Question about Smug Mug Printing and PP

sara505 · January 10, 2008

Greetings. I recently received a large order of SmugMug-processed prints that I do not love. Some of them are fine, but many have questionable skin tones. I shot them all in RAW, pp in Canon DPP. I used white click for most of the skin tones. I use a Dell lap-top for processing, and it has not been calibrated. The question revolves around the fact that in the not-too-distant past, when I was shooting JPG, and pre-SmugMug, I could send minimally adjusted files (sometimes, completely untouched) to my lab (Bay State Color in Hanover, MA) and would receive deliciously rich and well-saturated prints with good skin tones - in fact, Gary, the owner, used to tell me, "don't do a thing." I am now spending hours in pp (my pp time has been greatly reduced, however, by having switched to RAW and DPP), and getting dubious results. Yes, I probably need a better computer with a calibrated monitor - but am I hoping for too much in thinking that SmugMug would take up the slack - the way my former lab was able to do on totally unprocessed jpg files? Are my pp skills really that bad? I find this a little discouraging. For me, the disconnect is between the way the images look on the web site and the final product. If I can't get a gorgeous print to hang on the wall, especially after hours of computer time, what am I doing? To see the images in question, go to: http://sara505.smugmug.com/gallery/4000043#232977450

ifocus · January 10, 2008

Print using another source

sara505 wrote:

Greetings. I recently received a large order of SmugMug-processed prints that I do not love. Some of them are fine, but many have questionable skin tones. I shot them all in RAW, pp in Canon DPP. I used white click for most of the skin tones. I use a Dell lap-top for processing, and it has not been calibrated. The question revolves around the fact that in the not-too-distant past, when I was shooting JPG, and pre-SmugMug, I could send minimally adjusted files (sometimes, completely untouched) to my lab (Bay State Color in Hanover, MA) and would receive deliciously rich and well-saturated prints with good skin tones - in fact, Gary, the owner, used to tell me, "don't do a thing." I am now spending hours in pp (my pp time has been greatly reduced, however, by having switched to RAW and DPP), and getting dubious results. Yes, I probably need a better computer with a calibrated monitor - but am I hoping for too much in thinking that SmugMug would take up the slack - the way my former lab was able to do on totally unprocessed jpg files? Are my pp skills really that bad? I find this a little discouraging. For me, the disconnect is between the way the images look on the web site and the final product. If I can't get a gorgeous print to hang on the wall, especially after hours of computer time, what am I doing? To see the images in question, go to: http://sara505.smugmug.com/gallery/4000043#232977450

I would suggest to send some files to your old lab or any other for that matter so you can validate smugmug print lab. It would eliminate some variables. --JY

DavidTO · January 10, 2008

ifocus wrote:

I would suggest to send some files to your old lab or any other for that matter so you can validate smugmug print lab. It would eliminate some variables. --JY

Seems to me that it would just add more varialbles.

Someone from SM will be along shortly to help.

Eric&Susan · January 10, 2008

I'm no expert but alot of those pics in your gallery seem to have a yellow cast to them. While others seem to be really cool in temperature.

Did you batch process them or do each pic individually?

To me it looks like a white balance issue on your end but like I said I'm NO expert by any means.

I'm sure no mater what happens the the fine folks at SM will step up and help you get this right.

my .02 cents,

Eric

Andy · January 10, 2008

Eric&Susan wrote:

I'm no expert but alot of those pics in your gallery seem to have a yellow cast to them. While others seem to be really cool in temperature.

Can you tell me more about how you worked these - the exact steps please?

sara505 · January 10, 2008

Andy wrote:

Can you tell me more about how you worked these - the exact steps please?

Not sure I can remember exactly. But basically, in DPP, I adjust bright and dark (not by much, as I recall), bump the contrast slightly, add a little sharpness, crank the saturation up a notch, then for color balance I used the eyedropper on a white point -sometimes hard to find - and click. Some were more "on" than others. I guess part of my question is, how exact does the pp have to be? Given that not everyone has a calibrated monitor, and given that people have verying degrees of pp expertise (always trying to improve mine!) isn't there a certain amount of compensation that takes place in the printing?

My concern with the prints is, as someone pointed out above, there was a lot of yellow and pink.

Eric&Susan · January 10, 2008

I usually try to set the White balance first.

Maybe this will help you:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/too-red

Do you remember if you used Auto or True color? I would think that the Auto color would be more like your old print place was, only 10 times better.

Eric

sara505 · January 10, 2008

Eric&Susan wrote:

I usually try to set the White balance first.

Maybe this will help you:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/too-red

Do you remember if you used Auto or True color? I would think that the Auto color would be more like your old print place was, only 10 times better.

Eric

I use Auto color. I think sometimes I set WB first too.

Eric&Susan · January 10, 2008

sara505 wrote:

I use Auto color. I think sometimes I set WB first too.

That might be part of the problem you should set WB first.

Try Taking one of your unedited RAWs from your gallery and doing the WB first then your usual PP.

Then do your usual PP and set the WB last to see if there is a noticeable difference.

Eric

sara505 · January 11, 2008

Eric&Susan wrote:

That might be part of the problem you should set WB first.

Try Taking one of your unedited RAWs from your gallery and doing the WB first then your usual PP.

Then do your usual PP and set the WB last to see if there is a noticeable difference.

Eric

Thank you - I usually do set WB first, as I now think about it. "Click" is relatively new to me, so that may be a factor. Some, using click white balance are right on the money, while on other images it was difficult to find a good white. And while I am ever pressing on towards improved pp skills (and I am on the verge of a sweeping upgrade, from camera to digital darkroom tools), my question is more about SmugMug priniting - and perhaps this thread belongs in a different location - mainly, how much latitude is there in SmugMug printing? My monitor is probably not that far off - the prints are close to what I see on my monitor (the prints strike me as being more "true" than "auto," maybe?) - but where does our pp leave off and SmugMug printing take over? How perfect does the pp have to be in order to get good printing results? Again, why not just go back to shooting jpg and let Gary's machine do the work - except, being an old darkroom junkie from way back, I love having my hand in the process, and I do love the convenience of offering printing right off the web site to my customers.

sara505 · January 11, 2008

that's it?

sara505 wrote:

Thank you - I usually do set WB first, as I now think about it. "Click" is relatively new to me, so that may be a factor. Some, using click white balance are right on the money, while on other images it was difficult to find a good white. And while I am ever pressing on towards improved pp skills (and I am on the verge of a sweeping upgrade, from camera to digital darkroom tools), my question is more about SmugMug priniting - and perhaps this thread belongs in a different location - mainly, how much latitude is there in SmugMug printing? My monitor is probably not that far off - the prints are close to what I see on my monitor (the prints strike me as being more "true" than "auto," maybe?) - but where does our pp leave off and SmugMug printing take over? How perfect does the pp have to be in order to get good printing results? Again, why not just go back to shooting jpg and let Gary's machine do the work - except, being an old darkroom junkie from way back, I love having my hand in the process, and I do love the convenience of offering printing right off the web site to my customers.

Is this conversation really over? Was it something I said?

DavidTO · January 11, 2008

Hey, Sara.

That's the nature of this board. Sometimes a thread can sit for 5 hours and nothing will happen, and then boom, lots of activity. In any case, 5 hours isn't all that long in "forum time", so just sit tight, someone will be along to help soon enough.

Andy · January 11, 2008

sara505 wrote:

how much latitude is there in SmugMug printing? My monitor is probably not that far off - the prints are close to what I see on my monitor (the prints strike me as being more "true" than "auto," maybe?) - but where does our pp leave off and SmugMug printing take over? How perfect does the pp have to be in order to get good printing results?

A wide amount. But you must have reasonable beginning values for exposure (not too much underexposed, for example), white balance (no strong color cast), and not very very red. Our Auto will save the day:

http://wiki.smugmug.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=754083
http://www.smugmug.com/help/too-red

sara505 · January 11, 2008

Andy wrote:

A wide amount. But you must have reasonable beginning values for exposure (not too much underexposed, for example), white balance (no strong color cast), and not very very red. Our Auto will save the day:

http://wiki.smugmug.com/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=754083
http://www.smugmug.com/help/too-red

I guess I was hoping someone from SmugMug would take a look at the images and tell me if they are within reasonable limits.

chrisc · January 11, 2008

sara505 wrote:

I guess I was hoping someone from SmugMug would take a look at the images and tell me if they are within reasonable limits.

Hi Sara,

Andy is from smugmug. I think his point was that you have some white balance issues that auto-color cannot fix.

It might be more helpful if you could select one or two images that you were particularly displeased with from your prints and give links to those and ask for suggestions.

-Chris C.

jfriend · January 12, 2008

chrisc wrote:

Hi Sara,

Andy is from smugmug. I think his point was that you have some white balance issues that auto-color cannot fix.

It might be more helpful if you could select one or two images that you were particularly displeased with from your prints and give links to those and ask for suggestions.

-Chris C.

Another option. Take one of your specific prints that you weren't happy with and ask for help fixing the image and a reprint on the Smugmug print guarantee.

If you're getting to the point where you are paying attention to white balance and sometimes not happy with what you are getting (which it sounds like you are), then your only long term solution is to buy one of the hardware-based screen calibration systems ($75-$150) and make sure your screen is showing accurate colors. If your screen isn't showing accurate colors, then you are just shooting in the dark and hoping that some auto-correction will save you. Without a calibrated screen, your own adjustments might even be making it worse.

Then after calibrating your screen, study how to evaluate and adjust white balance for pleasing skin tone. Smugmug has a couple tutorials and there are many others on the web. It's not hard to learn on your own with a little practice.

Andy · January 12, 2008

jfriend wrote:

Another option. Take one of your specific prints that you weren't happy with and ask for help fixing the image and a reprint on the Smugmug print guarantee.

Send email to our help desk, ATTN: Andy with the details and order #

sara505 · January 12, 2008

jfriend wrote:

Another option. Take one of your specific prints that you weren't happy with and ask for help fixing the image and a reprint on the Smugmug print guarantee.

If you're getting to the point where you are paying attention to white balance and sometimes not happy with what you are getting (which it sounds like you are), then your only long term solution is to buy one of the hardware-based screen calibration systems ($75-$150) and make sure your screen is showing accurate colors. If your screen isn't showing accurate colors, then you are just shooting in the dark and hoping that some auto-correction will save you. Without a calibrated screen, your own adjustments might even be making it worse.

Then after calibrating your screen, study how to evaluate and adjust white balance for pleasing skin tone. Smugmug has a couple tutorials and there are many others on the web. It's not hard to learn on your own with a little practice.

In looking over this order - they have been spread out on my table for a couple of days now, and depressing me - what I am seeing are pink faces and green hair. I have reexamined the images on my website and they look fine on my monitor. What's confusing is, I've been using this computer and monitor for the past year and have never encountered this problem before; all other prints have been fine. The variable may be that this was the first time I used Click White Balance, which I was actually quite excited about.

I have been wanting and needing to upgrade virtually everything for some time now, and am now in a position to begin. I obviously need to calibrate my monitor - but I have read that lap tops can't be calibrated. Is this true? What I really need is a new computer - but I need to begin by upgrading my camera - yeah, I think I've learned the 10D quite thoroughly at this point thank you very much - and I need to get off my antiquated PS (v 5!!) - and monitor calibration is also high on my list. The question is, can I calibrate my Dell lap top - a stop-gap as I save for the next phase: a proper computer for running a phtography business.

Andy · January 12, 2008

sara505 wrote:

In looking over this order - they have been spread out on my table for a couple of days now, and depressing me

please please email attn: Andy to help desk, give the order # and link back to this thread, I promise I can help you

jdryan3 · January 12, 2008

sara505 wrote:

Thank you - I usually do set WB first, as I now think about it. "Click" is relatively new to me, so that may be a factor. Some, using click white balance are right on the money, while on other images it was difficult to find a good white.

Try this thread or do a search on White Balance Tool. I use Adobe Camera Raw (ACR) not DPP, but the gist is you use the White Balance Tool (not Color Sampler) on a neutral color. Actually a light neutral color. Not on a white white, blown highlights or specular highlights.

RealWorld Camera Raw by Bruce Fraser states to use the 2nd lightest gray (or equivalent) of a color chart, NOT the gray equal to an 18% gray card. Also, beware of picking a color that has one of the color channels (RGB) clipped. Hopefully DPP works in a similar fashion.

SteveM · January 13, 2008

Hi Sara,

I'm Steve, one of the print specialists here at SmugMug. I've had a look at the order and the original images.

The biggest problem I'm seeing with these images is indeed white balance. The best starting point for you would be, if the lighting conditions aren't changing drastically from one shot to the next, turn off your auto white balance to maintain consistency. With these shots, it seems your auto white balance kept locking on different things and changing the entire colorcast of your photos. Here are some examples:

http://www.sarapiazza.com/gallery/4000043/4/232993378#232993378 Blue colorcast.

http://www.sarapiazza.com/gallery/4000043/11/233039366#233039366 Pink/yellow colorcast

http://www.sarapiazza.com/gallery/4000043/7/233017505#233017505 Green hair, highly magenta cheeks.

The first two are definitely the result of auto white balance with a colorcast. The last is the nature of digital photography. The green hair is usually caused by fair hair under florescent lighting. The red cheeks have an entire science all their own, but can be corrected quickly by using our Too-Red tutorial. http://www.smugmug.com/help/red-skin-tones

The photos I viewed, the colorcast changed significantly literally from one photo to the next, and while our Auto Color is good, it can only guess at the effect you're trying to acheive.

Also, while our monitors, and even moreso, our eyes can lie to us, Photoshop (and other post processing apps) never will. They use raw numbers and see only data. Regardless of colorcast, our eyes and minds compensate for it. If you stare at a white peice of paper under almost any lighting conditions, it will eventually look white. Your brain knows it's white. Cameras don't, and capture differently under florescent, tungsten, sunlight, which is the whole need for "white balance".

One great technique, if you shoot under unchanging lighting conditions, is to set your in camera white balance first - set it to anything that's in the ballpark. Then, photograph something that's white (but not overexposed). Then do your entire shoot using that white balance. In post processing, if you use Adobe Camera RAW (or any other that will let you load many images, and copy settings across them), you can load all your images, pull up the photo where you photographed something white, set the white balance using the eyedropper tool off of that white object, then "synchronize" that white balance across the entire shoot. Literally with three clicks, you can properly white balance your entire shoot.

To correct these particular images, you'll want to make use of first, going through the original images and resetting the white point (eyedropper using curves or levels), then making use of the Too-Red tutorial above for the over-pink skintones.

I hope this helps. Another thing you should consider is ordering some of your photos True Color, good or bad, and when they arrive, adjusting your monitor to match those prints exactly. That way, no surprises in the future.

sara505 · January 13, 2008

SteveM wrote:

Hi Sara,

I'm Steve, one of the print specialists here at SmugMug. I've had a look at the order and the original images.

The biggest problem I'm seeing with these images is indeed white balance. The best starting point for you would be, if the lighting conditions aren't changing drastically from one shot to the next, turn off your auto white balance to maintain consistency. With these shots, it seems your auto white balance kept locking on different things and changing the entire colorcast of your photos. Here are some examples:

http://www.sarapiazza.com/gallery/4000043/4/232993378#232993378 Blue colorcast.

http://www.sarapiazza.com/gallery/4000043/11/233039366#233039366 Pink/yellow colorcast

http://www.sarapiazza.com/gallery/4000043/7/233017505#233017505 Green hair, highly magenta cheeks.

The first two are definitely the result of auto white balance with a colorcast. The last is the nature of digital photography. The green hair is usually caused by fair hair under florescent lighting. The red cheeks have an entire science all their own, but can be corrected quickly by using our Too-Red tutorial. http://www.smugmug.com/help/red-skin-tones

The photos I viewed, the colorcast changed significantly literally from one photo to the next, and while our Auto Color is good, it can only guess at the effect you're trying to acheive.

Also, while our monitors, and even moreso, our eyes can lie to us, Photoshop (and other post processing apps) never will. They use raw numbers and see only data. Regardless of colorcast, our eyes and minds compensate for it. If you stare at a white peice of paper under almost any lighting conditions, it will eventually look white. Your brain knows it's white. Cameras don't, and capture differently under florescent, tungsten, sunlight, which is the whole need for "white balance".

One great technique, if you shoot under unchanging lighting conditions, is to set your in camera white balance first - set it to anything that's in the ballpark. Then, photograph something that's white (but not overexposed). Then do your entire shoot using that white balance. In post processing, if you use Adobe Camera RAW (or any other that will let you load many images, and copy settings across them), you can load all your images, pull up the photo where you photographed something white, set the white balance using the eyedropper tool off of that white object, then "synchronize" that white balance across the entire shoot. Literally with three clicks, you can properly white balance your entire shoot.

To correct these particular images, you'll want to make use of first, going through the original images and resetting the white point (eyedropper using curves or levels), then making use of the Too-Red tutorial above for the over-pink skintones.

I hope this helps. Another thing you should consider is ordering some of your photos True Color, good or bad, and when they arrive, adjusting your monitor to match those prints exactly. That way, no surprises in the future.

Hi, Steve. Thank you for your in-depth reply. The reason it seems each image has a different colorcast is because I set the WB separately for each image. I had just discovered Click WB and thought - great, this is fun - and obviously I had no idea what I was doing! Which is the way I've learned most things in my life - diving in head first and reading the instructions later. It's no coincidence that this is the first time I've used the eyedropper to balance the color and also the first time I've had a bad set of prints.

I will obviously have to re-work these images and chalk up the price of having 225 4x6's made of these lousy things, not to mention my time, to what I call "the tuition of life," but I'm not sure what you mean by "resetting the white point." I already tried that and I failed dismally. Don't I need to calibrate my monitor first? for now, how about if I go back and re-set everything to "shot settings," and call it a day? Or should I go back and find one good image with a good white point, and apply that white point to all of the images. Still, don't I need to calibrate my monitor to do this properly? Or, as you suggested, order a few prints True Color and adjust from there - but I don't know how to adjust my monitor, I'm afraid, don't I need special software for this?

I like your suggestion about setting up a WB control shot, but I'm confused. Do I set something in my camera after I've taken the shot, or do I simply shoot in auto WB and use that one shot in PP as a guide?

I am very eager to learn more about color management, monitor calibration, and WB.

If anybody has further tips on setting WB using DPP, I'm all ears. (( .. ))
`
Thank you.
`

Question about Smug Mug Printing and PP

Comments