Jason, if your screen is not calibrated, and even is it is calibrated, you need to know what the pixels should read for white, black and gray, and whether something is red or blue or green or yellow by reading the pixel data.
Only then can you look at the images on your screen with confidence about how they will print.
As I said earlier, 180,180,180 is not really white, but a lighter gray. Specular reflections cannot be mapped into the prints 0-255 data range or they compress the rest of the data down to far in the image and that is what happened with your child with the goggles on. You must use your range of contrast 0-255 - where is it will do the most good.
The other thing to remember is that a print is a reflective medium and never going to be as bright or have as high a contrast range as an electronic display like an LCD. You must look at your prints under a fairly bright, color balanced light like daylight or an Ott-light, or a Solux light to be able to compare it directly to a screen. Any of my prints that I print will look dark in general home illumination, but when examined under my Ott-light compare very closely to my LCD.
Still not sure how you made the edits - but perhaps I can do some internet research regarding adjusting white and black points and figure it out for myself. I do like the version that you made better than the one I hacked out - the colors seem to "pop" a bit more.
Regarding your comments about the glasses - are you saying that the reflections fooled my camera?
As a note, I received some reprints of the original (unadjusted) photos today using AUTO color and they look quite nice. There really is a big difference between TRUE and AUTO on prints that are too dark to begin with. According to Smugmug support, 90-something percent of their returns are for photos ordered as TRUE color and most of these are for being too dark (just like mine).
Still not sure how you made the edits - but perhaps I can do some internet research regarding adjusting white and black points and figure it out for myself. I do like the version that you made better than the one I hacked out - the colors seem to "pop" a bit more.
Read the Tutorial on Creating POP in your images to read about B&W points again.
Your updated image is a bit 'hot', you are losing white detail in his shirt. I placed my white point in the seam at the shoulder sleeve of his left arm, but in your image you cannot see that seam any longer.
Regarding your comments about the glasses - are you saying that the reflections fooled my camera?
Yes, indeed. Specular reflections are seen at the rim of the lenses in his glasses, and they are not white points. Indeed, when setting a white point, you are specifically enjoined not to use a specular reflection, but the whitest area you want to retain some detail. That was why I use the seem in his left shoulder of his shirt - to help retain detail in the shirt, which your second edit lost. One has to be careful adding contrast and saturation, or you risk losing detail in shadows or highlights.
As a note, I received some reprints of the original (unadjusted) photos today using AUTO color and they look quite nice. There really is a big difference between TRUE and AUTO on prints that are too dark to begin with. According to Smugmug support, 90-something percent of their returns are for photos ordered as TRUE color and most of these are for being too dark (just like mine).
- Jason
Auto is to correct incorrectly processed images. Exactly what we have been talking about. True assumes you have correctly edited your image, and distributed the contrast range optimally for printing. So True will print exactly what your data are, not what was probably intended ( which is alway a guess so to speak )
Read the Tutorial on Creating POP in your images to read about B&W points again.
Your updated image is a bit 'hot', you are losing white detail in his shirt. I placed my white point in the seam at the shoulder sleeve of his left arm, but in your image you cannot see that seam any longer.
Yes, indeed. Specular reflections are seen at the rim of the lenses in his glasses, and they are not white points. Indeed, when setting a white point, you are specifically enjoined not to use a specular reflection, but the whitest area you want to retain some detail. That was why I use the seem in his left shoulder of his shirt - to help retain detail in the shirt, which your second edit lost. One has to be careful adding contrast and saturation, or you risk losing detail in shadows or highlights.
Auto is to correct incorrectly processed images. Exactly what we have been talking about. True assumes you have correctly edited your image, and distributed the contrast range optimally for printing. So True will print exactly what your data are, not what was probably intended ( which is alway a guess so to speak )
One is GIMP + Noiseware and the other is GIMP + GreyCStoration noise plugin. I also tried some unsharp mask as a last step.
I still can't get the colors to match yours, no matter where I set the white and black point. I assume that you used curves instead of levels and did some advanced tweaking.
I may have altered a curve slightly - I did not keep the files, so I cannot look at my workflow for sure. Your edits have the child's skin and hair darker than mine. Only you can evaluate how they compare to the child's skin tones themselves.
The important point was that the original image was way too dark, and that was why the prints did not match the monitor image. As you continue to edit images, it will get easier and faster.
Comments
Still not sure how you made the edits - but perhaps I can do some internet research regarding adjusting white and black points and figure it out for myself. I do like the version that you made better than the one I hacked out - the colors seem to "pop" a bit more.
Regarding your comments about the glasses - are you saying that the reflections fooled my camera?
As a note, I received some reprints of the original (unadjusted) photos today using AUTO color and they look quite nice. There really is a big difference between TRUE and AUTO on prints that are too dark to begin with. According to Smugmug support, 90-something percent of their returns are for photos ordered as TRUE color and most of these are for being too dark (just like mine).
- Jason
Read the Tutorial on Creating POP in your images to read about B&W points again.
Your updated image is a bit 'hot', you are losing white detail in his shirt. I placed my white point in the seam at the shoulder sleeve of his left arm, but in your image you cannot see that seam any longer.
Yes, indeed. Specular reflections are seen at the rim of the lenses in his glasses, and they are not white points. Indeed, when setting a white point, you are specifically enjoined not to use a specular reflection, but the whitest area you want to retain some detail. That was why I use the seem in his left shoulder of his shirt - to help retain detail in the shirt, which your second edit lost. One has to be careful adding contrast and saturation, or you risk losing detail in shadows or highlights.
Auto is to correct incorrectly processed images. Exactly what we have been talking about. True assumes you have correctly edited your image, and distributed the contrast range optimally for printing. So True will print exactly what your data are, not what was probably intended ( which is alway a guess so to speak )
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin
I tried a few more edits.
http://www.smugmug.com/gallery/5289754_Q3GUY/1/318069738_NT8PL
One is GIMP + Noiseware and the other is GIMP + GreyCStoration noise plugin. I also tried some unsharp mask as a last step.
I still can't get the colors to match yours, no matter where I set the white and black point. I assume that you used curves instead of levels and did some advanced tweaking.
- Jason
The important point was that the original image was way too dark, and that was why the prints did not match the monitor image. As you continue to edit images, it will get easier and faster.
Moderator of the Technique Forum and Finishing School on Dgrin