves the image as is when captured by the camera, and is geared for image processing with a personal computer. If you're heavily into digital imaging, use RAW. Only drawback ... dedicated software for processing. I'm not a technical person, and work basically from my heart and gut! Even when using RAW, until I'm a whole lot more comfortable with the various settings on this camera, I'm setting it at 'automatic' so I don't have to worry about shooting a wedding and getting the whole thing under or over-exposed! I find that being VERY comfortable with Photoshop and knowing all the wonderful things I can do there, makes the use of the camera a whole lot easier! Enjoy, Thea

1/12/2004 7:56:16 AM

Michelle 

member since: 10/10/2004
  ..... and I thought I was the only one! Here in the UK I too have been using Costco for the printing of my digital images. All my images are cropped to a ratio of 6:4, but Costco goes one better and sneaks another bit of the edges.

I had a word with staff and they assured me that the machine was pre-set to take care of the 'majority' of digital images which would not be in this ratio. (Did I look like someone who cared?) I suggested that maybe it would be nice to set the machine for the more serious photographer rather than for the 'plinker', no can do they said. However, being ever helpful as Costco staff always are one of the guys offered to print the images at '98%'. What this means is that most of the edge is left alone, but I do end up with a slight white border on two sides. Tonight I tried sitting my images on a white background that overlaps by 1mm on each side. Trouble is it is very time consuming. Please god, let some one set up a machine correctly without worrying about pleasing the masses, that probably don't notice anyway!!

..... and I thought searching the internet would give me the answer. hmmm.

10/10/2004 3:31:07 PM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Gretchen D. Solomon

member since: 8/12/2003
  69 .  I Can See The Pixels In My Piictures
I am shooting with the Canon 10D. I have had wonderful luck in the past few months and all of my pictures have turned out great. The images are large and are brought in as jpegs. I burn the ones I like and on a CD and take them to a local lab for developing. All of which has worked perfect until now. I got a whole series of pictures back and the megapixels are showing in the faces of the portraits. First of all how or can I fix it and second how to I keep from doing this again?

12/12/2003 10:35:42 PM

doug Nelson
DougNelsonPhoto.com

member since: 6/14/2001
  If you're shooting for printing, you have an excellent camera. Just be sure you are setting a high enough quality level to keep this from happening. Try to isolate the problem that caused this, whether it was inadvertantly setting a wrong setting, overcompressing the JPEG's, or editing them too many times with too many Edits and Saves, thereby causing them to look as if they were made of LEGO blocks.

For the best possible image quality, have you tried shooting in raw mode and high bit color, doing the brightness/contrast/color correction in Photoshop and only then doing the switch to 8-bit and to TIF? JPEG is for sending and posting to the web, although some people get away with multiple edits and are getting decent prints.

12/13/2003 12:45:19 PM

  I've have gotten similar problems on the highlight areas of white clothing and objects when using strobes and being less than meticulous about my exposures. If your skintones are the lightest part of your shot and the lighting set-up is contrasty (a lot of side to side contour, for instance,) and you're over exposing EVEN JUST A LITTLE BIT this could be your problem --especially if your subjects are moving around a lot toward your light source. You can check this theory by looking at any shots with multiple subjects and comparing the faces --are the ones closest to a light source the ones with the mega pixels?

12/20/2003 9:24:01 AM

Wing Wong
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/8/2004
  Hmm... the Canon 10D is a 6.3MP digital camera. Unless you were cropping heavily, taking pictures at a low resolution mode on your camera, using ALOT of Jpeg compression, or the photo place did something weird to your shot, you should not be seing pixels in a digital print from a 6.3MP camera.

I had an Olympus C2100UZ which was a 2.1MP camera and did 8"x10" blowups at home on my Epson printer and did not see pixels unless I looked closely(4" from face).
Overexposure CAN affect the look of the picture, but it shouldn't pixelate your image to the point where you can see the pixels in the final output. :
Gretchen, if you want, I can take a look at one of the JPEGs you archived and had printed to see what's up. I'm curious since the 10D is a pro-grade camera and shouldn't have that problem.

2/13/2004 5:05:51 AM

Gregg Vieregge

member since: 11/10/2000
  If your cropping in Photoshop make sure the DPI is 300 and not 72. Check image, image size and make sure the DPI is 300. Sometimes the programs will default to 72 DPI which will show pixels.

2/17/2004 7:26:48 PM

Wing Wong
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 2/8/2004
  Hmm.. I forget if the 10D has a histogram function or not. But when taking pictures, try to check the histogram readout on a picture you have taken.

If the histogram is running off the left or right side, then you have blown out your highlights or seriously underexposed your shadows.

Check out http://www.luminous-landscape.com and look for the article "exposing to the right". It talks about histogram assisted exposure and metering to avoid blown highlights and to make the most use of your camera's internal capture bits.

The only other issue which comes to mind is repeated saving/editing in JPEG mode will degrade your image over time since JPEG is a lossy compression format. An alternative might be to work in TIFF or PSD format until you are ready to output to web or print. That way, you do not compound the jpeg artifact blocking.

Since you are using the 10D, another option would be to have the camera do the RAW+JPEG capture mode so that you have a JPEG to review and a high quality RAW image to work from and save to CD.

Working with a TIFF image extracted from RAW with either Canon's viewer/browser, CaptureOne's conversion software, Adobe PS CS's raw plugin, or the opensource dcraw convertor will ensure that your images will be as artifact free as possible.

But the histogram can be a very useful tool if your highlights are getting blown often.

2/18/2004 4:45:23 AM

Jan Day
Contact Jan
Jan's Gallery

member since: 6/26/2004
 
 
 
Is this what you mean?

5/1/2006 8:03:14 PM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  my bets on the ISO. what where you shooting at?

5/2/2006 4:49:27 AM

Jan Day
Contact Jan
Jan's Gallery

member since: 6/26/2004
  I shoot at 200, sometimes 100 - no higher.

5/2/2006 5:43:37 AM

Justin G.
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 7/13/2004
  I fold my bet.

5/4/2006 9:09:30 AM

Respond | Ask Your Own Question
 
Photography Question 
Joseph M. Harper
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2003
  70 .  Borderless Printing
I have an Epson Photo 1280 and use Photoshop 7. I am unable to print a borderless picture with this combo. Other programs such as Film Factory have clear directions for borderess printing. Help!

11/30/2003 11:37:02 AM

Gregory LaGrange
BetterPhoto Member
gregorylagrange.org

member since: 11/11/2003
  I have a Canon printer and to change to borderless printing you make the changes by clicking settings first, then clicking properties to get to it.

11/30/2003 2:52:54 PM

Gail Cimino

member since: 2/19/2003
  I have the same printer, and I do this all the time for 4x6, 5x7 or 8x10 borderless prints. From Photoshop 7.0 it is a multi-step process, however, some of which needs to follow in a certain order! Also, doing it in this order means you won’t have to repeat some of the steps.

First of all, the image itself should be the size of the paper you want to print on, using a combination of cropping and the menu choice Image/Image Size. (This is a whole separate issue, let me know if you need more on that!)

To print:
1. From the File menu, select Print with Preview (CTRL+P)
2. Click on the Page Setup button to the right
- from that dialog box first click on the Printer button and choose Epson Stylus Photo 1280 from the drop-down box
3. Click on the Properties button.
- On the tab called Main of that dialog box, select the paper type (many of the choices, such as photo or premium photo paper will automatically choose the settings for ink=color and mode=quality)
- Then click on the tab Paper, choose the paper source Sheet Feeder, and just below that check the box called No Margins
- Select your paper size (since you’ve already checked ‘no margins’ the only choices you’ll see are the ones the printer is capable of)
- Select Portrait or Landscape, then hit OK, then OK again to close the smaller dialog box
4. You’re then left with the Page Setup dialog box, which should now show the choices that you’ve just made. (for example, size: Photo Paper 4x6 in No Perforations; source: Sheet Feeder-No Margins; orientation: Landscape)
5. Click OK, and you’re back to the Print dialog box.
- you SHOULD see your borderless print in the preview pane
- IF NOT, but the image is the correct ratio and just slightly smaller or larger, all you need to do is check the box to the right called Scale to Fit Media.
6. Click the Print button (here you have another chance to confirm or change the Properties settings) and then click OK

An important note: these settings do not stay with the individual image file, but they remain in effect until changed. For that reason, I usually try to print all the same sizes at once, and all the portrait ones first, then the landscape, and so on.

It does seem more complicated than Film Factory, which I have also used. But Photoshop is clearly superior for all your corrections, cropping, etc. and you shouldn’t have to switch to a second program for printing. Also, I found that importing pictures into Film Factory created new copies of all the files, which can start to clutter your hard drive unless you go to the trouble of finding and deleting them.

12/6/2003 12:29:34 PM

Joseph M. Harper
BetterPhoto Member

member since: 9/8/2003
  Gail,
Thanks for your response, however, I left out one inportant bit of info. I use Mac OS X operating sytem and the print dialog is different from the PC. The earler Mac settings were the same as PC. This has no mention of borderless.

Joe Harper

12/6/2003 2:11:59 PM

Fedor G. Pikus

member since: 12/13/2003
  I don't have a Mac, so can't verify if borderless printing is available there at all. However, I know that not all papers support borderless printing. Plain paper does not, matte usually not. Try selecting "premium semigloss" or "luster" (even if this is not your paper) to see if borderless option appears.

12/13/2003 3:06:02 PM

Brad M. Brighton

member since: 3/25/2004
  Get the latest driver for Mac OS X. (Latest == early March 2004, as of this writing)

Prior versions did not allow borderless printing.

Alternatively, you can try using the Gimp=print drivers that came with Mac OS X (assuming you're running Panther -- and if you're not, you should be ;-).

I've printed borderless off the 1280 using the latest drivers. What you'll see is actually multiple printers to choose from. When you select the "borderless" printer, the papers are listed for you.

-brad

3/30/2004 12:20:16 PM

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.