Daughter's picture...calibration??

zoomer

I took this picture of my daughter for her 8th grade school picture.
I am trying to calibrate my monitor to my printing service, I am tired of prints coming back dark.
For those of you with calibrated monitors please respond back and tell me which level of brightness looks more correct on your monitor.
When I adjust to the print level they look REALLY dark on my monitor.
Thanks

1 this is the old level of my monitor


2 this is the brighter version I may need to go to get properly exposed prints

Swartzy

Hey Zoomer. The big part of the equation is that with monitors, the photos are backlit. The prints are reflective. I too run into the same difficulty with a calibrated monitor. I usually have to bring the overall brightness up for printing. Some print houses are a bit darker than others. I typically use WHCC and have a feel for what it will look like. For test shots, I'll do a 4x6 here on the Canon before sending the file over.

Photo Guy

You could also tell whatever service you use to print the file "as is". I've noticed a lot of places have their printers set up on automatic so it will either lighten dark areas and vice versa. You may send them a properly exposed photo file, but to their system, it may seem a little bright so it will darken it.

Good Luck!!

jeffreaux2

Are you using a hardware device....like a huey, spyder, etc?

I use a huey device and cannot imagine trying to get things right without it. There are better devices than mine out there, but it serves its purpose.

Even still....

I push my exposures during processing to use every bit of the histogram in LR or CS3 levels. This insures that my whites are as white as possible without stretching them out into never-never land. I print through smugmug and always select "true" rather than the "auto" print option. I have had very few problems with smug prints, and have only had issues when selecting "auto". My prints still aren't as bright as my lcd, but they are pretty close, and the difference in color (if there is any) is imperceptable.

FWIW, your first image...I would catagorize as under exposed. The second looks much improved, but still appears to have room for more brightness.

Scott_Quier

jeffreaux2 wrote:

Are you using a hardware device....like a huey, spyder, etc?

I use a huey device and cannot imagine trying to get things right without it. There are better devices than mine out there, but it serves its purpose.

Even still....

I push my exposures during processing to use every bit of the histogram in LR or CS3 levels. This insures that my whites are as white as possible without stretching them out into never-never land. I print through smugmug and always select "true" rather than the "auto" print option. I have had very few problems with smug prints, and have only had issues when selecting "auto". My prints still aren't as bright as my lcd, but they are pretty close, and the difference in color (if there is any) is imperceptable.
QUOTE]
++ with all the above

zoomer

The more I read about the problems people have with calibration the more I realize what a big problem this is for people.
The info above sounds like that should work really well for getting the prints where I want them.
I use WHCC also so once I get to where I think the monitor display looks right I can send in some more test prints.
I tried an Eye One calibration device but it made my monitor look really washed ( to much gamma) out so I went back to my previous monitor settings.
I am not sure if I am where I need to be yet. I am somewhat surprised to hear that I could go brighter still as the first print looks pretty dark on my monitor and the second one I pushed the brighness right to the verge of being to bright on my monitor.
Thanks!

jeffreaux2

zoomer wrote:

The more I read about the problems people have with calibration the more I realize what a big problem this is for people.
The info above sounds like that should work really well for getting the prints where I want them.
I use WHCC also so once I get to where I think the monitor display looks right I can send in some more test prints.
I tried an Eye One calibration device but it made my monitor look really washed ( to much gamma) out so I went back to my previous monitor settings.
I am not sure if I am where I need to be yet. I am somewhat surprised to hear that I could go brighter still as the first print looks pretty dark on my monitor and the second one I pushed the brighness right to the verge of being to bright on my monitor.
Thanks!

It really hasn't been a problem for me. I was shocked the first time I calibrated to see how "cool" my color had previously been. This had resulted on overly warm images. With the huey, what appears pure white on screen will also be pure white on an adobe histogram. The huey pops up every week or two and tells me it's time to recalibrate. I once went several months without a recal. Unoticed by me my monitor had become gradually darker over that period of time (a common thing with any monitor) and my resulting edits were washed out....overexposed.....because I had done them strictly to tastes rather than trust the histograms.

For fun, why don't you do a calibration with your Eye One and re-edit a copy of the same image and let us have a look here, in this thread.

You definately have a brightness issue, and my hunch is that your current color may lean a bit to the cool side as well.

Elaine

I use an eye-one, and after having some fits with it at first, I've come to be more comfortable with it. I agree that your first image looks a bit dark and the second is much better. (Lovely photo and beautiful girl, BTW.) I think most monitors are set way too cool as a default.

Chrissiebeez_NL

although it doesnt look very cool, the second photo is much better on my monitor (although laptop). The second one is spot on IMO in terms of exposure. how that will look when printed is another question altogether.. as others have noted

good luck!

zoomer

OK I reran the eye one calibration device.
For convenience I will include all three pictures.
This is the picture at my old monitor settings.


This is the picture brightened (theoretically) to provide a better print as judged from the actual print.



This is the picture reprocessed to look right on the monitor after running the eye one calibration device which makes both of the above prints look very washed out. This print looks perfect nice and bright and contasty on my monitor after running the Eye One device.
What is the verdict?

Scott_Quier

I'm thinking #3 FTW

jeffreaux2

Scott_Quier wrote:

I'm thinking #3 FTW

ditto....color is better as well.

zoomer

Thanks guys.
Does number three look over all brighter or darker than the other two.
I can see how the color is better and the contrast is much better..what a difference.
My original problem was dark prints... so I imagine the photo needs to look overall brighter to fix the problem of dark prints...does that sound right?
Thanks for your help.

Elaine

For me, the third one is definitely better, but it's also a touch too contrasty, IMO. For example, some of the shadow detail on her hair is now nearly gone. But the background is lovely, her eyes and smile sparkle and it is in no way washed out. So, because of the color richness now, it looks slightly darker over all, but not in the place that matters - her face, which looks good.

zoomer

Hi Elaine,
Yes I see what you mean.
I think now I need to let my eyes get used to the new settings. The old ones look so washed out it is easy to go to far the other way and overcontrast.
Anyway sounds like I am headed in the right direction.
Thanks

jeffreaux2

zoomer wrote:

Hi Elaine,
Yes I see what you mean.
I think now I need to let my eyes get used to the new settings. The old ones look so washed out it is easy to go to far the other way and overcontrast.
Anyway sounds like I am headed in the right direction.
Thanks

As with my comments on trusting those histograms during processing for highlights....the same holds true for shadows....blackpoint.

..and yes....you will have to tr-train your eyes on the new settings. Shouldn't take very long though.

I think you are nearly sorted out.

lfortier

Number 3 is the winner!

I use a Spyder on my monitor and I wouldn't be without it.

zoomer

OK I lowered the brightness just a bit more to try to get a lighter print.
Last test I promise.
This is the old settings.


This is the new settings, is it brighter and over all "better".

jeffreaux2

zoomer wrote:

OK I lowered the brightness just a bit more to try to get a lighter print.
Last test I promise.
This is the old settings.


This is the new settings, is it brighter and over all "better".

I see a tiny bit of posterizing in HER face. You may have gone a tad too far. This should have shown on your histogram....if it were truely "blown".

Elaine

jeffreaux2 wrote:

I see a tiny bit of posterizing in HER face. You may have gone a tad too far. This should have shown on your histogram....if it were truely "blown".

Qarik

yes..#3 is the bes to them. The bokeh even has some pop. My only knit pick is that the higher contrast has darkened the shadow from her face just a touch too much but that's just my taste

zoomer

Yeah I backed it off to just short of being blown.
That is what is so frustrating, I know what I see but not what anyone else sees.
I think I will send for some test prints in at different settings and then just choose the best one and leave the settings there. My main issue is to get good looking prints for my clients.
Thanks for the help.

angevin1

zoomer wrote:

Yeah I backed it off to just short of being blown.
That is what is so frustrating, I know what I see but not what anyone else sees.
I think I will send for some test prints in at different settings and then just choose the best one and leave the settings there. My main issue is to get good looking prints for my clients.
Thanks for the help.

Indeed, thats what ultimately will have to happen. You have to order the prints and see which setting most closely represents what YOU like.

cheers, tom

fotoeffects

I like the last one

zoomer wrote:

OK I reran the eye one calibration device.
For convenience I will include all three pictures.
This is the picture at my old monitor settings.


This is the picture brightened (theoretically) to provide a better print as judged from the actual print.



This is the picture reprocessed to look right on the monitor after running the eye one calibration device which makes both of the above prints look very washed out. This print looks perfect nice and bright and contasty on my monitor after running the Eye One device.
What is the verdict?

I prefer the last one, although I have never calibrated my monitor and know it is something I ought to do. I do usually brighten my images that I am planning to print.

kundalini

I agree that #3 has the best colors and contrasts, the skin tones look more natural and the grey jacket has life to it. But is it just me? Nobody made mention that the two red leaves by her hands in #1 & #2 are now brown. Was this purposeful or a result of the calibration?

This has been an interesting read because I am actually ready to start printing some of my stuff. BTW, I use Spyder II for calibration.

zoomer

Good eye on the leaves.
I went back to the original before I turned the leaves red...when I took the photo they were brown.

kundalini wrote:

I agree that #3 has the best colors and contrasts, the skin tones look more natural and the grey jacket has life to it. But is it just me? Nobody made mention that the two red leaves by her hands in #1 & #2 are now brown. Was this purposeful or a result of the calibration?

This has been an interesting read because I am actually ready to start printing some of my stuff. BTW, I use Spyder II for calibration.

mmmatt

Does anyone contact their print house and get their printer profile to use on the final file output. I haven't done that recently, but in school it was part of our workflow, and if you are having inconsistencies between print houses, that should set things straight. Well... in theory anyways.

nice pic by the way zoomer. Your daughter is a real cutie.

Matt

Rene`

mmmatt wrote:

Does anyone contact their print house and get their printer profile to use on the final file output. I haven't done that recently, but in school it was part of our workflow, and if you are having inconsistencies between print houses, that should set things straight. Well... in theory anyways.

nice pic by the way zoomer. Your daughter is a real cutie.

Matt

I am glad that I found this thread. I too have been having issues getting the best print possible from WHCC. Mine have been too dark too. I had been using a Huey. So, now I have a Eye-One Display 2. I just got my test prints back I was pretty pleased with them.

I am anxious to know if Zoomer printed test prints of his daughter. She is indeed a beautiful girl.

But, I have other questions,

When I calibrate my monitor and save my monitor profile --- does Photoshop automatically show my images using that profile?

This is what I have noticed. Am I crazy?? I can open an image using Microsoft Windows Picture Manager or Microsoft Windows Picture Viewer and the colors look one way. But I can open the same image using Photoshop and it looks different. The magenta and blue is much, much more saturated. Now, if I upload the same image to Smug Mug and then view it thru IE or Firefox it looks the same as it does in the Picture Manager and Picture VIewer. I have Photoshop set up so that the working space is set to sRGB IEC61966-2.1 -- like the WHCC manual says.

The lady at WHCC told me to trust what I see in Photoshop. (But, these lips are really really red.)

Can some one please give me some feed back?

zoomer

Rene,
I feel for you.
I notice my photos look different in every program I use also.
I use Nero photo viewer as the final word in how my photos really look.

They look awesome on the back of my camera viewer, they look like crap coming out of Lightroom, a little better coming out of PHotoshop and then if I did the adjustments right they look great on my Nero photo viewer.

I have spent hours/days reading about color managment all over the net and am not much further ahead.

Good luck,,I wish I could help.

Rene`

Thanks for your response.

zoomer wrote:

Rene,
I feel for you.
I notice my photos look different in every program I use also.
I use Nero photo viewer as the final word in how my photos really look.

They look awesome on the back of my camera viewer, they look like crap coming out of Lightroom, a little better coming out of PHotoshop and then if I did the adjustments right they look great on my Nero photo viewer.

I have spent hours/days reading about color managment all over the net and am not much further ahead.

Good luck,,I wish I could help.

I just wish that I understood. My prints from SmugMug are usually very good. Some times the colors are too vibrant. (Over saturated maybe?)

If I think that it is too bright I use true. I wish that I could get consistent results all the time from WHCC. I have been very, very pleased with my press printed products from them. (Just some photos a tad dark.)

I was hoping that my Eye 1 Display 2 was going to rescue me.

Did you do a test print of the picture of your daughter????

zoomer

Yeah my prints come back dark from WHCC also.
My prints come back perfect from Mpix, go figure.
No I have not done a test print on my daughters pic yet.

Rene` wrote:

I just wish that I understood. My prints from SmugMug are usually very good. Some times the colors are too vibrant. (Over saturated maybe?)

If I think that it is too bright I use true. I wish that I could get consistent results all the time from WHCC. I have been very, very pleased with my press printed products from them. (Just some photos a tad dark.)

I was hoping that my Eye 1 Display 2 was going to rescue me.

Did you do a test print of the picture of your daughter????