Really bland prints question... (with an example)
Discussion
Ever since starting digital photography, I have struggled with getting the pictures printed to a satisfactory standard. For some reason, the prints never seem to reflect what I saw on the screen.
I have calibrated my monitor as best I can without a meter (using online guides and Adobe Gamma). I would accept the rough calibration as the reason for pictures not being exactly the same, but the prints that come back are usually way off. A while back, I sent the same group of pictures to be developed at all the major online sites and the best results were from Kodak. That's where I have been back since, but I am still disappointed with the results:
This is the original, which appears just right on my monitor:
(apologies for obscuring the faces - I have not had a chance to ask those in the picture if I can post it)
What came back from Kodak is this (scanned in):
On my monitor, at least, the scanner has done a cracking job of importing the print exactly as it looks in real life.
For reference, the camera was a Canon 40D, 17-85mm; the monitor is an Apple cinema display; the picture has been gently photoshopped, including the application of a warm photo filter.
This is driving me nuts and is really turning me off taking pictures. I would be everso grateful if anyone had any ideas.
I have calibrated my monitor as best I can without a meter (using online guides and Adobe Gamma). I would accept the rough calibration as the reason for pictures not being exactly the same, but the prints that come back are usually way off. A while back, I sent the same group of pictures to be developed at all the major online sites and the best results were from Kodak. That's where I have been back since, but I am still disappointed with the results:
This is the original, which appears just right on my monitor:
(apologies for obscuring the faces - I have not had a chance to ask those in the picture if I can post it)
What came back from Kodak is this (scanned in):
On my monitor, at least, the scanner has done a cracking job of importing the print exactly as it looks in real life.
For reference, the camera was a Canon 40D, 17-85mm; the monitor is an Apple cinema display; the picture has been gently photoshopped, including the application of a warm photo filter.
This is driving me nuts and is really turning me off taking pictures. I would be everso grateful if anyone had any ideas.
Hi Noisygriff.
Can I ask what colour space you are working in, when you process and have the image how you want it on the screen? Have you got PS set up to work in Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB or in SRGB or something different? Sometimes it can have an enormous effect on the final product if you are working in one colorspace and the Kodak are using another. As an example, if you are in Adobe RGB and you get an image looking spot on, it will look crap if you put it on the internet, as the colourspace online is sRGB, yet if you get it how you want it and export it in sRGB and upload it, it will look closer to what you expect.
I may be entirely wrong but I would check to see how Kodak like the jpegs to arrive to them, I would hazard a guess that there is a conflict somewhere, maybe you are using Adobe RGB and loosing half of your gamut when they are printed in sRGB.
This could of course be total b
ks!
Good luck and don't give up!
Mat.
Can I ask what colour space you are working in, when you process and have the image how you want it on the screen? Have you got PS set up to work in Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB or in SRGB or something different? Sometimes it can have an enormous effect on the final product if you are working in one colorspace and the Kodak are using another. As an example, if you are in Adobe RGB and you get an image looking spot on, it will look crap if you put it on the internet, as the colourspace online is sRGB, yet if you get it how you want it and export it in sRGB and upload it, it will look closer to what you expect.
I may be entirely wrong but I would check to see how Kodak like the jpegs to arrive to them, I would hazard a guess that there is a conflict somewhere, maybe you are using Adobe RGB and loosing half of your gamut when they are printed in sRGB.
This could of course be total b
ks!Good luck and don't give up!
Mat.
Antarctic Mat said:
Hi Noisygriff.
Can I ask what colour space you are working in, when you process and have the image how you want it on the screen? Have you got PS set up to work in Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB or in SRGB or something different? Sometimes it can have an enormous effect on the final product if you are working in one colorspace and the Kodak are using another. As an example, if you are in Adobe RGB and you get an image looking spot on, it will look crap if you put it on the internet, as the colourspace online is sRGB, yet if you get it how you want it and export it in sRGB and upload it, it will look closer to what you expect.
I may be entirely wrong but I would check to see how Kodak like the jpegs to arrive to them, I would hazard a guess that there is a conflict somewhere, maybe you are using Adobe RGB and loosing half of your gamut when they are printed in sRGB.
This could of course be total bks!
Good luck and don't give up!
Mat.
Thanks for your help Mat.Can I ask what colour space you are working in, when you process and have the image how you want it on the screen? Have you got PS set up to work in Adobe RGB or Prophoto RGB or in SRGB or something different? Sometimes it can have an enormous effect on the final product if you are working in one colorspace and the Kodak are using another. As an example, if you are in Adobe RGB and you get an image looking spot on, it will look crap if you put it on the internet, as the colourspace online is sRGB, yet if you get it how you want it and export it in sRGB and upload it, it will look closer to what you expect.
I may be entirely wrong but I would check to see how Kodak like the jpegs to arrive to them, I would hazard a guess that there is a conflict somewhere, maybe you are using Adobe RGB and loosing half of your gamut when they are printed in sRGB.
This could of course be total b
ks!Good luck and don't give up!
Mat.
You've got me scratching my head a little. Looking through the settings, I think I am using 'sRGB IEC61966-2.1', based on this setting:
Then looking at the color[sic] settings:
I think that's right, although I am not 100% sure and would be grateful of a steer as to how I check for sure.
As for Kodak, I have looked around their site and I cannot see a preferred colour space or model. Is there any kind of industry standard for uploading pictures to be printed?
Hi Griff.
It looks from your screen grabs that you are in sRGB which would be ideal if you were putting your images on the web as the internet can only deal with a small gamut of colors, if I were you, I'd change the settings in your second screen grab, where it says RGB, hit the drop down menu and select Prophoto rgb, then where it says Gray, hit the drop down menu and select gamma 2.2, if you are working on a mac. Try those settings, get the image how you want it then save it as a jpeg, then open that jpeg in your normal viewing software and open the old pic you sent off next to it and see if there is a difference. It may be that the Kodak printer can print more gamut than you are giving it with an sRGB profile. Worth a try anyway. I have a very good printer and the images printed in prophoto are always far punchier than those from another colorspace, also it's important to keep your monitor calibrated, get an eyeone or something, worth it if you are serious about getting decent prints. Another thing is to look into a printer for home, some very good printers around now for not much money, then you can keep everything together and get prints as you want them.
Hope this helps a little.
Mat.
It looks from your screen grabs that you are in sRGB which would be ideal if you were putting your images on the web as the internet can only deal with a small gamut of colors, if I were you, I'd change the settings in your second screen grab, where it says RGB, hit the drop down menu and select Prophoto rgb, then where it says Gray, hit the drop down menu and select gamma 2.2, if you are working on a mac. Try those settings, get the image how you want it then save it as a jpeg, then open that jpeg in your normal viewing software and open the old pic you sent off next to it and see if there is a difference. It may be that the Kodak printer can print more gamut than you are giving it with an sRGB profile. Worth a try anyway. I have a very good printer and the images printed in prophoto are always far punchier than those from another colorspace, also it's important to keep your monitor calibrated, get an eyeone or something, worth it if you are serious about getting decent prints. Another thing is to look into a printer for home, some very good printers around now for not much money, then you can keep everything together and get prints as you want them.
Hope this helps a little.
Mat.
Thanks again Mat.
That's all done. The image on the screen does not change a great deal, but it's good to know that I am likely to be closer to the gamut of the Kodak printer.
I had a look round Photobox, who I used to use, and found a colour profile for their printers. If I view the proof of the picture in that proof setup, it looks a lot more like the result I got back from Kodak. So, when editing pictures for printing, rather than the web, I guess I should set the view to a proof, based on the likely printer. This is what I mean...
This is the original pic as it appears on the screen (as per the original post):
This is the pic as scanned from the print received from Kodak:
Does the difference between the last picture and the original mean that my monitor is way off, or is it normal to have to 'distort' the colours on the screen to achieve a good print?
Then this is a grab of how the picture I sent to Kodak looks if I ask Photoshop to show me the proof colors (from the view manu):
The scanned picture and the picture viewed as a proof are much closer than the scan and the original, which is a good sign, I guess.
So, using the proof view, I can edit the picture to look like the original and I will send that to Kodak and see if the results are any better. Of interest, to achieve a good-looking proof, the picture on the screen has to look like this:
That's all done. The image on the screen does not change a great deal, but it's good to know that I am likely to be closer to the gamut of the Kodak printer.
I had a look round Photobox, who I used to use, and found a colour profile for their printers. If I view the proof of the picture in that proof setup, it looks a lot more like the result I got back from Kodak. So, when editing pictures for printing, rather than the web, I guess I should set the view to a proof, based on the likely printer. This is what I mean...
This is the original pic as it appears on the screen (as per the original post):
This is the pic as scanned from the print received from Kodak:
Does the difference between the last picture and the original mean that my monitor is way off, or is it normal to have to 'distort' the colours on the screen to achieve a good print?
Then this is a grab of how the picture I sent to Kodak looks if I ask Photoshop to show me the proof colors (from the view manu):
The scanned picture and the picture viewed as a proof are much closer than the scan and the original, which is a good sign, I guess.
So, using the proof view, I can edit the picture to look like the original and I will send that to Kodak and see if the results are any better. Of interest, to achieve a good-looking proof, the picture on the screen has to look like this:
are you aware that an onscreen image will have a far greater range of brightness (not sure what correct term is?). think of it like the difference between one of those lightbox adverts and a normal bill board. there is actually light shining out of the highlights on screen where as in a print the best you get is reflected light. prints allways look miles different than an on-screen image.
Hi Griff.
I'd suggest that you have a combination of working in srgb on an uncalibrated screen, sorting the two should make a difference. You have a decent camera, CS3 extended, get yourself a nice little printer rather than sending off to Kodak!
Scho, not strictly true, color management is big business and I have spent quite a bit on getting what I see on my screen to be exactly what comes out of my printer. No point having decent kit if you have to guess what the print will come out like. A proper setup will give you fantastic results.
There are some great books on color management and also Photoshop for Photographers, I have a couple that are excellent resources.
Cheers.
Mat.
I'd suggest that you have a combination of working in srgb on an uncalibrated screen, sorting the two should make a difference. You have a decent camera, CS3 extended, get yourself a nice little printer rather than sending off to Kodak!
Scho, not strictly true, color management is big business and I have spent quite a bit on getting what I see on my screen to be exactly what comes out of my printer. No point having decent kit if you have to guess what the print will come out like. A proper setup will give you fantastic results.
There are some great books on color management and also Photoshop for Photographers, I have a couple that are excellent resources.
Cheers.
Mat.
Scho said:
are you aware that an onscreen image will have a far greater range of brightness (not sure what correct term is?). think of it like the difference between one of those lightbox adverts and a normal bill board. there is actually light shining out of the highlights on screen where as in a print the best you get is reflected light. prints allways look miles different than an on-screen image.
Yeah, this isn't entirely correct. Some papers have a larger gamut that most computer screens and thus give even better colours etc.Another thing to try would be to use a better lab, I'd imagine Kodak are more concerned about volume than anything else. Personally I use Peak Imagine and have never had a problem with flat images from them - they'll send you a copy of their calibration image in digital format and a printed version of it, so that you can calibrate what you see on screen to what it'll look like when printed. Might cost a little more but the prints are truly excellant.
Alternatively, a Canon Pixma printer and some Costco Pro photo paper produces some blinding results as well.
Alternatively, a Canon Pixma printer and some Costco Pro photo paper produces some blinding results as well.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff