>>4201956If you're interested in getting your stuff printed out, find a local fine art printer in your area and work with them.
That being said, getting into printing can be expensive. If you have the money and time and the drive to do, go for it. I wouldn't get anything other than epson p900 or canon pro 1000.
>>4202026>No, the printer most definitely can too, ya dummy. My screen is calibrated with a Spyder. I tried 2 different matte papers, one with a smoother coating, and they both came out far too contrasty with various print settings adjusted using the matte paper profile, if I pushed brightness up or contrast down to fix the shadows, then the highlights were washed out. Both papers came out just great on the canon with very minor tweaks.Yes, the printer/paper combo is going to have biggest impact on print quality. However, these things affect black point, white point, color gamut, and other stuff (surface sheen and print longitivity are also influenced). When you're printing from a file that has no out of gamut colors, any contrast, brightness, or tonal issues are exclusively caused by a poor color management workflow or a shitty icc profile.
>This is the dumbest fucking advice I've ever heard, and you've given yourself away as a dumbass retard.Dude, you're making yourself out to be an idiot. The reason you make the monitor look the print, aka soft-proofing, is save paper, ink and time. If you know that your print is basically gonna look like it does on the screen, you can make edits without having make a hard proof to verify.
>Post a timestamp of both your screen and printer calibration hardware or just run away from humiliation.I wasn't tripping, so maybe you forgot who I am. I do art repro and fine art printing for a living. I'm also gallery represented and highly respected in the local community. Anyways, heres my proof. i1 pro 2, my last monitor profile(on monitor), a recent printer profile sheet, and my ipf8400 in the background.
