Aspect Ratio...

Discussion in 'Photography' started by J, Nov 19, 2011.

  1. J

    PeterN Guest

    I had a Bronica with a masked back so I could take super slides on 120
    film. the slides fit into a standard projector, but provided much larger
    & brighter square images. Though As I said earlier, I cropped to get
    better images.
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  2. J

    PeterN Guest

    You have me thinking. I suspect part of the reason is the paper Costco
    uses. While they do a nice job, something is missing. Part of the
    problem may be that I convert to a version of sRGB, which is a much
    smaller color color space that RGB. Hopefully I will impose on my
    friends with decent printers to allow me to try some experiments. There
    must be some paper out there with the requisite characteristics.

    I am looking for a new monitor. In my search I learned that resolution
    is not the only factor. One other factor is the % of Adobe RGB that it
    is capable of displaying.
    My guess is that the combination of interpolating my working color space
    (ProPhoto,) and conversion to sRGB for printing, is heavily contributing
    to my problem.

    It is obvious that a negotiation with my exchequer and chief space
    allocator is in order.
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2011
    1. Advertisements

  3. J

    Savageduck Guest

    In that case might I suggest trying Red River Papers, Polar Pearl
    Metallic paper. I get amazing results with my R2880. You should do just
    as well with your R3880.

    < >
    Savageduck, Nov 23, 2011
  4. J

    Pete A Guest

    That's well worth trying first.

    If it isn't quite good enough, Peter could try to find a photo lab with
    a LightJet, Fuji SuperGloss and Pearl photo papers. I assume Ilfochrome
    is no longer available.
    Pete A, Nov 23, 2011
  5. J

    Savageduck Guest

    I still have 25 sheets of Ilford Galerie Smooth Gloss 11x17. B&H
    carries Ilford inkjet papers and they have a "Pearl" but that is not
    going to perform in the same way as the RR Polar Pearl Metallic.

    Moab Papers make a "Slickrock Metallic Pearl" but I have not used this
    paper. B&H has it in various sizes; $125 for 50 sheets of 13x19, $44.95
    for 50 sheets of 8.5x11. This would probably be the closest match to
    the Red River Polar Pearl Metallic.
    Savageduck, Nov 23, 2011
  6. That was my general impression of Cibachrome prints anyway :).
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 23, 2011
  7. While the Costco paper isn't archival, it's not bad for color (I've
    done, hmmm, a dozen, I guess, 20x30 prints at Costco in this last year
    for various purposes).

    Do you have soft-proofing capability in your software? Preview based on
    printer profile? You can use that to check what it's going to do with
    your colors. sRGB covers the printer space pretty well, so converting
    to that shouldn't cause a lot of problems that the printer won't cause
    when the time comes anyway.
    Resolution is quite minor, in fact. Color accuracy, gamut, and viewing
    angle are the big issues. (If the viewing angle isn't big enough you
    can keep your head in it without thinking about it, you'll find yourself
    correcting based on a false color caused by your head being positioned
    Possible, if you're pushing the color intensities a lot. I always start
    in ProPhoto, and very very rarely find previewing against printer space
    or converting to sRGB causes problems, but that may be a different in
    subjects and processing choices between us.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 23, 2011
  8. What do the "metallic" papers give you in appearance? I'm pretty sure
    they're not the same as the "metallic" papers I used in B&W darkroom 40
    years ago. Does some part of the image, like "white", end up looking
    like polished metal, or what?
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 23, 2011
  9. J

    Savageduck Guest

    It is not so much "white" but the entire surface which is effected.

    The RR Polar Pearl Metallic paper is not white, but has a creamy
    surface sheen which has an odd reflective translucence, somewhat like
    that which you would get from mother of pearl.

    When the finished print from a high quality photo printer is examined,
    that reflective quality is evident in all of the colors. There is an
    indescribable quality to those prints. Fall leaves and reflective
    surfaces in the image truly have to be seen and compared with prints on
    other non-metallic gloss papers, to give them justice.
    It seems to work very well for quite a number of differing subject
    types, I have had a few surprises where the result on the metallic
    paper was not good when the same image had been very good on UltraPro
    Gloss paper.

    You can't quite get it from a display, but these two images, for
    example just popped and were improved when presented on the RR Polar
    Pearl Metallic vs UltraPro Gloss.

    < >
    < >

    Red River has a sample paper selection and free downloadable
    printer/paper profiles. If you have a a reasonable photo printer I
    would suggest trying them yourself.
    < >
    Savageduck, Nov 23, 2011
  10. J

    Savageduck Guest

    BTW; I would think your shot of the tiger in the snow (ddb 20090207
    010-028) would present very well on RR Polar Pearl Metallic. That, and
    quite possibly the bald eagle (ddb 20090207 010-071).
    Savageduck, Nov 23, 2011
  11. J

    Pete A Guest

    Although LCDs have improved over the last few years, it's the viewing
    angle issue that I can't tolerate.

    It will be interesting to see if OLEDs bring us overall better image
    quality or if they will just have a different set of problems to deal
    For anyone working in ProPhoto I highly recommend downloading the test
    image at the end of this page:


    Of course, it has to be actually printed to test your workflow. It
    populates a colour space far beyond the limits of monitors and print
    production yet it has been cleverly designed such that a visual
    inspection of the print will show most workflow errors and system
    limits. Enjoy...
    Pete A, Nov 23, 2011
  12. Interesting. Those both look pretty neat. A bit over-saturated (which
    I don't really mean pejoratively; sometimes that's just the thing).
    I've got an R800, decent enough in color, so maybe I will. Might be a
    gimick I liked (which means it's not a gimick but a legitimate rendering
    choice, right?).

    Hmmm; now, is this the same (or similar to) as the Kodak metallic
    printing papers? offers those, but I've never seen the prints.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 23, 2011
  13. Thanks, might give those a try. I may have some jewelry shots with
    potential, too. Got to try a few things to get my footing.
    David Dyer-Bennet, Nov 23, 2011
  14. J

    PeterN Guest

    Thanks, I will try after I purchase the printer. Right now, a new
    monitor, and a cruise are much higher on my list.
    PeterN, Nov 23, 2011
  15. J

    Savageduck Guest

    Why did I think you had an R3880? ...or was that Alan Browne?
    Savageduck, Nov 23, 2011
  16. J

    Savageduck Guest

    I am not familiar with the Kodak metallic papers. As far as performance
    of the RR paper with the R800 goes I am not quite sure I could comment.
    They do have a custom profile for the PPM and R800, so it should be
    worth a try.

    They go into a little more detail on the paper on the specific product
    page. Also they should be paying me for all my waffling on about this
    paper, but I really like it!
    Savageduck, Nov 23, 2011
  17. J

    Pete A Guest

    RR should be paying you to be its videographer. This is one of the most
    unprofessional product videos I've ever seen. Sorry, I no longer
    believe anything written its Website.
    Pete A, Nov 23, 2011
  18. J

    Savageduck Guest

    True, but the paper is great. ;-)
    Savageduck, Nov 23, 2011
  19. J

    PeterN Guest

    I usually do soft proof in PS. But, I would think that the accuracy of a
    soft proof is directly related to the accuracy of my monitor. Perhaps as
    you suggested, there is an angle of view issue.
    That's why I will probably get an NEC. My second choice would be LaCie,
    but I want a 27" screen. An Eizo is really outside of my budget. I
    currently use a 21" Viewsonic, which is about six years old. At the time
    of my purchase, Viewsonic and NEC were pretty much the same. Viewsonics
    though were NEC that didn't quite make the grade.
    You may or may not be aware that I have a strong preference for
    abstracts. My color is far from subtle. I try to do most color
    adjustment in LAB, and often, unless it is monochrome, use intense colors.

    thanks for your input. I didn't appreciate the importance of viewing angle.
    PeterN, Nov 24, 2011
  20. J

    PeterN Guest

    Suspect I said I have seen output from a friend's printer. But, as of
    now the 3880 would be my choice, though not currently pending. I will
    get the D4, before a printer.
    PeterN, Nov 24, 2011
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.