{"id":4397,"date":"2014-12-24T14:04:13","date_gmt":"2014-12-24T19:04:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/?p=4397"},"modified":"2015-02-05T21:10:07","modified_gmt":"2015-02-06T02:10:07","slug":"world-printing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/admiringlight.com\/blog\/world-printing\/","title":{"rendered":"The World of Printing"},"content":{"rendered":"

Last summer I wrote an article<\/a> encouraging every photographer, both serious and casual, to ensure that they make prints of their photographs, to ensure that there is both a physical record of their photography, as well as to enjoy the wonders of a great photographic print.<\/p>\n

At the time, I had just a little 4×6 printer for family shots and I made my larger prints for display through a lab. \u00a0I don’t have the room for a large format printer that can print 36″ wide prints, so big enlargements still go to my lab. \u00a0(By the way, I’ve recently switched over to using ProDPI<\/a>, and the image quality and profiling is impeccable).<\/p>\n

However, I’ve very recently started printing photographic prints at home, having acquired a new Canon Pixma Pro-100 printer, capable of 13×19″ prints. \u00a0Since i don’t have lots of experience with the current range of high-end printers, I didn’t\u00a0feel it entirely appropriate to do an in-depth review of the printer, so instead\u00a0I’m going to\u00a0talk more about my experiences getting into this world: the very important other half of photography. \u00a0As Ansel Adams famously said,\u00a0“The negative is the equivalent of the composer’s score, and the print the performance.”<\/em><\/p>\n

\"printer\"<\/a><\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Choosing a Printer<\/h3>\n

Some of you who have been printing a while may be asking: why did I go for the Pro-100, which is a dye ink printer, instead of something like the Pro-1, Pro-10 or Epson R3000 or other pigment based printer. \u00a0Why Canon and not Epson? \u00a0Well, some of it is historical, some is practical. \u00a0First, I tend to print in fits and starts. \u00a0I don’t print daily, but may go a week or two (or even a month) between larger prints, and pigment based systems tend to clog the print head nozzles significantly more than dye-based printers if you don’t print on a very regular basis. \u00a0I’ve owned Epson pigment printers in the past, and while the print quality was excellent (for the time), I experienced clogged nozzles on a quite regular basis and wasted tons of time and tremendous amounts of ink in the process. \u00a0I also knew I wanted a 13″ wide printer because I don’t have space for a 17″ or larger printer and the cost would be prohibitive for me at this time. \u00a0Dye based inks also have\u00a0the ability for a bit better color saturation and a wider gamut. \u00a0The downside is print life: Pigment inks will last for decades, perhaps even 100 years framed. \u00a0Dye inks fade faster, though Canon claims 30 years on the ChromaLife+ inks used in the Pro-100, so dye inks are improving in this regard. I’m in no way saying that the Pro-100 is the best printer, just that it fits my needs better than others at the moment. \u00a0All of the current 13″ wide Epson and Canon inkjet printers produce stunning image quality.<\/p>\n

The Printer<\/h3>\n

Just a quick blurb about the Canon Pro-100 for those interested. \u00a0The price is $400 regularly, though Canon has a huge rebate through January 3, 2015 for $250 off, making the printer itself a steal. \u00a0It can print up to 13×19″ borderless prints, and features 8 individual ink tanks (Magenta, Yellow, Cyan, Photo Cyan, Photo Magenta, Black, Gray and Light Gray). \u00a0Print quality is exceptional. \u00a0Incredible levels of detail, rich deep blacks and great color response. \u00a0Using simple papers like Canon’s Pro Luster and comparing them to the luster papers used by my lab, the Canon Pro-100 produces prints easily on par or better than my lab. Using better paper the results improve further.<\/p>\n

The printer is WiFi capable, which is very nice for me, as I have a ton of peripheral devices already wired into my machine, so being able to print without a wired connection has been great. \u00a0There is a main feed and a rear manual feed for thicker papers, though the Pro-100 seems to handle thicker stock from the main tray without issue. \u00a0I am extremely pleased with the output I’m getting out of the printer. \u00a0There’s really not much more to ask for aside from larger ink tanks.<\/p>\n

The Paper<\/h3>\n

Getting into printing at home is a bit daunting at first, at least if you are out to make the most of your photographic output. \u00a0Both Epson and Canon have a line of papers\u00a0that cover the most common types of media: matte, glossy and luster. \u00a0Some of these are cheap papers that get the job done, but won’t impress. \u00a0Others are high-end stock that looks fantastic. \u00a0I tried out several of the Canon papers and I have to say…they’re pretty darn good. \u00a0For standard luster and glossy prints, I think I’ll be sticking with the Canon papers, simply because they are inexpensive and very nice. \u00a0I found the Canon Pro Platinum glossy to be a very nice glossy stock. \u00a0Thick, with a very durable finish and excellent tonal separation. \u00a0It’s better than the glossies I have gotten from labs over the past few years. \u00a0Likewise, the Canon Photo Paper Pro Luster is an excellent luster paper that is very similar in feel and image quality to the luster papers used by top labs. \u00a0The Luster is a paper that will get quite a lot of use for my rotating print wall at work, where images stay framed for about 3-12 months at most.<\/p>\n

However, there’s another world out there of fine art inkjet papers that I’ve only partially stepped into. \u00a0So far, I’ve gone through about 30 different fine art papers for evaluation, obtaining sample paper packs from Hahnemuhle as well as Red River Paper. \u00a0Hahnemuhle is one of the oldest paper makers, and they produce very high-end inkjet papers, while Red River Paper is more of a ‘bargain’ brand that produces quality stuff at prices about half the cost of the high-end papers from other manufacturers. \u00a0I’m itching to try out the top papers from Canson and I really want to get my hands on a few sheets of Museo Silver Rag.<\/p>\n

\"Some<\/a>
Some fine art papers: Red River Aurora Art Natural, Red River Polar Pearl Metallic, Hahnemuhle Fine Art Pearl and Red River San Gabriel SemiGloss Fiber<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

After trying these, it became tremendously apparent: choosing a paper for the type of print you want to make is one of the very most important and personal decisions you can make in producing a final photographic print. \u00a0Some images look amazing on one paper but terrible on another. \u00a0Some papers do really well with both color and black and white, others are better suited to one rather than the other. \u00a0I found out a few things about myself as well. \u00a0For the most part, I don’t particularly prefer the matte papers for most of my work. \u00a0I know people who love it, but the matte papers I’ve tried all just seem a bit duller than most, and some feel cheap as well. \u00a0Some of the nicest cotton rag matte papers feel great and look fine, but it’s just not to my taste. \u00a0My favorite matte paper I’ve tried so far is Red River’s Arctic Polar Matte, which is very bright and has a velvety texture while producing deep rich tones and good contrast. \u00a0The less contrasty matte papers are well suited to some images, but not as many in my opinion. \u00a0EDIT 2\/5\/15: I’ve been printing a lot since this article was written, and went in search of a matte paper I liked, and boy did I find it. \u00a0I have fallen in love with Canson Infinity Rag Photographique, which is a simply marvelous matte paper with a wonderful feel, a fantastic texture on the print surface and has tremendous contrast and color response for a matte paper. \u00a0It also shows incredible detail. \u00a0I will likely be using this paper for about 90% of my black and white work and probably about 25-30% of my color work as well. \u00a0Of the runners up, Hahnemuhle’s Photo Rag is also very nice.<\/em><\/p>\n

Of all the papers I’ve printed on so far, there are four that really stood out to me, plus a few others that I may want to use for certain images. \u00a0From Hahnemuhle, I absolutely loved their Photo Rag Satin paper, which is an almost matte, almost semi-gloss stock that is thick and textured and produces images with simply incredible depth while preserving tremendous detail. \u00a0The images almost look like you can reach into them. \u00a0However, it’s something that will not be suited to certain images, as there’s an intentional gloss-differential with this paper, producing matte areas in light parts of the image and a light sheen on darker parts.<\/p>\n

I also loved Hahnemuhle’s Fine Art Pearl paper, which is a low textured semi-gloss paper with stunningly beautiful tonality. \u00a0I also truly loved the tonal separation, detail and depth of the Photo Rag Baryta paper from Hahnemuhle. \u00a0There are a lot of baryta based papers out now, which use barium sulfate to provide a semi-gloss bright white surface without the use of optical brighteners that can fade over time. \u00a0Hahnemuhle has several baryta papers, and interestingly enough, the Photo Rag Baryta was the only one I really liked.\u00a0They have different surface textures and levels of gloss, and I preferred the lower gloss and finer texture of the Photo Rag\u00a0 It’s worth noting that the ICC profiles provided by Hahnemuhle are slightly warm, so it may be worth purchasing an ICC profiler to make my own profile for these papers, but for the Photo Rag Satin and Fine Art Pearl, I found them quite nice.<\/p>\n

So I’ve mentioned three, and the fourth, and probably my favorite overall, is Red River’s baryta paper: San Gabriel Semi-gloss Fiber. \u00a0It’s a beautifully finished baryta paper on an alpha-cellulose base that feels great in the hand and produces simply gorgeous images. \u00a0The look is very similar to the Photo Rag Baryta discussed above, but Red River’s ICC profiles are significantly more accurate, providing very accurate color and neutral black and white prints. \u00a0It’s my current go-to for black and white and I’m loving the fine contrast and detail I’m getting out of the color prints as well. \u00a0The best part? It’s half the price of the Hahnemuhle.<\/p>\n

Display<\/h3>\n
\"I've<\/a>
I’ve replaced most of my frames with non-glare acrylic. Can you guess which one I haven’t replaced yet?<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Finally, I’m realizing after spending this time and effort to get a print on great paper that looks just how you want it, that my standard cheapo-frames and glass obscured some of that fine detail, mostly through glare. \u00a0After checking around, I’ve decided to start framing most of my prints with an anti-glare acrylic, specifically Acrylite Non-Glare acrylic. \u00a0The Acrylite cuts out 92% of reflections , allowing the print to show through much more clearly. \u00a0With thinner mats there’s no loss of sharpness or resolution either (deep set photos would lose some sharpness behind this glazing.) \u00a0There’s also the more expensive Museum Glass, which cuts out 98% of reflections at a bit more than double the cost of the Acrylite….I have to draw the line somewhere. \u00a0Even more expensive is Optium Museum Acrylic, which is simply astronomical in cost. \u00a0One way to lengthen the life of your photos is to cut UV to them, and that’s a nice side benefit of Acrylite. \u00a0It cuts 66% of UV, and for about 15% more, you can get UV filtering non-glare Acrylite, which will cut 99% of UV out. \u00a0These are great for fine-art papers that don’t use optical brighteners, but aren’t ideal for standard papers that do use optical brighteners, as they rely on some UV exposure to produce that bright white color.<\/p>\n

To sum up: this is a whole new world of experimentation and skill, and I’m really enjoying the journey so far. \u00a0While I still have a ton to learn and a lot of prints to make, it’s brought that last dimension to my photography, creating the print from capture to framed final product, and it’s very satisfying.<\/p>\n