Large prints

Thecageyone

I've been asked to do some portraits of a couple's year old daughter. They want 2 normal, 10 x 8 prints - no problems there ... but they also want a "very large" B&W print of the 3 of them, to hang over their fireplace. They don't know anything about print sizes, so they can't even give me a rough estimate on the size. They just want ... big. When I suggested something around 20" x 30" they asked can I do bigger than that? ...

So my question is, where is the best place to get extra large prints done in Dublin/Meath?

Also, I shoot in RAW, so the file sizes are 10 - 14mb, but after processing they're often as small as 3mb. Is there a certain way to process to a larger sized Jpeg for print? I'm a total n00b when it comes to printing. What is the largest I could get away with printing from a 3mb - 5mb processed from RAW image?

Thanks in advance.

magicbastarder

jpgs are of a variable size, as it depends on the compression level set and the level of detail in the pic. a better way of judging would be from the resolution of the sensor in your camera - 15MP (5000 x 3000 pixels, say) would print to 34" x 20" at 150dpi, which would be perfectly adequate resolution for an over the fireplace pic.

stcstc

gimmie a shout i can help

i could do 40*30 or bigger if you want

Chorcai

Talk to Stcstc (Steve) stcstc

http://www.360-dpi.com/

In before me !

Thecageyone

stcstc wrote: »

gimmie a shout i can help

i could do 40*30 or bigger if you want

Good stuff, will pm you now, cheers

Heebie

If you were to save those same images that are 3MB JPGs as TIFFs.. they would probably be a couple of hundred megs each.

20x30 is actually a REALLY big size.. 24x36" would be a "full-frame" size just a touch larger than 20x30" 20x30 will be much easier to get a frame for!

I would be VERY careful of where you get black & whites done, especially for a large format, as most print equipment (the way it is generally utilised) can only do 256 shades of grey.. and a B&W jpeg also stores only 256 shades of grey. I'd do 16-bit per channel greyscale (or even do a colour image, mix down to black & white & add a warm tone like sepia.) This will DRASTICALLY increase the number of colors used in the image.. making for a lot less haloing and a lot less "blotchy" patches due to a lack of available shades of grey.

and.. most importantly.. I would find a lab/printer that uses MORE THAN ONE SHADE OF BLACK INK in their printer, or a place that can do a transfer to TRUE BLACK & WHITE PHOTOGRAPHIC PAPER at a bit-depth greater than 8-bits (256 shades.)

If you've got a place that uses say.. an Epson 7600, 9600, or 10600 printer.. ask if they are using an ink-set with both matte black and light black inks if you're on a matte paper (which might be best for a portrait that you want to last a while) and if they use black & light black inks for a coated paper (such as a glossy, satin, or pearl finish.)
Some places use two cartridges of the same black.. and you just can't get the same fine shading as with multiple blacks.

Adding a sepia, or some other warm tone.. adds color.. adding the ability for more shading... so you get a "smoother" reproduction of fine details, especially in shadow & highlight areas.

Also.. ask the shop if they have custom color profiles for their equipment & paper... if they have them... use them, or ask them to make sure they use them. (I prefer to do this step myself.. as I trust me to do it right.. and don't trust others to.. because I'm kind of a fussy f**&"£$)

It's good that you asked here.. hopefully some people have used a few different printers and can give you the low-down on them.

Remember.. don't go JPEG with B&W output unless you absolutely have to.. Try & use PSD or TIFF. Most places doing large-format printing will be able to handle them just fine.

Thecageyone wrote: »

I've been asked to do some portraits of a couple's year old daughter. They want 2 normal, 10 x 8 prints - no problems there ... but they also want a "very large" B&W print of the 3 of them, to hang over their fireplace. They don't know anything about print sizes, so they can't even give me a rough estimate on the size. They just want ... big. When I suggested something around 20" x 30" they asked can I do bigger than that? ...

So my question is, where is the best place to get extra large prints done in Dublin/Meath?

Also, I shoot in RAW, so the file sizes are 10 - 14mb, but after processing they're often as small as 3mb. Is there a certain way to process to a larger sized Jpeg for print? I'm a total n00b when it comes to printing. What is the largest I could get away with printing from a 3mb - 5mb processed from RAW image?

Thanks in advance.

Thecageyone

Cheers for the tips.

I never convert to greyscale, I always desaturate colour so I've more control and range. That or I use the B&W channel mixer in PS. I've just exported a Tiff copy from the original RAW in lightroom as a tester. It was heavilly cropped down, and it saved at 15mb. I'd feel much more confident about printing a file that size large.

I'll suggest other sizes to the family, 30 x 40 is pretty big alright.

Heebie

How far do you desaturate it? (fully desaturating it pretty much the same as converting to greyscale using a different method.) That's why I think it's so important not to be in 8-bit per channel mode when working with stuff for B&W.

If it's fully desaturated, your values for R, G and B will always be identical, which is exactly the same as having a single greyscale channel (except that it takes 3 times as much data space.) With 16-bit per channel greyscale you have 65536 possible shads of grey (2^16 shades instead of 2^8 shades)

I generally use a channel mixer to convert to greyscale.. previous versions of PS and other things just dropped the G & B channels & used the R channel as the greyscale data. I tend to end up mixing 50% red, 40% green, and 10% blue. Newer versions of PS let you mix down with more control.

and yeah, 30x40 is big.. but isn't full-frame ratio.. 30x45" would be... either way it's flipping huge for a portrait. Just print a mural for the wall in strips.

Thecageyone wrote: »

Cheers for the tips.

I never convert to greyscale, I always desaturate colour so I've more control and range. That or I use the B&W channel mixer in PS. I've just exported a Tiff copy from the original RAW in lightroom as a tester. It was heavilly cropped down, and it saved at 15mb. I'd feel much more confident about printing a file that size large.

I'll suggest other sizes to the family, 30 x 40 is pretty big alright.

Thecageyone

I desaturate all the way, but in Lightroom, in the H/S/L section. By doing this I still have control over all else, as if it were colour. Converting direct to greyscale closes off many options. After desaturating I still have total control over the luminance of all colours. After I'm done in LR I usually take them to photoshop for a layer or 2 of high pass filter overlay and sometimes unsharp mask. really depends, I do them all different as I go along.

I was reading an article on B&W conversion only yesterday, got a few new tips in that. Just as you suggest, the slider values should total 100, for one. I'm still learning [a lot] as I go re: B&W. As it is mainly portraits I'm doing for now.

Heebie

They should total 100% or so.

Some tips on thinking about the "mix" of colors.

You're kind of starting with the RED channel as the "untouched"

Adding in bits from the GREEN channel is a lot like using a magenta filter for B&W in the darkroom. it adds contrast to the image.

Adding in bits from the BLUE channel is like using a yellow filter in a darkroom.. it softens contrast.

Using both tends to give you nice contrastiness with detail left in the highlight areas.

Thecageyone wrote: »

I desaturate all the way, but in Lightroom, in the H/S/L section. By doing this I still have control over all else, as if it were colour. Converting direct to greyscale closes off many options. After desaturating I still have total control over the luminance of all colours. After I'm done in LR I usually take them to photoshop for a layer or 2 of high pass filter overlay and sometimes unsharp mask. really depends, I do them all different as I go along.

I was reading an article on B&W conversion only yesterday, got a few new tips in that. Just as you suggest, the slider values should total 100, for one. I'm still learning [a lot] as I go re: B&W. As it is mainly portraits I'm doing for now.

AnimalRights

Heebie...
I like Cagey use Lightroom and I am not totally happy or sure what way to go about getting B+W like I can get using DPP from Canon.
Any ideas?

melekalikimaka

i think no where in ireland prints 16bit Heebie, my lecturer demanded if i printed some shots, due to the dominant black, that I shot 16 bit. Its very expensive :-(

Heebie

I've never used DPP (being a Pentax guy.. although I don't use their software either.)

Getting good-looking B&W can be very tricky.. a lot of printing equipment only does 8-bit greyscale, including some really awesome minilab systems. (they actually do it in color.. with equal values for R, G &

Having as much data as you can have is really important. Knowing what you want for an end-result & knowing how to get to that result is important.

In LR.. doing the desaturation thing, then using the exposure/recovery/fill light/blacks/contrast and brightness (skillfully) to get what you want.

Don't be afraid to play with those controls!

In LR you have clipping indicators that change color when a particular color is overexposed. If I'm looking to tweak an image, I will tend to adjust the exposure to the point where I'm JUST inside where any colors are clipping (with the indicator black) sometimes this isn't possible, though.
I try not to use recovery unless I absolutely need to get some detail back into my highlights.

Then I turn down the brightness down until my highlight detail is where I want it.

Then I adjust the contrast so it's somewhere near where I'd like to see it.

Then I adjust the fill light up a bit to get some detail into the shadows.

Then I will adjust the black point to just inside where it's clipping. (no color in the clipping indicator.)

then I re-check the fill light, exposure, and brightness a tiny bit. (only really minor adjustments.)

To get B&W from that.. you'd probably desaturate and THEN do those adjustments.

For me.. I'd usually put something in Photoshop to do the B&W conversion & print preparation. I kind of consider that part print prep (unless I was working with B&W film to begin with.) For me that's finish work.. deciding how I want to print it. (but that's me)

Do you have any files you'd like to see what I'd come up with for B&W?

AnimalRights wrote: »

Heebie...
I like Cagey use Lightroom and I am not totally happy or sure what way to go about getting B+W like I can get using DPP from Canon.
Any ideas?

AnimalRights

nono, just wondered.

I'm doing pretty well in LR by my standards and what I learned from ur reply was the clipping bit....I didn't know that.
I don't even use tone curve as I don't really understand it.

Heebie

Play with it until you understand it.. it is your friend! (Within Photoshop.. adding a Curves layer to an image is your friend.. if you have PS as well.. get used to using layers for things.. and get used to curves layers.. they rock, you can stack several and separately mask them for different parts of the image and a million other useful things.)

The clipping bit some people don't do. If you tell Photoshop or Lightroom to auto-adjust.. they will choose to be at 5% clipping of the image at either end. (I hate that.. because by default it's chopping off 5%'s worth of the highlights & shadows that might otherwise become fine detail.) I'm kind of a detail freak. and.. there are plenty of images where that method will make a muddy mess.

Play with the controls until you understand what they do.

Each control has a corresponding section of the histogram.. and that part of the histogram is highlighted while you're adjusting the corresponding slider. That can help you visualise what the controls are doing.

If you know someone who really gets these things.. have them go over them with you. Getting exactly what they do can be a bit hard to get your head around.. but once you understand curves, the histogram, and how the various controls affect the histogram... you'll be able to adjust your color & contrast in just a few seconds.

AnimalRights wrote: »

nono, just wondered.

I'm doing pretty well in LR by my standards and what I learned from ur reply was the clipping bit....I didn't know that.
I don't even use tone curve as I don't really understand it.

Thecageyone

The best tool in LR, IMO, is the adjustment brush. So many things possible with it, but the best feature is the exposure brush. Much like dodge and burn in PS, but much better I think.

The clipping indicators are great, by clicking on the arrows

it displays the over/under exposed areas as you brush. Great control for recovering over exposed areas and I love that you can return to individual areas and re-adjust at any time. no matter how far into process you are. Far as I know you can't re-touch like this using dodge and burn?

melekalikimaka

ya can, its just not as apparent... there is nothing in lightroom that ps can't do, editing wise, just a matter of looking a bit harder

Heebie

OOH. Thanks for those tips.. I'll have to look for them. Is that LR3 beta, or LR2?

Thecageyone wrote: »

The best tool in LR, IMO, is the adjustment brush. So many things possible with it, but the best feature is the exposure brush. Much like dodge and burn in PS, but much better I think.

The clipping indicators are great, by clicking on the arrows

it displays the over/under exposed areas as you brush. Great control for recovering over exposed areas and I love that you can return to individual areas and re-adjust at any time. no matter how far into process you are. Far as I know you can't re-touch like this using dodge and burn?

Heebie

Definitely true in that direction. There is lots that PS can do that LR can't. They're definitely different tools for different (but related) jobs.

melekalikimaka wrote: »

ya can, its just not as apparent... there is nothing in lightroom that ps can't do, editing wise, just a matter of looking a bit harder

AnimalRights

Thecageyone wrote: »

The best tool in LR, IMO, is the adjustment brush. So many things possible with it, but the best feature is the exposure brush. Much like dodge and burn in PS, but much better I think.

The clipping indicators are great, by clicking on the arrows

it displays the over/under exposed areas as you brush. Great control for recovering over exposed areas and I love that you can return to individual areas and re-adjust at any time. no matter how far into process you are. Far as I know you can't re-touch like this using dodge and burn?

I'll test this later....I've always had to learn myself stuff on Photography (cept from here)

Thecageyone

Everything I learn comes from online tutorials, tips on places like here, reading the magazines ... and of course, the best one - Trial and error

PS can do much more than LR for sure, but as said, it's a case of looking harder, or doing even more tutorials. There's just so much to PS. That's why I prefer LR [I use LR 2] it's aimed directly at photographers, much easier to use [not that photographers are dumb, lol, but it strips away all the unnecessary tools you find in PS, making it much more accessible]

When you click the adjustment brush and the panel for it opens. Click on whatever tool it's set to [exposure, saturation, sharpness etc ..] and you get a drop down with all the different brushes.

After fine tuning any area of your image with the chosen brush, you can come back to it later, when you re-click adjustment brush at any time - you'll see the start points highlighted on the image. Click these again to re-adjust the tweaks you made. You can have multiple points and all can be adjusted any time. Doing this in PS is a whole lot trickier, I don't even know how tbh.