Options
dark prints
waldo647
Registered Users Posts: 27 Big grins
Hi all,
I’m a noobie here, and got a nudge over here from Andy, who checked out some dark prints of mine. He recommended I use the histogram more, or make sure my image is more evenly distributed over the histogram for more pleasing prints. He also suggested the Auto setting for prints make help, even on my lightened up prints.
Some background: I’ve run into this problem before, so it’s not a problem with SM printing. Not that I consider myself a “dark” person, per se :-) -- maybe my eyes are more sensitive to detail in dimmer prints?
Part of this, too, is my attempt aesthetically to attempt to capture and re-create what I saw originally in the shot. Unfortunately, as Andy said, the monitors keep getting brighter and brighter and the printers don’t. That’s part of it for sure, and I’m asking Santa for a Pantone Huey help with screen calibration.
I am also wondering about the color spaces of printers being smaller than our monitors (maybe even more if we’re using Adobe RGB)? Part of this may be the old slides vs prints, or refracted versus reflected light. Basically, transparencies can, and probably always will, look lighter -- even if we dim our monitors considerably.
I adjusted group shots from a family reunion, per Andy’s suggestion, so that the histogram didn’t touch either wall and made it almost all the way to right. Then added Clarity, and the various Lightroom controls, and it actually did print fairly well on my ancient Epson Stylus C60. Although using Colorsync sometimes gets a dialog from Lightroom saying the profile can’t be found (not sure what that’s about). So I’m sort of in the ballpark with the color management, i.e. the print is starting to look a lot closer to the screen.
Here’s the thing: the shots on my screen are now almost garish to look at. Admittedly, my camera was thrust into my wife’s hands quickly to shoot these shots, and she wasn’t used to this camera yet, and the shots (for a couple of reasons) were under-exposed by 2-3 stops. Maybe I should have said this up-front. Andy noticed it right away. And I can appreciate that it’s easier to rescue an under-exposed shot for screen use, than trying to make reasonable prints.
So maybe this is a little bit of an edge case, but I’m still wondering about this transparency vs printing conundrum. I would like to settle on an online printer, and most likely Smugmug (I have been quite pleased with some earlier test shots), rather than springing for an Epson 1800, 2400, or 3800 -- partially because one of my sons works for HP’s inkjet division, and he said he’d never talk to me again if I did!
How do other folks resolve these printing issues? What suggestions might be available? I can include a link to the photos in question, but I’m really interested on a more general level here. Is it necessary, or helpful, to do test prints on a local printer first, even though the profiles may be quite different (and there is no ICC profile for the Epson C-60, that I know of).
Is the auto setting logical after editing with Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture or similar programs? Is there more info on how Auto works and when to use it (beyond the Help screen)? I figured after RAW editing (these are all RAWs by the way), the True setting would be more appropriate.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts - and, I’ll try to keep the questions shorter in future!
- Chris
I’m a noobie here, and got a nudge over here from Andy, who checked out some dark prints of mine. He recommended I use the histogram more, or make sure my image is more evenly distributed over the histogram for more pleasing prints. He also suggested the Auto setting for prints make help, even on my lightened up prints.
Some background: I’ve run into this problem before, so it’s not a problem with SM printing. Not that I consider myself a “dark” person, per se :-) -- maybe my eyes are more sensitive to detail in dimmer prints?
Part of this, too, is my attempt aesthetically to attempt to capture and re-create what I saw originally in the shot. Unfortunately, as Andy said, the monitors keep getting brighter and brighter and the printers don’t. That’s part of it for sure, and I’m asking Santa for a Pantone Huey help with screen calibration.
I am also wondering about the color spaces of printers being smaller than our monitors (maybe even more if we’re using Adobe RGB)? Part of this may be the old slides vs prints, or refracted versus reflected light. Basically, transparencies can, and probably always will, look lighter -- even if we dim our monitors considerably.
I adjusted group shots from a family reunion, per Andy’s suggestion, so that the histogram didn’t touch either wall and made it almost all the way to right. Then added Clarity, and the various Lightroom controls, and it actually did print fairly well on my ancient Epson Stylus C60. Although using Colorsync sometimes gets a dialog from Lightroom saying the profile can’t be found (not sure what that’s about). So I’m sort of in the ballpark with the color management, i.e. the print is starting to look a lot closer to the screen.
Here’s the thing: the shots on my screen are now almost garish to look at. Admittedly, my camera was thrust into my wife’s hands quickly to shoot these shots, and she wasn’t used to this camera yet, and the shots (for a couple of reasons) were under-exposed by 2-3 stops. Maybe I should have said this up-front. Andy noticed it right away. And I can appreciate that it’s easier to rescue an under-exposed shot for screen use, than trying to make reasonable prints.
So maybe this is a little bit of an edge case, but I’m still wondering about this transparency vs printing conundrum. I would like to settle on an online printer, and most likely Smugmug (I have been quite pleased with some earlier test shots), rather than springing for an Epson 1800, 2400, or 3800 -- partially because one of my sons works for HP’s inkjet division, and he said he’d never talk to me again if I did!
How do other folks resolve these printing issues? What suggestions might be available? I can include a link to the photos in question, but I’m really interested on a more general level here. Is it necessary, or helpful, to do test prints on a local printer first, even though the profiles may be quite different (and there is no ICC profile for the Epson C-60, that I know of).
Is the auto setting logical after editing with Lightroom, Photoshop, Aperture or similar programs? Is there more info on how Auto works and when to use it (beyond the Help screen)? I figured after RAW editing (these are all RAWs by the way), the True setting would be more appropriate.
Thanks in advance for any thoughts - and, I’ll try to keep the questions shorter in future!
- Chris
waldo647images.com
0
Comments
Others may disagree, but I think it important to rely on some quantitative tool or metric here. The histogram is one, but only one.
Dan Margulis advocates 3 rules for any photo:
1. The most significant lightest spot on the photo should be near the
left end of the histogram (I'm translating from his specific technique to histogram here - he recommends specific RGB or CMYK values).
2. The darkest spot on the photo should be near to the right end of the histogram (again translating).
So far, Auto Levels will probably get you close to this. The principle is straightforward - use the entire range available. There are probably times when the principle doesn't apply, but I can't think of any from personal experience.
3. The most interesting part of the photo should have the highest contrast.
Hard to do automatically, since the algorithm can't determine "interesting". Boosting contrast in mid-ranges works in a lot of cases, but not all. You can do this with curves (my preference) or the various controls in Camera Raw.
Duffy
Calibrated monitor screens look kind of dim and less colorful at first compared to lots of uncalibrated computer screens, but allow the screen to display the full range of gray steps that higher contrast monitors cannot handle.
Good bikes you own too
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
By 1 & 2, you mean expanding the histogram as much as possible? I'm a Lightroom guy a lot more than Photoshop these days (only have CS1). CS3 is on my list though. Pano stitching along seem worth the price! I used to use Auto Levels - nothing really like this LR, though. I've been using Exposure, Brightness, Contrast, Clarity, and usual controls. (More below in next answer on calibration...)
3 is definitely interesting. I tend to think of contrast throughout the shot. Maybe I need to rethink this... Again, a good ref to Dan would be appreciated!
- Chris
My screen (Apple Studio Display 17") was turned down about 2/3, but it's not the greatest monitor either, so it might look too hot at the bright end.
I downloaded the EZ-prints ICC profile, too, and am studying the Help info on calibrating, etc. Lots to consider here!
Where'd you see my bike info?
I prefer a Spyder2Pro for profiling my Apple cinema display - My prints, whether printed by myself on my Epson 4000, or by Smugmug's EZPrint service, match very closely. Whites look white, grays look gray, and blacks look black.
Your bikes R1150 GSA, and F650 are listed on your profile there.
I own and ride - ST1300, R1150 GS, and a Suzuki DR650. I swapped my F650 to my son for a R100 GS/PD that is being restored this winter.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Is the Spyder2Pro that much better than the Huey? My wife uses a Lenovo X61 with a 12" screen. Would the Spyder work OK on it, too?
[thread]50319[/thread]
There's a lot more in the thread that may be useful to you. Of course, it's all Photoshop curve based.
The real reference is Dan's book, Professional Photoshop 5th Edition. However, you're not a Photoshop guy, it ain't cheap, and it's very difficult going (although rewarding, if you put the time and effort into it).
There have been complaints that the Huey does not work on all laptop screens.
I have used my Spyder2Pro on my 24in Cinema Display LCD, and both my older G4 PowerBook and my Mac Book Pro with good results.
Also, the license for the Spyder2Pro allow use on more than one computer as long as I own them and they are not in a commercial venue.
I cannot say anything more about the Huey as I do not own one. I have been happy with my choice.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I knew there was something about you I liked. I ride an R1150GS Adv too!
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
I rode the ST to Birmingham and Maggie Valley in October with my son.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Natural selection is responsible for every living thing that exists.
D3s, D500, D5300, and way more glass than the wife knows about.
Hey, I'm old!!
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
Isn't the Studio display a CRT, rather than an LCD panel? I know that my FP seemed brighter than my Sony Trinitron 19" after calibrating both with my Spyder 2 (which I like as a calibration tool). The CRT looked dull in comparison. It's all that backlighting. But I got used to it.
Another thing I've seen people do is restore the monitor to factory settings (default brightnexx/contrast/etc), calibrate .... and then turn up the brightness because it seems 'dark'. You shouldn't touch the monitor after calibrating.
You should also make sure you work in the same lighting environment as when you calibrated. The Preferred scenario is no direct and minimal (or no ambient) light. But consistent lighting is at least as, if not more, important. Turning off all the lights, calibrating, and then opening up the curtains (sunshine), turning on overhead fluorescent, or a desktop tungsten lamp all defeat the purpose.
Finally, as DavidTO so often points out, is the gamma setting for your Mac video card. The default is 1.8, but it should be 2.2.
-Fleetwood Mac
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin