How Important is Processing for Printing?

[paintingwithlight]

Dear all, this is not a troll,

I called a respected photo shop in my area and asked to speak to a print tech. I told her that my photos were already white balanced and tone-adjusted, but I didn't know what level of sharpening or exposure adjustment should me made if I wanted to print onto Aluminum (a service they offer). The photos look good on my monitor but my monitor is not calibrated. Her answer was that all I had to do was send them a JPEG and it would all turn out fine.... ?! Is it possible that I asked the wrong questions and sounded incompetent? Is it possible that she was new and didn't know the answers? Or is it maybe that the shop will re-adjust my prints for me? Or is it generally true that if a photo looks good enough on a typical monitor it will look ok when printed? How important it processing for printing? For context I want to make a 18x24 print.

Thanks in advance.

Michael

[Shadowman]

I would say it is just as important as your editing based on your proposed medium of choice, I would check to see how readily they will correct any prints you may not be happy with.

[paintingwithlight]

I would say it is just as important as your editing based on your proposed medium of choice, I would check to see how readily they will correct any prints you may not be happy with.

Thanks for the feedback. When I asked I was told that there was one previous customer who was unhappy with the colour rendering and they reprinted the photo (at no cost) after which the customer was satisfied. Not exactly the best endorsement but they seem to be the best shop in town. Perhaps I just spoke with the wrong rep...

[Mike Buckley]

You asked mostly the right questions. Based on the FAQs I've seen at several printing service websites, you can be assured that the company is used to fielding your questions.

It's very possible that the print service will take care of everything just fine to the extent that they can be reasonably expected to do so. It's also possible that the person you spoke with really doesn't understand everything.

Your question about exposure is irrelevant; that's something that cannot be adjusted in a JPEG. Perhaps you meant brightness rather than exposure, in which case that can be adjusted by the print shop in a JPEG.

To ensure the likelihood of success, it would definitely be preferable that you use a calibrated monitor. Doing so ensures that the colors are going to be consistently displayed in your image files before you send them off to be printed. Having said that, your monitor may already be doing that even though it has not been calibrated. On the other hand, if the colors are so far off that the printing service recognizes that situation, they can make adjustments if they have the skills and expertise to do so. Depending on the services the company provides, they may do as little as add some warmth or coolness to the overall look or they might even concentrate on adjusting certain colors.

In a nutshell, the more informed control you have over all of the details, the greater the likelihood that you will be satisfied with the resulting prints.

As an example, the print service I use almost exclusively for my prints (though I rarely make prints) requests that I not embed the color profile in the file, so I don't. They also request that I send only a full-size JPEG. That indicates to me that they will adjust the size and resolution and then do the necessary output sharpening. I would rather not leave that up to them, so I send an appropriate file that has been sharpened for printing and I have never been disappointed. (It's possible that if I followed their instructions, I would also be pleased every time.) They also provide color correction services and color conversion services at an extra, reasonable price, though I have never used them.

Considering the cost of printing on aluminum (especially if you're really printing on metal rather than paper that has a metallic shine), consider having a test print made using the smallest print they provide. Doing so will likely be a one-time cost that will guide you not just with regard to this print but perhaps also all future prints.

[Donald]

Or is it generally true that if a photo looks good enough on a typical monitor it will look ok when printed? How important it processing for printing?

No. The image needs to be prepared for printing. If the print is to be made by a lab, then they need to give you information to load up on your computer so that you can make the picture ready for their printer.

How important it processing for printing?

Vital.

The photos look good on my monitor but my monitor is not calibrated.

Absolute Number 1 - Get your monitor calibrated and profiled. Otherwise it's as if you're working blind. You could get anything back from the printer and if you didn't like it you wouldn't know whether it was you or the printer who had got it wrong.

Her answer was that all I had to do was send them a JPEG and it would all turn out fine.... ?!

That would scare me. You may have got the wrong person. I hope so. Because if that's the general approach of the lab, they ain't going to last too long.

Is it possible that I asked the wrong questions and sounded incompetent?

The questions that need to be asked are about the profiles they need to send you to upload onto your computer (as well as preferred file size, formats, etc). When you're getting your picture ready for printing, your going to do so using that profile (you'll choose it from a drop down menu). This will match what you're seeing on your properly calibrated monitor to what theri printer will produce.

This is a just a quick 'rough guide' to the issue. My biggest recommendation would be to hold off on ordering any prints just now until you do some more reading about printing your images (see the tutorials here on CiC for example) and feel confident about what is involved and so you know the right questions to ask.

[Mike Buckley]

Donald,

Your requirements are understandably far more discriminating than that of most people and I think that context is important. As an example, the OP explained that the colors look fine on his computer. If his computer is producing accurate colors, he's really not working blind. Many labs do indeed make corrections to the image file before making the print, and many do that quite reliably; they aren't going to go out of business as you suggest because they do so.

Everything about this topic really depends on the requirements of the OP. Considering that he is regularly using a monitor that has not been calibrated, that indicates to me that his requirements are understandably less than yours or mine.

Again, a small test print that I recommended will be a reasonable compromise compared to holding off completely as you suggest or going to the immediate expense of the large print and hoping for the best.

[paintingwithlight]

Thanks Mike and Donald,

I suppose "there is the way it is and the way it ought to be." I agree with Mike - I am going for a "good enough" approach. I also agree with Donald - if the results are far enough away from "good enough" I will be disappointed.

Based on my readings in this forum it seems that a monitor calibration device is recommended. Does anyone have experience with a "reasonably good but not pro" calibration device that works with Mac? Thanks!

-Michael

[Mike Buckley]

ColorMunki and DataColor calibration devices are regularly recommended on the forum. I haven't noticed any particular preference for one over the other. Consider conducting a search in the forum to read posts about both devices.

[Donald]

Good comments from Mike and Michael. A key point being that 'one size fits all' approach is not appropriate. As Mike says, it's about what you, as the photographer, wants. So whilst people like me can set out what we would want, it remains important that each person learns about the subject so that they can make informed decisions as to how to get what they want.

[Black Pearl]

Sounds about right to me.

The majority of high street labs are just that....set up for high street demands and not those of photographers. The various labs I ran all applied there own 'auto' processing to every files upon import with little (typically no) control from the technician. If you find a VERY good high street lab and more to the point the lab technician is a photographer you might be able to have them bypass the front end and load your images directly into the server attached the the printer but its a royal PITA to do and its not taught by the companies who supply the machinery and training so don't hold your breath.

Professional labs are entirely different so they would be the place to try for specific requirements.

[paintingwithlight]

Colleagues in our print shop gave me some practical advice. They suggested that I get the image printed at a photo lab at about 1/2 the size and on standard grade paper (after adjusting for the printer profile, if available). If I really don't like the colour, etc., then there may be something wrong with my monitor calibration. If I like the colour rendition I can then take the printed photo to the photo lab and tell them that I expect the aluminum print to look approximately like the paper print.

Thanks for all the advice.

Michael

[Mike Buckley]

That's great advice, Michael.

When you examine the print, just keep in mind that a print is a display of the image using reflected light, whereas your image displayed on the monitor uses direct light; the results should be similar but will never be the same. Similarly, you can view the print in various lighting situations and it will appear somewhat different in every situation.

[Manfred M]

Let me suggest I tend towards Donald's position as well.

One of the underlying principles in printing is that the printer has received an image that has been prepared the way the client wants it printed. This is going to be a problem:

1. If your computer screen is not properly calibrated and profiled, then any corrections you have made that look the way you want them could very well introduce an unwanted colour cast in the final print.

I have a computer screen that has a natural blue bias, straight out of the box. I can get a decent looking image by removing blue (by adding yellow), but if I were to print it the way I have edited it to make it look right on the screen, the final image will have a very distinctive yellow colour cast.

Profiling the computer screen takes care of that issue and the colours you see in the final print should be very close to what you see on your computer screen.

2. Brightness - most computer screens that come straight out of the box are set far too bright for photo editing work. They can be in the range of 200 - 600 candela / sq metre (a.k.a. nits). If you send an image off to the printer that has this issue, what will come back will be far too dark.

Normally it is recommended that your computer screen be set to an output of between 80 - 120 nits. Even this might be too bright, so doing test prints is the only way to get the brightness where you want it. The good news is as long as you don't touch the screen's controls, the amount of adjustment will remain constant and the same amount can be applied for every print you make. I do my adjustments using a Photoshop adjustment layer.

3. Small stuff - for the more picky of us, each photo printer and paper has slightly different results. A glossy paper often has output that is similar to what we see on our computer screens, but a luster or matte paper will have a bit more bleed and need a bit more sharpening. This will vary by printer an paper, so again, test prints are the only way to tie down what you want as a final output. Again, these will be constant for a specific printer and paper, so once you know what you want, the same settings can be applied over again.

4. Colour spaces - most commercial printers default to the sRGB colour space. This is unfortunate as most commercial photo printers are capable of exceeding the AdobeRGB colour space. sRGB only displays about 70% of the colours that AdobeRGB can reproduce, so if your image has brilliant colours, you might lose some of that if your commercial printer does not handle anything other than sRGB.

On the flip side, you should be editing in a wide gamut colour space and unless you convert it to whatever the commercial printer handles (default = sRGB), the image will come out looking rather unfortunate and muddy. So make sure that you handle this aspect correctly too.

[Mike Buckley]

One of the underlying principles in printing is that the printer has received an image that has been prepared the way the client wants it printed.

That's true for some printing businesses but not all. The business model of many, many printers attends to the expectation that the image has in fact not been prepared the way the client wants it printed. That's because they understand that there are so many people who even consider themselves "serious" photographers but don't have the detailed understanding of this stuff that you do.

[paintingwithlight]

I broke down and just placed an order for a monitor calibrator. Yay Amazon!

My dilemma now is whether I opt to have the lab not apply any automatic corrections (in which case there may not be adjustment for printer colour bias) or whether I opt to have automatic corrections applied, in which case I may not get what I saw on my monitor....

Michael

[Manfred M]

I broke down and just placed an order for a monitor calibrator. Yay Amazon!

My dilemma now is whether I opt to have the lab not apply any automatic corrections (in which case there may not be adjustment for printer colour bias) or whether I opt to have automatic corrections applied, in which case I may not get what I saw on my monitor....

Michael

If you prepare your images to be print ready (try to get the lab's icc profile for the paper / printer they will be using for soft proofing), you should be fine as the profile they use will and the colours should be quite close to what you see on your screen. Again, the main warning (and most common complaint I see) is that this will NOT necessarily get you the appropriate print brightness. Test prints are the only way to determine this and a small size print is going to be a lot cheaper than having a large print that comes back from the lab looking too dark.

[Manfred M]

That's true for some printing businesses but not all. The business model of many, many printers attends to the expectation that the image has in fact not been prepared the way the client wants it printed. That's because they understand that there are so many people who even consider themselves "serious" photographers but don't have the detailed understanding of this stuff that you do.

It's one of those "it depends" situations. I've seen both corrected and uncorrected prints come back from the same shop; it sometimes depends on the operator who is running the print. This is the "high street" issue that Robin identifies in his response. The automated systems usually deliver good results, but that is not always the case. These printers rarely have printer icc profiles available and I have yet to run into one that works with anything other than sRGB.

The higher end printers are different and the assumption there is that the image you supply is print ready, unless you tell them otherwise. In some cases, they will charge you extra for getting the print ready and others will do these minor adjustments as part of the service; it really varies by supplier.

[paintingwithlight]

Again, the main warning (and most common complaint I see) is that this will NOT necessarily get you the appropriate print brightness. Test prints are the only way to determine this and a small size print is going to be a lot cheaper than having a large print that comes back from the lab looking too dark.

I found out that Costco now prints on metal and they have a one-year money back guarantee if you don't like the image. Now that is a way of decreasing risk to the photographer.