HDR For Panoramic Print - Thoughts?

decado

TPF Noob!
Joined
Sep 24, 2009
Messages
155
Reaction score
0
Location
Crystal, MN
Can others edit my Photos
Photos NOT OK to edit
I plan on having a 16"x48" copy of this printed, and I was wondering what your thoughts as to suitability for a large print and adjustments that should be made. Feel free to get very nitpicky (even down to the nitty gritty like split toning) as I want this to look perfect when printed on Kodak Endura Metallic paper. I'm also somewhat confused about color profiles, when I worked on this in photoshop I had ProPhoto selected since I'll be having this printed, and when I saved the .tif it looked just like it should, but now when I open it in photoshop even though it's still set to prophoto the colors are very blown out and bright, while when I open it with windows photo viewer it looks like it should, and after uploading to flickr (after saving a .jpg of the .tif in paint) it looks somewhere in between. What I do know is that when I printed the .tif it looked right and I made sure to print with icc profile.

Anyways here's the picture:
4855218773_f5b1ccf300_b.jpg


Here's a link to the full size .jpg - http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4073/4855218773_8c89cdffa9_o.jpg
 
I can offer no more help then to bump your question so it does not go unanswered. I am wondering if the paper you want to use has it's own color profile, I have always wondered if you should use the color space, the printer or the paper, color profiles, I guess that what has scared me off of printing my work. Good luck and I am sure there are experts here that will answer you question.
 
on my monitior it looks overly bright,

you should also find out what color space the printer is using and be sure you correct for that, as has been mentioned .

Don't mean to be ugly here, but i would not waste the money to have this printed that large. You might ask who every is printing it for you to make a small test run so you can check for color balance etc.
 
Decado
I do not have a calibrated monitor (yet), so I cannot say for sure what I actually see compared to what it may actually look like.

I opened the full size jpeg, and I can see about 1/2 the size or so compared to what you are proposing to have printed.
The clouds and sky look a little blown out, mostly the clouds. The image shows some nice detail.

If you are printing this for yourself, and you really like it, I say be sure of the printer and their requirements. Then have at it. Also printing it is not a sentence of punishment if you do not like the final image/print, it can always be altered...it really is a learning experience and a few dollars spent.

Good luck, let us know what you decide.
 
Looking at the full-size .jpg on my monitor, it doesn't appear sharp. Not sure if that may be due to over-sampling to resize the image, or what, but given the way it appears on-screen, I'd be a little hesitant to print it full-size.

What I would suggest is to crop a an 8x10 section of the image at the same resolution you intend to print the pano at and see what that looks like on your wall (A lot cheaper than a 4' pano)
 
Looking at the full-size .jpg on my monitor, it doesn't appear sharp. Not sure if that may be due to over-sampling to resize the image, or what, but given the way it appears on-screen, I'd be a little hesitant to print it full-size.

What I would suggest is to crop a an 8x10 section of the image at the same resolution you intend to print the pano at and see what that looks like on your wall (A lot cheaper than a 4' pano)
Would some sharpening in photoshop help it? I'm not really sure why it doesn't seem sharp as I took the image at f22 and focused about a third of the way into the image, and used a nice tripod with a cable shutter release.
 
At f/22 you start getting focus softening from diffraction.

Diffraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From MeridianPro.com:

Help Center

Meridian wants JPEGs, in the sRGB color space, and no sharpening applied by you.

Sharpening for print, is not done the same as sharpening for online/computer display.

[ame="http://www.amazon.com/World-Sharpening-Photoshop-Camera-Lightroom/dp/0321637550/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1280884000&sr=8-1"]Amazon.com: Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition) (9780321637550):…[/ame]
 
At f/22 you start getting focus softening from diffraction.

Diffraction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From MeridianPro.com:

Help Center

Meridian wants JPEGs, in the sRGB color space, and no sharpening applied by you.

Sharpening for print, is not done the same as sharpening for online/computer display.

Amazon.com: Real World Image Sharpening with Adobe Photoshop, Camera Raw, and Lightroom (2nd Edition) (9780321637550):…
Wow I had no idea that higher apertures soften the picture, I thought it was the opposite. So what's the highest aperture for infinity focus without softening due to diffraction?
 
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
Hi,

I downloaded your full-size JPEG. The file did not have an embedded ICC profile which basically leaves the colors undefined. I assigned different profiles and got the best result with sRGB. The top photo below is what I got with the sRGB assignment. The photo embedded here has an sRGB profile. What you're actually seeing depends on your system and browser and whether it's color managed.

lake_mtn.jpg


The bottom version of the photo is my color/tone adjustment of the file. The best result I could get opening your JPEG gave me oversaturated and cyan shifted blues. The image was also a little flat in the midtones and I adjusted that.

Your highlights are OK to print. The image is a little soft but it should sharpen well enough to print. The softness could be from a combination of factors -- diffraction, as already mentioned, is certainly a possible cause -- another is camera shake. You said the camera was on a tripod, but your camera has a reflex mirror. Light weight metal tripods can resonate with the shock of a reflex mirror and do more harm than good.

Kmh is correct; sharpening should only be done on a final output file with the output parameters known -- any other sharpening is a mistake.

Back to profiles -- it sounds like your TIF didn't save with the profile embedded. If you saved it in Photoshop and then reopened the file and it looked different a missing profile would be one very likely explanation. Your best option is to work in Photoshop with your color space set to the color space your printer expects. If you're sending the work out use the parameters the service company suggests.

How did you arrive at the original TIF file? Did you process from a RAW capture or from an original camera JPEG?

Take Care,
Joe
 
For the TIF file I started with 3 raw images merged for HDR then I saved the TIF from the resulting PSD file.

My tripod is by no means lightweight, I have [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000UMX7FI/ref=wms_ohs_product"]these[/ame] legs and [ame="http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000184N22/ref=wms_ohs_product"]this[/ame] head, so I doubt I'm getting camera shake from that.
 
Hi,

OK -- so the RAW processor should have been set to assign the Pro-photo color space to the three originals and you have Pro-photo set in Photoshop as your working color space. Then when you saved the TIFF file in Photoshop the Save As dialog has a check box option to embed the ICC profile. It's possible this was unchecked either when the TIFF was saved or the JPEG was saved. I went back and re-read your original post and it really sounds like what you're describing is the ICC profile didn't get embedded in the final saved file.

I'm not certain but I suspect Windows Photoviewer is not color managed and probably doesn't read ICC profiles. That would explain a visual difference there, but the only way Photoshop is going to re-open the file and display it differently is if the profile is dropped.

Another thought about sharpness: First of all, this image is sharp enough to print and it will respond well to software sharpening. It's a nice shot and worth printing. You blended three exposures together to create this image and those three exposures were taken through time of a moving subject. The wind is creating waves on the water and blowing the grass, and the clouds are moving. There's enough motion there to show slightly in the blended final image. You can see the effect most clearly in the foreground water -- it's minor and nit-picky.

I'd say solve the embedded profile issue, convert the file to the specs your printer wants, let them know to sharpen it and get it printed.

Take Care,
Joe
 

Most reactions

Back
Top