Photography means different things to each person; most concentrate on capturing the moment and often don’t get further than looking at it on screen or posting it on the net somewhere.  Instant visual gratification. I’m not really satisfied though unless I physically hold a beautifully made print of the image, no electronic device comes anywhere near this experience.  And if I’m going to print, then it must be the best I can do.  I had a person ask me, after viewing the prints in my ‘Home’ exhibit, how I got them ‘so clear and sharp’?  I don’t even know where to start answering a question like that, as I alluded in my last blog post I’ve spent a lot of time refining how I print. I’ll try to expand a bit here.

First – it’s all about the image.  You can’t make a good print from a rubbish image, the need for good composition and exposure are a given.  There is no ‘unsuck’ filter in Photoshop yet. But Photoshop is a basic tool that is used to take the raw data from the camera and mold it in to the image I had in mind when I captured the photograph. Note I view photography as an individual artistic pursuit, I use it to make images I like and will use any tools or technique available to do so. Some people like to think photography is only about recording reality but that has never been the case, since day one it has been a 2D slice of a 3D world influenced by the photographer’s decisions.

Ok so I have an image I like and want to work on it in Photoshop.  The first problem is that most computer screens won’t show all the colours your camera can capture or your printer can print.  One of the few that will are made by Eizo, I’m currently using a gorgeous CG241W 24″ screen. They are guaranteed to have luminance values within 1% variance over the entire screen and display the full Agobe RGB colour gamut. Most LCD screen are lucky to hit 70%.  How on earth can you edit colours when you can’t see them?  The downside as usual is price, they are not cheap.  Of course a screen is no use unless it is calibrated to a known standard.  The Eizo screens have built in hardware-based calibration which reads input from a Gretag Macbeth iOne colorimeter to keep everything in order.

Another tool I use a lot is Chromix Colorthink software.  It gives 3D representations of colour and printer profiles.  Some very saturated colours may be physically impossible to print but by analysing them with Colorthink I can fine tune the files or make different paper choices.

Once the file is ready it’s time for a print.  I long ago gave up letting anyone else print my work because frankly I can’t find anyone in the country who really knows what they are doing.  I bought the best combo available: an Epson 9800 printer and Imageprint RIP software.  The printer is a monster with a 112 cm (44″) print width but importantly uses Ultrachrome K3 pigments rather than the dye inks that most cheap (and some not so cheap) printers use.  They are fully archival, fading is not an issue. The Imageprint software is horribly expensive (not much change out of $4000) but does a brilliant job of laying down those pigments.

Paper selection is a pleasure and a minefield.  I mainly use papers from Hahnemuhle, Canson and Crane.  It’s no surprise that painters will recognise these names and they are all old suppliers of fine art papers who now have adapted their media to work with today’s pigment printers. I mainly use matte cotton-rag papers.  There is a huge variety of texture, smoothness, and base colour.  Some images look better on a cooler coloured paper, some look better on warmer papers. It’s a matter of pairing the image the the paper that will best represent what I originally had in mind when I captured the image.

Southland Coast. The subtle shades of blue can only been fully appreciated in a beautiful print.

This is just a brief insight in to how I make prints.  I know this process of pigment inks on cotton rag media is the best available today.  Enlightened galleries have finally accepted that they are the next step on from C prints, which are now so last century.  When artists like Bill Henson can sell digital pigment prints at $25,000 a pop we know the real art world has embraced them.

My dilemma is when I photograph people and they say “I just want the files so I can organise my own prints”. I know that means the images I carefully make will be massacred by some chainstore photo lab; this is the reason many photographers don’t give away a disc of files.  If they have any pride in their work they will want to make sure the prints are something they want to have their name associated with.  But I also know some people don’t really care about print quality as long as they look good in the photo!  I love making portraits to a fine art quality but realise everyone can’t afford the investment needed. I’ve yet to sort out a compromise I’m happy with but one thing is sure, I will always be refining my skills and equipment to see if I can wring a bit more zing out of my favourite images.