Smugmug prints not matching with monitor...

Unbrok3n

OK, so I have a Dell 2005fpw monitor and an eyeone pro display calibration hardware. I calibrated the monitor in advanced so that everything is right, (had to lower rgb to get luminance down) but I just got 6, 5x7 prints done, and they seem somewhat washed out and desaturated compared to my calibrated monitor...Im really confused. Ive gone through so much effort here! and im a college student, and over winter break I really want to get my photos edited...any tips? Id say most notably the greens and maybe yellows look much better on my monitor than in the prints. Please, any input is greatly appreciated...I really want to be able to edit my pics. And fyi, eyeone has been nothing but problems. Thanks so much!

ps. should I just calibrate manually til it matches the pictures printed from smugmug??

mercphoto

What color space were your JPGs that you sent to Smugmug in?

Unbrok3n

It was sRGB...but smugmug converts them into sRGB either way

BeachBill

Did you read this?

http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-color

Note there is a calibration print you can order to compare with your monitor display.

Unbrok3n

I did read that, and when I got prints I didnt know about the calibrating print...but either way, if my monitor is calibrated, shouldnt my prints match with the pics on my computer??

Unbrok3n

Should I make sure that I print in "True Color"?

Andy

Let's have the order# so I can see the photos you are talking about

Have you soft-proofed? http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1123524

Unbrok3n

its order #838443. And I have not soft proofed. Does that need to be done every time a photo is edited? Im a little confused. DO you apply that after a photo is edited and then save it? Does it replace what my calibration hardware does? Ill do a little more research. Thanks!

billg71

Unbrok3n wrote:

its order #838443. And I have not soft proofed. Does that need to be done every time a photo is edited? Im a little confused. DO you apply that after a photo is edited and then save it? Does it replace what my calibration hardware does? Ill do a little more research. Thanks!

There's going to always be difference in appearance between an image that's illuminated from within(like on a monitor) and one that's illuminated from an external source(like a print). Then there's the difference between monitor black and max black from the inkset used on a particular printer, monitor white and paper white, and the dynamic range, color gamut and contrast differences between monitor and print. So, as a general rule, you need to soft-proof if you want the best match you can get between your image on the monitor and your image on paper.

You'll soft-proof after you finish editing. I duplicate the image, arrange the original and the duplicate so I can see both, turn on View-Proof setup with the appropriate profile for the duplicate and then adjust it to look like the original(or as close as I can get). Then I save the duplicate labeled as a print file.

It doesn't take the place of monitor profiling, that's the absolutely essential first step in a color-managed workflow.

HTH,
Bill

Andy

Unbrok3n wrote:

. Does that need to be done every time a photo is edited? Im a little confused.

Hi, please read my tutorial, it's in there

Andy

This order 838443 is for tshirt and a postcard. Order # again, please?

Unbrok3n

sorry,
order number 838433

Andy

Unbrok3n wrote:

sorry,
order number 838433

This order is for 10 4x6 prints. You said in post#1 that it was 6 5x7 prints.

Correct order # please?

Unbrok3n

Ya, that one is correct. The 6 5X7 one is wrong. Sorry for the confusion

Unbrok3n

SO, I got the prints redone in TRUE color and got a calibration print. Hopefully things will look better when I get those in the mail

Unbrok3n

So I got the prints done in true color....
They are incredibly dark. probably twice as dark as what i see my screen.
Im about to lose it.
Ive spent like hours on this.
Please help, if anybody has any kind of input.
I also got the calibration sheet

Unbrok3n

With the true color things just got darker. Like things in the background even got a little lost. Its definitely richer and closer to my monitor than auto...but still not there.
I havnt soft proofed. Will this get me closer? Can I soft proof images ive already edited if i have the psd?
thanks, and sorry for overacting. I just want to be able to put my pics on my site in peace knowing they will print good

cmason

Softproofing is essentially showing, as best possible with a monitor, what your print will look like. You softproof to confirm that the edits and corrections you made will reproduce the way you want in print. As has been said earlier, a monitor and print are very different, so you should not expect them to be identical. Softproofing allows the monitor to show you what the printer profile will look like. This is use to check to make sure it looks as expected (not too dark, right amount of red, etc). If you don't softproof, you have no way of knowing how the print will look when done by EZPrints.

If you choose True Color, the lab will print EXACTLY as your image is provided, with no correction. Auto will make corrections, such as brightness to make it look better. (this also happens whenever you print at Walmart, Target or Shutterfly...they all auto correct). If you calibrate your monitor, softproof against the EZPrints ICC profile, and confirm what you see on the screen vs the calibration print, your photos should be fine if you use True Color. If you have not done this, the photos will likely not be as you expected.

If you have done none of this, Auto is a better choice, but it won't look like it does on screen.

Simplest thing to do is to compare the calibration print you have in hand, with the same image on your screen...how do they compare? This will tell you how far off your monitor is. Calibrate it, even using the Photoshop "squint" method, and this time softproof with the EZPrint ICC. Compare to the calibration print...how does it look now?

Unbrok3n

thank you!
I think I just overreacted.
Im not sure why I expect a bright green on my bright monitor is going to be as bright in a print...thats stupid.
I just had this idea in my head that if I bought expensive calibration equipment my prints should look EXACTLY like they do on my monitor...and that was dumb.
I think I understand soft proofing now.
What do people use as a workflow? Do you edit how you want, save, soft proof, and then re-edit for images youre going to put on smugmug and print? Just curious.
I appreciate your help, and any future help. I think im almost there!!
haha

Unbrok3n

The colors on the calibration print on my monitor look slightly brighter and more vibrant than the print...is that to be expected?

Unbrok3n

Well,
I opened the file in PS, soft proofed, and even after lowering the brightness of my monitor even more (re-profiled) the calibration print still doesnt match the jpeg on my monitor.
Colors on the chart like the blue and purple seem more vibrant on the monitor, but things like the baby in the upper left hand corner look warmer in the PRINT.
Im getting really discouraged. Is it not going to match exactly?
I had to lower rgb values almost to 50% to get the luminance down.
Could that have something to do with it? (its the only way to match the target luminance, at 0 brightness my monitor is still at like 250!)
Should I get different hardware? Should I get a different monitor?
UUUUUGGGHHH

ps. its mainly just the purple and blue in the grid and some slight skin tones that arent matching very well...
is this just because im viewing under household light compared to a monitor? I also noticed that greens (in other pics) that looked fairly bright on my monitor were darker in prints...

sara505

I just got a bum set of prints, also (250+). Washed out, no blacks, just horrible. I ran about a dozen prints from my local Ritz for comparison, and they were just fine. I was told by Smug Mug that Auto Color was the culprit (this seemed way beyond a color issue, however, just horrible printing, imo). My monitor is not calibrated, so I have always used Auto Color, with few problems. And interestingly, the prints from Ritz are very close to what I see on my screen, so my monitor is probably not too far off.

It was suggested by Smug Mug help desk, since I spend hours post processing every RAW image in LR, that as long as I'm pleased with what I see, I should be ordering True Color.

Anyway, I reordered with True Color and am waiting to see the results, hoping to have my faith restored.

Dogdots

sara505 wrote:

I just got a bum set of prints, also (250+). Washed out, no blacks, just horrible. I ran about a dozen prints from my local Ritz for comparison, and they were just fine. I was told by Smug Mug that Auto Color was the culprit (this seemed way beyond a color issue, however, just horrible printing, imo). My monitor is not calibrated, so I have always used Auto Color, with few problems. And interestingly, the prints from Ritz are very close to what I see on my screen, so my monitor is probably not too far off.

It was suggested by Smug Mug help desk, since I spend hours post processing every RAW image in LR, that as long as I'm pleased with what I see, I should be ordering True Color.

Anyway, I reordered with True Color and am waiting to see the results, hoping to have my faith restored.

I'll be interested in hearing how your re-prints turn out. Keep us posted

Andy

sara505 wrote:

Anyway, I reordered with True Color and am waiting to see the results, hoping to have my faith restored.

You processed them just fine in LR, why use Auto to process 'em again

http://www.sarapiazza.com/gallery/6881514_K9eiY#440313447_XLvWZ-A-LB

sara505

Andy wrote:

You processed them just fine in LR, why use Auto to process 'em again

http://www.sarapiazza.com/gallery/6881514_K9eiY#440313447_XLvWZ-A-LB

Hi. I did receive the new batch. They are better than the first batch, but I do not love them, sorry to say. Compared to the Ritz prints, the colors are quite a bit off. The Ritz prints show a skin tone that is in a normal range. The Smug Mug prints show way too much red in the skin, also some green. They simply are not a good quality.

They will work, sort of, for my purposes - though I am not extremely proud of the results. Every year I volunteer my time to photograph the Brookline PD holiday party and they make an album from each year to display at the party.

My confidence is not entirely restored in Smug Mug printing. I want to use them, and want to be able to refer my customers, obviously because of the convenience, but it's iffy for me right now. I have had some good results, but the inconsistency troubles me. I have never been able to achieve the quality of prints I used to get from Gary at Bay State Color in Hanover, MA - he does superb work and is able to somehow get great results even from *un-pp'd* files. He'd tell me, "don't touch them." (but shooting RAW, obviously there is some pp involved)

I may go back to him, but when we're talking about hundreds of prints in some cases, and .39/print (don't know what he charges now), it gets complicated and expensive, and involves DVDs and USPS.

I may stick to Ritz, develop a working relationship with them, with the right technician; I know sometimes Ritz is iffy with the wrong technician on their machine.

I don't really know. I know I don't love either of Smug Mug's attempts on this order. Sorry.

TexPhotog

ICC and Paint Shop Pro XI question.
So I have yet another one of my silly questions...

I can't afford PS, so I use Corel's Paint Shop Pro XI...

Before I ever downloaded the ICC profile from SM, my whites looked white on my monitor...

After installing the ICC profile, when I choose "it" under my options, my whites turn blueish...

Since I'm also learing here, should I edit my photos with this blueish tint, upload to SM and print a "true color" photo to see if they match???