Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.




1648 posts

Uber Geek


# 259898 29-Oct-2019 11:56
Send private message quote this post

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.  


View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
 1 | 2
369 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 2346253 30-Oct-2019 11:33
Send private message quote this post

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.



1648 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2346340 30-Oct-2019 15:12
Send private message quote this post

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.  


 
 
 
 


Mad Scientist
21329 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2346359 30-Oct-2019 15:37
Send private message quote this post

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.





Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


15557 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 2346377 30-Oct-2019 17:01
One person supports this post
Send private message quote this post

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).




1648 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2346385 30-Oct-2019 17:34
Send private message quote this post

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

 

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

 

 


15557 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 2346411 30-Oct-2019 19:07
Send private message quote this post

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.


22894 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Subscriber

  # 2346435 30-Oct-2019 20:26
Send private message quote this post

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





Richard rich.ms

 
 
 
 


Mad Scientist
21329 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2346466 30-Oct-2019 21:37
Send private message quote this post

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





Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


198 posts

Master Geek


  # 2346637 31-Oct-2019 10:04
Send private message quote this post

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. 

 

 

 

 


Mad Scientist
21329 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2346641 31-Oct-2019 10:17
Send private message quote this post

Look like a cellphone shot with that depth of field




Involuntary autocorrect in operation on mobile device. Apologies in advance.


13735 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2346697 31-Oct-2019 10:56
Send private message quote this post

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.






369 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 2346699 31-Oct-2019 11:01
Send private message quote this post

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.

13735 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  # 2346701 31-Oct-2019 11:04
Send private message quote this post

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.

 

 








1648 posts

Uber Geek


  # 2346702 31-Oct-2019 11:06
Send private message quote this post

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 ... 

 

 

 

Click to see full size


369 posts

Ultimate Geek


  # 2346711 31-Oct-2019 11:20
Send private message quote this post

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
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic



Twitter and LinkedIn »



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

Netflix releases 21 Studio Ghibli works
Posted 22-Jan-2020 11:42


Vodafone integrates eSIM into device and wearable roadmap
Posted 17-Jan-2020 09:45


Do you need this camera app? Group investigates privacy implications
Posted 16-Jan-2020 03:30


JBL launches headphones range designed for gaming
Posted 13-Jan-2020 09:59


Withings introduces ScanWatch wearable combining ECG and sleep apnea detection
Posted 9-Jan-2020 18:34


NZ Police releases public app
Posted 8-Jan-2020 11:43


Suunto 7 combine sports and smart features on new smartwatch generation
Posted 7-Jan-2020 16:06


Intel brings innovation with technology spanning the cloud, network, edge and PC
Posted 7-Jan-2020 15:54


AMD announces high performance desktop and ultrathin laptop processors
Posted 7-Jan-2020 15:42


AMD unveils four new desktop and mobile GPUs including AMD Radeon RX 5600
Posted 7-Jan-2020 15:32


Consolidation in video streaming market with Spark selling Lightbox to Sky
Posted 19-Dec-2019 09:09


Intel introduces cryogenic control chip to enable quantum computers
Posted 10-Dec-2019 21:32


Vodafone 5G service live in four cities
Posted 10-Dec-2019 08:30


Samsung Galaxy Fold now available in New Zealand
Posted 6-Dec-2019 00:01


NZ company oDocs awarded US$ 100,000 Dubai World Expo grant
Posted 5-Dec-2019 16:00



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.


Support Geekzone »

Our community of supporters help make Geekzone possible. Click the button below to join them.

Support Geezone on PressPatron



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.