Any tips for best settings to print final images

[tomato]

Are there any  optimum settings to get best results when printing out processed images?

I have what I think is an OK image on the screen of M101 post processing but when printing out the file it always looks much darker on paper with none of the fainter detail visible.

In the interest of  not to wasting loads of ink and paper I wonder are there some basic settings that should always be used when printing out astro images or is it just a case of try it and see?

Will I only see the detail if using the highest quality photo paper? Do I need to create a lighter image specifically for printing? I am trying to print from Photoshop CS2 using a Canon MG5550 printer.

Any pointers most gratefully received.

 

Steve

[Davey-T]

Difficult to get screen and printed images to look the same as they're two different systems , additive and subtractive.

Even mag's like S@N have trouble as some reproduced images are hardly visible.

Dave

[Tinker1947]

I have used On-line printers in the passed, send them the file and get a reasonable print back, certanly a lot cheaper than running A4 quality prints off a home printer, a set of cartridges for mine runs at £60 and i doubt they would do 10 X A4

[Knight of Clear Skies]

I've experimented a bit with prints of my images, as you say dark areas tend to go missing, I suspect most printers can't handle the same range of brightness as a VDU. I also find bright areas tend to lose detail too. Might be worth adjusting the histogram to bring up the darker areas before printing, or do a few test prints with different adjustments applied to see what does and doesn't come through.

[rubecula]

Have you calibrated your PC/Mac with your printer?  If not you'll be very lucky if you can get screen and printed images looking the same.  There are a number of products you can get to do this such as:

http://spyder.datacolor.com/

You could Google for others.

[tomato]

Many thanks for the posts, looks like it's not as straightforward as I first thought.

Robin, I will try your suggestion of calibrating the printer with the PC, maybe my expectations for the quality of hard copy that can be obtained are a bit on the high side , given my low end printer.

 

Steve

[ollypenrice]

Your observations about the effects of printing agree with my own. When preparing an image for the printer or submitting to magazines I do a modification with curves in Photoshop. My screen background sky value of preference is 23/23/23 in RGB. For the printer I go into curves, lift the bottom of the curve somewhat ('somewhat ' being a judgement call!) and then bring the curve back to a straight line. On screen this will take us beyond the noise floor but the printer will eat that noise. Here's an example of how I'd treat a screen image before trying to print it:

Once in print this will probably have a decent background sky value and the Hamburger Galaxy tidal tail will still be visible. Submitted withut the curve modification there's a risk of saying, 'Here's the tidal tail' and the readers saying, 'Where???'

When having high quality prints done, as Tom does for sale to the public, you have to be there at the printer making small test runs and refining the settings as you go. He won't do a 400 euro print without having a good idea of how it's going to look!

Olly

 

[MrsGnomus]

We use the "Spyder 2" to calibrate our main monitor to the printer which works really well for straightforward landscape photography but we have found that we need to tinker with the settings in PS for printed AP images along the lines that Olly suggests.  There is a bit of trial and error involved so we print out our "test" images on 6x4 photo paper first before printing the final image off at A3+ (on the same type of photo paper).  This uses much less ink, the small sheets are not too expensive and printing the small test pictures is quite quick.

gnomus suggests that an alternative would be to make up a composite image in PS with the multiple renditions of same area of the final image with different settings all appearing on one picture as small " thumbnails" then print that off in A4 size, decide which of the different comparator images you like best and then print the full version of that one - hope this last bit makes sense!

[gnomus]

Also be aware if you use PS that you can get a 'guesstimate' of what the print will look like using the Proof Set up and Proof Colours.

You can get the Paper Profiles from the websites of the paper manufacturers.  Tell PS which profile you want (I've ticked Epson Premium Glossy here).  Then to see the effect, place a tick next to 'Proof Colours'.  You will see the image noticeably dim  and it will probably lose saturation.  I use a curves boost and (sometimes) a saturation boost when printing but YMMV.

This 'preview' will not be exact but it will be close and will save you a heap of time. 

If you tick Gamut Warning it will let you know what colours in the image will be out of gamut for your printer/ink combination (at least I think that is what it does).

[Mick J]

Any thoughts on quality of paper and ink  ?

I was looking at some almost black and white landscape prints in a gallery recently,  mostly dark leafless trees against bright sky (very different I know) - the quality was outstanding, printed on rag paper, the inks may have been special as well, almost photographic I was gobsmacked to be told they were inkjet.

[MrsGnomus]

We have an Epson 2880 (now obsolete but replacement ink cartridges are still easily available) which uses pigment inks - we did quite a bit of research before switching to this printer and the consensus at the time was that pigment inks were superior for photography.  We have printed a good number of landscape shots off on Hahnemuhle fine art photo rag paper. So far for AP we have been using a high quality Epson glossy photo paper and have been quite happy with the results.  We do have half a box of the Hahnemuhle A3+ sitting about so we may experiment if we have got some smaller sheets kicking about as well.  I guess a less reflective paper may cut down glare and make it easier to spot fine details once the picture is framed but until we try it I am only speculating.

[tomato]

Thanks again for the posts, I'll try out your suggestions. 

Gnomus and MrsGnomus, a great idea to print out a set of smaller photos with different settings, now why didn't I think of that?

[Astrosurf]

This is a great thread and very useful for me. Thanks to tomato for starting it!

Alexxx