Which Image (if any) to Print?

[ArthurDent]

We (really my wife) are doing some redecorating and want some prints of some of my photos to display. One of the images I'm thinking of having printed is an image of some clouds I took  in S. Florida some years ago. The image was in color, but I like it better as a black and white. I've got two different versions and am having trouble deciding between the two. I've posted both below. Please give me your critiques if you see anything you think should be changed, and, if you have one, your preference as to which to print. Thanks in advance for your comments/critique. The print width would be 18" (46cm).

[ArthurDent]

Here is the original image in case you have thoughts on the crop.

[Bent Hjarbo]

#1 for decoration purposes.

[Lars Hansen]

A matter of taste of course - I prefer #1. I noticed that in #2 there are some white gritty artifacts.

I read your post about printing a while ago - I assume this print is to be made in a lab or did you get a printer that does 18 inch prints?

I print myself using an Epson R3000 photo printer. If you don't have much experience with printing then be aware that your post processing should ideally be adapted to the paper and printer that is chosen for the print - called soft proofing. What you have post processed to your screen will mostly turn out different printed on paper.     

[ArthurDent]

A matter of taste of course - I prefer #1. I noticed that in #2 there are some white gritty artifacts.

I read your post about printing a while ago - I assume this print is to be made in a lab or did you get a printer that does 18 inch prints?

I print myself using an Epson R3000 photo printer. If you don't have much experience with printing then be aware that your post processing should ideally be adapted to the paper and printer that is chosen for the print - called soft proofing. What you have post processed to your screen will mostly turn out different printed on paper.   

Lars- Thank you for your response. I found a lab that uses a laser to expose Ilford silver coated paper, which is then developed in a chemical bath like an ordinary photo. I also downloaded the Nik collection, which has a post processor for use in that process. Prints from this lab are expensive, roughly $45 per print, but I want the best quality I can get. If you get a chance, could you please explain where you saw the gritty artifacts, I may be able to work with the image a bit more to get rid of them. Thanks again.

[Lars Hansen]

Lars- Thank you for your response. I found a lab that uses a laser to expose Ilford silver coated paper, which is then developed in a chemical bath like an ordinary photo. I also downloaded the Nik collection, which has a post processor for use in that process. Prints from this lab are expensive, roughly $45 per print, but I want the best quality I can get. If you get a chance, could you please explain where you saw the gritty artifacts, I may be able to work with the image a bit more to get rid of them. Thanks again.

Arthur - that type of print sounds great. My comments are probably not relevant then - it's for paper and ink.

I've copied a section from your photo and attached it - look to the right of the clouds. It looks like you've used a "brush" or "eraser" in you processing and there are also some circular edges that does not look natural around the clouds.

Hope it helps.     

[David H. Hartman]

I would go for something a little less harsh than the second photo above. So far I've only viewed this on my old 24" iMAC.

Dave

[ArthurDent]

Arthur - that type of print sounds great. My comments are probably not relevant then - it's for paper and ink.

I've copied a section from your photo and attached it - look to the right of the clouds. It looks like you've used a "brush" or "eraser" in you processing and there are also some circular edges that does not look natural around the clouds.

Hope it helps.     

It does. Unfortunately, I don't seem to be sble to edit those away, so if I use the second image, I'll have to redevelop it from scratch. Not difficult now that I've been through it once, but a bit time consuming. Thanks for your comments.

[ArthurDent]

I would go for something a little less harsh than the second photo above. So far I've only viewed this on my old 24" iMAC.

Dave

Thank you for your comment. That seems to be the consensus.

[Olivier]

It all depends on what you want to convey but to me the first b&w is far superior.

[Les Olson]

A lot depends on the lighting the print will be displayed in, and how it will be framed.   

Perceived contrast is reduced when prints are viewed in dim environments, so you need higher contrast to get the image to look right (I don't know if you are old enough to remember when everyone sat around in the dark to watch television, but they did that because broadcasts then were made to the movie standard, and because movies were intended to be shown in low light they were made with high contrast, which is why old movies and TV programs often look too contrasty when viewed on a modern television with the lights on). 

The brightness of the image surround has a very strong effect on perceived tonal values.  This is called the Bartleson-Breneman effect; here is an example (from http://facweb.cs.depaul.edu/sgrais/color_context.htm).  Despite appearances, all the squares on each row are the same, but the dark background makes everything brighter - but has more effect on the dark tone, reducing perceived contrast.  In a photograph, the effect can be very complex, depending on which tones are closest to the frame.  Here is an example where the black background increases perceived contrast because the lightening effect on the sky dominates perception (from Allen & Triantaphillidou, Manual of Photography, ed 10, Focal Press, 2011).  So if you plan to show the image in a living room where the light is low I would lean more towards the more contrasty version, but if it is intended for daylight viewing the less contrasty version would be better. You would need to experiment with surround colour.   

[GB111]

Greetings Arthur - I like Version 1. It seems to have that right amount of contrast, density, and believeablilty, the last one may or may not being important to anyone. It has the feeling of expanse, dread, and mystery. The only thing that bugs me at bit is that it seems slightly tilted (CW) even though it isn't. It must be the varied elevation of the land mass in the distance.

My other comment, even though it looks fine, is that if you have a RAW version, ensure that there isn't any banding in the sky, which can happen when there's graduated color (or brightness) like this. It usually creeps in w/ JPGs, the reason I often shoot both JPG and RAW simultaneously. Just in case.

-Greg