Options
A lesson in how to get confused about printing
I Simonius
Registered Users Posts: 1,034 Major grins
I have had some prints done and they came out flat. SM help said they would redo (phew - thanks guys!) and pointed me here for help on how to get it right.
Nice clear instructions there: except I just have to make everything complicated! I know I do it, but that doesn't help me not do it:dunno. I just cannot get my head round the relationship between the histo/print/what-I-see on the screen.
E.g. does it mean what see on the screen is irrelevant - if so how can I adjust my image for the (ahem) subtle tones I want?
Do I set my screen to Gamma 1.8 ( I'm on a Mac and that's its native gamma) or 2.2? I know 2.2 is best for web but prints is a different matter.:scratch And what about sharpening? I have a rough idea of how to make it look ok on screen using photoshop, but does that equate to nicely sharpened prints and does LR do the same job? I need to find out.
I'm fairly certain I'm mixing up the wrong concepts, or the right ones in the wrong pot , and that this has to be easy.. but I am looking at it sideways somehow. I need to know how to make all those fine adjustment decisions on screen and still get what I thought I was getting in print Otherwise why boteher with all those on screen adjustments - you don't mean to tell me that we just need to look at the histogram not the screen?:huh
Anyway : I decide to redo my images in LR , starting with this one - but I come up with the same grotty histogram at the end all over to the left like in their example; and that is after hitting the 'auto' button, because the highlights were clipped before
Is it because i tried using the gamma at 1.8 I ask myself ? ( and yet here is the histogram of the same image in Photoshop CS3) -Ill try at 2.2 and see what happens..
OK here's the version with my screen set at gamma 2.2 and it does seem to me that it is easier to get a correlation between what looks nicer on the screen and what looks better in the histogram.
My thoughts are that it seems that using a gamma of 1.8 makes it look too light on the screen and therefore the tendency is to darken the image too much for printing.
What do you folks think?
Nice clear instructions there: except I just have to make everything complicated! I know I do it, but that doesn't help me not do it:dunno. I just cannot get my head round the relationship between the histo/print/what-I-see on the screen.
E.g. does it mean what see on the screen is irrelevant - if so how can I adjust my image for the (ahem) subtle tones I want?
Do I set my screen to Gamma 1.8 ( I'm on a Mac and that's its native gamma) or 2.2? I know 2.2 is best for web but prints is a different matter.:scratch And what about sharpening? I have a rough idea of how to make it look ok on screen using photoshop, but does that equate to nicely sharpened prints and does LR do the same job? I need to find out.
I'm fairly certain I'm mixing up the wrong concepts, or the right ones in the wrong pot , and that this has to be easy.. but I am looking at it sideways somehow. I need to know how to make all those fine adjustment decisions on screen and still get what I thought I was getting in print Otherwise why boteher with all those on screen adjustments - you don't mean to tell me that we just need to look at the histogram not the screen?:huh
Anyway : I decide to redo my images in LR , starting with this one - but I come up with the same grotty histogram at the end all over to the left like in their example; and that is after hitting the 'auto' button, because the highlights were clipped before
Is it because i tried using the gamma at 1.8 I ask myself ? ( and yet here is the histogram of the same image in Photoshop CS3) -Ill try at 2.2 and see what happens..
OK here's the version with my screen set at gamma 2.2 and it does seem to me that it is easier to get a correlation between what looks nicer on the screen and what looks better in the histogram.
My thoughts are that it seems that using a gamma of 1.8 makes it look too light on the screen and therefore the tendency is to darken the image too much for printing.
What do you folks think?
Veni-Vidi-Snappii
...pics..
...pics..
0
Comments
2.2 or Native if your calibration software supports it and you're not using a high bit display (one with high bit LUTs like Eizo or NEC).
About soft proofing:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200409_rodneycm.pdf
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200411_rodneycm.pdf
And Gamma:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200411_rodneycm.pdf
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Nope, try this:
http://www.ppmag.com/reviews/200612_rodneycm.pdf
Author "Color Management for Photographers"
http://www.digitaldog.net/
thank you - I shall go forth and read..
...pics..
...pics..
But, just to throw a monkey wrench into the works, a lot depends on the paper. On a gloss or luster paper, the second image(IMG_8741_gamma_1 8(LR)) might print just fine while the last would be too contrasty. OTOH, on a matte paper, I'd definitely go with the last image.(or #9 if that's the one we're talking about)
The biggest problem with printing images like this from LR is that there's no soft-proofing. If you can get a profile from SM, try soft-proofing both in PS and see which you prefer.
Bill
thanks very much for the feedback!
I do have a profile for SM , I had forgotten about that, it's enough for me to remember to change to 8bit, or to set the profile to sRGB, or to sharpen at the end, or to set the gamma or any mnumber of other things that this digital world throws at us:rutt
...pics..