which is the best printing process for landscapes?

[mojitomax]

Hi all,

This is more of a generic question as i'm based in OZ and so won;t be using UK printers.

But what is the best printing process for landscapes (to mounted in a frame)?

I saw some gorgeous landscapes that were mounted in a frame and seemed to pop out of the glass - granted, it may have been the illumination too.

There is a local printer who can print onto metallic paper which seems to really reflect light back at the viewer and they look good.

Any ideas?

Thanks

[LongQ]

Trickly one.

The light used during display will count for a lot and then there is the question of gloss, semi-gloss, matt and so on.

I recent got a sample pack from Whitewall.com .

It has coaster sized samples of their print material options that one can compare at leisure.

To be honest the differences are really not so great other then for things like different shades of "white" for some of the specialist Art papers and how things look different at first sight depending on whether they as gloss or matt finish.

However by a small margin and somewhat dependant on having some vibrant colour to 'pop' the poppiest, in my view as I it here typing this, is probably

a. LightJet print on Fuji Flex high gloss. (A "paper" medium)
b. Direct print on Aluminium Dibond backing (Ink medium not specified. Matt finish. Strong whites are just the metal surface. It's on a rigid backing.)
c. LightJet print on Kodak Metallic High gloss (A "paper" medium)

Frankly they look so close in results that picking one over another would be tricky and might be decide on price.

They do offer a new "HD" print on metal but there is no sample for that in the pack.

Price wise the comparison sees the Aluminium Dibond and the LightJet on Kodak Metallic paper running at the same price whereas the Fuji is more than twice their price.

My suggestion would be to check out who locally to you might offer these options or similar and view some samples. However the Whitewall web site offers a lot of interesting information most of which will not be exclusive to them and they do ship worldwide although the primary focus seems to be on Europe and the US currently.

HTH.

[GetCarter]

mojitomax said:

Hi all,

This is more of a generic question as i'm based in OZ and so won;t be using UK printers.

But what is the best printing process for landscapes (to mounted in a frame)?

I saw some gorgeous landscapes that were mounted in a frame and seemed to pop out of the glass - granted, it may have been the illumination too.

There is a local printer who can print onto metallic paper which seems to really reflect light back at the viewer and they look good.

Any ideas?

Thanks

You might want to PM RobDickinson who is in NZ and gets his landscape stuff printed to exhibition standard

[Craikeybaby]

As a general rule I go for matte paper if the print will be behind glass, but as always rules are there to be broken.

The type of image also has an effect on what paper to use, for example I have an image of a misty lake, the colours are quite muted and I've printed that on a textured paper, but which wouldn't work with a more starck black and white image.

[GetCarter]

I ALWAYS use matte behind glass. Framers will hate you if you use gloss.

[ExPat2B]

why do you say that GetCarter ? I have two prints in front of my under glass, and there is virtually no difference in internal reflections from matt to gloss....I would have thought gloss would be superior for fine landscape details ?

[GetCarter]

ExPat2B said:

why do you say that GetCarter ? I have two prints in front of my under glass, and there is virtually no difference in internal reflections from matt to gloss....I would have thought gloss would be superior for fine landscape details ?

Having given gloss pints to my framers they shouted 'NO' at me as the extra layer that is included in gloss will never stay flat... and I have to say, having looked at the one I gave them... it looks fine straight on, but when the light hits from an angle, you can see ripples. It ain't flat.

Since then, I have always done what they said, and have not seen a problem.

..But have seen many problems with gloss behind glass since they pointed it out.

[ExPat2B]

GetCarter said:

ExPat2B said:

why do you say that GetCarter ? I have two prints in front of my under glass, and there is virtually no difference in internal reflections from matt to gloss....I would have thought gloss would be superior for fine landscape details ?

Having given gloss pints to my framers they shouted 'NO' at me as the extra layer that is included in gloss will never stay flat... and I have to say, having looked at the one I gave them... it looks fine straight on, but when the light hits from an angle, you can see ripples. It ain't flat.

Since then, I have always done what they said, and have not seen a problem.

..But have seen many problems with gloss behind glass since they pointed it out.

Thanks ! I guess as I mostly print at 8x12 I have not seen a problem yet.

[jimmyjimjim]

We made the same mistake with some wedding photos. Gloss behind glass looks terrible at some angles due to the ripples. We got them re-printed as matte, no problem.

[mojitomax]

Thanks for the advice guys. Much appreciated

[LastLight]

GetCarter said:

ExPat2B said:

why do you say that GetCarter ? I have two prints in front of my under glass, and there is virtually no difference in internal reflections from matt to gloss....I would have thought gloss would be superior for fine landscape details ?

Having given gloss pints to my framers they shouted 'NO' at me as the extra layer that is included in gloss will never stay flat... and I have to say, having looked at the one I gave them... it looks fine straight on, but when the light hits from an angle, you can see ripples. It ain't flat.

Since then, I have always done what they said, and have not seen a problem.

..But have seen many problems with gloss behind glass since they pointed it out.

I can confirm this! I bought a print from Mark on here, the one of the Drakensburg Mountains - a lovely shot - and had it framed by the lady I always use and who does a very good job. It's in a wide mount in a sympathetic colour, a very good frame and... is driving me mad. Because it is catching light at c.45 degrees and the vertical ripples clash with the angled ripples of the lower slopes. I'm going to have to find a new place for it where the light is less harsh.

On the other hand, a similar photo of mine of Glen Nevis printed to complement it was done by WhiteWall as: Alu-Dibond 3 mm, with Aluminium rails on Fuji Crystal DP II, glossy and under Acrylic glass 2 mm glossy, and that has no problems.

I went to the 'Masters of Vision' exhibition at Southwell Minster last week, there were many excellent prints from very accomplished (and pricey!) photographers but the lighting ruined many for me. If it wasn't too dark the spotlights through reflective glass gave so many reflections I had to move constantly to try to get a decent view without the spoiling and the (relatively few, iirc) gloss prints suffered worst. I noticed that an awful lot were printed on watercolour type papers or Hahnemuehle Bamboo and looked good.

http://www.hahnemuehle.com/en/digital-fineart/digi... Bamboo

I also had the taster pack from Whitewall and don't think they do justice to the papers used or show the differences at bigger sizes as the prints I've had on a variety of media are significantly different. Trouble is, what suits one picture best doesn't the others! Overall I've liked the Dibond mounted matt surfaces best for most of my pictures, though two on the glossy Fuji Crystal DPII paper work well and really shine, especially one printed under special resin with a liquid mounting process(?)

Edited by LastLight on Wednesday 19th August 20:42