Paper recommendations for this photo

[photofisher]

Ordering a 11x17 print for this photo:




Slightly cropped from a 300dpi at 11x17 version

I ordered a Kodak Endura Lusture from trial print from Adoramapix....colors were spot on but the vibrancy/contrast wasn't conveyed with that paper. I am considering metallic paper but am open to other suggestions. Also would appreciate opinions on the degree of sharpening. The original photo had to be slightly upresized to get at 300dpi.

I'm new to ordering larger prints.

--
Family Man/Amateur Photographer

 

[kcgoatboy]

Luster paper is great but for pics with a lot of detail you loose a little bit of sharpness. With this pic I would go for a glossy metal print. Metallic paper looks great for b&w and architectural prints but for organic material I love prints on glossy aluminum that doesn't show the aluminum "grain".

 

[Charles2]

Ordering a 11x17 print for this photo:

I ordered a Kodak Endura Lusture from trial print from Adoramapix....colors were spot on but the vibrancy/contrast wasn't conveyed with that paper.

The color cannot be spot on - the expert who posts the same blurbs ad nauseum on this forum tells us that Adoramapix, which does require sRGB input files, cannot give you good color. Who you gonna believe - the expert or your eyes?

Canson Rag Photographique is a candidate paper. Although a matte, it has a smooth surface and can deliver vivid colors while retaining detail. Bayphoto offers it in the Fine Art Prints section of their website.

--
The comment above probably has an example in my photostream at http://www.flickr.com/photos/41790885@N08/

 

[photofisher]

Ordering a 11x17 print for this photo:

I ordered a Kodak Endura Lusture from trial print from Adoramapix....colors were spot on but the vibrancy/contrast wasn't conveyed with that paper.

The color cannot be spot on - the expert who posts the same blurbs ad nauseum on this forum tells us that Adoramapix, which does require sRGB input files, cannot give you good color. Who you gonna believe - the expert or your eyes?

Canson Rag Photographique is a candidate paper. Although a matte, it has a smooth surface and can deliver vivid colors while retaining detail. Bayphoto offers it in the Fine Art Prints section of their website.

 

[Priscilla Turner]

About contrast: remember that ultimately the effect depends on the surface of your glazing if any. The contrastiest image on the contrastiest substrate will always look flatter under non-glare glass or plexi.

 

[digidog]

Ordering a 11x17 print for this photo:

I ordered a Kodak Endura Lusture from trial print from Adoramapix....colors were spot on but the vibrancy/contrast wasn't conveyed with that paper.

The color cannot be spot on - the expert who posts the same blurbs ad nauseum on this forum tells us that Adoramapix, which does require sRGB input files, cannot give you good color. Who you gonna believe - the expert or your eyes?

I recommend the OP listen to actual experts who know how to teach, unlike so many here posting. I recommend the OP actually do some tests, then I recommend the OP use his eyes and not listen to newbies who don't have a clue about color management: you know, newbies that tell you to soft proof with a profile you can't use when a lab deamnds sRGB anyway, you know the poster I'm referring to, right? The kind of posters we see here on DPR who posts nonsense about color management, get corrected then run away from the corrections only to repeat the same mistaken ideas on color all over again to a new group of innocent bystanders. The newbie who posts the same blurbs ad nauseum on this forum tells us to listen to them, not do the testing as what such a newbie state is correct (when it's nearly never correct). Sound at all familiar to anyone**? :-D

Here's how anyone with the time and effort can actually test what working space to use for output to a print using sound, correct color management that has a basis in it's fundamental workflow:

The benefits of wide gamut working spaces on printed output:

This three part, 32 minute video covers why a wide gamut RGB working space like ProPhoto RGB can produce superior quality output to print.

Part 1 discusses how the supplied Gamut Test File was created and shows two prints output to an Epson 3880 using ProPhoto RGB and sRGB, how the deficiencies of sRGB gamut affects final output quality. Part 1 discusses what to look for on your own prints in terms of better color output. It also covers Photoshop’s Assign Profile command and how wide gamut spaces mishandled produce dull or over saturated colors due to user error.

Part 2 goes into detail about how to print two versions of the properly converted Gamut Test File file in Photoshop using Photoshop’s Print command to correctly setup the test files for output. It covers the Convert to Profile command for preparing test files for output to a lab.

Part 3 goes into color theory and illustrates why a wide gamut space produces not only move vibrant and saturated color but detail and color separation compared to a small gamut working space like sRGB.

High Resolution Video: http://digitaldog.net/files/WideGamutPrintVideo.mov

Low Resolution (YouTube):

IF only the armchair color management newbies would actually test this stuff, or go out and attempt to make a decent photo, instead of making suggestions on color management that have no basis in facts or from testings, everyone, even those who can't find a video pause button would gain something useful. A bit less typing, a bit more testing!

 

[digidog]

photofisher wrote: I ordered a Kodak Endura Lusture from trial print from Adoramapix....colors were spot on but the vibrancy/contrast wasn't conveyed with that paper.

Find a lab that doesn't force sRGB onto your submission of an image for print. sRGB is absolutely suboptimal a working space for output to print!

 

[Charles2]

... sRGB is absolutely suboptimal a working space for output to print!

It depends on the particular photo. The sample that you (the OP) posted may well benefit if you process it and submit it to a lab that accepts Adobe RGB, such as Bayphoto. There is, of course, no single optimal method for all photos.

 

[digidog]

... sRGB is absolutely suboptimal a working space for output to print!

It depends on the particular photo.

Well the facts are, sRGB is a smaller gamut than the printers color gamut.

As for images compared to sRGB, you're preaching to the choir and would know that if you ever viewed my free videos on the subject!

You don't have access to that image so you're just again speculating.

The sample that you (the OP) posted may well benefit if you process it and submit it to a lab that accepts Adobe RGB, such as Bayphoto. There is, of course, no single optimal method for all photos.

Yes there is! That you state that without testing or evidence suggests lurkers should examine your text with more than a grain of salt! Here's a hint for someone using an Adobe raw processor:

More evidence of someone posting about a subject he doesn't understand, being called out by someone who really is an expert on the topic, then that person ignoring the request to post correct data:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58187150

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58186705

Hit and run. Such a familiar, disappointing and obvious tacit for some posters.

--
Andrew Rodney
Author: Color Management for Photographers
The Digital Dog
http://www.digitaldog.net

 

[Adam2]

You're spot on and for those of us who profile/print at home using the sRGB color space is non sensical. Agree with the recommendation of seeking out a lab who accepts aRGB at a minimum.

 

[ColourPhil]

You're spot on and for those of us who profile/print at home using the sRGB color space is non sensical. Agree with the recommendation of seeking out a lab who accepts aRGB at a minimum.

Absolutely!

Some of those greens could well be missing from sRGB, but probably in aRGB, and def. in ProPhoto!

Also depends on the gamut of the printer of course.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[Gesture]

Does Windows finally handle 16 bit images like Mac OS X.

 

[digidog]

Does Windows finally handle 16 bit images like Mac OS X.

In what context?

AFAIK, there's no option for that under Epson print drivers as there is under OS X. Does it make a visible difference? I can see and measure none.

The idea is to send the best 8-bits per color to the driver. Someday more might be better. Can't see it on my P800 or 3880.

 

[photofisher]

You're spot on and for those of us who profile/print at home using the sRGB color space is non sensical. Agree with the recommendation of seeking out a lab who accepts aRGB at a minimum.

Absolutely!

Some of those greens could well be missing from sRGB, but probably in aRGB, and def. in ProPhoto!

Also depends on the gamut of the printer of course.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[digidog]

You're spot on and for those of us who profile/print at home using the sRGB color space is non sensical. Agree with the recommendation of seeking out a lab who accepts aRGB at a minimum.

Absolutely!

Some of those greens could well be missing from sRGB, but probably in aRGB, and def. in ProPhoto!

Also depends on the gamut of the printer of course.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[photofisher]

You're spot on and for those of us who profile/print at home using the sRGB color space is non sensical. Agree with the recommendation of seeking out a lab who accepts aRGB at a minimum.

Absolutely!

Some of those greens could well be missing from sRGB, but probably in aRGB, and def. in ProPhoto!

Also depends on the gamut of the printer of course.

Cheers,

Phil

 

[mike earussi]

Which paper is "best" really depends on the mood or emotion you're wanting to express. I've experimented with many different papers and found the emotional content of the same image varies dramatically depending on which paper it's printed on.

For instance, your photo on metallic glossy will look very dramatic and intense, but on a heavily textured watercolor paper, like Arches Aquarelle (the extreme opposite of metallic), it will take on a softer more romantic feel. You may like both depending on your mood or who you want to send it to. But your image on standard papers like luster, matte or glossy would just look ordinary. You also might try canvas or metallic canvas, which would also give a different feel.

And a plug here for printing for yourself. When you send something out you're dependent on whatever papers that company uses. But there are many subtle (and not so subtle) differences between papers claiming to have the same surface. A good example is metallic papers. I've tried four major brands and the differences range from slight to profound. The best is from Breathing Color, with Mitsubishi (Red River) and Moab not too far behind, but the Kodak brand is just garbage (and also 1/2 the price of the others). So when a company offers metallic paper (or canvas, glossy, matte, etc) it really helps to ask which brand they use. And if they're unwilling to say, go elsewhere.

Ordering a 11x17 print for this photo:


Slightly cropped from a 300dpi at 11x17 version

I ordered a Kodak Endura Lusture from trial print from Adoramapix....colors were spot on but the vibrancy/contrast wasn't conveyed with that paper. I am considering metallic paper but am open to other suggestions. Also would appreciate opinions on the degree of sharpening. The original photo had to be slightly upresized to get at 300dpi.

I'm new to ordering larger prints.

--
Family Man/Amateur Photographer

 

[digidog]

digidog wrote: More evidence of someone posting about a subject he doesn't understand, being called out by someone who really is an expert on the topic, then that person ignoring the request to post correct data:

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58187150

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58186705

Hit and run. Such a familiar, disappointing and obvious tacit for some posters.

And he ran away again. At least he's consistent in doing so and posting mostly misinformation about color!