Prints with a digital camera too smooth?

Forums › Digital Imaging › Prints with a digital camera too smooth?

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#259898 29-Oct-2019 11:56

Knowing that there are some that are or used to be professional photographers here... Is this just something to get used to or is it something else?

We have a group exhibition thing at a local place. Most of the prints were made on a lab's minilab machine so a matte paper or something similar to like a luster inkjet paper. Could it be how the lab's printer is set up? Could it also be that they were framed up with a glass in front so it made it harder to see the small details?

The smoothness I don't mind it if it was online viewed with a phone or a computer screen or if it was on a glossy magazine. Something hung on the wall a bit of texture gives it some character for me. I quite like someone's b/w film image that was wet printed in their home darkroom.

I have a Epson A3 printer but I didn't use it this case. I print from a RAW file, the lab printed from a 5MB JPEG file. When I print myself I also don't use any noise reduction b/c digital cameras are already very good in that department.

Any thoughts?

Cheers.

1 | 2

623 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2346253 30-Oct-2019 11:33

Did you process the raw file to produce the jpeg they used? Are you not seeing details that you notice when viewing the jpeg at a similar scale (bearing in mind differing dpi of whatever device you're using to view)? Luminance noise tends to not be as noticeable in print vs a screen. What are the pixel dimensions of the file and the output size when printed? A 5MB file from a modern camera if full resolution sounds like quite a compressible image without much fine detail.

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#2346340 30-Oct-2019 15:12

rhy7s: Did you process the raw file to produce the jpeg they used? Are you not seeing details that you notice when viewing the jpeg at a similar scale (bearing in mind differing dpi of whatever device you're using to view)? Luminance noise tends to not be as noticeable in print vs a screen. What are the pixel dimensions of the file and the output size when printed? A 5MB file from a modern camera if full resolution sounds like quite a compressible image without much fine detail.

Many people emailed across a 5-7MB JPEG, for myself that was a file exported around 24MP a largely uncropped image saved to JPEG with Adobe Lightroom probably around 60-70% JPEG quality setting. Mine was 9MB. Other people varied from a 24MP to probably about a 7MP file, likely cropped but yes a 6000x4000 pixel JPEG file from people had a filesize of 6MB. When I edit a digital camera file I try not to do too many post processing, just move some sliders in Lightroom, I also mainly shoot at base ISO to maintain that IQ. So I didn't deliberately add grain to get that texture back. I just accepted digital for what is largely is.

I don't mind this clean look with digital if it is held up close to my face without a glass frame but on a wall with a frame I seem to prefer more grain. Is it this clean look just about getting use to it but also a lot of users don't really print nowadays anyway ... I still shoot film occasionally for the enjoyment.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2346359 30-Oct-2019 15:37

rayonline:

Knowing that there are some that are or used to be professional photographers here... Is this just something to get used to or is it something else?

We have a group exhibition thing at a local place. Most of the prints were made on a lab's minilab machine so a matte paper or something similar to like a luster inkjet paper. Could it be how the lab's printer is set up? Could it also be that they were framed up with a glass in front so it made it harder to see the small details?

The smoothness I don't mind it if it was online viewed with a phone or a computer screen or if it was on a glossy magazine. Something hung on the wall a bit of texture gives it some character for me. I quite like someone's b/w film image that was wet printed in their home darkroom.

I have a Epson A3 printer but I didn't use it this case. I print from a RAW file, the lab printed from a 5MB JPEG file. When I print myself I also don't use any noise reduction b/c digital cameras are already very good in that department.

Any thoughts?

Cheers.

Lol likely too much compression.

Also using a good quality image one can also add grain, but that usually is not needed unless one is trying to achieve some kind of effect. Sounds like the image is over processed or highly compressed.

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2346377 30-Oct-2019 17:01

Show us an original full res photo if you'd like an opinion. If you don't want to share a whole image share a 100% crop (zoom to 100% in photoshop, crop, ensure no pixels are resampled).

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#2346385 30-Oct-2019 17:34

This is a 6000x4000 pixel JPEG image ~9MB.

https://www.dropbox.com/s/uqmnw4ccjkn3u96/image1.jpg?dl=0

timmmay

20579 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2346411 30-Oct-2019 19:07

That looks like a normal digital image to me. If you're used to film, which is very grainy with less detail, it might look smooth to you.

If the print looks much smoother than the image, then maybe the operator didn't do a good job with the print. Printer resolution is limited. Hard to see without seeing the print.

richms

28172 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2346435 30-Oct-2019 20:26

That just looks like a slightly overcompressed jpeg to me, otherwise excelent.

Richard rich.ms

Samsung

Shop now on Samsung phones, tablets, TVs and more (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2346466 30-Oct-2019 21:37

i think the image is a bit flat ie the depth of field is infinite and there isn't a subject that it's trying to show and it's also too sharp

but the texture you are describing isn't due to that

try adding some grain and texture to it

nitro

657 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2346637 31-Oct-2019 10:04

Having actually seen that subject, I get what you mean by too smooth.

I think, the issue here is that the image has already been through processing. Some cameras offer some options with varying results - picture styles in Nikon lingo. And that's before any further compression may or may not have been applied.

Also, do you know what those photos were taken with? Photos taken with small sensors (most smartphones) won't capture as much detail in the first place.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29762 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2346641 31-Oct-2019 10:17

Look like a cellphone shot with that depth of field

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2346697 31-Oct-2019 10:56

Batman: Look like a cellphone shot with that depth of field

Why? It's easy enough to get that at f16 - f22 on a DSLR, especially with a relatively wide focal length.

rhy7s

623 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2346699 31-Oct-2019 11:01

At f8 on a 24mm you'll still be getting heaps of DoF as in the OP's image. And a D600 with plenty of light around the middle of the day at ISO 100 is going to be pretty clean as well. The city speckle, even though pretty random will compress better than foliage and such.

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#2346701 31-Oct-2019 11:04

There are several possibilities.

1) Did the image start as RAW and get processed (eg in Lightroom) before being turned into a JPEG, or was the JPEG out of the camera? I have yet to see an OOC jpeg I liked and would rather manufacturers actually made cameras RAW only myself, freeing up space to hone other camera features and abilities in the firmware

2) How good was the print compared to the image? We can't see both to compare, but I guess you can. You need to determine if the print is the problem - try printing it on a paper with more texture

3) The camera settings may be adding to it, as may the quality or otherwise of the lens on the front etc etc

4) Photo printing is a bit of a dark art, with RAPs and all sorts to take into account as well as the actual device and file prep. I do not own a photo printer, I outsource that to specialists if I need it done. Maybe you can review the printing process.

I'd reprocess the RAW (if there is one) for more punch and contrast then reduce sharpening then ask someone else to print it using a different machine and paper. See what you get and whether you like it better.

rayonline

1734 posts

Uber Geek

#2346702 31-Oct-2019 11:06

nitro:

Also, do you know what those photos were taken with? Photos taken with small sensors (most smartphones) won't capture as much detail in the first place.

My image haha. Nikon D600 with a 18-35g lens ISO 100, F8, 1/250. 24mm.

Geektastic:

There are several possibilities.

1) Did the image start as RAW and get processed (eg in Lightroom) before being turned into a JPEG, or was the JPEG out of the camera? I have yet to see an OOC jpeg I liked and would rather manufacturers actually made cameras RAW only myself, freeing up space to hone other camera features and abilities in the firmware

2) How good was the print compared to the image? We can't see both to compare, but I guess you can. You need to determine if the print is the problem - try printing it on a paper with more texture

3) The camera settings may be adding to it, as may the quality or otherwise of the lens on the front etc etc

4) Photo printing is a bit of a dark art, with RAPs and all sorts to take into account as well as the actual device and file prep. I do not own a photo printer, I outsource that to specialists if I need it done. Maybe you can review the printing process.

I'd reprocess the RAW (if there is one) for more punch and contrast then reduce sharpening then ask someone else to print it using a different machine and paper. See what you get and whether you like it better.

1. RAW capture, I use Lightroom exported to JPEG with 85% quality setting.

2. Similar I guess. I didn't do excessive post processing since this is digital rather than mould the file.

3. Settings above.

4. WPS printing just on the mini lab's luster / matte paper.

Maybe it is just the way digital is unless one goes away and do more post processing. I didn't do this after all it is digital and I guess if I wanted more that texture I could just shoot film. Not just my image alone, it is a kinda look with the other photos as well, maybe it is just the digital photo look? I don't mind if it is in a magazine or a print held close to me but when it is framed up to me it is more a fine art kinda thing and the grain gives it bit more something ...

rhy7s

623 posts

Ultimate Geek

#2346711 31-Oct-2019 11:20

Full frame 35mm digital is more like medium format film which produced pretty clean results. Extreme enlargements from 35mm film would exaggerate details from the substrate. You might want to look at something like Alien Skin to get similar grain effects.

1 | 2