Dark Images

[RonH]

These days we are mostly jpeg ‘holiday snap’ photographers from which my lady makes albums. I am not usually entering competitions ... so you do not ‘see’ much of me! But I have great respect for the knowledge in CiC and have a perplexing issue I would like advice about ...

Prints come out too dark on our home printer but they match the prints (same ‘darkness’) returned from online printing companies. Print results from two web printers (based within Europe and highly rated) and the HP Envy Printer I use are identical.

We use OK camera's including Nikon, Panasonic plus a Nexus 5X phone. When viewed on their screens images are not dark. I have also viewed images on 3 separate Windows pc's (one Vista, one Windows 7 upgrade to 10 and one new out of the box windows 10) with the brightness set at about 70%. Again, all look OK but the print results are still too dark. Perhaps one could say a stronger ‘brown’ tint making the prints look darker? I have printed direct from the Nexus phone to home printer ... same result.

We have been using most of our digital equipment for some years and this never used to occur from home or web printers until maybe 12-18 months ago ... what we saw was what we got. No changes have been made to our gear. I can of course lighten/adjust the images but is this necessary using OK camera gear ...mostly the same gear that used to give acceptable prints from a home printer or from the web on-line printer. As an example, for some years we took photos with a Nikon D4800, uploaded to a Vista pc, reduced file size using PSE and then uploaded to a web printer. The returned prints were what we would expect ... they closely matched what we uploaded. The print results today using this very same gear are ‘dark’.

I really am at a loss to understand, given that no device changes have been made that should impact on printing. The more I search the web the more users I find who experience similar issues and the primary comment is that ‘their screens are set too bright’. I do understand backlighting verses print output and take reasonable care of this with a 70% backlight when viewing images.

Given that we have tried multiple devices, all with the same result and given that digital images to print were totally acceptable some 18 - 24 months ago (WYSIWYG), something in the compatibility between sRGB and the printing CMYK colour space could have changed? This is unlikely.To brightness correct most images that we print should be unnecessary ... it would suggest that all our devices (if used, say, on auto for general snaps) can not deliver a well adjusted image. Again this is unlikely.

Hope this all makes sense! What to do?

[Manfred M]

This is a common issue that I hear about all the time and the most likely cause is that your computer screen is set up to bright. When you write that your screen is set to 70% of maximum brightness; that is much too bright. I am someone who prints a lot of photographs and my screen is set to 80 cd/m^2 and that usually gives me a good match to what my colour photo printer turns out.

Screen brightness is generally measured in candela per square meter and a screen range of somewhere from 70 cd/m^2 to 100 cd / m^2 is usually where you need to be. Screens out of the box can be set to output at much higher levels than that *(200 - 600 cd/m^2). The only reliable way to get the screen to the appropriate level of brightness is to use an electronic screen calibration tool that companies like xRite (ColorMunki and i1) or DataColor (Spyder) put out. The lower end ones are not terribly expensive and are pretty well mandatory if you are looking to print. The various visual tools found on line DO NOT WORK. The human eye simply responds to changes in light levels too rapidly.

This is definitely not a sRGB / CMYK issue as the colour photo printer drivers handle that translation.

As for why the commercial printers are now prints are coming out darker, I suspect that they used to correct for this issue and have stopped doing so.

The only work around that I know of is to do something that we used to do in the days of the colour "wet" darkroom; test prints. After you have gotten the image to look right on your screen, brighten it up and print it. When it comes out looking right, remember the amount of brightness you have applied and as long as you do not touch your printer's brightness controls, this should work well enough.

[RonH]

Thanks Manfred for your detailed reply, much appreciated.
But it leaves perhaps the question "Why do unmodified images straight out of the camera as jpeg, printed locally or via on line, also have 'darkness' given that they used to print up OK?" Maybe as you suggest, commercial printers no longer correct for this ... but that must also then apply to my local printer.

I accept that our 'snaps' are just that but hey, they used to be mostly great and very acceptable as photo albums prints.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Manfred for your detailed reply, much appreciated.
But it leaves perhaps the question "Why do unmodified images straight out of the camera as jpeg, printed locally or via on line, also have 'darkness' given that they used to print up OK?" Maybe as you suggest, commercial printers no longer correct for this ... but that must also then apply to my local printer.

I accept that our 'snaps' are just that but hey, they used to be mostly great and very acceptable as photo albums prints.

I wish I could give you an answer to that question, but I generally do not use commercial printers and the ones that I have used are custom printers that "print by hand" rather than use computer controlled mass production equipment. I would properly prepare these images (brightness) and would discuss what I wanted so that they could tweak the images based on the printer and paper they were using.

I suspect that as photographers have become more sophisticated, the more knowledgeable ones who use a colour managed workflow are preparing their images based on the ICC profiles of the commercial printer's equipment and paper, i.e. they were treating the printer very much as if it were their own equipment. Any global computer settings to correct for images that were prepared on printers would end up lightening these images and this would not have gone over well. If these printers assume you know what you are doing and you happen to like dark, moody images, they will print them this way. This is unfortunately not what you want.

[RonH]

No worries. seems that I will need to preset a basic adjustment that mostly gets what we (she) wants in her albums. This will be essential because the usual print volume is 200+. She does not like the 'tick enhancements' that printers suggest because her preference is for natural colours.
As for any special prints I can spend time to adjust these ... happily

As a very quick exercise I have taken a few sample images through the basic Windows 10 Photos app, Edited 'Enhanced' then 'Adjust/Bright 50%' which seem to print out OK. Now I need to use a programme that will permit me to process multiple files with brightness adjustment/sharpening primarily ... maybe GIMP.

Thanks for taking time out

[Round Tuit]

Thanks Manfred for your detailed reply, much appreciated.
But it leaves perhaps the question "Why do unmodified images straight out of the camera as jpeg, printed locally or via on line, also have 'darkness' given that they used to print up OK?" Maybe as you suggest, commercial printers no longer correct for this ... but that must also then apply to my local printer.

I accept that our 'snaps' are just that but hey, they used to be mostly great and very acceptable as photo albums prints.

Ron,
Is it possible that you changed the light level of the room(s) where you look at your prints? If you moved or even change the typical time of the day that you look at your prints, you could be looking at them in a darker environment which would make them appear darker.

[RonH]

Hei Andre,
The 'work room' is unchanged.
Had a bit of a play yesterday and have opted to try RAW Therapy to adjust images. The programme also functions well with jpeg and seems easier to follow than GIMP. Also I am in contact with HP to see if they can explain why ok straight out of the box ain't OK when printed up. I have a 'feeling' that commercial printers are focused on enhancement and not wysiwyg as suggested by Manfred.
Thanks for your contact.
Cheers Ron

[Manfred M]

Also I am in contact with HP to see if they can explain why ok straight out of the box ain't OK when printed up.

Ron - the answer is somewhat obvious as printing photographs is a niche area that is practised by a very limited number of photographers. What photographers need is not what the bulk of the users who use the internet, office apps, watch movies or play games need or are willing to pay for.

So far as most users go, they are working in a brightly lit environment, whether it is an office (HP's has a large market share for this use) or at home. People like playing games and watching movies and have the brightness turned way up for that "punchy" look and feel. Most screens that are straight out of the box target those environments.

Photo editing and video editing are highly specialized areas where subtlety is very important. The two situations are parallel but not 100% identical in their needs. If you look at commercial operations for both these fields, they take place is dimly lit rooms, which enhances the contrast ratio of their screens. They also tend to use high end screens that are purpose built for those markets and are not inexpensive.

According to one expert in photography, less than 50% of the screens shipped are capable of reproducing even the limited sRGB colour space (hint: check your screen specs, if it doesn't say it can reproduce 100% of the sRGB colour space, you can be quite sure it can't).

When you look at commercial printers, you are looking at three major niche areas; the largest is the market that deals with consumer printing. They just want a nice album or small print to hang on the wall. The second level is the one catering to commercial photographers who churn out wedding or baby pictures. They are looking at a bit more care and quality than the consumer and are willing to pay for the quality that these commercial printers offer. The final level are the fine art printers, who in many instances are the "master printers" of old who produce "works of art". The price difference, based on both the amount of time, quality of products used and skill level of the printer have a significant impact on price.

If you are using an HP computer screen product, I can virtually guarantee that you are not using a device that is aimed at the digital photographer, so one would not expect it to be set up to perform that way. Pull out a higher end screen from companies like Eizo (plus certain screens that Apple, Dell, ViewSonic, Samsung, Benq put out), these will be pretty close to where they should be straight out of the box.

[RonH]

Hei Manfred,

Very informative ... thanks. I actually use a second screen external IPS LG monitor with the brightness cranked down.

Since we 'spoke' I have prepared around 14 images x4 sets using different adjustment configurations and uploaded these to CEWE who produce prints throughout Europe and seem to be rated the best here.

1. Reduced file size only in PSE to suit a 15x10 print (sending full file sizes on my broadband is unnecessary)
2. Reduced in PSE and with Auto Colour ticked
3. Reduced in PSE with both Auto Colour & Sharpen ticked
4. Using GIMP Manipulation of (1) above with settings:
Pixel (width only) 900 and preserve aspect ratio
Brightness +40% and Contrast +10%
No sharpness added to see if the commercial printer's 'sharp' adjustment are enough.

I ran a few tests on my local printer and I'm thinking that the GIMP will be the way to go. Of course one setting will not cater for all situations but it will give me a reference point ... I can not spend the time individually manipulating 100's of images! I quit using RAW Therapee as seemingly rather complex for multi image manipulation.

I will post here once I have some actuals.
Thanks again for spending so much time on my issue.
Cheers Ron

[xpatUSA]

Had a bit of a play yesterday and have opted to try RAW Therapy to adjust images. The programme also functions well with jpeg and seems easier to follow than GIMP.

Ron, I use RawTherapee as my main editor for about 5 years. It has many functions not common on other editors; I would gladly answer any questions via PM.

I too find the GIMP less intuitive but still useful for some stuff that is unavailable in RT. There is a version 2.9 that can open 16bit files and edit them, as opposed to 2.8.

[RonH]

Thanks Ted.
I do use RAW Therapee on occasion and it would be my choice for any special work. But GIMP will, I think,service my 'lady's' album needs. I wait to see if the returned prints are usable!
Cheers Ron

[pnodrog]

It is important that you try and determine if the photographs are underexposed. If they are constantly underexposed you will getting more noise n the shadow areas than is necessary. If they are underexposed I suggest you set exposure compensation (if available) to increase the exposure.

Some filters (particularly types of polarizing filters) will fool the camera's metering system.

To some extent it maybe a matter of preference. I tend to like slightly darker prints rather than the over bright washed out looking prints that some consumer labs used to favour.

Whatever you decide just ensure you are not consistently underexposing your photographs.

[RonH]

G'day Paul & thanks for your comments.
Given that the 'dark' prints are not specific to one device I don't think it relates to exposure. But there is an issue with the general light levels up here in the far north which was something I forgot to consider when I bought the Panasonic long zoom 'travel camera' ... for reasons of convenience. It is a great tool in good lighting conditions but not so capable over the long winter months.

I am finding myself using the smartphone more and more for album snaps. Interestingly 'In conversation with RonH' during 2012 ...

In conversation with RonH

... I added the following:
With such fast developing technology I doubt that I could ‘guess future’ even 5 years down track. Smart phones and 3rd generation digital cameras will I believe further dominate the market place where users want quick, good results to match fast lifestyles.

Looks like I have got 'caught up' but in a not so fast lifestyle
Cheers Ron

[RonH]

Per above ... Since we 'spoke' I have prepared around 14 images x4 sets using different adjustment configurations and uploaded these to CEWE who produce prints throughout Europe and seem to be rated the best here.

The results are back and it would seem that commercial printers have settings best suited when using their enhancements. I added this one to the above sets that I uploaded to their site and they were mostly acceptable for album usage. Up to now we have had this adjustment feature turned off in the hope that the printed result would replicate what we wanted ... we are not so keen on such as colour enhancement but for any special prints I will adjust using GIMP and turn off their 'enhancements' on a per-image basis.

So, we have an acceptable 'fix', though I still can't get my head around as to why (given no changes in camera settings etc) prints are dark today if left untouched whereas using the same process they were previously quite OK. Progress I guess!

Thanks to all who contributed to my thread ... much appreciated.