At how many megapixels should I render my image for a quality A1 print?

Question

I'm rendering an image for an exhibition (the image is composed of multiple digital images, so I have control over the detail of the final render), but I'm getting conflicting opinions on how many megapixels I should use for printing at A1 format (594 x 841mm. or 23.39 × 33.11 inches).

Some say that approx. 5 megapixels is enough (because you'll stand further away from a large print), others say that I'll need a massive amount of megapixels for that size (12+), to render the fine detail.

Is there anyone with experience in exhibiting prints of this size? What do you recommend, and what would be the amount of megapixels I need if I want the print to be able to have fine detail?

Asked by Samuel

Answer

[NOTE: The duplicate linked by Mattdm offers the formula, however I'm not sure that actually answers the question you have asked, so here is some additional thought process and explanation that will hopefully answer the question.]

When it comes down to print size, "How many megapixels?" is not really the right question, at least not initially. Print size is a matter of print resolution and image dimensions (as indicated in the other answer). Your dimensions are fixed, given that you need to print A1 size, so the remaining question is "What print resolution?".

Resolution can be a funky thing, and you will get a lot of different opinions on the subject. You can go a few ways: for the least common denominator, for the average denominator, or for the most common denominator. To put that another way, print at a high resolution to ensure viewers with high visual acuity see as much detail as possible, print at a "standard" resolution to ensure viewers with average visual acuity see an adequate amount of detail, or print with the lowest resolution that will get you a print without requiring a lot of effort to bring out fine detail for the highest acuity viewers. We can associate three primary print resolutions with these classifications of print qualities (Canon/Epson resolutions):

• High Acuity/Fine Detail: 300ppi/360ppi
• Average Acuity/Average Detail: 150ppi/180ppi
• Low Acuity/Lesser Detail: 50ppi/60ppi

An A1 print is fairly large, and people will often view it from a good distance. One could argue that a low resolution "is all that is needed" for larger viewing distances of say 5-6 feet (that might be pushing it...A1 is big, but not necessarily huge). That would meet "classical" assumptions about human visual acuity, however some of those assumptions have come under fire these days with the advent of new high-resolution display technology like Apple's Retina Display (which many people can clearly see the pixels on at the recommended viewing distance), furthered scientific discovery about the nature of vision and acuity in various lighting (proper illumination can improve acuity), and facts about the widely varying nature of visual acuity amongst broad populations, anywhere from 1/40th of a degree to 1/90th of a degree (a bit less to a bit more than one arc minute or 1/60th of a degree, the standard "average" for visual acuity). Lets assume, for the sake of these discussions, that you want "native" print resolution, and therefor the ability to print an image in full detail "strait out of camera".

If we start with the bare minimum, enough resolution to produce an acceptable print at an average "comfortable" viewing distance, you would need 50ppi (or 60ppi with an Epson printer). With 50ppi at 23.39"x33.11" your image size would need to be 1170x1656 pixels. That would be an image of about 2 megapixels, and viewable from a distance of 5' or more.

At a 150ppi resolution, for A1 print dimensions, your image size would need to be 3509x4967 pixels. That would be an image of about 17.5mp, and would be sufficient for viewing at 2' away. Its certainly not impossible to find an 18mp camera these days...Canon has thoroughly saturated the market with 18mp and 18.1mp cameras the last few years, and both Nikon and Sony have or are releasing 24mp entry-level cameras.

At 300ppi resolution, for A1 print dimensions, your image size would need to be 7017x9933 pixels. That would be an image of about 70mp, and would be sufficient for viewing at a mere foot away.

So, what resolution do you need? Depends on two things:

1. Do you feel satisfied with the detail when viewing it at a distance that is comfortable to you?
2. Do you think that your most common viewers will be satisfied with the detail at viewing distances comfortable to them?

The first is, really, the more important...as we tend to be harder on and more demanding of ourselves than other people are. If you are comfortable with the detail you get out of a 50ppi print when viewed at greater than 5 feet, then its more likely than not that your viewers will also be quite happy. If you feel your viewers might be more demanding than the average viewer (i.e. such as in a gallery or exhibition setting), or feel that 5 feet is too far, etc. then you might want to opt for a higher resolution. At 150ppi, the minimum viewing distance shrinks to about two feet. That is more than sufficient to accommodate even more demanding viewers with average acuity, even if they step in for a closer look (which might bring them within 2-3 feet.) An 18mp APS-C sized camera sensor captures a lot of fine detail, so at this print resolution for that size print, you'll effectively be printing at "native" camera size, and therefor extracting full detail.

Beyond 150ppi, your into the realm where the print will contain more detail than is necessary for an A1 print even when examined more closely by viewers with average visual acuity. If someone with high visual acuity were to step in for a closer look at say 2.5 feet, you would need closer to 200ppi. So that begs the question: Is 300ppi overkill? For an A1 print, Yes and Possibly. Yes in that a camera capable of a native 70mp is going to be extremely expensive, even to rent, and you would need to make sure the scene you are photographing actually has enough intrinsic fine detail to make it worth while. Macro photos are usually ideal candidates for as much resolution as you can get your hands on. Landscapes can also benefit from high resolution. A lot of other photography, including much portraiture (especially wide-aperture soft-focus portraiture), architectural photography (as architecture tends to have large details but not much fine detail) does not need, or cannot even provide, that much detail. Possibly, as it depends on how precise you want your detail to be. A 200ppi image will need to be scaled 3x (an odd number) to print on a 600ppi native printer (or if you are using an Epson, a 240ppi image will need to be scaled 3x for the printers native 720ppi.) Odd-level scaling can have the tendency to blur a very small bit of detail when using a good scaling algorithm, where as even-level scaling (2x, 4x) tends not to (or at least, not as visibly so.) And every printer (or print driver), regardless of what you send to it, will scale to the devices native resolution before actually printing. It will usually do that scaling with a very cheap, fast form of scaling that can introduce artifacts, funky aliasing and edge chopping, etc. It would be better to manually scale an 18mp image to the necessary dimensions for a 300ppi print than to simply print at 200ppi, if you want to preserve a camera's native 200ppi worth of detail.

Personally, I would say an 18mp image would print fine for a gallery or other kind of exhibition where your viewers might be more demanding. I would also say that a 12mp photo should contain enough of detail to be scaled up to 18mp size, and printed at 150ppi, and be good enough for most viewers. I would say that a 50ppi print is probably too low for exhibition quality, however its probably a moot point anyway as it is likely harder to find a 2mp camera these days than a 6/8/10/12mp camera. If you really want to get the best quality you can, you might want to use a camera with more than 18mp worth of resolution, such as a 21mp full-frame camera or a 24mp APS-C camera, and scale the image down to the native print size. That should improve the clarity and sharpness of detail for an A1 print at 150ppi.

Answered by jrista

Check more discussion of this question.

How to calibrate a printer and monitor if neither are very good

Question

If I have a mediocre monitor, and a reasonable but not fantastic printer, what are my options for getting a good photo print?

Printer ink is not cheap, and I usually do not have the patience or resources to print out several attempts with various adjustments to brightness, contrast etc. I find it particularly difficult to get the settings to a good enough compromise between seeing the detail in dark parts of the printed image versus blowing out the highlights.

Asked by Joel in Gö

Answer

Probably not the answer you want, but if you have a bad monitor, and a bad printer, you're probably going to get bad prints.

A color calibration system (hardware) would help, but that's an investment of money and if you aren't willing to do that for your monitor/printer I'm guessing you aren't willing to spend the money on a calibrator.

If you don't make a lot of prints, the best option might be to use a third-party printer... drugstore, online, etc. Good printers will allow you to download the printer profile for their equipment, and you can use that profile in your photo editor (Photoshop, etc) so that what you see matches what gets printed.

Answered by ahockley

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the pros and cons of lab prints versus using a printer?

Question

As newcomers to photography and printing we would like advice on the best way(s), regarding both quality and cost, of printing. In the main my wife is photographing birds and insects, so natural colour and clarity are paramount. I have had one recommendation to a previous question for a photo lab (Photobox), thanks James. I was just wondering if any one else can give me advise?

Asked by Dennis

Answer

Jrista's article is an excellent explanation of the cost of making these prints. It's actually quite a bit cheaper than I'd expected.

I'm just starting to make my own prints using my new Canon Pixma Pro9000 printer. I must say the results are stunningly beautiful and pop out of the printer with very little effort once I figured out how to load the paper.

Here are a couple of notes on cost that are worth noting.

First, if you are willing to settle for the Pro9000 instead of the Pro9500, it can be had very inexpensively if you check the "used" area of Amazon. Just look for the Pro9000 in Amazon and note the "new and used from $199" part of the page.

What you will find is that there is a whole secondary market in these machines thanks to the $400 rebate provided with the purchase of the printer with a new Canon DSLR. It turns out a lot of people want these rebates and then resell the printers once the rebates are collected. So even if you are a Nikon shooter like me, you can easily buy these printers for about $250 delivered. This makes the Pro9000, in my opinion, an unbeatable deal for anyone who has even a marginal desire to own a great photo printer.

A major benefit of printer ownership is that the marginal cost of making a print goes way down. Take Jrista's example of someone who buys the printer and uses it once a month. His first print, including the monthly amortization of the printer cost, costs $10 (if we count the printer as costing $250 instead of $700+ as in his example). But any subsequent print he wants to make costs only about $6 ($3 for paper and $2.80 for ink). A print from a lab will cost about $13, so he is actually paying much less than what a lab would cost, as long as he makes at least one print a month.

A reasonable scenerio in my case might be to give prints as Christmas gifts to ten of my friends, and then printing one print a month for the rest of the year. This would mean I would make about 22 prints in a year. If I amortize my printer over three years, that's $83 a year, plus $127 for making the 22 prints. So it costs me a bit over $200 a year, or less than $10 per print. This is considerably cheaper than a photo lab, and my prints come out of the printer instantly, which is partiuclarly useful during the Christmas season when photo labs are bound to be very busy and thus slow.

One really interesting consequence of purchasing your printer is that you should really act as though the printer didn't cost anything at all when making your calculations. Why? Because you should encourage yourself to make prints whenever you have even the slightest desire for them.

The reason for this is that if you leave your printer idle for long periods, you are risking ink clogging, which uses a lot of ink to resolve. You would be better off using this ink to make prints! Unless you are printing photos for a living, it's highly unlikely that you can overload your printer's duty cycle.

So don't say your print cost $10 including the cost of the printer. Say it costs under $6, and make as many prints as you would want to have at that price.

Incidentally, I found Canon's Photo Paper Platinum at $12.99 per 10 sheets, including shipping. So my paper costs about $1.30 and my ink (presumably from his example) around $2.80. So my 13x19 print costs only about $4.10. Your mileage may vary, as always, but look around for deals and you may find photo printing considerably cheaper than you might think.

Answered by n/a

Check more discussion of this question.

What are the downsides to framing without glass over the print?

Question

I hate seeing the reflections of bright lights on my framed prints. (Actually, anybody's prints!) I'm about to frame this season's work for the gallery and I'm considering leaving off the glass. I can hold a matted print in my hand and say wow, but once I put the glass on it, I also see the reflections of the room lights or windows.

It is obvious that the glass protects the print, but from what? I have oil paintings (but not watercolors) hanging in my house that are not covered with glass. Is a photo more fragile than a painting?

I don't print giclee, so I'm not worried about ink running. Shoot, I don't even know if that is a problem with giclee.

One obvious solution is to use the special anti-reflective glass, like Tru-Vue, but that will increase the cost of my prints in an already down economy.

What issues am I facing? What other solutions are available?

Asked by Paul Cezanne

Answer

Oil paintings (and acrylics on canvas) are normally varnished for protection, and require periodic cleaning. (Traditionally, oils were varnished with Damar varnish, but over the past few decades a non-yellowing synthetic such as Liquitex Soluvar has become the standard; such varnishes can be removed with solvents that have little or no effect on the underlying painting. Synthetics are also available in matte formulations that don't have the problems of matte natural varnishes—they get their matte effect from waxes.) The cleaning process itself usually involves water in one way or another, which can be a problem for any water-soluble inks, dyes or grounds (such as, say, gelatine in a traditional photo emulsion).

Room air isn't just a collection of gasses; there are normally any number of aerosols (liquids and particles) suspended in it. If the picture is hung in a house, it's hung in a place where minute traces of every cooked meal are wandering around the place looking for a nice spot for a nap. There's vehicle exhaust, etc., wandering in off of the street. Dust abounds. Anything you've sprayed to clean or polish something else (including yourself) has overspray. There might not be anything that's visible or even particularly appreciable at any given moment, but over the years it all adds up. Eventually, your pictures will be covered in a film of schmutz that detracts from their appearance. So, by the way, will the matte.

Then there's the whole moisture moderation thing to consider. When pictures are framed properly, they form a package that significantly damps out fluctuations in the humidity of the surrounding air. Expansion and contraction (in absolute terms) depend, of course, on the size of the picture—a 20x30 inch picture on a natural paper ground will be a couple of millimeters larger overall at 90% humidity than it will be at, say 40%, while a 4x6 won't seem to change much at all. But the front of the picture is open to the environment without glass, while the back is protected by the mounting board. Even a small unglazed watercolor will begin to wrinkle visibly if it's not in a humidity-controlled environment. Depending on the ground (some papers are coated on both sides with a synthetic material that acts as a moisture barrier) you might see the same thing happening with your prints.

You can try alternatives, like varnishing or lamination, both of which can be had in less-glossy formulations (although I have to warn you that lamination tends to decrease the perceived "art value" among patrons). Neither, though, is a conservationally sound practice since they are irreversible. Whether or not that matters depends on the expectations of your patrons; are they buying pretty pictures with a limited decoration life, or are they buying heirloom works of art?

To sum up: there are good reason for framing works of art on paper behind glass. There are alternatives, but those alternatives also have their drawbacks. Your market; you decide.

Answered by Stan Rogers

Check more discussion of this question.

Why do my prints look different from what I see on my computer monitor?

Question

I haven't printed any of my photos yet but I decided to give it a try. I am thinking of getting a printer of my own but before that I wanted to see how they would look. So, I simply printed one at the office in the regular laser printer.

To my surprise the printed picture looked very different from what I see in the computer monitor. Can anyone tell me how can the colors look so different? Basically, they have lost their saturation and in some cases the yellows are orange etc. Also, do I need to look for anything in particular in a printer that I am planning to buy? Are printers for photographs different from regular printers?

Asked by sfactor

Answer

Color laser printers, especially the big high end office printers, have the color capabilities you need for printing the company logo and the occasional Excel pie chart — but they are truly bad for printing photos.

But the good news is that almost any of the current generation of ink jet printers, even the cheap ones, are pretty good at printing photos - but only if you print in the printer's high quality setting on photo paper, if you use the cheap office paper you will get the same desaturated colors you got at the office.

Now, the colors in print will never be the same as on screen, especially the brightness (because the screen is a light source and he paper isn't) but you can get good results results, here are the options depending on how accurate you want the colors to be:

1. Just print in high quality on photo paper

If you like the way colors look an screen right out of camera and you never calibrated your screen than it's likely you won't notice the problem from uncalibrated printer (but it will never be the same as on screen).

This should be good enough for most people and will probably match the results you get when you get the photos printed in cheap labs.

2. Calibrate your monitor

If you're serious about getting the right colors you first need to make sure what you see on screen is really what's in the file, this will probably get you predictable results (that is, the difference between screen and printer will be predictable and you can learn to compensate).

There are several systems that will let you calibrate monitors, some are not very expensive.

This should be enough for most serious hobbyists and pros

3. Use name brand paper that has profiles available

The next step is to use good paper and get printer profiles for that paper you are using.

4. Calibrate your printer

The next step is to get a device that can calibrate both your screen and your specific printer with the specific printer you are using.

Those are definitely not cheap and this should be good enough for everyone.

5. Know when to stop

This rabbit hole goes very deep, if you want truly accurate color you might find yourself in a black shirt (to avoid reflection) in a room with gray walls and special balanced lights (to avoid color casts) manually adjusting color space conversions.

Answered by Nir

Check more discussion of this question.

Is it better to scan negatives or prints?

Question

I've been wondering this for awhile now. Is it better to scan a 35mm negative, or a larger print from the negative? Which will provide a better scan? Does this change when moving to a larger film, like 120 or 4x5?

Asked by Matt Giesbrecht

Answer

It is much better to scan the original slide/negative as it is always better to reproduce the image from the source, not one representation of the negative (the printed photo).

Every stage of recording introduces a level of interpretation by the process and the destination medium, which removes choice.

This is similar to digital photography, where the best source is the raw file, not a camera-developed JPEG.

Answered by Shizam

Check more discussion of this question.

Should I sign, watermark or otherwise label a framed print? And if so how?

Question

I have an opportunity to show some of my work in a small local coffee shop. Are there any guidelines/practices to signing, labeling or watermarking a photo which is to be on display? Or should a photo be signed, labelled or marked at all? Is signing the back of the photo and showing my name on a separate card below the frame itself the "better" way to do this?

I noticed many people on the web put a very noticeable watermark with their logo, copyright and name right on the photo. Personally, I find this distracting as it often ruins the photograph itself often turning what could be art to kitsch. Painters most often sign the painting itself but this to me is not distracting because it is done with the painter's own hand and it often "works" with the painting.

Asked by Jakub

Answer

I would have thought that having a business card or similar discretely displayed below the print is a classy way to go about it.

Answered by AJ Finch

Check more discussion of this question.

How to calculate viewing distance for a print size?

Question

I'm working on a photomontage (35mm landscape). The client is asking for what size they should print it at and what is the viewing distance.

I'm planning to print the final image on either A1 or A2 sized paper.

I have read numerous guides on how to work out the viewing distance. But none of them make much sense. The advice note from the Landscape Institute suggests it is not guess work by I'm more confused by it.

The Diagonal x 1.5 rule seems to produce a large viewing distance. I thought a value of around 400mm for an A1 print would be more suitable, but looking for a way calculate it rather than guessing it. Any help is appreciated.

Answer

The viewing distance of an image is based on two factors; first is the diagonal image size and second are the pixels per inch required at that distance to give a sharp image.

Firstly the rough rule of thumb is that the viewing distance should be 1.5 to 2 times the diagonal length. This will give you an optimal viewing distance for the overall printed size based on the human eye's ideal viewing angle. You have to understand, however, that for a landscape this may not be optimal as you may actually want the viewer to pan around the image, and you may want the size of features within the image to be the basis of this calculation. This is an artistic decision though, based on the composition of your image.

Secondly for the image to look good at the distance you choose, there need to be sufficient pixels per inch (ppi) to fool the eye into seeing a smooth image that isn't pixelated. The minimum ppi needed for a print with acceptable quality is calculated by dividing the value 3438 by the viewing distance. Anything above this ppi will look good at the distance chosen.

So: minimum ppi = 3438/Viewing Distance

where 3438, a constant for human vision, was derived as follows:

1/ppi = 2 x Viewing Distance x tan(0.000290888/2)

1/ppi = Viewing Distance x tan(0.000290888)

ppi = 3438/Viewing Distance

where 0.000290888 radians (1 arc minute) is known as the 'visual acuity angle' and represents how much resolution a human can see.

Check more discussion of this question.

How durable are photographic canvas prints to moisture and humidity?

Question

I want to put photographic canvas prints on stretcher frames in my bathroom, how bad of an idea is this? Obviously it depends on how wet my bathroom is, but I would call it fairly typical, and it does have a fan that pulls air out and two doors. The canvas prints are typical of what you could get from mpix, prodpi, whcc, or canvas on demand.

My main question is around bonded canvas prints and durability.

Answer

Most canvas prints use inks similar to (or actually are) big name inkjet inks like Epson and Canon. Such inks are susceptible to moisture and gaseous toxins and the like. Its kind of tough to generalize the print so much...all of the print houses you've listed use different kinds of canvas and different kinds of inks, and none of them really clearly specify what those inks are or how long they will last (a couple seem to indicate 100+ years, but don't specify under what conditions you might get such a lifetime.)

While you may not notice any change in the short term (i.e. a few years), hanging any canvas print that is printed with anything outside of modern Giclee inks (which are incredibly durable and excellent for canvas) will most likely not have a particularly long lifetime...I would say at most a couple decades, and after a number of years you'll likely start to see some fading or color shift. Only under archival conditions, wherein humidity and air quality and light are all controlled within a specific range, can you hope to achieve 100-200 year longevity.

You might also want to consider a clear protective spray. There are a variety of them available, and I am not sure if some are better suited to canvas prints or not. Usually you just need to evenly spray on a coat of this stuff once a print has fully cured (usually a full day, so if you send it off to a lab it should be cured by the time it gets to you). The spray should give your canvas prints much greater durability in a bathroom environment. It should protect from direct water exposure (splashing from sink or shower), and help protect a bit longer from fading.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the largest possible print size with 35mm film?

Question

What is the largest possible size I can enlarge to with 35mm film?

Answer

There's an interesting and thorough paper explaining film resolution, granularity and print grain: http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

There is no clear answer to your question as it depends on multiple factors, namely:

• Film's ability to record fine detail or resolution, which in turn consists of:
  • resolving power (function of particle density in the emulsion)
  • granularity (function of particle clumping in the emulsion)
  • sharpness (perceived edge distinction)

The resolution depends on:

• camera quality (lens mount and film plane alignment, etc)
• lens quality (resolution and amount of aberrations)
• film type (different films of same speed have different resolution)
• film speed (granularity increases with speed)
• exposure (overexposure leads to more granularity)
• film processing (handling, developer, conditions, etc)
• film age and archival conditions

One can say that this is all unimportant, unless I suddenly want to make prints from, say, ORWO film shot by my grandfather in the seventies with Smena.

Also different methods of judging resolution lead to different results, magnification under loupe or microscope is different from enlargements which in turn is different from scanning and printing.

Finally, the viewing distance plays very important role in how big you can print. Kodak has published print grain indexes for their Portra line (page 7). It says that the grain of 35mm Portra 160 film is visible already in 4x6'' (10x15cm) prints, but without visual comparison or experience this does not mean a lot.

So the suggestion would be - test yourself, whatever numbers you get from here might not fulfill your expectations in the final print.

Check more discussion of this question.

What is the largest possible size I can enlarge to with 35mm film?

Question

What is the largest possible size I can enlarge to with 35mm film?

Answer

There's an interesting and thorough paper explaining film resolution, granularity and print grain: http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/emg/library/pdf/vitale/2007-04-vitale-filmgrain_resolution.pdf

There is no clear answer to your question as it depends on multiple factors, namely:

• Film's ability to record fine detail or resolution, which in turn consists of:
  • resolving power (function of particle density in the emulsion)
  • granularity (function of particle clumping in the emulsion)
  • sharpness (perceived edge distinction)

The resolution depends on:

• camera quality (lens mount and film plane alignment, etc)
• lens quality (resolution and amount of aberrations)
• film type (different films of same speed have different resolution)
• film speed (granularity increases with speed)
• exposure (overexposure leads to more granularity)
• film processing (handling, developer, conditions, etc)
• film age and archival conditions

One can say that this is all unimportant, unless I suddenly want to make prints from, say, ORWO film shot by my grandfather in the seventies with Smena.

Also different methods of judging resolution lead to different results, magnification under loupe or microscope is different from enlargements which in turn is different from scanning and printing.

Finally, the viewing distance plays very important role in how big you can print. Kodak has published print grain indexes for their Portra line (page 7). It says that the grain of 35mm Portra 160 film is visible already in 4x6'' (10x15cm) prints, but without visual comparison or experience this does not mean a lot.

So the suggestion would be - test yourself, whatever numbers you get from here might not fulfill your expectations in the final print.

Check more discussion of this question.

What kind of containers are effective for ~20 year storage?

Question

Occasionally, I print large photos (20x30). What kind of container should I use if I want them to last approximately 20 years?

Note: Assume I am not concerned about fire.

Answer

Archival cardboard storage boxes ought to do the trick. They may be difficult to find in your size at a photo store (even B&H only has them up to 20x24-1/2"), but you should be able to get them at any large artists' materials shop (perhaps as a special order) or online through a museum supplier. If worse comes to worst, you can construct the boxes from thick (at least 4-ply) archival mounting board and metal box corners.

You'll also need archival low-abrasion separation sheets (like glassene, but acid-free) between the prints. A double layer of separators -- a slick sheet on the print surface, and a more absorbant, thicker paper between the slick sheet and the back of the next print -- would be better.

The cardboard and the thicker separation sheets will moderate humidity. The box will keep out the light. Using archival materials means you won't have to worry about acid damage from the container or any outgassing that may negatively affect the paper, coatings or pigments. That about covers the requirements -- and your prints should last significantly longer than twenty years under those conditions.

Both plastic and metal containers can be problematic. Some plastics are safe, but it's hard to find safe containers in the size you need, and next to impossible to build 'em if you can't buy 'em. Metals can corrode silently. They may be useful as outer containers for protection from physical damage, but you should still be using cardboard inner containers to prevent direct contact with the metal.

Check more discussion of this question.

What do you recommend for a high quality photo book service?

Question

I'm looking for a reliable photo book printing service that allows the option of uploading a high quality PDF or Indesign file, but also prints using high quality photo prints.

I've used Blurb, but their print quality, even on the higher quality paper, is on par with a high quality magazine print. While I'm not disappointed with the quality for the prices I've paid, I'm wanting to use a higher quality printer for my next project.

Has anyone found a service that does actual photo quality prints for their books, and still allows for completely custom books without using their custom software? The other requirement is that they allow for small print runs. I'm only wanting to have one or two books printed.

Answer

You bet... two labs that I've specifically used for making custom photo books are:

• Bay Photo
• White House Custom Color

They both have product lines that include a variety of different configurations (book size, # of pages, paper choice, cover options and materials, etc.), quantity of books ordered (1 or 2 is a common request), and will use 4-color or 6-color offset printing, so it will be much higher quality than Blurb, Cafepress, etc.

If you want the absolute best-of-the-best quality, and money is no object, the other option I can think of is to look into wedding album manufacturers such as:

• Asuka Book
• Leather Craftsman
• La Vie

They may be 'wedding album companies,' but there's nothing saying you're only 'allowed' to create wedding albums... But you'll want to be prepared for sticker shock. The costs are way higher than you'll pay through something like Blurb... On the other hand, the quality and customization are also top-notch, and the final product is going to have a 'look and feel' that Blurb simply will not be able to match. Additionally, these companies cater to businesses, not individuals, so you may have to jump through some additional hoops in order to use them.

Full Disclosure: I am a customer of all the companies mentioned above in my photography business, so I can personally attest to their top-notch quality... I don't get anything for mentioning them here, though, and there are other album manufacturers out there... These are just the ones I happen to be familiar with.

Check more discussion of this question.

Where can I buy actual poster prints in the UK (as opposed to poster-sized photographs)?

Question

Does anyone know of a print shop in the UK where I can have proper paper posters made from my photos? Note I'm talking specifically about posters made from paper (exactly like the ones you'd buy rolled up at HMV) and not poster-sized prints on photographic paper. Plenty of outlets claim to sell "posters" but they always seem to be the latter.

Update: I'm offering a bounty on this question to see if we can find any other good suppliers. Results from Staples were OK but not great. Can anyone suggest a better poster printer in the UK?

Answer

Staples are all over the place and print poster sized photos really quite cheaply, and usually while you wait. They use colour laser printers up to A3 and inkjet plotters up to A1. They usually offer a choice of paper as well - the standard is something like 100-130gsm matt paper.

Check more discussion of this question.

How to photograph artwork for giclée prints

Question

I'd like to photograph some paintings so that the photos can be used to make giclée prints. Any tips to getting the truest color? I heard that with regular film, a long exposure gives you the truest color. However, I think I read somewhere (can't remember where) that in digital, long exposures actually can give you less-than-true color. Anything else I should keep in mind?

Also — these paintings are NOT behind glass. They are currently unframed. Most of what I've seen on the web has been advice for paintings that are behind glass. Thanks in advance!

Answer

To photograph artwork, you'll need as flat and uniform a lighting setup as possible. Ideally, four lights from each corner to minimize any variation. You should use an incident meter to verify that the the light varies by no more than 1/4 stop across the artwork.

You don't need to use softboxes - bare bulbs are sufficient, if placed far enough away to minimize falloff. Minor differences due to age and color of softboxes can result in varying color temperature across your scene. This is less likely with bare bulbs. Make sure that the flash tubes are not too different - you can test this by shooting images of a grey card illuminated with each light, in turn. You should have a white balance temperature variation no greater than 150-200K, 100K if you're lucky.

Once you have the lighting set up, use a Gretag Macbeth color checker to obtain a reference color image, which you can use to profile your camera for the specific lighting setup.

Export images to 16-bit TIFF and Adobe 1998 color space - this should be more than enough for clients.

Check more discussion of this question.

How can I preserve/protect existing framed prints from fading?

Question

I have some prints that were printed and framed professionally, and now they are situated in a relatively bright room, and I am concerned that they will fade in the light.

I have heard that there exists UV protection in the form of 'spray on glass', but searches online seem to only come up with research products that have not made it to market yet.

Ideally I am looking for something that I can apply to the frame that is invisible rather than on the prints themselves — some kind of plastic coating or spray-on thing.

Answer

The best and most common form of protection from fading would be the selection of UV glass or acrylic. Any framing store will have these options available at multiple price points with trade offs such as glare or less glare, scratch resistant or scratch prone, and tint(green) or no tint.

Specifically you are asking for a form of UV protection that is spray on, and this type of protection does exist, I would try Krylon UV Resistant Clear Coating Spray.

This product is made for use on artwork that is either outside or near windows. They offer the product in gloss and matte finish as well. Krylon is a very well respected brand, and I believe this will be the easiest and cheapest solution to the problem, albeit not necessarily the best.

Another spray on option would be Premier Imaging Products Print Shield. It is a lacquer based protective spray that is designed for inkjet prints. It also works on photo papers and canvas materials. They specify up to a 2x lightfastness increase, elimination of gloss differential, non yellowing formula, and a reduction in scuffing. The results have been tested by an independent lab (Wilhelm Research) to last up to 166 years with certain Epson papers and regular glass, and over 200 years with UV filtering glass.

As with any products like this I would suggest testing them out on a test print before you go and use them on your framed and mounted originals.

Above I have given you a few different options, to sum them up I will list the following options-

• UV Filtering Glass
• UV Filtering Acrylic
• Krylon UV Resistant Clear Coating Spray
• Premier Imaging Products Print Shield
• Picture Shields inserts (not described here, but link here)

To get down to the root of your issue, it sounds like you want to try to add UV protection without disassembling your professional framed and matted prints. Many professionally framed prints will be finished in the back, such that you have to open them up to do any type of glass exchange or sprays. I would not attempt to spray the exterior glass without first removing the glass. It just does not sound like a good idea to me, and you will probably end up with lines from the tape, or worse - over spray on the frame.

Furthermore, application of a spray type UV protection can be quite difficult to do in a uniform and smooth fashion. You may consider having the images professionally reproduced(scanned) prior to the application in case you are not satisfied after some time. You also might just be better off with the addition of UV filtering glass, keeping the image unaltered.

Beyond the scope of just using UV filtering vehicles, you will want to understand how prints get UV light, and other ways that prints are damaged over time.

UV light rays occur not only in natural light from the sun, but also in smaller quantities from indoor lighting sources. Florescent lighting is especially prone to outputting harmful UV rays, so if possible limit this type of lighting near the photos you are displaying. You will want to keep frames away from heat sources like fireplaces or central heating vents, because this type of added heat can cause premature aging of the photos as well.

It is important to note that UV protection will not eliminate fading, it will only limit the amount of harmful UV rays that will contact the photo. Other factors can contribute to fading, such as pollution, humidity, heat, and the paper that was chosen for the print and surrounding matting.

Another benefit to choosing UV filtering glass is that many reflections are often removed by this process, providing a better viewing experience.

Overall, I think you have quite a few options at your disposal. Realistically, in today's digital world, if you created the images, hold on to your RAW and/or high quality JPEG files and you can reprint if needed. If you didn't create the images or you do not have the originals, you have many options that are tested and work very well. Light is the print's enemy, so you could consider moving the prints to a darker room, getting better blinds or drapes, or even rotating them out seasonally to the closet.

For very detailed information you might find the ISO specification ISO 18902 useful.

A source I found, that reads mostly like an advertisement for a product, but seems to have useful information anyways: Here

I also found an interesting first hand account with some of the products listed above here.

Check more discussion of this question.

Why is 1:1 desirable for a macro lens?

Question

Why is 1:1 desirable for a macro lens? I know it means that you can print a picture of something and it will be the same size on paper as it is in real life, but why is this such a desirable feature over, say, a lens that magnifies even more?

Answer

You're close on what 1:1 means but slightly off. A 1:1 macro lens means that the size of the subject is projected onto the sensor (or film) at the exact same size it is in real life. You can blow up the print as large as you like :)

The ability to go to 1:1 is just a metric and there are a lot of compromises that come with being able to enlarge a subject to 1:1 the most obvious one being focusing speed since there is a larger range (distance) over which the lens can focus. There are lenses that go even closer, the MP-E 65 goes from 1:1 to 5:1 magnification, its a manual focus only lens though :)

Check more discussion of this question.