# Large Prints from RAW files



## btaoka (Mar 5, 2014)

Does anyone have a good workflow from RAW files to large prints (i.e. 16x20, 20x30, 24x36, etc...)? I'm shooting from a Canon 6D and am using Lightroom 5/Photoshop CC to do post processing. I am using a 2009 iMac. Are colorimeters really necessary (I don't really want to spend ~$100 just to calibrate my screen)?


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 5, 2014)

I regularly make large prints and can help you with workflow questions, but please let me know what your specific questions are - capture, upsizing, sharpening? Generically, the capture is most important - you need to use a tripod, timer/remote release, and the best apertures and techniques to get the sharpest capture possible. Mild sharpening should be done in Camera RAW and after re-sizing to the printing size (usually at 300dpi) for the appropriate printing media. Photoshop CC has much improved re-sizing quality and sufficient for most printing. 

Also, if you are serious about printing, then yes, a calibrated monitor (using a colorimeter or spectrophotometer) is necessary. You can calibrate other ways for free, but you'll still end up with color casts and brightness issues. The easiest way to make high-quality large prints is to calibrate your monitor, work in AdobeRGB, and use a printer who supports ICC profiles. If you're printing yourself, the difficulty and expense goes up considerably.


----------



## tolusina (Mar 5, 2014)

Calibrate your monitor.
Profile your printer with the specific paper and inks you'll be using.
Soft proof in Lightroom.
Your prints will match what you see on screen.

http://youtu.be/LqE8FBiDLwE





.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Calibrate your monitor.
> Profile your printer with the specific paper and inks you'll be using.
> Soft proof in Lightroom.
> Your prints will match what you see on screen.



That has to be one of the most naive replies ever. Where will your prints match your screen? Do the print illumination and screen have the same WB? Do they have the same white point? etc etc.

Prints never match the screen unless you put the same amount and colour of light onto them as the screen puts out, if you want to get really anal then you need to start looking at the CRI index and spectral characteristics of your print illumination bulbs too......


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2014)

btaoka said:


> Does anyone have a good workflow from RAW files to large prints (i.e. 16x20, 20x30, 24x36, etc...)? I'm shooting from a Canon 6D and am using Lightroom 5/Photoshop CC to do post processing. I am using a 2009 iMac. Are colorimeters really necessary (I don't really want to spend ~$100 just to calibrate my screen)?



Yes you do need to get a screen profiler. With the cost if big prints it is a necessity.

But as has been said, without a lot more detail specific help is impossible. For instance are you using your own printer?


----------



## tolusina (Mar 6, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> tolusina said:
> 
> 
> > Calibrate your monitor.
> ...


Not at all naive, though your reply certainly is.

Start with a calibrated monitor so there's no, or minimal error introduced into the workflow there.

As the printer, ink and paper combination is profiled, the profiling software sends what it knows to be true and accurate color patches to the printer to be printed.
But the printer, ink and paper combination cannot possibly reproduce the true and accurate colors that have been sent to be printed.
The spectrocolorimeter that is part of the printer profiling package is then used to measure the actual colors that ended up being printed, profiling software compares the measured color that actually printed with the true and accurate color that was intended to be printed and creates an error correction file with an .icm file extension.

With the soft proof function on Lightroom, select the newly created .icm file, Lightroom then displays what the printer can and will deliver.

There is no part of this workflow that tries to get the print to match the screen. In fact, it's the exact opposite, it's about getting the screen to match the printer, ink and paper's capabilities.
---
Print illumination bulbs? Really? Who made that absurdity up? Are you going to follow the print around throughout it's life making certain that the print is only ever displayed and viewed with a specific set of print illumination bulbs?
That concept of print illumination bulbs sounds like it was made up to scare people away from a task that just isn't all that complicated, buncha fictional voodoo is what print illumination bulbs are.
---
I'm using an NEC wide gamut monitor that includes an ambient light sensor. Ambient is also what I view prints in. If I can get closer, I've no idea how.
Certainly, prints will have a different appearance when viewed under different lighting, so does everything, that is beyond predictable, beyond control.

edit...
While in Lightroom, let Lightroom handle all printing color management, use the actual printer property options only to select the correct paper size.

Getting gorgeous prints first time is not hard or complicated, it does take some calibrated and profiled hardware.
Without calibrated and profiled hardware, one's shredder will soon fill with failed print attempts, it's very frustrating. Been there, done that, it was no fun at all, gave up until I could afford hardware that just works.





.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 6, 2014)

A bit snippy in here!

To the original poster. What are you making posters? Seriously, it not clear if you are printing something at walgreens to go on your wall, or or ordering 10K prints for a national advertising campaign.

Have you taken steps to calibrate your monitor via software? Have you had some sample size prints done and found they did not match? These do not have to be the same size to check colors, just the same process.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2014)

> _"Not at all naive, though your reply certainly is."_



Read these tasters, then get back to me.


http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/match_prints_to_screen.html

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/accessories/pdv-3d.shtml

http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/colour_management/prints_too_dark.html

This is the industry standard, that I own and view my own print output with.

https://www.solux.net/cgi-bin/tlistore/colorproofkit.html

I just produced and printed a show for ten other photographers.


----------



## Lightmaster (Mar 6, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> I just produced and printed a show for ten other photographers.



you are my hero! and i hope they are happy with the results?

but we don´t need to pat your shoulder... your constantly doing that yourself right? 

of course the light you view you prints under has to fit the light it is edited for.
you only have to imagine the extremes to see that this is obvious.

that still doesn´t mean profiling and calibrating your hardware is completely useless and naive.


----------



## btaoka (Mar 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I regularly make large prints and can help you with workflow questions, but please let me know what your specific questions are - capture, upsizing, sharpening? Generically, the capture is most important - you need to use a tripod, timer/remote release, and the best apertures and techniques to get the sharpest capture possible. Mild sharpening should be done in Camera RAW and after re-sizing to the printing size (usually at 300dpi) for the appropriate printing media. Photoshop CC has much improved re-sizing quality and sufficient for most printing.
> 
> Also, if you are serious about printing, then yes, a calibrated monitor (using a colorimeter or spectrophotometer) is necessary. You can calibrate other ways for free, but you'll still end up with color casts and brightness issues. The easiest way to make high-quality large prints is to calibrate your monitor, work in AdobeRGB, and use a printer who supports ICC profiles. If you're printing yourself, the difficulty and expense goes up considerably.



Hi mackguyver ,

I apologize I should have been more specific about what I'm trying to achieve. You're correct that the most important part is the capture and I think I have that down pretty ok. That being said, I was looking to make prints for my own home or to give out as gifts, with the biggest print probably around 24x36. I'm not necessarily looking for museum quality fine art prints (yet anyway), just somewhere to start. I have a friend that uses Unique Photo sometimes to do large prints so I was going to try them out. 

This is what I was thinking in terms of workflow if I were just using LR5:
1) After importing the RAW file into LR5, I adjust for white balance, exposure, lens correction, CA correction, highlights/shadow detail, saturation, noise reduction (sometimes not necessary), mild sharpening.
2) Exporting the JPEG from LR5. The 6D has a native resolution of 5,472 x 3,648 pixels (assuming no cropping needed), so if I'm printing at 36x24, my pixels per inch will be 152ppi. This is where I have my question: In LR5, do I choose JPEG for the image format, Quality up to 100, color space to Adobe RGB 1998? Then in the Imagize Sizing section DO NOT check resize to fit (or do I?)? Is it better to use dpi (in that case do I choose 300)?. Output Sharpening to matte paper, amount to standard? On the Unique Photo site, they use a Fuji Frontier wet lab to do prints 20x30 and smaller. For 24x36, they use an Epson 11880. For 20x30 prints, would I use Color Space as sRGB and change the resolution to 182ppi? For the 24x36 would I use Adobe RGB 1998 and change the resolution to 152ppi?

Another person suggested using the print module in LR5 and selecting JPEG instead of an actual printer. I'm not sure what the difference is if I use the print module vs just the export function in the library module when exporting JPEGS.

If I were using LR5 and CC, this is a workflow I got online (any comments appreciated):
1) Import RAW File to LR, then adjust white balance, exposure, highlights/shadow detail, apply noise reduction, correct Lens profile, adjust saturation.
2) After adjusting those settings, I would then export as a 16bit TIFF using Adobe RGB
3) Import the 16bit TIFF into CC and adjust contrast/curves (if necessary), 2nd noise reduction, cloning/patching, layer editing, cropping
4) Take the edited master TIFF to create jpegs. Convert color space to sRGB, resize, apply sharpening to taste, export as JPEG using Quality at Maximum and the slider all the way to 100, in the Format Options check the box for baseline standard.

Anyway, I realize I have limited understanding when it comes to printing, I was just looking to get started. Thanks for the comments.


----------



## btaoka (Mar 6, 2014)

tolusina said:


> Calibrate your monitor.
> Profile your printer with the specific paper and inks you'll be using.
> Soft proof in Lightroom.
> Your prints will match what you see on screen.
> ...


Hi tolusina,

I appreciate the video, though 45 minutes just on paper was a bit overkill for me. The last part of the video was somewhat useful.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 6, 2014)

Lightmaster said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > I just produced and printed a show for ten other photographers.
> ...



Two points, first, I wasn't boasting or seeking congratulations, I mentioned it because my experience is probably unusual on this forum in that it is not just printing for my own satisfaction or standards. Second, I never said profiling is useless or naive, I said, specifically, that this comment was naive 



> "Calibrate your monitor.
> Profile your printer with the specific paper and inks you'll be using.
> Soft proof in Lightroom.
> *Your prints will match what you see on screen*."



and my opinion is backed up by the articles by the industry experts that I linked to.

I am not the one who _" Who made that absurdity up"_!


----------



## tolusina (Mar 6, 2014)

privatebydesign said:


> > _"Not at all naive, though your reply certainly is."_
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yup, read all those, some time back.

Here's the concept I'm working with, same as spelled out in different words in the first two links you posted above, I'll hope to explain a bit clearer than I did above so that even you can grasp.

Printer gamut is no where near as wide as monitor gamut, even at sRGB. If you try and print at sRGB, aRGB or PhotoRGB you will fail as no current printer can match any of those gamuts, prints will likely come out too dark.
Since printer gamut is so much less than monitor gamut, simply configure your system so that monitor gamut is reduced to match printer gamut and Bob's your Uncle, click print.
My NEC displays 98% or 99% aRGB, something like that. At standard calibration, where I leave it, it is bright, reds are so vibrant they literally hurt to look at. Printer cannot print that brightness, nor those reds and that's the whole point, the object of soft proofing with printer emulation. 

Open an image in Lightroom, switch to the develop module. click View in the menu bar, select soft proofing. While at the soft proofing drop down, notice that there are two gamut warnings you can activate, one for the monitor, one for the destination.
Over on the right panel under soft proofing, check the box for "Simulate Paper & Ink", your image will immediately darken, yup, that's what we're after, right there. Subjectively tweak to taste from here.


Regarding the last three links, I think it was P. T. Barnum who said, "A fool and his money are soon parted".
If and only if you exactly and precisely re-create your custom proofing lights for your prints when displayed, then and only then does your elaborate proofing lighting system have real value.
When displayed, there can be no other ambient light source allowed, no room lights randomly switched on or off, no ever changing daylight through windows, doors or skylights.
While I am certain that there are museum and gallery environments where such tight control of lighting is possible, allowable and desired, such conditions are far from the real world norm.
Again, only under precise reproduction of your proof light set up will a viewer see what you see under your proof light.
So, why bother.
I mean, like, really, do you explain while presenting prints to a client that those prints really don't look like what is before their very eyes because said client doesn't have your proof lights duplicated? And how does that work out for you?

Sounds to me like you got snookered into buying some fictional voodoo and now feel the need to justify your purchase decision and expense. Save it for your wife.


---
Again, calibrate the monitor, profile the printer, tell Lightroom to display what the printer can print by using that printer profile, then print it. Don't over think it and attempt to adjust any other printer or monitor settings, disappointment and failure are sure to result if you do.
It's not as complicated as you and your links make it out to be.
---
I must admit, this thread, those links, have given me a bit of pause for thought. If I ever find myself in a situation where my prints will be displayed in a tightly controlled lighting environment, it would behoove me to duplicate that environment as completely and as best possible while proofing.

Otherwise, with randomly variable lighting environments as found in the rest of the real world, your proof lighting efforts can only result in futility.

Many things in life, and especially photography, are compromises due to unpredictable and uncontrollable variables. Some things you just have to wing it and settle for pretty approximate that still satisfies your personal inner vision, goals and tastes, it's called, "Art" and it's quite subjective.

---





.


----------



## btaoka (Mar 6, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> A bit snippy in here!
> 
> To the original poster. What are you making posters? Seriously, it not clear iic you are printing something at walgreens to go on your awl, or or ordering 10K prints for a national advertising campaign.
> 
> Have you taken steps to calibrate your monitor via software? Have you had some sample size prints done and found they did not match? These do not have to be the same size to check colors, just the same process.



Hi TexPhoto,

Thanks for the response. Really stupid question but what exactly is the definition of poster? Is it basically just a much bigger 4x6 photo you get from CVS? Does a 20x30 print count as a poster? (I'm not trying to be a wise ass btw, I'm really asking). I'm basically just printing for my own home, for me to look at and possibly give out these larger prints to family and friends as gifts.

I have not taken steps to calibrate my monitor. I realize this is a must and if I don't do it I'm basically waisting my time trying to guess what the prints will actually turn out like. It doesn't seem like there's a way around this and I will just have to bite the bullet and spend the money to get a calibrator.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2014)

btaoka said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I regularly make large prints and can help you with workflow questions, but please let me know what your specific questions are - capture, upsizing, sharpening? Generically, the capture is most important - you need to use a tripod, timer/remote release, and the best apertures and techniques to get the sharpest capture possible. Mild sharpening should be done in Camera RAW and after re-sizing to the printing size (usually at 300dpi) for the appropriate printing media. Photoshop CC has much improved re-sizing quality and sufficient for most printing.
> ...


btaoka, I'm glad the other posters didn't scare you off and you've replied. Let me see if I can answer your questions with answers tailored to your needs. First of all, I understand your goals/needs and if you get an entry-level calibration tool like the Spyder Express ($79 on their site right now) or a X-Rite Colormunki ($89), that will be sufficient for your purposes. 

Second, while it looks like Unique Photo does some nice printing, I couldn't find enough detail on their site to tell me about their calibration and such. I highly recommend Bay Photo (and Aspen Creek) as they use ICC profiles and have excellent customer service. Bay Photo also has $1.50 shipping and they ship prints VERY carefully so they arrive in perfect condition. Both labs use a Java program called ROES that allow you to order and upload the prints and I think the latest version even allows TIFF uploads. Also, both of them offer, but don't require, color correction. Generally you want to avoid this as the print will not match what you send them. Good for amateurs, bad for most people who use LR and PS . If you use Unique Photo or another lab, make sure you find out whether they accept ICC files and if you're unsure, send them sRGB files.

Getting to your workflow, you want to make as many of the adjustments as possible in LR / Camera RAW because that's the best place to do it. You are working with the raw de-bayered data, so the adjustments there degrade the image the least. You should generally adjust cropping, white balance, lens corrections, black & white points, color balance (if needed to remove color casts), contrast, tone curves (as needed), vibrancy (if desired), noise reduction, and sharpness. Some adjustments like contrast may need to be adjusted again after making other changes. If the image is final, zoom to 50% and adjust the sharpness to slightly more than you'd like on screen (the printing process will soften it). Export as AdobeRGB 16-bit TIFF (for archive) and AdobeRGB JPEG (max quality - 12 or 100 depending on software). The AdobeRGB JPEG will be used for printing.

If you need to edit further (local adjustments, layer edits, retouching, etc.), sharpen mildly instead (in LR), take the 16-bit Adobe RGB TIFF into PS, edit, sharpen at 50% as described above, save, and then export as AdobeRGB JPEG (max quality) again. 

150 DPI is the minimum you'll want to use for most large prints (100 DPI works for canvas), but if you have to crop the photo or can't reach that DPI, it's usually best to up-size using PS and sharpen again if needed. Make sure you examine the file for any ugly artifacts. If your file is 206 or some other random DPI, just send it that way, they will print it the best way possible.

Also, crop to the final size yourself (i.e. 20x30" @300DPI is a 6000x9000 pixels) - don't send a file that's over on one side or the other.

The above advice will work for 98% of people, but as privatebydesign and others will tell you, calibration and printing can be taken to much further extremes, particularly if you calibrate the printer and papers. Printing yourself takes the complexity level up significantly and viewing booths, controlled lighting, monitor hoods, neutral gray walls, and lots of other stuff are used for people in fashion and other industries where getting the color close is unacceptable - the color must be precise. This is way beyond what you're talking about, but you might find it interesting. The links posted by privatebydesign are excellent and are good reads if you want to get to that Nth degree someday.

Also, softproofing can be done (good labs like those I suggested have ICC profiles you can download), but unless you really know what you're doing, making adjustments based on soft proofs is not a good idea. It's not an accurate view of the paper, and should really be used for advanced purposes like checking color gamut issues and validating self-made printer profiles. I'd stay away from it until you are really comfortable with color calibration.

Finally, while tolusina is trying to be helpful, the prints will never "match" the screen as one is transmissive and the other reflective, but the goal is to get a close representation based on human vision. Keep in mind that while commercial prints are less affected by the type of lighting (something called metamerism), your prints will look slightly different in daylight vs. fluorescent light and other types of lighting.

Finally, while color calibration has come a long way in terms of ease of use & accuracy, don't trust anyone who says it's easy or perfect.


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 6, 2014)

btaoka said:


> TexPhoto said:
> 
> 
> > A bit snippy in here!
> ...



Both Mac and windows have preference panels that will let you calibrate your monitor. Is it as good as a hardware calibration device? No. Is it better than nothing yes, way better. http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows7/calibrate-your-display

Prints are cheap. Go have some made using the process you intend to use for the big ones. You are trying to diagnose a problem you don't have yet. 

Or to sum it up. You will never learn to swim standing on the pool deck. 

What is a poster? It is that sheet of paper on the wall that makes life worth living:


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2014)

Tex, nice flashback there, and I understand your suggestions, but prints are not cheap once you get to 8x10" or larger. All big prints aren't posters - most posters are printed large on cheap paper using 4-color printing - large prints are printed on heavy paper using more sophisticated printers.

Also, sure OS-provided calibration tools are better than nothing, but are pretty worthless in terms of getting accurate prints. For $80 or $90, you can assure yourself of accurate prints, vs. spending that much on wasted prints that you're not happy with because they are too blue, yellow, red, dark, light, etc.

Also, I don't see it as diagnosing a problem he doesn't have because an uncalibrated monitor will lead to problems, and the bigger you print, the worse it gets. While most people don't need a full-blown ICC workflow, I think monitor calibration and a printer who uses ICC profiles is the minimum you need for good quality prints. For many years, that's all I could afford, and I never had to re-do a print.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> I regularly make large prints and can help you with workflow questions, but please let me know what your specific questions are - capture, upsizing, sharpening? Generically, the capture is most important - you need to use a tripod, timer/remote release, and the best apertures and techniques to get the sharpest capture possible. Mild sharpening should be done in Camera RAW and after re-sizing to the printing size (usually at 300dpi) for the appropriate printing media. Photoshop CC has much improved re-sizing quality and sufficient for most printing.
> 
> Also, if you are serious about printing, then yes, a calibrated monitor (using a colorimeter or spectrophotometer) is necessary. You can calibrate other ways for free, but you'll still end up with color casts and brightness issues. The easiest way to make high-quality large prints is to calibrate your monitor, work in AdobeRGB, and use a printer who supports ICC profiles. If you're printing yourself, the difficulty and expense goes up considerably.



Just curious, why would you not do all your work in the best possible color space, like ProPhoto RGB....?

Thanks in advance,

cayenne


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2014)

cayenne said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > I regularly make large prints and can help you with workflow questions, but please let me know what your specific questions are - capture, upsizing, sharpening? Generically, the capture is most important - you need to use a tripod, timer/remote release, and the best apertures and techniques to get the sharpest capture possible. Mild sharpening should be done in Camera RAW and after re-sizing to the printing size (usually at 300dpi) for the appropriate printing media. Photoshop CC has much improved re-sizing quality and sufficient for most printing.
> ...


That's a great question and while ProPhoto RGB is considerably larger than AdobeRGB, there are very few printers who can take advantage of the extra gamut that it offers. This is especially true of commercial CMYK presses since Hexachrome never really caught on (due to cost). When the full imaging chain - camera, software, monitors, and printers are all true 16-bit devices, it will make sense, but the reality is that even Adobe RGB's extra colors get clipped along the path in most cases. I'm not saying it's not possible to get the full benefits of the ProPhoto, but it takes a very sophisticated set up and most of the industry has adopted AdobeRGB (and sRGB for consumer work) as the standard. There's certainly no harm in using ProPhoto and saving files in it, but the real-world advantages aren't really there in most cases. 

It's sort of like 4k video - sure, you can record in it, but it gobbles up lots of space, takes much more horsepower to edit, and in the end, there are very ways to distribute and view it.

The great thing about shooting RAW is that you can go back five years from now (if ProPhoto catches on) and export into that space


----------



## Halfrack (Mar 6, 2014)

Generally speaking, start with the end product and work backwards. Work with a printer that has ICC profiles - check out http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/ for places that are already profiled. I print huge stuff and love it, but I work with a local shop and enjoy the items he prints compared to what i pull out of Costco even with their ICC.

If you want to play with ProPhoto RGB, check out Roger's post - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/fun-with-color-vision


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 6, 2014)

Halfrack said:


> If you want to play with ProPhoto RGB, check out Roger's post - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/fun-with-color-vision


I was tempted to mention LAB in my previous post, but didn't want to go too far out there. Thanks for the post and links.


----------



## cayenne (Mar 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...


Thanks for the reply!!

Would you recommend maybe doing your work within PS/LR...doing ProPhoto while manipulating the images, but when exporting to print...sending it out as CMYK?

I'd think that way, you'd have the best of both worlds...keeping large color space while working, and archiving for maybe later higher quality printing abilities to come as you alluded to, but only drop in color space quality when sending to print, and dropping to appropriate levels as can be handled by print shop?

Thoughts?

cayenne


----------



## TexPhoto (Mar 6, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> Tex, nice flashback there, and I understand your suggestions, but prints are not cheap once you get to 8x10" or larger. All big prints aren't posters - most posters are printed large on cheap paper using 4-color printing - large prints are printed on heavy paper using more sophisticated printers.
> 
> Also, sure OS-provided calibration tools are better than nothing, but are pretty worthless in terms of getting accurate prints. For $80 or $90, you can assure yourself of accurate prints, vs. spending that much on wasted prints that you're not happy with because they are too blue, yellow, red, dark, light, etc.
> 
> Also, I don't see it as diagnosing a problem he doesn't have because an uncalibrated monitor will lead to problems, and the bigger you print, the worse it gets. While most people don't need a full-blown ICC workflow, I think monitor calibration and a printer who uses ICC profiles is the minimum you need for good quality prints. For many years, that's all I could afford, and I never had to re-do a print.



Ok, so in your initial post you say 'Are colorimeters really necessary?", and now you are lecturing me about how necessary they are. I have a Spyder 4 pro, and use from time to time. I think the type and grade of monitor are just if not more important. There you win, you have convinced me! My largest print is 25 feet wide and hangs over the tourism bureau at the local International airport. I did not make the print, they just bought the image. I hope they did not print any 4x6 or 8x10 test first, those can be expensive.

If you want seriously want to argue with someone about "the definition of a poster", you have the wrong guy. I am more the photographer type.


----------



## PaulTopol (Mar 7, 2014)

Here are my 2 cents worth:
Critical for me is
1. Calibration of monitor. Then I know the colours I see, even if I stuff them up, have a chance showing up as the same colours on somebody else's calibrated monitor.
2. Calibration/profiling of printer with the paper of choice. Each paper/printer combination will need it's own profile. Then I know I have the best chance of producing, to my eyes, the same colours that I see on my monitor.

My workflow is roughly:
Shoot raw
Adjust in Capture One.
process out to:
a. Tiff AdobeRGB for me to print myself on my Epson 7900 or do adjustments in Phototshop.
I don't like adjusting in jpg because you do not have 100% of the pixels to play with.

b. JPG Srgb for my customers/friends because most monitors are roughly calibrated for Srgb.
Print the tiff file using Qimage..THE BEST!! (Totally calibrated/profiled for giving you the best chance of
having great prints.)

I also save, sometimes, into Prophoto. But, as others have mentioned, the best our available equipment can handle is AdobeRGB.
My Eizo monitor shows almost the same as AdobeRGB. My printer will print roughly AdobeRGB.

Printing, like anything else, takes practice. Some learn quickly, other learn a bit slower.
Start doing the stuff you understand, if that means only knowing how to turn the printer on.
same way you and all of us are learning photography...push a button..see what happens.

Printing BIG on your own printer is awesome!!

Have fun
Paul


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 7, 2014)

btaoka said:


> Does anyone have a good workflow from RAW files to large prints (i.e. 16x20, 20x30, 24x36, etc...)? I'm shooting from a Canon 6D and am using Lightroom 5/Photoshop CC to do post processing. I am using a 2009 iMac. Are colorimeters really necessary (I don't really want to spend ~$100 just to calibrate my screen)?



As for scaling to sizes larger than the 6D's native, I use On One's "Perfect Resize 7.5". It looks a bit better than CS5 or LR. I have not tried CC.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 11, 2014)

TexPhoto said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > Tex, nice flashback there, and I understand your suggestions, but prints are not cheap once you get to 8x10" or larger. All big prints aren't posters - most posters are printed large on cheap paper using 4-color printing - large prints are printed on heavy paper using more sophisticated printers.
> ...


Tex, I honestly didn't mean to offend or "lecture" you, but hey, you're the expert so I won't argue.


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 11, 2014)

CarlTN said:


> btaoka said:
> 
> 
> > Does anyone have a good workflow from RAW files to large prints (i.e. 16x20, 20x30, 24x36, etc...)? I'm shooting from a Canon 6D and am using Lightroom 5/Photoshop CC to do post processing. I am using a 2009 iMac. Are colorimeters really necessary (I don't really want to spend ~$100 just to calibrate my screen)?
> ...


+1 on Perfect Resize - it's by far the best for the money - the $50 stand-alone version is all you need - though CC's resize feature is catching up, but not quite there yet for major enlargements.


----------



## fatmanmedi (Mar 12, 2014)

Hi,

The workflow that i do for large prints (anything over A3) is as follows:-

If it's a studio shot with the tethered H5D-60 it's capture image - Process image in Lightroom/PhotoShop - print on S70600.

If it's an Outdoor/off studio shoot on the 1dx then it's capture image - Process in PhotoShop/lightroom/ - resize in Perfect resize (to scale it up to the print size) - print on S70600.

Through the whole process the image will go from RAW (or FFF for the H5D) to PSD, at no time do i save or process the image to JPEG. That is the single biggest mistake people make when processing images, not only do you loose quality, but you also impose a colour space to the image that cant not be changed easily.

If i have to send the client the images files then it's only CMYK 24bit TIFFs (i've been asked for 48 bit TIFFs, but that's very unusual). If the client asks for images for web use then i supply them Jpeg's at 90 DPI at 2Mbit in size, great for onscreen viewing not great for printing.

Hopefully this will help you understand my workflow on printing large images.

Fats


----------



## mackguyver (Mar 12, 2014)

fatmanmedi said:


> at no time do i save or process the image to JPEG. That is the single biggest mistake people make when processing images,


Agreed - the only reason you ever want to do this is if you are producing the final version and have to upload it to a printer who only accepts JPEG, but even then, there are plenty of printers who accept AdobeRGB JPEGs. If you're printing yourself, printing directly from PS or through a RIP is the way to go.


----------



## privatebydesign (Mar 12, 2014)

Can one of you guys post a comparison between PS and your preferred resizing tool? I have seen many claims but have always been happy with PS, it would be nice to see some real world differences, thanks. 

As for RIP's, I'd be very wary about suggesting them to people, even for large prints of single images. I'd go further and suggest that only a handful, if that, of users here would get any practical use or value out of a RIP.


----------



## btaoka (Mar 12, 2014)

Halfrack said:


> Generally speaking, start with the end product and work backwards. Work with a printer that has ICC profiles - check out http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/ for places that are already profiled. I print huge stuff and love it, but I work with a local shop and enjoy the items he prints compared to what i pull out of Costco even with their ICC.
> 
> If you want to play with ProPhoto RGB, check out Roger's post - http://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/08/fun-with-color-vision


Hi Halfrack,

Thanks for the info. I will take a look at those sites.


----------



## btaoka (Mar 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> cayenne said:
> 
> 
> > mackguyver said:
> ...



Hi mackguyver,

Thanks for all the info about this. It was really helpful. Now I just have to put it into practice.


----------



## btaoka (Mar 12, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > btaoka said:
> ...


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

mackguyver said:


> CarlTN said:
> 
> 
> > btaoka said:
> ...



I bought the whole OnOne package, and honestly I do like all of it. I guess a lot of the features are similar to other third party software (such as alien skin, etc.)...but it even has a dedicated portrait editing suite. I'm no expert there, but it seemed to work fine. The Effects suite though, is quite fun to use, and will open in LR. I don't use it a lot, but it did a superb job...even mind-blowing, especially on one of my prints that I had done on endura metallic paper.

How much better is CC than LR 5, overall?


----------



## CarlTN (Mar 13, 2014)

btaoka said:


> mackguyver said:
> 
> 
> > CarlTN said:
> ...



Hi there, and welcome to Canon Rumors Forum!

Perhaps you know of it by its older name, "genuine fractals". I wish they hadn't changed it, that was a far cooler name! I guess they'll change the name again to something like "nice size" or something even more lame, haha.


----------

