Dreaming To Be A Famous Photographer

[agxo3]

^i dont mean to pry but how come you dont watermark your shots? you could really make use of those and frame them up at home.

I do print and frame them up to hang at home. And I give them out as XMas presents. Those are signed.

 

I feel that watermarking the conventional way adds an element to the image that I find distracting and sometimes destructive to the image. These images I just posted are not watermarked because I'm still working on them, but there are ways to embed a hidden watermark.

[glut_func]

^what printer and paper material do you use to print your shots? i tried printing them on conventional photo paper kaso ang tagal matuyo agad. Ayoko naman magpa-print sa labas kasi mas mahal. I was planning to do a photo book before nung nasa abroad pa ko but i never got around to it.

[agxo3]

^what printer and paper material do you use to print your shots? i tried printing them on conventional photo paper kaso ang tagal matuyo agad. Ayoko naman magpa-print sa labas kasi mas mahal. I was planning to do a photo book before nung nasa abroad pa ko but i never got around to it.

I've tried a couple of photo books - Artisan State and Adoramapix. I like Artisan State because it's much heavier stock. And a true lay-flat book. Both allow wrap-around hard covers and inside spreads. Print quality is better (slightly) with Adoramapix. I feel like Artisan State prints about a half-stop darker than I expect.

 

I have an Epson R2880 and for most printing I use Epson Ultra Premium Luster. I have a couple of specialty papers and some roll paper from some other suppliers for specialty printing like a heavyweight matte and roll paper for panoramas.

 

I don't like the other papers I've tried. Not a fan of the Canon, HP and Kodak papers. I have some Japanese paper that I haven't tried yet.

Edited September 6, 2015 by agxo3

[glut_func]

^i only got HP printer at home, I also tried printing on matte but the ink doesn't thoroughly dries up. Looks like I'm gonna have to try printing on those specialty papers for business cards - those materials appears to hold the ink much better.

[agxo3]

^i only got HP printer at home, I also tried printing on matte but the ink doesn't thoroughly dries up. Looks like I'm gonna have to try printing on those specialty papers for business cards - those materials appears to hold the ink much better.

It sounds like you're laying down too much in. What model HP printer are you using and what paper?

 

Have you matched the ink to the paper? Matte paper should dry very quickly. Have you profiled your printer and paper?

 

Business card paper is NOT right for good images. You should be looking at photo printing papers. bit more expensive, I know, but if you want good to excellent image quality that's what you should use.

 

Printing graphics is different from printing images. Images require less ink in oder to get the subtle tones. Papers meant for graphic printing will NOT produce good images unless you half-tone the images first. But then you lose resolution and the images don't look good.

[glut_func]

It sounds like you're laying down too much in. What model HP printer are you using and what paper?

 

Have you matched the ink to the paper? Matte paper should dry very quickly. Have you profiled your printer and paper?

 

Business card paper is NOT right for good images. You should be looking at photo printing papers. bit more expensive, I know, but if you want good to excellent image quality that's what you should use.

 

Printing graphics is different from printing images. Images require less ink in oder to get the subtle tones. Papers meant for graphic printing will NOT produce good images unless you half-tone the images first. But then you lose resolution and the images don't look good.

 

Only got one printer at home, a standard HP (2640 series) but I don't think the model has anything to do with it. And I have already tried printing on draft and best quality - same thing, the ink just won't thoroughly dry up. I even used expensive and cheap photo papers also the same. I don't have a problem with the quality of my images regardless if I do a full page or cropped (RGB or CMYK). It's just that the ink don't stick well or maybe that's just the way it is especially since photo papers are kind of glossy in the first place.

[praetorius]

[agxo3]

 

Only got one printer at home, a standard HP (2640 series) but I don't think the model has anything to do with it. And I have already tried printing on draft and best quality - same thing, the ink just won't thoroughly dry up. I even used expensive and cheap photo papers also the same. I don't have a problem with the quality of my images regardless if I do a full page or cropped (RGB or CMYK). It's just that the ink don't stick well or maybe that's just the way it is especially since photo papers are kind of glossy in the first place.

Are you using HP inks or some 3rd party brand? Sometimes that's the problem.

 

I am using Epson inks right now (and Canon inks in my small Canon printer) and I have no problem with inks drying.

 

My wife has an older HP and the HP inks on that seem to dry quickly enough as well regardless of the paper used.

[glut_func]

Are you using HP inks or some 3rd party brand? Sometimes that's the problem.

 

I am using Epson inks right now (and Canon inks in my small Canon printer) and I have no problem with inks drying.

 

My wife has an older HP and the HP inks on that seem to dry quickly enough as well regardless of the paper used.

 

yep, only using genuine HP cartridges only...i should've went through with my plan to put up a photo book before when i had the chance, saved me the hassle of dealing with the printing.

[Alucard_Fullbuster]

got a very nice topic which one do you like using printer with a actual count of limit to be printed or the one that they called continuous ink?

[agxo3]

got a very nice topic which one do you like using printer with a actual count of limit to be printed or the one that they called continuous ink?

I don't print enough to justify the continuous feed inks. Also, I get better consistency with the Epson inks.

 

I still check the profile with every new batch of inks and papers, but so far the differences have been negligible.

 

At the cost of even more spending, I highly recommend a fully managed color workflow, starting with a calibrated monitor all the way to a profiled printer. I use a Colormunki and it seems to do a reasonably good job of profiling the printer. Still a bit off and I need to make adjustments going from screen to print, but it's a very small adjustment.

 

GF - it sounds like you are laying down way too much ink. Is there a setting in the printer driver to regulate the amount of ink? My wife's printer has been out of commission for a several weeks now and I need to get a MacOSX driver for it so I can profile it. She uses a Windoze machine.

 

I just printed on glossy paper using both my Epson and my Canon. No issues with print drying. There is some drying time but it's related more to letting the inks settle and the color to stabilize, not smearing. When profiling my printers I wait 10 minutes before measuring the Color on the paper to make sure the colors stop changing.

[glut_func]

^i've actually figured out that the problem is that my images are using too much color. Most of my images were post processed on my mac which gives vibrance to the colors (monitor is calibrated as default RGB) so that's why it uses too much when printed. If I used my windows machine to process my photos, the colors comes washed out.

 

Never got around to it anymore as most of my shots are old so I just decided to keep them as digital.

[agxo3]

^i've actually figured out that the problem is that my images are using too much color. Most of my images were post processed on my mac which gives vibrance to the colors (monitor is calibrated as default RGB) so that's why it uses too much when printed. If I used my windows machine to process my photos, the colors comes washed out.

 

Never got around to it anymore as most of my shots are old so I just decided to keep them as digital.

 

I make it point to ALWAYS calibrate my monitor. The Mac has a simple calibration function built into the Display tab of System Preferences. If nothing else, do that. But best find someone who has a Spyder or a Colormunki. Set your screen to D65. Alternatively, you would set gamma to no more than 2.2. I've used 1.8 in the past because I found it gave me truer colors. That way you completely avoid the problem.

[praetorius]

 

I make it point to ALWAYS calibrate my monitor. The Mac has a simple calibration function built into the Display tab of System Preferences. If nothing else, do that. But best find someone who has a Spyder or a Colormunki. Set your screen to D65. Alternatively, you would set gamma to no more than 2.2. I've used 1.8 in the past because I found it gave me truer colors. That way you completely avoid the problem.

if you are in the photo 'business' it is very BASIC to have at least a calibrated monitor. and if you personally print, then calibrate that also.

 

all the great images you capture, and eventually share (or print) are useless if on the other end (the viewer) will not be able to appreciate it fully because of some discrepancy in colors.

 

now, for those na walang spyder or calibration systems, here's what some of my friends do: they calibrate their screens using the image on one of their iDevices. now, i can't verify the veracity of the claims of color on iDevices, but it's worth a try din siguro.

[neilperry434]

how decide to between higher exposure and noise?

 

Using a tripod is also an option.