Yes - I wish more people 'teaching' about printing would make this point ;-)

as Ansel Adams said, "there is nothing worse than a sharp print of a fuzzy concept"

Thanks - do check the articles too on the Northlight site, many of the videos are here to augment the more comprehensive articles/reviews

Very helpful & informstive

Thanks - glad they have been of help. I'll look to include a few more stills. I'm a bit wary of screen recording though since I'm trying to show the general principles of what I'm doing and why rather than a 'recipe' of adjustments for a particular unique image. In some ways the actual settings/values I use (along with my out of date software!) are things I don't want to include.

There are media which are surprisingly robust. Some time ago I looked at a water resistant 'paper' www.northlight-images.co.uk/canon-water-resistant-matte-paper-review/ (long long predates me doing videos)

Thanks!

Thanks

Thanks - glad it was of interest.

I don't use it - I do it purely visually. Whilst programs such as colorthink can be very useful in press and pre-press work, they need a lot of experience and knowledge to make effective use of the numbers. They are not (IMHO) something for a photographer like myself just wanting to make great looking prints. Colorthink is just not software that I'd pay for for use in that area of printing.

Glad they are of help! 100% sRGB is not particularly wide by modern standards, but my Apple Cinema HD monitor I used up until 7-8 years ago was sRGB and I made some great prints. Editing in Adobe 98 you have the same (potential) issues as you would using prophoto on the (A98) BenQ here - not too big a problem, you just need to be careful as to the different gamuts involved. Part of my aim with this video - picking the big spaces, was to draw parallels with using smaller spaces. Calibration will definitely help and of course the real issue is the underlaying quality of the photos ;-)

@@KeithCooper Thank you so much Keith for your reply, your a gentleman thank you again.

Thanks I almost always adjust images a bit when processing the RAW files to get the tonality I want. However, this was at altitude, so that blue is very deep - such an image needs careful attention to noise levels as well The camera (a 2007 1Ds mk3) was perfectly fine :-) The image was exposed to limit any clipping of the highlights in the leaves - partly why I almost always use fully manual exposure.

I have a few boxes/packs in our print room over 10 years old and have no problem in using them.

Well, paper choice and profiling make a big difference. Soft proofing should (IMHO) be used sparingly and in conjunction with experience of the media. The screen is not the print - your soft proofing suggests that what you are displaying is simply not reproducible on paper in the form you want... The only way of really seeing is to do a small test print - perhaps of a section of the image. This is also why I use printer test images so much - they give me a feel for what the printer/paper/ink is capable of. Expecting bright colourful images to print perfectly on paper is doomed to failure without testing to establish what is actually possible. You want the image on the screen? - print on backlit film and put it on a lightbox... ;-) See here for more www.northlight-images.co.uk/a-photo-print-of-some-bright-red-flowers/

You are right about the paper (Hahnemühle Gloss Baryta 320) not being able to handle such overly-saturated colours. I will do small test "patch" prints and see how much I can push the colours. By the way, from your testing over the years, what glossy paper handles over-saturated photos the best - available from UK sellers?

No easy way to say - it varies so much by printer ink set and printer Have a look at this one - I use it for some specific 'colourful' prints www.northlight-images.co.uk/permajet-titanium-gloss-300-metallic/ That said, I simply don't print on glossy papers for my own (large print) use, so I've never really pushed the boundaries of this area.

A follow up. Both the softproofing and the image in Epson Print Layout looked terrible. I did a small patch print. It looked good. So, bit the bullet and printed the whole photo. Final print was great. So the lesson is, softproofing can be useful, but actual print is the real deal.

Thanks for noting that. It really is one of the reasons I rail against the habitual use of soft proofing, which seems to have been accepted as one of the new orthodoxies ;-) One problem is that soft proofing, on a carefully and properly set up monitor (in the right viewing conditions) can be very effective. However very few people go to all this trouble and effort, when it's easy to hit a 'soft proof' button and see some change in the view on the screen. I have a big printer coming to test (24" P7500) so hope to be able to come back to this one!

sRGB can quite curtail the colour range which you can get in printing. However, it will work and is the easy solution. I would suggest getting a printer test image (such as the datacolor one I keep on the Northlight site) which is is in A98. www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/ Print this and then convert it to sRGB and print that. If you can see a difference, your print setup will benefit from a wider gamut - if there's no real difference then stick with what works for you. A better printer and a98 workflow should easily show some differences

@@KeithCooper Thanks for you reaction. I will look into it.

Ah - you're looking at what is effectively 'camera profiling'. I do it occasionally with my industrial work, where there is unusual or mixed lighting in a factory. I don't use it much in normal lighting. See here for some examples www.northlight-images.co.uk/dual-illuminant-dng-profiles/ Such profiling is covered in several of my lighting related articles www.northlight-images.co.uk/category/articles-and-reviews/lighting/ I've not done a video about this - I'll add it to the list (my videos date back less than 2 years, my articles nearly 20) However, for many prints, good colour beats 'accurate' colour... My own laptop (as sometimes seen in my videos is a 2010 MBP running Photoshop CS6. on 10.13. Unlikely to be updated for a while... I can cover all of this stuff (and much more!) in our on-site commercial training in the UK www.northlight-images.co.uk/commercial-photography/training/product-photography-training/ I don't do on-line training I'm afraid (I just don't like doing it)

It depends... ...on the profile, the type of paper, the type of image and the skill of the printer Sorry there is no meaningful short answer to this ;-)

@@KeithCooper thanks, but let’s assume we are talking about fine art paper (cotton paper) and infinite skill of the photographer. The canon has more inks therefore I’d expect it to have a slight edge in gamut in certain situations. And we are further restricting our thinking to reds specifically.. what about in this case?

Ah, in that case you need to analyse ICC profiles for individual papers and see what differences there are. Of course, gamut envelopes from profiles only give hints and say nothing about how colours and tone gradations differ. There is also the issue that the optimal paper for one printer may not be the optimal paper for the other. More inks only automatically equate with larger gamuts in printer marketing materials ;-) My own feeling is that few people could spot the differences and then only with specific test images and a direct comparison under careful test conditions. Even then, if the prints were not labelled I'd wager that many would not be able to repeat the test if carried out the following day ;-) Both P900 and PRO-1000 are capable of excellent prints - differences are many, but as with many modern printers, relatively few of these are in what gets called 'quality' So, to answer your original question, no, the 1000 does not excel over the 7/900 in this respect ;-)

Thank you for your response. Reason being is that I really enjoy macro photography with bright reds, pinks, purples which often get out of gamut on my current printer which is really quite good (XP 15000). At least one article I read comparing the two gamut’s suggests the canon has a slight edge in the reds.

Often I use the perceptual rendering intent to bring the colors into gamut. But because I’m into these subtle gradations of intense color the gamut can be a factor for me even though for most images it doesn’t matter.

Actually I do regularly suggest using A98 over ProPhoto. The visible advantages of a larger space beyond what can be seen on a wide gamut monitor are infrequent in real imagery and with much printing. The only time I always use ProPhoto 16 bit is for subsequent conversion to B&W. Using the 'whole gamut' is fine for those who appreciate the potential pitfalls of very large spaces and ways of working round or with them. However, it is a regular cause of confusion and trouble for those starting out. Far simpler to work on getting great looking prints and photos and address the subtleties and fine points later on when experience and knowledge helps put things in context. The example image I used here was one of the few I have that reliably shows the difference the large space gives. I should note that had I used A98 and edited/printed it optimally, I doubt many would ever notice, even if I put the two prints next to each other - for me the aim is a good looking print, not necessarily any notional accuracy. The majority of my commercial work and printmaking is done in A98, with a monitor of sufficiently wide gamut. Whilst larger colour spaces can definitely have their uses, I'm a great believer in keeping things simpler to start with. I've seen too many examples of people getting caught up in the weeds and minutiae of colour management and missing the (litteral) big picture. There is sometimes rather too much of 'the proper way' in some of what I see written about colour management, this treats it as an end in itself rather than a tool for helping in making great photos and prints.