Oh yes...the famous huge 5 mb .jpg. @ 72dpi...🙈and I’m asked to print at A2 or A1. Huge sharpening halos... nightmare Your channel is very informative but relaxed,, 😁👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Hi Keith, I just found you today when I was researching printers. You mentioned that you will not use Lightroom any time soon. I am curious as to why? Although I have Photoshop, I depend on Lightroom for 95% of my photo processing. I do shoot in RAW. Thanks for considering my question if you have time to respond.
The forced use of the catalogue, the lack of layers (my PS use matches my way of looking at the edit process) - this contributes to how I edit images for print. That and my liking of an 'audit trail' of versions [and forks] when making a big print. Oh and a general dislike of the 'non-destructive' edit workflow. Personal choices - finding a workflow which matches your creative process is important. If I was a wedding photographer I might well look at a more streamlined and efficient process, but I'm not. Over 40 images for a job is rare for me - some may only be a dozen images. YMMV as they say ;-)
I prefer using monochrome when i'm taking "as shot" B&W images, if i know i'm going to be changing tones in the image then i will shoot colour and convert to B&W best thing about using mirrorless cameras is you can capture images of vampires, as before using mirror ones..............:P Great vid Keith, appreciate the time taken to produce ths and the many others
Thanks - the problem I have with camera's B&W modes is that you are using a baked-in B&W conversion and it's based on the camera's normal Raw file anyway. Unless you have deep enough pockets to shoot on a monochrome sensor, you're always starting with a colour file conversion anyway :-)
Hi Keith, just discovered your channel looking for reviews on the Canon Pro 300. Just getting into printing after spending the last few years developing my photography skills. Your videos have been excellent and have given me tips already. Have you done a full episode on paper and paper types? I’m predominantly wildlife. Cheer Mike
Thanks Have a look at the main printing index page for all my articles and videos at www.northlight-images.co.uk/photography-articles-and-reviews/printing-paper-reviews-articles/ Since I try not to duplicate content too much for different printers have a look at the channel play lists for more than just the PRO-300? Also see here www.northlight-images.co.uk/choosing-the-best-paper-for-your-photo-prints/ and a video www.northlight-images.co.uk/what-paper-is-best/ In general - the real detail goes into the written articles - unlike videos I can update/edit/expand them over time
I may be the first comment. I fwwl honored. I'm thinking of a new camera (Canon R7) or my first good printer (Canon 300), but think th printer will win, -- BAK --
Have you tried the raw processing in Affinity Photo? If so, what are your thoughts? More minimal than Capture One or Camera raw creatively. Just wondering because you mentioned doing more in your raw stage of imaging. Thanks Always.
Not in any detail. Although I'm paying more attention to what you can do in the RAW converter, this is being led through my use of it for colour images for my paying work. Some of it may feed into my B&W workflow, but in general it's something I'm now aware of as an option - most of my B&W processing is pretty basic and I could do it with older/different software. I kept DxO Optics Pro for years (now PhotoLab) since I found that some RAW files just came out 'better' than ACR/Photoshop - however differences I could spot 10 years ago are not there now, so I use it much more sparingly (noisy files for example). All the 'basic' conversion tools are getting better and differences with a well exposed RAW file are getting harder to see at normal scales
Thanks. Some seem to not go further than the raw conversion with masking, color grading etc.. to create their “finished” image. I guess it depends on the goal.. Affinity is more minimal in that respect. Different. Thanks
I keep hearing about diffraction but I’m beginning to wonder if it’s more of a theoretical problem in the grander scheme of things, as I have yet to find any practical demonstrations of its adverse effects. In a best case argument for its validity would it be fair to state that diffraction is one of the least worrisome concerns we should be bothered about?
It can be an issue in some circumstances, so it limits resolution on some of my macro work, and is quite easily visible with high res sensors. It means that I'll consider stacking more often, since the wider aperture reduces the already thin DOF In my architectural work I see some softening starting to come in at say f/9 - however, if I've detail towards the edge of the frame, or need the DOF then I move to f/16 or higher. Diffraction is just one factor in deciding on settings, not the evil detail muncher some seem to think :-)
Generally speaking, diffraction is less noticeable than an out of focus element in the landscape. My rule of thumb is f8, diffraction insignificant. At f11 it exists but will only show on very large prints close up. f16 is best avoided but not at the expense of composition, and f22 and beyond for emergences only. Half those apertures for micro four thirds. In a 15" print aperture choice is insignificant to sharpness, at 36" you can see it but will anyone else notice?
Hi Keith :) Another very interesting video. Question: When do you use glass in front of a print and when not? I use frames and passepartout and until now no glass due to reflection. Most of my prints are on matt or semi-gloss papers (Hahnemühle, Ilford, Canson, fotospeed)
Thanks Ah - I never sell prints mounted. It's a choice I leave to others ;-) For here in my home glass is used all the time - makes for easier cleaning. The room lighting/positions are such that reflections just aren't an issue. I know some people are much more bothered by glass than others - myself, it simply doesn't intrude ;-)
Thank you for this course in BW. I appreciate it allot. Do you have some info about reducing noise from old camera outputs as 12Mpix D300? Interesting that AI sharpen tool can save old lenses that are not so sharp at the edges... I’m planning to get a Fuji GFX50Sii and use my old MF HB and Mamiya 7 lenses on it and they are softer at the edges compared to new lenses from Fuji.
I've not tried any of the newer de-noising software recently. I do still use DxO PhotoLab (Optics Pro as was) where I have the original RAW files, since it's de-noising is superb. It will work on Jpegs, but new software is the reason I still have the RAW files of every shot I've taken for nigh on 20 years ;-)
@@KeithCooperI have save my entire picture collection since 2007 in RAW and in two different hard drives. I am careful not to get more software than I need due to the needed Windows’s upgrades that are to close in time. I still use and old Win7 computer and I need to upgrade to a new wind 10 and then I have to move my licnses of PS and LR to the new computer. I have not upgraded my camera due to this problem. The new camera Nikon D850 software will only work on Win 10.
Ah, can't help there - I've not used a windows pc this century ;-) RAW processing software has improved noticeably in recent years - it's partly what finally led me to get the latest Photoshop on my main working Mac (still a 2012 Mac Pro - I'm still running CS6 on the MacBook Pro in the videos)
I have not printed much. But I noticed that the brightness of the image on the screen differed quite a bit from the print. I decided to have an alternative setting on my monitor that more closely matched the print output. Have not tried it since, but it seemed a good answer at the time. I did send out for print some cmyk I think it was. I got an excellent result that matched the screen to the post cards I had printed. I did go out of my way to calibrate the monitor before. Most of my work is online in real estate, and that has interesting issues of its own. On clapboard houses and other odd items one may get an odd moire that does not exist in the image itself but ends up "out there" it is completely unpredictable, rare though, I think it is due to odd compression algorithms some websites use. Thanks for the video. Best wishes!
Glad it was of interest! I've come across some on-line image problems - it's often just finding a solution which works, not necessarily the 'correct' one ;-)
To all people out there who are looking into printing, look no further, this video says it all.
Thank you Keith for this superb video.
Thanks!
There are always a few gems in each of your videos that I needed to hear at that time. Uncanny.
Thanks
Oh yes...the famous huge 5 mb .jpg. @ 72dpi...🙈and I’m asked to print at A2 or A1. Huge sharpening halos... nightmare
Your channel is very informative but relaxed,, 😁👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼
Thanks - glad it's of interest!
Refreshing approach- thank you!
Thanks - glad it was of interest
Very interesting , Much room for thought.Thank you
Thanks!
Thanks, always enjoyable!
Thanks - glad you found it of interest!
Very great video with precise and understandable explication.
Keep up your great work, thank you
Thanks for that
Hi Keith, I just found you today when I was researching printers. You mentioned that you will not use Lightroom any time soon. I am curious as to why? Although I have Photoshop, I depend on Lightroom for 95% of my photo processing. I do shoot in RAW. Thanks for considering my question if you have time to respond.
The forced use of the catalogue, the lack of layers (my PS use matches my way of looking at the edit process) - this contributes to how I edit images for print.
That and my liking of an 'audit trail' of versions [and forks] when making a big print.
Oh and a general dislike of the 'non-destructive' edit workflow.
Personal choices - finding a workflow which matches your creative process is important.
If I was a wedding photographer I might well look at a more streamlined and efficient process, but I'm not. Over 40 images for a job is rare for me - some may only be a dozen images.
YMMV as they say ;-)
The print you show at 16:20 is beautiful.
Thanks!
I prefer using monochrome when i'm taking "as shot" B&W images, if i know i'm going to be changing tones in the image then i will shoot colour and convert to B&W
best thing about using mirrorless cameras is you can capture images of vampires, as before using mirror ones..............:P
Great vid Keith, appreciate the time taken to produce ths and the many others
Thanks - the problem I have with camera's B&W modes is that you are using a baked-in B&W conversion and it's based on the camera's normal Raw file anyway.
Unless you have deep enough pockets to shoot on a monochrome sensor, you're always starting with a colour file conversion anyway :-)
Hi Keith, just discovered your channel looking for reviews on the Canon Pro 300. Just getting into printing after spending the last few years developing my photography skills. Your videos have been excellent and have given me tips already. Have you done a full episode on paper and paper types? I’m predominantly wildlife. Cheer Mike
Thanks
Have a look at the main printing index page for all my articles and videos at
www.northlight-images.co.uk/photography-articles-and-reviews/printing-paper-reviews-articles/
Since I try not to duplicate content too much for different printers have a look at the channel play lists for more than just the PRO-300?
Also see here
www.northlight-images.co.uk/choosing-the-best-paper-for-your-photo-prints/
and a video
www.northlight-images.co.uk/what-paper-is-best/
In general - the real detail goes into the written articles - unlike videos I can update/edit/expand them over time
I do enjoy Your videos
Thanks!
I may be the first comment. I fwwl honored. I'm thinking of a new camera (Canon R7) or my first good printer (Canon 300), but think th printer will win, -- BAK --
Ah, the choices... :-)
Go for the printer, you will gain much more from learning the craft of producing your own prints …
Have you tried the raw processing in Affinity Photo? If so, what are your thoughts? More minimal than Capture One or Camera raw creatively. Just wondering because you mentioned doing more in your raw stage of imaging. Thanks Always.
Not in any detail.
Although I'm paying more attention to what you can do in the RAW converter, this is being led through my use of it for colour images for my paying work. Some of it may feed into my B&W workflow, but in general it's something I'm now aware of as an option - most of my B&W processing is pretty basic and I could do it with older/different software.
I kept DxO Optics Pro for years (now PhotoLab) since I found that some RAW files just came out 'better' than ACR/Photoshop - however differences I could spot 10 years ago are not there now, so I use it much more sparingly (noisy files for example).
All the 'basic' conversion tools are getting better and differences with a well exposed RAW file are getting harder to see at normal scales
Thanks. Some seem to not go further than the raw conversion with masking, color grading etc.. to create their “finished” image. I guess it depends on the goal.. Affinity is more minimal in that respect. Different. Thanks
I keep hearing about diffraction but I’m beginning to wonder if it’s more of a theoretical problem in the grander scheme of things, as I have yet to find any practical demonstrations of its adverse effects. In a best case argument for its validity would it be fair to state that diffraction is one of the least worrisome concerns we should be bothered about?
It can be an issue in some circumstances, so it limits resolution on some of my macro work, and is quite easily visible with high res sensors. It means that I'll consider stacking more often, since the wider aperture reduces the already thin DOF
In my architectural work I see some softening starting to come in at say f/9 - however, if I've detail towards the edge of the frame, or need the DOF then I move to f/16 or higher. Diffraction is just one factor in deciding on settings, not the evil detail muncher some seem to think :-)
Generally speaking, diffraction is less noticeable than an out of focus element in the landscape. My rule of thumb is f8, diffraction insignificant. At f11 it exists but will only show on very large prints close up. f16 is best avoided but not at the expense of composition, and f22 and beyond for emergences only. Half those apertures for micro four thirds. In a 15" print aperture choice is insignificant to sharpness, at 36" you can see it but will anyone else notice?
Hi Keith :)
Another very interesting video.
Question: When do you use glass in front of a print and when not?
I use frames and passepartout and until now no glass due to reflection. Most of my prints are on matt or semi-gloss papers (Hahnemühle, Ilford, Canson, fotospeed)
Thanks
Ah - I never sell prints mounted. It's a choice I leave to others ;-)
For here in my home glass is used all the time - makes for easier cleaning. The room lighting/positions are such that reflections just aren't an issue. I know some people are much more bothered by glass than others - myself, it simply doesn't intrude ;-)
@@KeithCooper “makes for easier cleaning”. So Keith Cooper.
Yes - dust collects... :-) @@JsR-7and9
Thank you for this course in BW. I appreciate it allot. Do you have some info about reducing noise from old camera outputs as 12Mpix D300? Interesting that AI sharpen tool can save old lenses that are not so sharp at the edges... I’m planning to get a Fuji GFX50Sii and use my old MF HB and Mamiya 7 lenses on it and they are softer at the edges compared to new lenses from Fuji.
I've not tried any of the newer de-noising software recently. I do still use DxO PhotoLab (Optics Pro as was) where I have the original RAW files, since it's de-noising is superb. It will work on Jpegs, but new software is the reason I still have the RAW files of every shot I've taken for nigh on 20 years ;-)
@@KeithCooperI have save my entire picture collection since 2007 in RAW and in two different hard drives. I am careful not to get more software than I need due to the needed Windows’s upgrades that are to close in time. I still use and old Win7 computer and I need to upgrade to a new wind 10 and then I have to move my licnses of PS and LR to the new computer. I have not upgraded my camera due to this problem. The new camera Nikon D850 software will only work on Win 10.
Ah, can't help there - I've not used a windows pc this century ;-)
RAW processing software has improved noticeably in recent years - it's partly what finally led me to get the latest Photoshop on my main working Mac (still a 2012 Mac Pro - I'm still running CS6 on the MacBook Pro in the videos)
@@KeithCooper Nikons RAW conerter is good. I will use my old PS and the new Nikon SW.
I have not printed much. But I noticed that the brightness of the image on the screen differed quite a bit from the print. I decided to have an alternative setting on my monitor that more closely matched the print output. Have not tried it since, but it seemed a good answer at the time. I did send out for print some cmyk I think it was. I got an excellent result that matched the screen to the post cards I had printed. I did go out of my way to calibrate the monitor before. Most of my work is online in real estate, and that has interesting issues of its own. On clapboard houses and other odd items one may get an odd moire that does not exist in the image itself but ends up "out there" it is completely unpredictable, rare though, I think it is due to odd compression algorithms some websites use.
Thanks for the video. Best wishes!
Glad it was of interest!
I've come across some on-line image problems - it's often just finding a solution which works, not necessarily the 'correct' one ;-)
Thank you for all the articles and videos!
Thanks too!