The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Questions on photo printing - options and why?

KMIller

New member
I'm not new to the photography world by any means, but only recently have I started to move into areas where I will need significant numbers of prints, and I've run into a question. If this is something obvious, please don't laugh. :)

So far, I've given sets of my work to friends who have reviewed and commented on it. They also have it hung on display, which is an even better comment. What I've given them have been standard photographic prints from my usual lab. I see lots of discussion here regarding having your work printed by other processes - giclee', other "fine art" processes, etc. Here's where i'm wondering - what is the reason, benefit, whatever, for having it printed that way versus a photo lab and traditional photographic processes?
 

pfigen

Member
I'm not new to the photography world by any means, but only recently have I started to move into areas where I will need significant numbers of prints, and I've run into a question. If this is something obvious, please don't laugh. :)

So far, I've given sets of my work to friends who have reviewed and commented on it. They also have it hung on display, which is an even better comment. What I've given them have been standard photographic prints from my usual lab. I see lots of discussion here regarding having your work printed by other processes - giclee', other "fine art" processes, etc. Here's where i'm wondering - what is the reason, benefit, whatever, for having it printed that way versus a photo lab and traditional photographic processes?
Gliceé is just a fancy name for inkjet, but usually refers to inkjet prints printed on some sort of watercolor or other fine art paper with inks that are more or less light stable. The prints from your photo lab are likely to be digitally exposed chemically developed prints that are considered to be photographic prints. With those prints you're pretty much limited to gloss, matte, semi-matte and luster surfaces. With inkjet prints you have all those plus a whole array of watercolor, matte, textured, canvas and pretty much any type of surface you might ever want available. THAT'S why people choose that type of printing - for the variety, and that you can easily print those at your home or studio without the need for a lab.
 

DougDolde

Well-known member
I think no one can answer this for you. Personally I like making my own prints. I'm doing mostly canvas wraps and printing with my HP Designjet Z5200. If you don't make your own how can you learn to make a good print ?
 

KennethLi

New member
Variety. It's taking advantage of technology and new processes to offer clients more options in terms of texture, thickness, material, longevity, and aesthetic. It's not really about which is better overall, rather it's which is better suited for the client given his/her purpose and preference.
 

bensonga

Well-known member
Personally I like making my own prints.
I really enjoy making my own prints too and I have been doing so for over 35 years, first in a traditional wet darkroom and now in a "digital darkroom" using pigment inkjet printers (currently the Epson P800). I haven't had a print made by a photo lab for so long and can't even remember the last time. It was at least 20+ years ago, since I did not make color prints in the darkroom, only B&W prints.

As others have said, one of the advantages of making your own prints with modern pigment inkjet printers is the wide array of fine art papers available. Differences in paper (fine art matte, Baryta, gloss etc) can really change the look and feel of a print. This is the case for color prints, but especially for B&W prints.

For me, the process of making my own prints is at least as satisfying (perhaps even more so) than the experience of taking the photo itself. That's one reason I offer to make prints for all my friends at no expense to them. It is the final step in the photographic process. Of course, there was a certain "magic" to making traditional silver gelatin prints in the darkroom that digital inkjet printing can't replicate, but holding that final inkjet print in my hands now is every bit as satisfying, knowing I created it myself.

Several of my friends who were initially skeptical re learning to make their own prints are now avid printers. I think if you give it a try, you will enjoy it too.

Gary
 

Charles2

Active member
Two issues are crossed here: lab versus home, and traditional photo paper prints versus inkjet prints. There are labs that do the latter, such as AmericanFrame.com (yes, they print and will print without a frame order), Bayphoto.com and local shops in large cities. So you can try a few prints without having to commit to a home inkjet printer.
 
With digital printing, the lab vs. home distinction is a little murky. Even if you have someone else make your prints (say, because you don't have a large format printer) the process can be much different from bringing a negative to a lab and trusting the judgment of some commercial printmaker.

You can do all the esthetic work on screen, and proof on your own printer. You're doing all the creative work and all the craft. In this case, your commercial printer's job is to operate the big machine, and to handle the big print without damaging it (not trivial, but also probably not the part of the process you enjoy ... )

I've been working like this for several years now. I make prints on 17" paper and smaller at home. Anything larger gets done by a commercial printing studio. Ever since we both got our color management workflows dialed in, my printmaker has never had to do anything besides hit the print button.

Not counting mounting. He does this, too. A big, terrible task, and one I'd never take on myself, but that's a whole nuther conversation.
 

schuster

Active member
Gliceé is just a fancy name for inkjet, but usually refers to inkjet prints printed on some sort of watercolor or other fine art paper with inks that are more or less light stable.
When I was in California, the term "gliceé" was just getting started in the early 1990s. At that time, it was indeed a fancy name for inkjet prints. Maybe that still is the meaning on the west coast, but apparently not on the opposite side of the continent or at least in New England. When I first started printing for galleries here in New Hampshire in 2004, I labeled my prints as gliceés just as I had been doing in L.A., and every gallery from Boston to Portsmouth Maine and Burlington Vermont corrected me, saying that a gliceé was not only an inkjet print, but specifically an inkjet print of artwork that had been photographed. That still is the rule today in 2018, and I'm still not happy about it.
 

Frankly

New member
Definitions are fluid these days. When I don't want to make multiple cheap prints or can't print a larger size art print I use the best service I can for the time and budget.

I have no problem running off a batch of a hundred dance recital or family birthday snapshots at the local drug store, Walmart, or online/mail service like Shutterfly. I think the quality of these inexpensive prints is far better than it was even 10 years ago and you can't beat the price and speed.

If I need to make a 30 x 40 I'll use a place like booksmartstudio.com and print on my choice of papers. I can pay for a small proof print before committing to the final print, and since I am a fussbudget, sometimes I will make more prints to get things the way I want it (and charge accordingly). But because we have better color profiling and properly adjust the curves and color of the files, most prints come out very nicely the first time.

But I have a framed 24x36 Walmart print of my daughter and her friends hanging in her room and it cost $12 and I can't find anything to complain about. It looks just as good as the $200 Gliceeeeeee print except the media is thinner and plastic. It may fade in 20 years (but I doubt it will very much).

Having a printer or darkroom of your own is a great way to learn but beware of the trap that occurs once you achieve a basic competency. It is very easy to get lost in the woods so to speak, and wind up making dozens of variations and noticing small things that could be improved at each step of the way... when you are myopically focused on making the next perfect fine print it is easy to spend hours and $$$ trying to print the shadow at the base of a cloud an inch wide "just right".

Nobody will notice.

I have thrown away boxes of prints made like that, and a few weeks or years later I can't even tell what detail I was chasing.

Bonafides are I have been printing digitally since the first Iris printer with Jon Cone, I also was a professional darkroom worker and had the whole Zone system process nailed as well as doing commercial production work. When it's on the clock for reproduction you have to get faster and be decisive, that's a hard skill to replicate when it's a hobby or you're an "artist".

And to be brutal, the screen of my iMac 5K is the very best image viewing medium ever in the history of the world. Even the finest prints are only muddy representations. Once large OLED displays settle down I'll hang several through out the house with high rez images displayed with the calibration changing to correlate to the changing light temperature and environment. I have thousands of nice prints mildewing in archival boxes that my kids are going to trash unless I hurry the F up and get famous.

/rant thanks good luck
 
Top