Printing wildlife (and other) photographs
Recently we've had some disappointing results when printing some of our photographs. We're trying to get together a collection of favourites to frame and put up in our house in France. We've used a variety of photo papers, and I just wonder if anyone else has any particular favourite paper which prints successfully. We have an HP 8600 printer, which has new inks, but on photo paper (both matt and gloss finish) the ink seems to run and bleed and the overall image is very poor. On 'normal' paper the quality of the printing is better, and the detail much clearer, but the photo looks a bit 'dead'.
When printing to photo paper we select the appropriate settings, but still no joy. Our previous HP printer used to work fine - but we haven't done much printing recently. Anyone got any tips? We might even invest in a new printer if someone can recommend one which prints photographs as well as our old one! (Trouble is I can't remember what model it was!!!)
Comments
-
Don't know about HP Printers, The one i use is a cannon pro 9000 mk11 it has 8 ink tanks, I only use cannon inks ( don't buy compatible inks) It will print up to A3+. The paper i use is Ilford Galerie Professional inkjet photo range Prestige instant dry fantastic quality prints, what more can a say.
Brian.
0 -
This is the paper i use It is suitable for HP Printers I buy it 100 sheets at a time.
0 -
I agree with Bill, I have used HP in the past but now use an Epson P600 A3 printer. Ilford paper is good but there are many others available. I have published a couple of short articles about paper and ink choice on my website: davids.org.uk
You don't say how many or what size images you wish to print but it may be better to have them made commercially.
My wife makes her colour prints on a Canon Pixma A4 inkjet and the quality is very good especially when you consider they cost less than £100. We use third party inks in it with very good results.
0 -
This is the review of this printer not cheap.
http://www.alphr.com/canon/29348/canon-pixma-pro9000-mark-ii-review
0 -
Good for you, I'm sure that Canon will be pleased to read your post.
My experience differs.
1 -
I never print at home, I find it is very expensive, quality is variable and can only print up to A4.
I concentrate on wildlife as I am retired and taking pic's keeps me on the go. I send any printing that I want done to DSCL ( any search will bring it up), the quality is top notch, A4's around a pound, A3 not much more. I can often send in an order and receive it back next day, not every time, but usually.
The attached picture I had blown to A3, the quality was spot on, I could never do this at home and DSCL has never produced anything less than brilliant.
Hope this helps.
2 -
'Oneputt' I use a Canon D70 with a 100-400 EF lens. I would like a bigger one but the prices are stupid money. I would never have paid what I did for this one, but looking round WEX, my wife said 'go on get it..you keep saying how your lens is not getting you close enough'.
400 still has limitations, but the quality of the glass means I can cut off a lot of sky and still have a sharp image.
The owl in the previous post actually won the public vote in our local camera club exhibition. As people were going round they were asked to tick off their fave pic and that one got it.
You mentioned calendars, my wife has nagged me for years to make up a calendar from the pictures I take during the year, to save her buying one. This year I made one up and had it printed up on line, NOT DSCL, just a site that was offering a cut price. Quality was fine, but the cut price was £7.99 plus postage, not cheap. I then had friends who saw it and said could they have one. I then approached the local printer in our high st and he said he could do it for a £5 each. Quality was top notch.
I finished up having 30 printed, friends were giving them as presents...I hasten to add I did not make a penny...just the cost of printing.
I would add that we do save up pictures for printing to make it cost effective.
I went out this morning more in hope that anything else...the kingfisher stayed just round the corner, out of camera sight and now it is chucking it down.
1 -
Have used HP printers for many years although we now have a Samsung as well.
HP always seem to be a little below Canon for images but better for print......as already mentioned.
We do a lot of printing, both A4 images and normal print, although we use a Mono Laser for normal print nowadays. I class our printing as semi-pro and acceptable up to A4.
Two points... We always use HP inks (have tried cheapies a few times) and normal HP gloss photo paper....although have found that Kodak gloss 3 star photo paper is excellent.
Apart from those two points and running a test print I can't suggest any other useful advice.
Within reason we can't see any difference in similar printers from different manufacturers and always go by professional reviews to include the cost of printing.
Reviews of your printer...it's an 'All in One' I assume, do tend to have one or two bad comments which may or not be the users! All in Ones are a compromise but are generally super for the price.
Good luck
0 -
The benefit of printing at home is you have full control of the image Photoshop is the editing software you need, not cheap but the best. Yes you can have them printed in your local Tesco or Asda or any other companies but you don't have the control.
2 -
I use a HP deskjet 3630 for printing my images when making greeting cards.
In the past I used and Epson S21. I find the HP much better for photos although on high quality the Epson was pretty good. I use both glossy photo card and matt photo card with good results. The Epson would also print on Velum and Transparencies haven't tried them on the HP yet.
Epson ran quite nicely on cheap cartridges, while the HP has genuine ones in at the moment as they came with it when I bought it new recently. The only reason I bought a new one is that I needed a scanner.
0 -
Hi Valda.
We do a lot of printing at home and are mostly very pleased with results. A3 exibition quality prints. Most home printers now produce excellent results. Yours certainly should. It is very important though that the settings to print are correct . Ideally to get the best from your printer use the manufacturers ink and paper. This should result in good prints with correct colours. The settings when you go to print must match the media you are using ie. Gloss, lustre, matt etc. Using the incorrect one will cause problems. If the media or profile is set for matt paper for instance it will flood glossy paper as the ink sits on top and does not soak in. Matt paper, being absorbent needs a lot more ink. So, if you can, when you send photo to print have a look at the settings and media type. If you are to use others papers it is often necessary to get a profile for your printer usually free of charge from the papers manufaturer. These can often be downloaded from the internet. I hope this is of help.
Kindest regards.
1 -
Thanks everyone for your help - very much appreciated! Sorry I haven't looked in on this thread. I'll take a mix of suggestions!
We always do use HP inks, but will buy some best quality HP paper and try again - and if the results aren't what we expect will go to one of the on line printers recommended in this thread. We have about fifty photographs to print in a variety of sizes, which is why it's nice to try them at home.
I remember our first 'photo-printer' years and years ago, and how astounding it was to see your own photographs coming out of the printer. We printed some amazing shots of Sete in southern France, during a festival, and the quality and colour is still good lots and lots of years later. In the meantime we've tended not to do much photo printing so this has all been a bit experimental.
Thanks again.
1 -
Fabulous pic GL
0 -
Have you considered using a 1.4 converter. This would still allow auto focus and only loose one stop. Is the lens Mk1 or 2? Stick to the canon version.
Mine is a Mk2 and a 2x converter does not allow auto focus neither did my previous Mk1.
0 -
I'm going to try printing some on a better quality and much larger printer, where I used to work, and will let you know what the results are like.
PS - my OH has confessed that he bought the wrong type of paper - which obviously wouldn't help!!!
1 -
I once bought a 2X converter and made the mistake of thinking the AF would work....wrong. Only ever got one photo of a MH coming up out of reeds, in the end I part ex for the lens I now have.
I guess I have the MK1, I have had for around 4 years, quality is top notch...I never have to sharpen the pic's...if they are not sharp enough they get thrown away. Usually it is me that is not sharp enough. I like to see the fibres of each feather if I can.
The only thing about the lens is....brighter the day, the better the pictures.
I took these pic's last year...it was the find of the year. A Kestrels nest beside a footpath......full story to follow if interested.
The first pic is its very first flight.
0 -
The 2x auto focus works only on f2.8 lenses, but the 1.4x works on your lens. The mk1 has push pull zoom action whereas the mk2 has a twist.
The kestrel shots are excellent, I Fully agree that the lens delivers great quality and the 1.4x gives you a top end of 560 plus the crop value of your camera either 1.3 or 1.6 is usual for canon. The 1.3 would give an equivalance of 728mm over a full size sensor.
Many images i have seen using 1.4 converters are stunning, so no loss of quality.
Definately worth the investment, especially as you point out, the better the weather, the better the photo, probably due to the higher shutter speed available.
Of course, the longer magnification is more difficult to hold steady, which is where the 4x image stabilisation of the mk2 version of the lens has an advantage when hand held, but use of a monopod helps when possible.
0 -
If it helps OP, I have a canon 400 f2.8 but it is far to cumbersome for trekking around. I am now using the100/400 mk2 and the1.4 converter,many others do likewise. Others are convinced that the best option is the 400 f4 DO lens, still quite heavy.
The images on flickr give the camera and lens info for the image and this shows that the 400 or 500 f4 is very popular with converters.
If weight is a factor as it is with me, then I would suggest the100/400 option.
We are hoping to get over to minsmere early spring, if we make it, you are welcome to try out my kit.
0 -
Ask if I can have some of my cash back, spend more there than Tesco.
If you have not tried one, have a look at the black rapid type camera straps that cross the body, thay take the weight well and leave hands free for your scope.
1 -
Where would you spend your money, or just shop around.
0
