Computer Monitor and Printing

[KellyL]

When I edit pictures on my computer monitor, which I calibrate with a Spyder, the images seem perfect...get them printed, and they are too dark.

I have the Gateway FPD2485W TFT LCD Monitor.

What is the solution? I would love to edit by the numbers, and then I wouldn't have to worry about what luminance I saw on screen.

[brian.austin]

Printed where?

[brucedojd]

Same problem on my end. Unless you calibrate the printer as well, the problem exists.
Bruce

[KellyL]

Brian: At my pro labs.

[trixiebell]

Going through the same...calibrated my Lacie 526, everything looks great to me on my end. Sent off to lab and they are darker than what I see here. I use the Lacie blue eye pro that came with it.

[KellyL]

In my readings on Camera RAW and Adobe Photoshop CS4, I am beginning to develop an understanding of this phenomenon, maybe. (And Trixie, I am thinking...on a Lacie?? Isn't that one of the best out there?)

The gamma is the relationship of the luminance value of a pixel and its representation on the screen. Most monitors have a gamma between 1.8 and 2.2 (if I have understood my reading so far). If a pixel has a luminance value of 125, then its representation on the screen is raised to the power of the gamma value. 125 to the power of 1.8, or 125 raised to the power of 2.2. The higher the gamma, the brighter the pixel will appear on the screen. (I hope I am understanding this correctly).

It would seem that the solution would be to have the gamma point set to match the output device. If I knew what the gamma of the printer was, then my monitor could be set at that gamma, and all problems solved. No?

[trixiebell]

The images look so good on my screen, I was disappointed to see they came back on the dark side, as they did before I did the upgrade too!
On a side note though....my images from WHCC (in the States) came back spot on....but it is a hassel to order from the U.S. Shipping time frame and such.

Kelly, I wish I could understand better what you explained...I get lost easily...but it would make sense to me to be matching the output device.

My lab told me what they have theirs calibrated too...if I can find the paper I wrote it on I will share...when I was getting help from another forum they were shocked at the settings and everyone suggested to go with different setttings. (off to look on my messy desk!) I just got them back so I will have to call them tomorrow and see what they suggest.

ETA: This is what my lab said to calibrate to: 5500 K and 2.0 gamma
This is what I calibrated to after some help on another forum... 6500 K 2.2 gamma and a luminance of 100 cd/m2

[PhotosbyChuck]

The printer's color profile is specific not only to the printer model, but to the media (paper type) being printed. You may want to test an printer by ordering 1 glossy and 1 matte of the same photo. If color shifts, the printer is not calibrated properly.

But an important thing to understand is the colorspace in which your photo is stored -- and how that compares to the colorspace available to the printer. If you do not know what colorspace is, then chances are you are capturing 8-bit JPEGs in the sRGB colorspace. For most screen-based applications, including the web this is ideal ... even perhaps required as most browsers assume sRGB and ignore an embedded profile anyway.

On the otherhand, printers are not as cavalier with colorspaces. Good printers (like, WHCC, Lisa) will read the embedded colorspace and print accordingly. Low end printers are more likely to simply assume sRGB -- after all, the vast majority of the time, they'll be fine since most digital cameras are creating sRGB JPGs.

Regardless, your printer (company or your home printer) is very unlikely to be able to print the entire sRGB colorspace. My own printer, a Canon Pro 9500 is capable of printing only 62% of the sRGB space. It might surprise you to learn that 62% is actually pretty good! A Sony FP90 is capable of printing less than 45% of the space.

So in the end, you need to proof against the profile of the printer you want to use. If you are using your own printer, you probably already have a profile on your computer that you can proof against. If you are using a good printer like WHCC, they will make their profile available to you to download and proof against.

Proofing against the print profile is the best way to ensure you are not surprised!

[KellyL]

Lisa, I am just now trying to understand all of this as well, and I know I can, with some determination. I don't know what the 100 cd/c2 stands for.

Here is the thing...I had some proofs printed at WHCC and they looked fantastic! I had some wallets from the same file printed at Full Color and they came out looking different.

[KellyL]

Chuck,

I can see why it would be important to go with one company instead of dabbling around to many. I use WHCC, Full Color and HnH.

[brian.austin]

Originally Posted by KellyL

Chuck,

I can see why it would be important to go with one company instead of dabbling around to many. I use WHCC, Full Color and HnH.

I thought WHCC did a set of test prints to "profile" your settings prior to orders?

[PhotosbyChuck]

Find a good one and stick with it! Just for fun, here's a quick illustration:

sRGB:

Adobe RGB 1998:


These are identical photos except that their assigned colorspaces are different. If your browser displays them differently, it is likely ignoring the Adobe RGB embedded profile in the second image and is going to display weaker colors in it. Print both on your home printer and you may see yet another color shift.

It's very important to understand colorspace!

(Note: For those of you with Safari or Firefox and the Color Management add-on, these should look almost identical. For those with IE, these will likely look different).

[trixiebell]

Originally Posted by PhotosbyChuck

The printer's color profile is specific not only to the printer model, but to the media (paper type) being printed. You may want to test an printer by ordering 1 glossy and 1 matte of the same photo. If color shifts, the printer is not calibrated properly.

But an important thing to understand is the colorspace in which your photo is stored -- and how that compares to the colorspace available to the printer. If you do not know what colorspace is, then chances are you are capturing 8-bit JPEGs in the sRGB colorspace. For most screen-based applications, including the web this is ideal ... even perhaps required as most browsers assume sRGB and ignore an embedded profile anyway.

On the otherhand, printers are not as cavalier with colorspaces. Good printers (like, WHCC, Lisa) will read the embedded colorspace and print accordingly. Low end printers are more likely to simply assume sRGB -- after all, the vast majority of the time, they'll be fine since most digital cameras are creating sRGB JPGs.

Regardless, your printer (company or your home printer) is very unlikely to be able to print the entire sRGB colorspace. My own printer, a Canon Pro 9500 is capable of printing only 62% of the sRGB space. It might surprise you to learn that 62% is actually pretty good! A Sony FP90 is capable of printing less than 45% of the space.

So in the end, you need to proof against the profile of the printer you want to use. If you are using your own printer, you probably already have a profile on your computer that you can proof against. If you are using a good printer like WHCC, they will make their profile available to you to download and proof against.

Proofing against the print profile is the best way to ensure you are not surprised!

Ok....so my colorspace is sRGB. Now (sorry I get confused easily) should I recalibrate to those specifications my lab sent then? I found the monitor to be so dull. If my images now that look good come back dark, setting my calibration to what they suggest would they then come back darker or right for their output. Would I just have to do more ps'ing to get what I like (ie: brighter images) Again, sorry...but new to calibrating. I found my images were coming back "off" and decided after talking with my lab that calibrating would be best, and then I decided to invest in a good monitor.

Oh and they look identical to me....I am on ff and color aware on.

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by trixiebell

Ok....so my colorspace is sRGB. Now (sorry I get confused easily) should I recalibrate to those specifications my lab sent then? I found the monitor to be so dull. If my images now that look good come back dark, setting my calibration to what they suggest would they then come back darker or right for their output. Would I just have to do more ps'ing to get what I like (ie: brighter images) Again, sorry...but new to calibrating. I found my images were coming back "off" and decided after talking with my lab that calibrating would be best, and then I decided to invest in a good monitor.

Oh and they look identical to me....I am on ff and color aware on.

Load this page in IE and you'll see what I mean...a very obvious shift in color. The second image will look weak.

If you are saving in sRGB, the colorspace may not be the issue. In that case, the most likely culprit is an overly bright monitor. LCDs are typically set to high brightness. How do images look that you print from your computer? If they are also too dark, turn down your monitor brightness or learn to adjust for it.

I don't know how much to assume you know...so please pardon this if it's something you already know. I see you are using a 5D and a 40D. If you are capturing RAW images from these, the color setting in your camera affects only the embedded or separate JPG file. It does not affect the RAW. If you use DPP, Lightroom, etc. to process your RAW images it may be setting a different colorspace.

[trixiebell]

Totally see the color shift when in IE.

I am saving sRGB....I don't however print at home, I send them in to the lab. So then perhaps my monitor is too bright (therefor maybe actually needing the 2.0 gamma they suggested and NOT the 2.2 gamma I calibrated?) and then just like you said learn to adjust for it? I am really enjoying my new monitor and was I guess hoping my darker print issue would correct itself with buying a high end monitor!

I generally use jpeg on most of my images (I actually shoot RAW/JPEG for weddings to have the RAW file if needed) I use lightroom but have it set to sRGB too when working on the RAW files.

Thank you so much for your replies on Kelly's topic (sorry to highjack Kelly!) Chuck!

[KellyL]

I always check with the company prior to saving files for print. All of the companies I deal with use the sRGB color space. I may work in ProPhoto, or Adobe 1998, but always convert to the proper profile before submitting to print.

I know the problem lies in the monitor. LCD's are too bright.

Benji, over in portraits, taught me a great trick for making sure that the skin tones in a photo are properly exposed. By placing the color sample tool on the brightest highling on a cheek in ACR, lowering the exposure so that the Red channel of the color sample reads 240 will place the skintones correctly for exposure. I do that with every print. My skin tones look wonderous. Now if I could have a magic number for background luminosity, I would be set.

I produce an image that has great skin tones, print well, but then the background goes dark, dark, dark. Irritating to say the least.

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by trixiebell

I am saving sRGB....I don't however print at home, I send them in to the lab.

I was hoping you could print something at home to narrow things down a bit. If you print a photo at home and it is too dark, your brightness is much more likely to be to blame. If however, your home print looks fine and the lab is dark, I'd suspect the lab!

[trixiebell]

Rats....no I don't print at home, just a crappy ol run of the mill printer! lol!

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by KellyL

... By placing the color sample tool on the brightest highling on a cheek in ACR, lowering the exposure so that the Red channel of the color sample reads 240 will place the skintones correctly for exposure. I do that with every print. My skin tones look wonderous. Now if I could have a magic number for background luminosity, I would be set.

I produce an image that has great skin tones, print well, but then the background goes dark, dark, dark. Irritating to say the least.

The above rule likely has some assumptions in it. For one, that your subject is fair-skinned. It works for you because it's likely that this is a safe assumption for you. However, backgrounds come in many more colors than people. You may need to look at the histogram for the background separate from the subject to see a problem.

Do you have a sample image you can post?

[KellyL]

This image of this couple looked fairly good to me, but was just too dark when printed.