the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / PhotoLucida 2009: printing the matte images

PhotoLucida 2009: printing the matte images

April 12, 2009 JimK Leave a Comment

This morning, I opened the collection of Nighthawks images that are tweaked for matte printing and printed them out, one to a page, on a laser printer. I spread them all out on the bed and went through my stock of 17×22 Nighthawks pictures, pulling out the ones that matched the laser-printed ones. I didn’t find a lot. I tried to think of why. I’d used some for the Choate exhibition, and everything in the show had been either sold or given away to donors, and I sent some of the others to a local gallery that still had them. So I ended up having to reprint almost all the pictures; I figured it would make things more consistent if I just printer them all.

During the process of going through the 17x22s, I found a few pictures that I just couldn’t bear to leave out. I was trying to hold the number to twenty, but I found four that I just had to take, and could only bear to take out one. Since this would be my last chance to print on matte paper for a while, I decided to print all 23, and decide which ones to drop later. Somehow, it was much harder to say no to a picture when I was holding a beautiful image in my hand than it was when I was pushing thumbnails around in Lightroom.  The physicality of the image makes it so much more alluring, at least to the photographer.

And why is it that I keep falling in love with my own images? At least it’s better than the alternative. But I wonder why I can’t just rationally rank the pictures like I did the reviewers, and just cut the list off at 20? Why is it so painful to leave one out? Do other photographers go through this agony? Do you suppose Edward Weston said to himself, “Pepper #19 is just fantastic, and how could I forget Pepper #47? Do you suppose I could do a triptych?”

I had to decide on what paper to use. I went with Photo Rag, reasoning that it would make the stack of prints weight a lot less than if I printed them on Arches Infinity, and I’d save some money to boot. I expect the prints to be too beat up to exhibit or sell by the end of the review, which made the financial part a bit more important.

So I added four images to the Lightroom collection, deleted one, hit Ctrl-A, went to the print module, and said print ’em all. I guess I’m enough of a computer old timer to be slightly amazed when everything goes right. I just kept going over to the printer, hitting enter to eject the picture, dropping the new paper in the slot, hitting pause to tell the printer to load the paper, until, automagically, less than three hours later, I had all my prints.

I have a couple of comments on the experience.

First, a big thank you to Epson for the great paper handling capabilities of the 9800. I bought a 9000 in 1999, had it upgraded to a 9500 (pigment instead of dye-based inks) in 2001, sat out the 9600, and spring for the 9800 a couple of years ago. To load paper in the 9000/9500, you had to release the paper clamp, then get down on your hands and knees to manually line up the paper with a set of holes, then set the clamp. With the 9800, you just drop it in and hit pause.

Second, if I needed to produce 23 different prints in a darkroom, it would have taken me a week of five or six-hour days. The world has sure changed.

The Last Word

← PhotoLucida 2009: more printing PhotoLucida 2009: printing the glossies →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.