Printing issues

[davidedric]

Hi Chris,

Here's an amateur reply (Manfred knows a lot more than I do!)

Just think about where you are viewing things. The darker the conditions, the brighter your screen will appear - and the darker your prints.

So, do some test prints, and find out if your lab is doing any auto adjustments, in which case any changes you make could be being nullified.

Dave

[royphot]

Hi Chri5.
I have only just read this thread. I agree that you need to get yor screen Calibrated and profiled, and would recommend the Spyder.

I note that you are using a Dell IPS Monitor, and mine is the Dell 2412. It is only a couple months old, and came factory calibrated, but I recalibrated with the Spyder and the before and after comparisons were almost identical.

However, I had used the On Screen menu to adjust the Brightness level on mine to only 35% while the contrast is still at its original 75%. From what I have read these figures seem to be fairly common for this range of Monitors.

Until you get your Calibration device, it might be worth your while trying these settings.

Getting your prints to come out the way you want them may seem difficult, but most of us do manage.

[William W]

. . . When I finish editing my photos and then in turn bring them to a lab to print them, the printed version is a lot darker than what it looks like on screen. . . . I printed this photo at A1 for personal use. On screen it looks fine to my eyes but the print is extremely dull and under exposed and I mean really dull. . . I want to start trying to sell some images in shops but if I cant get the print to look correct then I cant really try and sell them.

I concur with all the advice above concerning the consistency and the calibration of your workflow.


Additionally you might consider some of what I do:

1. My ROOM LIGHTING where I edit (where my calibrated monitor exists) is consistent and also suitable - (think like the AMBIENT LIGHTING in a Photography Studio / Film Editing Booth / TV control room, etc.) - no harsh direct light, generally low level light all consistent CT, no coloured or highly reflective surfaces; definitely no windows to allow sunlight.


2. I fossicked until I found a Digital Printer (the person) who was KNOWLEDGEABLE and EXPERIENCED with whom I could create a RAPPORT: someone who would GIVE ADVICE as well as take instruction. Especially to offer me advice about the most appropriate MEDIUM for a any particular image to be printed upon.


3. Once the Workflow Methodology and Technology is in theory in place, then I ran TESTS, similar to CLIP TESTS or STRIP TESTS, that we would run for Film Development or Film Printing.


As a practical example, let’s assume that you want to sell your sample image as a 1200 x 900mm Print. Below is your image approximately cut into 9 equal pieces, this is just to give you an idea of the “Strip Test” process:




The idea is you take a crop of the image, not necessarily exactly one of those nine areas, but the SAME SIZE as those nine areas and then print it to ONE NINTH the size of the FINAL PRINT. Then view those TEST STRIP PRINTS at the typical VIEWING DISTANCE of the Final Print.

This allows for testing of different mediums (TYPES OF papers - or -ANOTHER medium altogether) at a reasonable price and also allows for very fine tuning of the overall Printing Process.

I don’t know your printing prices or the quality of the lab that you are using – BUT -

As an example so we can compare like with like, a 400 x 300 ‘print to instruction’(*1) on high quality paper cost me about $25.00 plus tax. On the other hand a 1200 x 900 ‘print to instruction’ on the same medium is about $180.00, plus tax.

So, for final fine tuning and fiddling to get it right, BEFORE I had any 1200 x 900 prints made, I would get a few test prints of 400x300 and compare those at the Viewing Distance of the final 1200 x 900 Print that I offer for sale.

Probably these three crops would be adequate:



*



*




WW

Footnote: (*1) the phrase ‘print to instruction’ essentially means that I supply the digital file, which is finished in all facets; dictate the colour space; dictate the printing medium; dictate the size of the print (obviously I have cropped to that Aspect Ratio); and insist that all "automatic" alterations of the printing process are null.

[James G]

I had used the On Screen menu to adjust the Brightness level on mine to only 35% while the contrast is still at its original 75%. From what I have read these figures seem to be fairly common for this range of Monitors.

Just an addendum to Roy's post... Some years back I engaged in a conversation with a local branch of Color Confidence here in Birmingham. I was using a Spyder system to calibrate my monitor, in conjunction with Spyder Print (to generate custom paper profiles).
The engagement was because in general, images on screen needed to have their brightness reduced by a fairly standard 30% before printing. (Regardless of running test prints for fine adjustment!)

After an interesting and at times frustrating discussion, I was advised to recalibrate my monitor, but, rather than use the recommended (Spyder) 'brightness' setting during the process, set a value between 100 and 105 cd/m2.
The default is 2.2 from memory.

My advisor was of the opinion that the default Spyder recommendation is simply too high for print, biased rather for 'vibrant' monitor viewing.

I tried it and now I find that most 'first pass' prints are acceptable proofs in respect of brightness, pending final adjustment.

When the change is first applied, the monitor looked a little dull, but after a day or two, I accommodated to the lower brightness level, and resetting to 2.2cd/m2 now looks garish to me.

[Chri5]

Thanks for looking everyone and sorry for digging this thread up again. I still haven't had the chance to purchase a spyder yet but I will in the coming weeks.

William I didn't realise there could be that much detail and work to do just to get an image print ready. It is pretty frustrating trying to figure out how to do all this at once but I will stick at it.

Thanks for the comments

[chauncey]

probably a lot of repeat information but...https://luminous-landscape.com/why-a...ints-too-dark/

[Chri5]

probably a lot of repeat information but...https://luminous-landscape.com/why-a...ints-too-dark/

Excellent link. Thank you wm c boyer

[JHzlwd]

Hi Chris,

I do a lot of my own printing with very uniform, predictable results. I downloaded your photo and reviewed it in Paintshop Pro. I have a calibrated wide gamut monitor and the image looks great. The highlights in the water read around 240 units so you wouldn't want to go brighter over-all. I note also even the deepest shadow areas have some detail if possibly just a bit darker than I would prefer. If this image looks about right to your eyes I'd guess your monitor's default calibration (brightness, especially) is close to correct. Even so, if you are serious about prints you ought to adopt one of the many calibration technologies out there. I use the "Spyder" system. It's one of the more expensive ones but very good.

I am going to go with "Donald" and suggest you discuss this with the printer. It is possible they are concerned they will wash out the highlights and are turning down the brightness accordingly. Without knowning what gear and paper they use it's hard to say. It may be the dynamic range of the image is too great for them to deal with. In that case, lightening the shadow to low mid-range tones while leaving the highlights as-is might be the answer.

Finally there is the matter of viewing environment. Prints are at the mercy of ambient light. Those to be viewed in subdued lighting should be printed lighter than those to be presented in a sunlit space, for example.

Best wishes,
g.

[Chri5]

Thanks Garth, and thanks for doing the experiment. It gives me piece of mind. I think you might be correct about the light that the print is in. its hung in my living room in very ambient/diffused light so that might have had an effect on my eyes.