Processing for prints

[Dansk]

Hi all, I could use some advice. I've been taking photos for a number of years now, processing them from RAW for about 7, and just in the past year my photos have been getting enough attention that I've started getting requests to have them printed.

I've had extremely disappointing results with my prints to date. Invariably, they come out much, much darker than they appear on the screen. I'm aware that LCD screens, being an active light source, will naturally appear brighter than a reflective source like paper, and since this has been consistent no matter which company does the printing, I can only conclude that the fault is my own.

My question is, is it possible to have a finished image that looks correct both on a computer screen as well as on paper? Am I just way off here??

For reference, this is a photo that I recently had printed, which I thought was going to turn out fine but ended up being too dark again.

[Donald]

First question - Is you monitor calibrated and profiled regularly?

You are not way-off at all. Getting the image looking the same on screen as what comes out of the printer is your goal.

I suggest you go into the Tutorials section of the site here and scroll to the heading 'Color Management and Printing'. There you will find all you need to know about getting your prints 'correct'.

It all seems very complicated at first, but stick with it. Once you start getting what's it's about, it's pretty straightforward.

[Manfred M]

Kevin - As Donald has alluded, the problem is that your screen has been set too bright. This is something that we get questions about here at CiC from time to time.

A computer screen used to edit images should be set to a brightness level of between 100 to 120 candela / square meter (a.k.a. nits). Most consumer screens that are out of the box are running in the range of 200 - 600 nits. Your shot does look dark on my computer screen, which is set to 120 candela / sq m.

The only way to do this is to use an electronic calibration device - there are a number of these on the market from both x-Rite and DataColor. These also profile your computer screen so that the colours are displayed as accurately as possible, something else that is not correctly set straight out of the box either.

Once you have done all this, you should do a test print to see how the image comes out. Different papers and printers perform differently, and you may have to adjust your image (i.e. brighten it up) so that it comes out the way you want it to. The good news is this will be constant (unless you fiddle with your computer screen's settings) and the same setting can be applied to each and every print you make. If you change the printer or the paper you are using, you might want to do another test print just to make sure that the image comes out the way you want it.

[billtils]

Donald is spot on.

I had the same issue for quite some time and would spend lots of time (and money) on iterations of the print settings until something like the screen shot resulted. I then bought a calibrator (mine was a Colormunki display, but the model is a very minor issue compared to doing it) and bingo! Prints that match the screen perfectly.

[Donald]

I've also just noticed, Kevin, that you write about having your prints done for you rather than printing your own. That's fine. But has the company you use provided you with profiles to apply to your image files so that you can prepare your files for their printers and the paper that you are choosing to have your images printed on?

So, there are a couple of steps. Get your monitor properly calibrated and profiled first. Then ,talk to your printer about getting profiles from them. They should supply you with profiles for each of the papers that they use and that you might order. For example, I have just had an image printed at 48" x 27" by a company in London. They sent me the 11 different profiles to load up onto my computer, one of which I needed to use depending on what printing paper I chose.

[Dansk]

A computer screen used to edit images should be set to a brightness level of between 100 to 120 candela / square meter (a.k.a. nits). Most consumer screens that are out of the box are running in the range of 200 - 600 nits. Your shot does look dark on my computer screen, which is set to 120 candela / sq m.

Well, I suppose this is the likely culprit. Colours are almost dead-on on my current monitor right out of the box so I didn't bother with calibrating it. It didn't occur to me that brightness would be part of a calibration as well.

I'll look into getting my hands on a calibration kit next and see if I get some better results.

Thank you everyone for your advice!

[Dansk]

I've also just noticed, Kevin, that you write about having your prints done for you rather than printing your own. That's fine. But has the company you use provided you with profiles to apply to your image files so that you can prepare your files for their printers and the paper that you are choosing to have your images printed on?

I wasn't even aware this was a possibility!

And yes, a decent printer is well out of my budget at the moment, as well as being impractical, since I spend most of my time working in the remote field location where my photos are taken. I'm looking into some sort of online service where I can upload my photos so that people can order them as they like (Photoshelter is the company I'm currently favouring), and as I understand it, they send your images to the lab nearest to the customer for printing, so that would make things difficult...

[Manfred M]

Colours are almost dead-on on my current monitor right out of the box!

How do you know that is a correct statement?

[Mike Buckley]

How do you know that is a correct statement?

I'm not technically literate but I was wondering exactly the same thing.

[Mike Buckley]

Even after getting everything calibrated and using profiles for various papers, you still may need to brighten your image a bit before printing it. Manfred has written often about his method using Photoshop. I use essentially the same method. However, there is little point in me describing my method because I use software that hardly anyone uses.

[Dansk]

How do you know that is a correct statement?

Because they look the way they're supposed to when printed.

Anyways, I just bought myself a calibration device (a ColorHug 2, which is designed for Linux, unlike virtually everything else out there) so I'll give that a try when it arrives.

Thank you again for your help!

[Manfred M]

Because they look the way they're supposed to when printed.

Umm. Not a particularly concise answer.

I was not aware that anyone built a device that works with Linux.

[Dansk]

I was not aware that anyone built a device that works with Linux.

I'm used to having to deal with either half-assed or non-existent Linux support in everything I buy, so to come across a device manufactured expressly for use with Linux was a pleasant surprise for sure.

[IzzieK]

Kevin, if you can wait, I want to advise you to watch a tutorial from Creative Live called "From Capture to Print" if you have time, the class is from 9am - 4pm PDT, March 30th. It is a free course live broadcast to watch as many of their online courses each month. I own some of their courses.

https://www.creativelive.com/courses...ming-classes_3

[Manfred M]

I'm used to having to deal with either half-assed or non-existent Linux support in everything I buy, so to come across a device manufactured expressly for use with Linux was a pleasant surprise for sure.

Linux tends to be used by "techies". which is probably the exact opposite of what most of the people in graphic arts tend to be, so the platform of choice tends to be macOS, although Windows might actually have a wider installed base. Linux, not so much.

[Dansk]

Kevin, if you can wait, I want to advise you to watch a tutorial from Creative Live called "From Capture to Print" if you have time, the class is from 9am - 4pm PDT, March 30th. It is a free course live broadcast to watch as many of their online courses each month. I own some of their courses.

https://www.creativelive.com/courses...ming-classes_3

That sounds great, except I'll be up at the north pole on the 30th with very limited internet! Thanks for the suggestion though, I'll keep an eye for other classes that I can pick up on.

[Dansk]

Linux tends to be used by "techies". which is probably the exact opposite of what most of the people in graphic arts tend to be, so the platform of choice tends to be macOS, although Windows might actually have a wider installed base. Linux, not so much.

Haha yes, most definitely. I knew what I was getting into when I switched though, and graphics software for Linux has come a long, long way since I did. RawTherapee and GIMP are fantastic programs.

[Shadowman]

Kevin,

How many instances of dark prints have you received? Also, is it an overall darkness or is it just within the darks? And what software are you using? I ask because I have a calibrated monitor and do some home printing, yet the tonal ranges of my blacks are limited by the capability of my printer. I do have the option of using photogrey ink which does improve my prints, however sometimes I can do a workaround in Elements by changing by blend mode to screen and dialing in the opacity to suit my tastes.

[DanK]

And yes, a decent printer is well out of my budget at the moment, as well as being impractical, since I spend most of my time working in the remote field location where my photos are taken.

The latter I can't comment on, but the former isn't the case unless you either need archival prints or have a very small budget. Dedicated printers with dye-based inks can be had dirt cheap. For example, Canon often offers rebates on the Canon Pixma Pro-100, which I use, and it isn't very expensive to begin with. The current price at B&H, net of a rebate, is about $125. It produces beautiful color and B&W images up to 13 x 19. The dye-based inks won't last 50 years without fading, but they last a long time if the prints are not exposed to direct sunlight. I have been printing with Canon dye-based printers for a long time, maybe 7 years or so, and I haven't had to replace a print yet. However, it's big and heavy, so it isn't something you would lug around. You would have to wait to print until you came home.

[Hypnoswan]

I'm looking into some sort of online service where I can upload my photos so that people can order them as they like (Photoshelter is the company I'm currently favouring), and as I understand it, they send your images to the lab nearest to the customer for printing, so that would make things difficult...

I use Smugmug and would recommend them most highly, their print quality is amazing and the guarantee them