Your best bet is a printer that handles 13x19 sheet papers. Both Eason and Canon make some excellent printers in that size. “Archival” qualities have more to do with the inks you use as opposed to the papers. Pigment inks generally have greater archival characteristics than dye inks. An excellent pigment ink printer is the Canon PIXMA Pro-10. It can often be found on good rebate deals.

Of course, a lot depends on what you mean by archival. For example, I sold a lot of my prints to the public at art festivals. It was important to me that if a customer was shelling out significant $$ for one of my prints, that print had the best chances of not fading. Thus, I have always used pigment inks. If in your case you simply mean a print that has a reasonable “wall life”, dye ink printers might be acceptable. The archival life of such prints can be increased by being sure to frame your prints using archival materials such as acid free backing and mat boards, IV protective glass, etc. Canon’s PIXMA PRO-100 is a great choice in that case and is often available on exceptional deals.

As to papers, there are a number of companies that produce excellent papers. Moab, Hahnemuhle, Red River. Both Epson and Canon papers produce fine art papers.

Yup. (Attempting to make it 11)




😎

When I began learning photography, my photos were primarily taken to fulfill class assignments which were critiqued, the feedback used to help build my skill levels. Later, I joined a good camera club. I began shooting for entries in the monthly competitions. As I became more successful at the club level, I began entering regional, state, and even a few national competitions. This eventually led me to joining the art festival circuit (only recently curtailed) with the intent of sharing and selling my images to the public. What began as an interest, grew into a hobby, which then became a valued means of personal artist expression, and finally a way of sharing my passion with the public.

I started with pretty basic equipment, which I upgraded as my skills improved. I did, however, avoid GAS. (My camera bodies and lenses are all a few models behind the latest versions, but quite adequate for the results I’ve needed). I did spend a fair amount of money, mostly for my festival setup (tent, trailer, display panels, framing equipment, large format printer). “Developing my catalog” gave me the perfect excuse to travel the west on week long photo excursions a few times a year. I suppose it would be fair to say that photography was an acquired passion which eventually became “what I do”.

Or carry an extra battery and reduce the number of "screw-ups" you have in the first place.

Chimping is an INTENTIONAL part of my compositional and capture process. When I first survey a scene I think has potential, I usually move about, quickly snapping off a few frames, hand held, from different angles, positions, heights, etc. I chimp every few frames looking for one that attracts me for composition. If I get one I think holds promise, I will set up my tripod and begin working the composition in more detail. As I work at refining the composition, I will chimp often, adjusting until I have the composition I like. Then, I will work at fine/tuning exposure, focus, etc., again chimping (now with the histogram) until I’m happy with what I have. The ability to chimp is not only an integral part of my routine, but also a key to getting my best images.

Unless you are adjusting the print file using Costco’s profiles loaded into PS when you edit AND you have calibrated your monitor you will continue to be “shooting in the dark” to get back images that are what you expect. Look at the steps I outlined earlier. It works.

I agree. That seems intentionally deceptive.

Understood. I didn’t take your comments as being judgmental. 👍

I’ve gotta tell you Frank, in my mind, this is a bit over the top. 🙂 I mean, I certainly wouldn’t refuse to answer questions you might have about one of my images (at least up to the point where it became so annoying I considered you were a complete horse’s patoot), but expecting (or even desiring) photographers to reveal this amount of information up front is unrealistic. I can see it in a case where we are sitting down over coffee and discussing a particular image and you are interested in knowing more about how it was created, but in other contexts (art festivals, gallery shows, etc.) providing the public with that type of detail unsolicited is pretty much impossible. Heck, I have images that would require a few pages of notes to explain how the image was manipulated! I would never be intentionally deceptive, but I also feel no obligation to present my images with explanations of whether I cloned out a cloud, or beer can, etc. etc. etc. 😁

1) Be sure to calibrate your monitor. VERY important!

2) Download the printer profiles provided by Costco on their site, and install in Photoshop. (Directions easily found on internet)

3) when you edit in photoshop with the intent to print at Costco, first select the Costco profile. [View > Proof Setup > Custom > (in the pop up window, select the Costco profile under Device to Simulate)

4 edit the image (saturation, brightness, exposure, etc.) until it is what you want.

5) save the file ( I usually designate it’s the Costco proof in file name)

6) upload file to Costco.

7 Be SURE to check box indicating that Costco NOT do any color correction.

You resulting print should be more of what you expect.

weird thing is, even images like this have there place in the creative world. A photographer I know from a gallery I sometimes displayed in, created an extensive series of old car and motorcycle images. He used HDR pushed to that “crunchy” look, HIGHLY saturated colors (especially primary colors), and then printed them LARGE on metal. (He was one of the first I saw printing on metal). He also had a great sense of composition. Honestly, they were fabulous! They also sold very well at significant prices.

My point being that ultimately, the ONLY thing that matters is the final image and how each individual reacts to it. There are NO RULES for creativity. There are no limiting parameters for technique or style other than those an artist ( or hobbyist, if you prefer) imposes on him/her self. I’ve come to believe that a great amount off the SOOC/PP debate is more a product of people exercising their sense of self importance than it is a valuable discussion which will help people grow creatively!

Nope, that’s my story and I’m sticking to it! 😝

Yeah, I get that. Two sides of the same syndrome. I was replying more to Linda’s query as to whether the argument takes place outside of UHH.

We me, it’s a public safety issue. If I weren’t here picking nits I’d be out on the streets and everybody would be saying, “Oh crap, what’s the old guy up to now?”

Oh yes, Linda, it’s definitely out there. I can count on the fingers and toes of a marching band the number of times people have come into my booth at art festivals and loudly pontificated to their friends, and anyone close enough to hear, that “ Real photographers don’t need to use Photoshop; photoshopping images is cheating; Etc.”. I’ve even had a person comment to me while looking at one of my images processed to be reminiscent of a 1950s illustration, “So this is a lie, huh?”

It’s an argument that seems pretty much entrenched, not only here on UHH, but in the “outside world” as well. I’m not sure how or why it seems to have so much traction, but it is what it is. I’d advise Ed not to hold his breath waiting for it to diminish or go away.

It would be refreshing if more photographers, and consumers of photography, would focus more on what constitutes a pleasing image rather than concerning themselves over the processes the artist used to create it, but I don’t see that happening anytime soon.

[Comical anecdote: one particularly boisterous person, after proclaiming to his friends about what an abomination PP was in photography, then pointed out my “showpiece” with the proclamation of, “now this is what real photographers can do”. Unbeknownst to him, he was pointing it one of my most highly processed images! (two exposures, hand-blended, lots of specific color saturation and exposure adjustments, pixel painting, selective sharpening, etc.). I didn’t explain all of that to him. I simply informed him the $1K image was already sold! 😁]