Andprayforrain
Member
Take a high-quality digital file of a properly exposed scene. Send a properly sharpened and color-managed copy to a top-quality inkjet printer properly configured for the particular inkjet paper. Send another properly sharpened and color-managed copy to a top-quality half-tone system properly configured for the particular paper. Assume the papers are comparable in type and quality, there’s no user error and it’s simply best inkjet output versus best half-tone output.
Which print do you suppose you’d prefer?
Please give your reasons. If you feel my scenario is naïve or incomplete or I left out important alternative printing methods used to make photos in books and magazines look so good, please discuss.
Which print do you suppose you’d prefer?
Please give your reasons. If you feel my scenario is naïve or incomplete or I left out important alternative printing methods used to make photos in books and magazines look so good, please discuss.
rfaspen
[insert pithy phrase here]
Never done offset. Can't compare. I can compare inkjet to "silver" prints though. But sorry, can't help this question. So why post? Because I would really like to know more about the offset printing.....I hope there are some responses here.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I don't have books sized big enough to talk about quality.
My inkjet prints aren't different from the book prints of the same size, except mine are on better than in books paper.
Magazines... My photos were published in magazines. Not any better than at home inkjets.
Not to mention great quality I could get from Halton Camera Exchage inkjet prints on larger prints.
My inkjet prints aren't different from the book prints of the same size, except mine are on better than in books paper.
Magazines... My photos were published in magazines. Not any better than at home inkjets.
Not to mention great quality I could get from Halton Camera Exchage inkjet prints on larger prints.
Godfrey
somewhat colored
I don't know that even with your extensive constraints list the two images would be relevant comparison. Fine art grade books, with very very high count screens, printed on the best quality papers available with the best inks via an offset printing system look very nice, but are they "nicer" than single prints made to the same size by my Epson P600 where I have exquisite, individual control of the printing process and paper type? It's not a matter of technical quality comparison but of personal aesthetics, a judgement call, and that would be driven by the context of the photograph's presentation.
G
For me, there is good enough and not good enough... both of your methods described are good enough for me until some major publisher or high end prestigious gallery assists me in making perfection. Since this is highly unlikely, I use what is commonly available to a nobody like me.
Calzone
Gear Whore #1
John,
This is pretty honest.
I think I just take things a little bit further by doing Piezography and specializing in just B&W printing. I just get a bit closer to perfection.
Anyways maybe to get perfection one needs the best lab in Paris like Salgado did for the show Genesis, or a B&W printmaker like Jon Cone.
In my own printing I get closer to perfection because I cut costs by doing the work myself. Still it is mucho expensive.
Also with cameras like a SL2 and the furture proofed "L" glass that is APO perfection and UBER clean files of outstanding IQ is available.
The technology is there where pretty much guys like us could rival results and get really close to perfection because the technology is here.
Kinda funny that "Maggie" my celeb blogger gal resists me from shooting with the SL2. The files, resolution, and detail are over the top and severe overkill for posting online.
One of the reasons why I print big is the challenge, and the other is to bring out the resolution and tonality. Small prints compress IQ, and "big prints don't lie."
Perfection is there if one wants to exploit it. BTW my M Monochrom, warts and all is still a great camera. Best $8K I ever spent.
Cal