Interview: Printmaster Wesley Wong, part one

A0000320 copy

Today’s post is a little different: following on from the excellent reception given to my interview with Nick Brandt, and my current focus on pushing print limits, it is high time we heard from the print master himself – Wesley Wong. I can say plenty about the process, but there are a lot of areas in which is expertise greatly outstrips my own. I also strongly believe that he is an integral part of the artistic process of bringing an image to its final form, and that my print buyers – thank you – would also enjoy meeting the man, albeit virtually. It’s a lengthy discourse as there’s a lot of ground to cover, so the interview will be split into two parts. Read on…

1. How and why did you start printing? Was it motivated by photography first, or something else?

I started photography almost 10 years ago. I waited patiently for digital camera technology to mature before beginning. To me, photography has always been about an image captured in time, to be viewed in print. Back in 2004, there were no Facebook, Flickr, Instagram, etc…except maybe PBase. I used to send my images (3MP from a Fuji FinePix S5000) to the photo lab to make 4R, 6R and 8R prints. I noticed that there was no consistency of colors on the prints from the same lab. At that point I knew nothing about color management, and was entirely dependent on the inferior LCD screen on my laptop computer. Soon after, I bought an A4 desktop photo printer and started making my own; there was no calibration or profiling but did enjoy the output.
In 2005, I encountered Ilford inkjet papers in a local photography magazine; after contacting them, the distributor invited me to his shop, where I was introduced to large format printing and color management. After a month or two, I bought my first large format – A2 – printer. At that point, I started spending more and more time researching fine art printmaking, color management and workflow. The first output from my calibrated workflow was indeed a wonderful experience! Soon after, I switched to other media – especially those supplied with manufacturer ICC profiles. In 2005, I started offering commercial print services for photobooks and canvas part time – I still had a day job in IT. 2007 saw me partner up with HP; their technology excited me because it was the only printer at the time that had an integrated i1 spectrophotometer to generate automated color profiles. I am still a HP official partner.

2. Were you happy with the initial results at the time? If not, why not?

There was definitely an initial steep learning curve – I had to learn post processing in Adobe Photoshop, handling the printer, managing colors and understanding how it all worked together. There was a lot of trial and error, and even the manufacturer’s ICC profiles do not guarantee accurate color. I cannot say I was not entirely happy with the initial output; though at least there was some consistency when repeat printing. The inkjet prints were definitely better than the minilab (dye sub) prints, with greater color accuracy and wider gamut. Black and white prints had less of a color cast.

3. Given the increasing skew towards digital-only output, how important is printing in the whole photographic process?

Making a print is the final part of the photography workflow. Without a print, there is no reference on how an image is to be viewed and appreciated. There is no guarantee that what you see is what anybody else sees. Viewing an image on screen does not carry the same visual impact and experience as colors differ from one screen to another, and the image is not viewed at the final intended size with the correct aspect ratio. Although a screen uses transmitted light, the visual experience is so different from even a backlit print – let alone an incident-lit one.

Without printing, the megapixel race does not make sense – it is unnecessary if the final output is web display. Why are we chasing higher megapixels if the intension is not making prints? I am not implying that we need to make a print for every image we capture – on the contrary –  since most photographers don’t print, they also do not adhere to a workflow that renders a consistent image or one that is printable at decent sizes. Pixel quantity does not necessary equate to pixel quality if the workflow is weak.

4. A lot of people are used to small minilab prints; hobbyists will print larger, but still on somebody else’s machine; serious amateurs will probably try making their own inkjet prints at some point during their photographic careers. At what stage in this process do people tend to come to you?

While most people are happy with the small prints from minilabs, photographers after higher quality generally prefer to outsource the printmaking especially when a large print is required. Most minilabs in Malaysia do not offer anything above 8×10”, and even then they are confined to chemical prints on glossy photo papers. A typical desktop printer will make an A4 or at best an A3+ print; they also lack the gamut to make a color-accurate print. Most of my customers look for larger size prints at higher quality with long permanence on a variety of papers including fine art, baryta or canvas.

5. How many of them are surprised when you tell them their file quality is the limiting factor in the output? Have you ever had anything unprintable?

Well, frankly I get that almost all the time. Again: pixel quantity or sensor size does not necessary make a good image if the workflow is weak. Workflow begins with Capture – which involves every aspect of technical execution, especially choice of aperture, lens resolving power and diffraction limits, sensor limitations, critical focus, vibration reduction, etc. Assuming all is well, the next step is Post Processing. The four major factors which may severely degrade pixel quality are RAW Conversion, Noise Reduction, Sharpening and Interpolation. Without entering into the details, it is important to select the right RAW converter for the camera and apply the right techniques to prepare a good file for print.
It is my responsibility to advise my customers on the ‘printability’ of their files at the intended sizes before making the print. It may sometimes mean turning down a print job if the result is not going to be good.

_G000060 copy

6. Have there been any big surprises either way with file quality? I.e. ‘big names’ whose files weren’t up to expectations, or unknowns who’ve produced the most incredible pixel quality you’ve ever seen?

Well, yes and no. Often, people expect their files to be printable when they say they use ‘big name’ cameras with high pixel counts. It may again come down to the quality of optics, workflow, etc. I find that most photographers do not really understand their equipment and limitations. Much to my surprise, many of them do not understand ‘diffraction’ for example…they just stop down as much as possible to gain more depth of field. We must not forget that digital cameras are sophisticated pieces of equipment. Understanding the technology behind it is important to know what it can do for one’s needs. It is also a common belief that a larger, higher megapixel sensor will always perform better than a smaller one. While this is true in most cases, this cannot be taken as a universal truth. At system level, it requires equally matched lenses to get the most out of the sensor. I have seen both good and bad quality files from medium format to FF and crop sensor-based camera systems.

7. What qualities in a file make for a good print? What qualities will look bad? What do you look for?

Good pixels. Regardless of the total pixel count, I will always trade good quality pixels over anything else. That also calls for the need of a more disciplined and demanding workflow to ensure that the final file before printing holds as much pixel quality as possible. At pixel level we look for acuity which, which defines the contrast and micro-contrast of the image. Every image has to go through some interpolation before printing; the interpolation engine uses actual data as a basis before creating more to upsize an image. If quality is compromised at some point, either during capture or post processing, this will be further magnified on a larger print.

In my experience, most of the flaws were created by the photographer during post processing. The most common mistake is oversharpening and excessive noise reduction, which almost eliminates micro contrast. Overuse of blending modes with high pass/Gaussian blur are also highly detrimental to pixel quality.

8. All other things equal, and bearing in mind that due to the linear/nonlinear nature of screen vs print means that what works on screen might not work in print and vice versa – do some cameras produce more print-friendly files than others? Which ones, and why?

Frankly, as a master printer, I can never promise my client 100% accuracy from screen to print. As you have mentioned, there are also other factors involved – color gamuts vary from screen to print depending on equipment. I use monitors which have at least 100% sRGB coverage and >75% AdobeRGB coverage, calibrated to a delta E of less than 1.5. This mitigates deviations in the perception of luminance (calibrated to 100-120 cd/m2) and color, which is essential for soft proofing. When we look at a print, we are look at reflected light – which is very different from transmitted light through a screen. Our brains perceive colors and contrast quite differently under these two viewing conditions.

Most of the digital cameras produce acceptable colors given the current technology and maturity in RAW conversion software and its algorithms. A Bayer array based camera system seems to produce a slightly more consistent color image as opposed to a Foveon sensor, as color is calculated after capture in the Bayer sensor cameras. On the other hand, the color-aware Foveon sensor will produce very high quality pixels free from any form of color interpolation with very high pixel acuity.

9. Talk us through the importance of workflow, and what a good workflow process should include and avoid.

print workflow graphic

Here you go. As discussed earlier, the four pitfalls to avoid – resulting in degradation of pixel quality – are poor RAW conversion, aggressive noise reduction, oversharpening and poor interpolation.

10. Can workflow make up for raw resolution – and to put a popular myth to rest, where do you think the sufficiency bar lies for most people?

To achieve a good large print, the strategy within the workflow is to minimize processes that will degrade the pixel quality. In fact this is even more important with high megapixel images. Retouching strategy also has to be considered for portraiture and commercial work. Any flaws in retouching will be highly visible in a large print.

I started off making prints from 3-6MP at sizes up to 24×16”. Depending on viewing distance, most current DSLRs or mirrorless cameras at ~12-16MP should not have problems making prints at those sizes provided the workflow is solid. I have even printed to 4.5ft on the longer edge from M4/3 cameras with impressive results at viewing distances under 5ft. Ultimately, larger sensors do not equate to better results – it is the system level comprises in optics, camera, technique, workflow that matter.

11. Physical size is one obvious way to push the boundaries of printing and display; there’s immediate presence and impact, but some subjects simply aren’t suited to large prints and close range viewing – human body parts are a good example. More obviously, not everybody has the wall space to display something that large. How else can we push the limits?

I’m not sure if I fully agree with this, but sizes are relative. Consider art or painting as example: depending on subject matter, some images may look graphic or abstract at larger than life size. On the contrary, some landscapes create greater visual impact at smaller print sizes when matched with the right matte and frame. I guess we have to consider the final appearance of the print in framed form. Though it’s logical to consider a small print from a lesser quality image file, it is very satisfying to make high detailed prints at small sizes. The visual appearance is almost identical to a contact print.

_G000075 copy
Calibration patterns and test print detritus…

12. Talk a bit about the role of colour management in the print process, and how we can ensure what we see is what we get.

Color management is purely science. It’s about transferring colors from screen to print based on the defined standard in the ICC (International Color Consortium) reference. The monitor needs to be calibrated, but prior to that, the quality of the screen and its color gamut are essential. We cannot see what the monitor cannot display. There is no point calibrating a screen if the monitor is not able to produce a good percentage of working colors, at least based on the sRGB color model. Most low end monitor cannot even reproduce 70% of the sRGB gamut. Essentially, the photographer may be missing 30% of the captured color information and even know it! Dedicated inkjet photo printers like the HPs and Epsons I use have printable color gamut exceeding sRGB on almost all papers and media.

A professional grade monitor may be able to reproduce more than 90% of AdobeRGB color space. These are typically 30-bit monitors at 10-bit per channel. The total color gamut exceeds 1.06 billion colors. That said, a good IPS-grade 24-bit monitor (8-bit channel) would suffice for most photography work with at least 100% sRGB coverage.

Calibrating a monitor literally means tightening the tolerance (measured in Delta E) to the reference. This is easily done with a good calibrator from X-Rite, Monaco, Datacolor or other reputable brands.

The last step is to match the color numbers to the printer via an ICC profile. While most will rely on manufacturer’s ICC profile, in my experience, it does not guarantee accuracy. It is however, a meticulous and elaborated process to try to create a custom (user) ICC profile. There are many factors to consider, including ink density and saturation limits for each type of paper, linearization and then only ICC profile generation. The most tedious process by far is getting the right linearization. With modern photo printers, we are not just dealing with CMYK inks – we must consider when the printer will switch over to LM, LC, Grey or even Light Gray inks, which greatly complicates the linearization process. However, linearization can only be controlled with manual intervention through Raster Image Processor (RIP) software. The typical driver does not allow user override – even the HP printers with built in spectrophotometers.

Assuming the print environment is fully calibrated from screen to the media of choice, getting higher accuracy of colors becomes easier. We can use the ICC profile to soft proof the image on screen in Photoshop. For most photography work, the rendering intent can be set as Perceptual. For some, I would prefer Relative Colorimetric (with Black Point Compensation) or even Absolute Colorimetric if the captured image is well within the color space and gamut of the paper’s ICC profile.

To be continued tomorrow in part two.

Wesley Wong is the founder of Giclee Art, offering extremely high quality printing solutions at a range of sizes. In addition to exclusively printing my fine art and commercial work, he also prints for quite a few of my students and a large number of the eminent photographers in Malaysia. He can be contacted via email here, or via his website. He also ships finished work internationally.

____________

Places left for 2014 Making Outstanding Images Workshops: Havana and London – click here for more information and to book!

____________

Visit the Teaching Store to up your photographic game – including workshop and Photoshop Workflow videos and the customized Email School of Photography; or go mobile with the Photography Compendium for iPad. You can also get your gear from B&H and Amazon. Prices are the same as normal, however a small portion of your purchase value is referred back to me. Thanks!

Don’t forget to like us on Facebook and join the reader Flickr group!

appstorebadge

Images and content copyright Ming Thein | mingthein.com 2012 onwards. All rights reserved

Comments

  1. Awesome! Ming, in which video(s) do you cover the workflow shown at #9? Thx.

    • It’s a holistic workflow approach including capture, so that would be the outstanding images series plus intro to PS. Print is not covered in video because it doesn’t make sense to give instructions for sown thing only Wesley and I do…

  2. Thanks, great interview. Best, Frank

  3. Excellent article (both the 1 and 2 parts). A question, for you or/and Wesley, if you don’t mind : what desktop printers do you recommend, in the lower and the higher end of the price spectrum, to start messing with prints at home? I know that the “lower” in the previous senetence is somewhat contradictory (generally you get what you pay), but some people could be somewhat sort of cash or have higher equipment prices in their places (my case).
    And of course I know that probably will never get a high quality print at home, comparing to a high quality print center as Wong’s; just a case to get the feet a little wet. :) (in fact, I have to became a better photographer firsty…)

  4. Another eye opener for me. I just started to print and I need to ask around my area on where to go for printing. It seems a bit complicated to get the best output. Before it’s like preparing the digital file and just handing it out to the local printer. I can print at home but there is a lot to consider to get the best output. Thanks for this Ming, can’t wait for the 2nd part.

    • Like anything, the workflow matters. There are a lot of variables to understand and optimise for each image; unfortunately there’s no shortcut to that. Either practice or develop a relationship with somebody who’s already done that practice…

      • I understand now why with some photos I can print almost exactly how I see it on my calibrated screen but with other images I cannot reproduce the colours. It is more than just colour profiles. Also, my workflow doesn’t include interpolation, soft proofing and media profiling but I sharpen for final output (and also re-sharpen for web since I resize). Do you leave the interpolation, soft proofing and media profiling to Wesley?

  5. Wow dude – would easily pay serious money to attend seminars or lectures to get knowledge like these and you are giving away for free. Well done and keep it up.

    Wesley is a gentleman through and through. His canvas printing was just mind boggling ! At your exhibition I walked past the canvas print couple of times thinking it was a fine art print on paper. Only after him pointing it out that it actually was a canvas print I could see the canvas. It was stunning.

    Regards
    Arpit

    • Perhaps in that case you should attend one of my workshops :)

      I still can’t figure out the obsession with canvas for fine art printing – I only use it because it’s easier to handle at those sizes, and Baryta only goes up to ~44″ wide normally. Canvas lacks the tonal subtlety and ability to hold detail; I suspect it’s because it also hides poor pixel quality…

      • Well I have certainly benefited immensely from your 3 videos on making outstanding images. Really cant wait to get the last 2 of the series and possibly some more off the stable. My number of keepers have increased tremendously.

        I have seen plenty of ghastly canvas prints and I do not like them one bit. But personally I like canvas because it gives some roughness to the final print, sort of imperfection which I like in mine and other images. One of the main reason I quite like your BW photos is that they do not have that clean, digital and over processed look of other images on the internet.

  6. Brett Patching says:

    Excellent interview – and I’m so happy that you’re doing this series on printing Ming.

  7. Very excellent article. One of my favorites you’ve done recently. I’m interested in learning more about interpolation. While I’ve used Photoshop and products like OnOne Resize to interpolate, slightly, I usually find for my landscape work, if the pixels and gradations are spot on, it’s better to print at lower dpi on larger products (down to 120dpi, even) than to try and keep to the printer’s native dpi density, although it’s kind of a balancing act. Any thoughts on this subject would be welcome. I really like Mr. Wong’s sense of experience and humility in his effort to create the best possible output. I can understand why you value his service so highly.

    • I suspect it’s because the printer’s software does a better job with the interpolation than PS; that typically results in hard edges, whereas the printer’s results are a bit ‘softer’ at the edges and more natural – since there are many ink dots that go into making up a single pixel…

    • Wesley Wong says:

      Hi Jeffrey, I use Genuine Fractals (now known as Resize) in my early years of printmaking. It’s at best a decent software, much better than PS bicubic, however my experience with it is not too pleasant when the image is lacking micro details or areas with lower frequency details. The fractal calculation adds indecent ‘worm looking’ artifacts which can be clearly seen at large prints. I rarely lower anything below 180ppi for upsizing.

  8. Great interview. Thanks!

  9. John Lockwood says:

    Couldn’t agree more on pixel quality and presenting un-molested pixels to your print master or commercial lab. This, as well as the previous article, are about capturing and preparing pixels for digital output. Would love to hear your thoughts on optical printing from your b&w film images Ming. To me, there is nothing like a gelatin silver print, at moderate size, to present full tonality. What are your print masters thoughts on digital vs. optical gsp prints?

    • I honestly don’t have enough experience with optical printing to be able to add anything meaningful – I have seen plenty, but not done that much of it myself. The main reason I’m choosing to go the digital route is consistency and control to the nth degree; that and my wife would kill me if the fumes in the apartment don’t get me first…

      • John Lockwood says:

        Commercial labs here in the US (serving the portrait and wedding market) couldn’t wait to get rid of optical printing. Any scratch or dust spot on a negative became VERY obvious in print. They invested millions in equipment at the turn of the millenia, first hybridizing the process (scanning MF film, then digitally printing), then abandoning film processing altogether.

        It would be interesting Ming, if you sent a 6×6 Acros negative to a Master (optical) Printer and had a Silver Gelatin Print made at say 10″x10″. Perhaps the digital output devices have improved, but when I view B&W prints in a museum, printed relatively small, I’m drawn in by the depth of the blacks. I think this “magic” was what you were alluding to in your original article on digital contact prints and why you still think, for B&W, film is superior.

        When an image is created on film, is the highest quality workflow analog? Notice I said “highest quality” not most convenient. i.e. Hasselblad capture onto Acros, printed optically vs. Nikon D800e capture, massaged in Photoshop and output Giclee? Does Mr. Wong have a bottom line resolution he believes is optimal for a given output, like 300dpi, or is it totally subject dependant?

        • I don’t think the highest quality workflow is analog for the reasons you describe: dust and scratches are hugely obvious, and you can’t easily remove those. Dodging and burning is easier digitally. I think for B&W the best results are still hybrid.

          There is no bottom line resolution: the more the better, independent of subject. With current print methods, we can see the difference up to ~700-800PPI or so.

        • Wesley Wong says:

          A Durst Lambda or LiteJet black and white print always look stunning due to the rich deep blacks and lack of color cast. That’s said, although the inkjet technology is different, it has surpassed the Dmax of a lambda print. Coupled with the fact that now one has freedom of choice in a variety of media/paper, the value proposition is much higher than before.

          I usually prefer to work with files at native dpi.

  10. Great interview Ming! Thank you. I’m looking forward to part 2.

  11. Very interesting to read. One gets a good feel of Mr. Wang’s passion for his job.

  12. Excellent open interview.
    I feel much more comfortable that I have adopted the right strategy for me at this particular time.

  13. To get a good print you need to carefully adjust the black point of the image relative to that of the printer and paper combo so that shadow detail can be maintained. The display shows differences in levels of black at lower luminosity levels than the printer. Once global adjustments of the image are done for things like removing color casts and global contrast, then there is local adjustments of contrast etc. which enhance the print. Printing it out in a smaller size and then looking at the print under proper light and then identifying further image tweaking and then printing again is the way to your final optimized to your taste print. The fine art print. And then on top of this you need good gallery type display lighting on the print hanging on the wall. I installed that lighting on one of the walls in my living room for my prints. Of course it does not match the strong lighting technique of a Peter Lik gallery print which is on Fuji Crystal Archive paper (yuk, not even baryta at least for his prices) where the colors are so saturated and luminous looking. But I don’t consider that fine art printing and is more pop commercial looking.
    I have seen comparisons between NO Z3200/3100 vs. Epson 7880 etc. for B&W printing that favor the HP. Wonder if ringmaster Wesley agrees since he has both.

    • Agreed – and the steps between those luminance levels need to be linearised so that the screen gradation matches output; linearity of monitors is much better than uncalibrated printers.

      As for proofing – we generally do at least 5×7″ proofs, sometimes larger – until the image perceptually looks right – i.e. matching the artistic intention of the original image.

      The HP B&W output is very neutral, but doesn’t have anywhere near the same gradation or linearity as the Epsons. We’ve had good results from the HPs in the past, but are now using large format Epsons…

  14. Fascinating. Given the importance Wong places on getting the raw sharpening right and non-destructive editing in general, it would be fascinating to read your basic approach to image processing out of the camera.

  15. Digital has resolution and colour beat but where are we at with tonality? Big skies after sunset can still give me banding issues or at least not have the gradation of tones compared to large format film. You mentioned contact printing in your last (very interesting) post and looking through some books with all formats presented on an equal basis the old contacts prints are more than obvious even at a small size they look wonderful. I am unfortunately no expert on the technicalities of printing but is the difference in the tonality range/gradation or is there more to it than that?

    • Color tonality is better if you post process well. B&W…still has a way to go.

      Actually, the smallest frequency of reproduction affects the microcontrast and thus tonal range – but at a small scale. I think this is what makes the difference. But it’s only useful assuming the repro medium can also hold that level of detail.

    • Wesley Wong says:

      “Big skies after sunset can still give me banding issues or at least not have the gradation of tones compared to large format film.”. Agreed, especially from Bayer based sensors. At twilight, deep red/magenta/blue are dominant. Bayer can only reproduce red and blue at less than half a pixel and had to be interpolated for color. A higher bit rate mitigates but I’ve also encountered similar problems with 16-bit/channel Hasselblad files, which is also Bayer based.

  16. Amazing interview and information. For the Soft Proof step. Is this something that a photographer has a chance of getting correct on their own computer or does it require at a minimum the Printmaster’s computer and also the Printmaster?

    • If your monitor is calibrated and profiled, and you supply this profile to your printer, then there’s no reason why you can’t do it yourself…my prints look identical to my work monitor.

  17. As someone who has been dabling in ink jet printing for the past 15 months, I find this invaluable –> especially the workflow. I’m printing that workflow flow-chart and taping it ontop of my printer. I look forward to reading part two and future parts.

  18. Very interesting. It seems to me (as someone who rarely if ever prints) that the process is incredibly complicated and full of trial-and-error. I know a fair bit about photography in general, but some of this article reads like a foreign language to me! It’s not necessarily an age thing either (I’m early forties), but maybe because I started photography seriously with digital and rarely shoot film…maybe?

    If I were getting into prints, I would definitely enlist the help of someone such as the subject of this article. He certainly appears to know his stuff and your personal recommendation is worth a lot. That being said, have you ever wondered if you’re swimming against the tide, in that the vast majority of photos are now viewed on a screen? Printing seems to be very much a minority interest these days; a bit like shooting film – it has a small but vocal fanbase but is essentially now a minority interest and is likely to stay that way for the foreseeable future. I have no doubt that a good print is a thing of beauty (as Keats phrased it), but for the effort it takes, it had better be!

    • There is a steep learning curve, and the reason is because the success of the output is almost entirely perceptual; experience is required to compensate to maintain the artistic impression intended especially if the colours run out of gamut.

      Yes, we’re going against the tide – but if all images are only going to be viewed on screens – even 4K HD – you don’t need the silly resolutions you can get now. I will continue to do it even if only because a screen really doesn’t do an image justice; even if unfortunately there’s no way to share this with a large number of people.

  19. Very interesting! Thanks for this enlightening interview.

Trackbacks

  1. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  2. […] I use Wesley Wong at Giclee Art in Kuala Lumpur – I actually interviewed him here a little while ago. We both decided we could go further with the output – and he is my […]

  3. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  4. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  5. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  6. […] surface and better reflection control (not to mention a complete lack of baryta dust, of course). Wesley Wong at Giclee Art will handle the […]

  7. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  8. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  9. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  10. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  11. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  12. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  13. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  14. […] I also brought a partial Pentax 645 kit – the 645Z body, 55/2.8 and 90/2.8 SR lenses. I was debating on also packing the 25/4, but that’s a very large/heavy lens and not really used unless I have a very specific purpose for it. The 90/2.8 SR and 85 Otus do overlap in range somewhat, but they produce a very different look due to the difference in format, resultant angle of view and depth of field – the 85 Otus feels far more ‘telephoto'; the 90/2.8 SR gives you a tighter angle of view, but feels a bit more like a long normal. The 55/2.8 is probably the most versatile of all of the 645 lenses, and one of the best optically; I love the way it renders as a wide-normal and the perspective-FOV-DOF relationship on the 44x33mm sensor. Yes, it’s a 43mm equivalent which is perilously close to the PC-E 45/2.8, but the latter is manual focus only. I wanted to pack something longer for stitching work and the occasional telephoto image, but my second hand Pentax FA 200/4 appears to be a bit of an inconsistent dog optically, so I borrowed a manual focus A 150/3.5 from my printmaster, a notorious Mr. Wesley Wong. […]

  15. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  16. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  17. […] the prints Prints are made by Printmaster Wesley Wong of Giclee Art using our proprietary Ultraprint process, which delivers extremely high real resolutions – up […]

  18. […] usual, prints will be made by print master Wesley Wong of Giclee Art in Kuala Lumpur (who’s overseen all of my previous editions), QC’d personally by me, […]

  19. […] of the images will be available to buy as limited edition Ultraprints, printed by Wesley Wong of Giclee Art in Kuala Lumpur who has overseen all of my previous print runs, and personally QC’d and […]

  20. […] using Canson Infinity Platin Fiber Rag baryta and Epson Ultrachrome inks with 100+ year longevity; print master Wesley Wong of Giclee Art will be once again be responsible for the printing, with yours truly performing final QC on […]

  21. […] by mingthein.com, Part 1 & Part […]

  22. […] using Canson Infinity Platin Fiber Rag baryta and Epson Ultrachrome inks with 100+ year longevity; print master Wesley Wong of Giclee Art will be once again be responsible for the printing, with yours truly performing final QC on […]

  23. […] from the first half of the interview yesterday with printmaster Wesley […]

Thoughts? Leave a comment here and I'll get back to you.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 29,107 other followers

%d bloggers like this: