Printed images don't look right. Where am I going wrong?

[2slo]

A quick explanation: My workflow after I've finished processing my RAW file in LR4 then CS6 ends with me converting the image profile from ProphotoRGB to sRGB then colour proof checking it before saving the full size file, converting from TIFF to JPEG as I do so. So far so good.
Up to now I've been using one of the often recommended photo labs for printing, it isn't something I want to do myself. I typically get standard A4 gloss prints which cost about £1.50 each.
The problem is, when comparing the printed images to the digital display (I use a Dell U2711 monitor) there's a slight but noticeable loss of definition with the printed image, especially in some of the recent portrait shots I've had printed.The colours look right, it's just the definition isn't quite there and the exposure looks a little high on some of the prints compared to what I see on the monitor.
So, for those experienced with printing, can I ask you:
1) Is there a mistake in my final workflow or something I could add or do better?
2) Should I be using a more expensive print solution, i.e. better quality paper or different photo lab?
3) Am I just expecting too much based on what I'm seeing on my monitor?

[markmullen]

You need output sharpening.

Try a trial of Nik Sharpener Pro and see if that improves things.

[2slo]

Thanks. I do output sharpening as one of my last tasks before saving, typically either Nik Topaz or CS6 smart object.

[Pixel Pusher]

Unless I am misreading your post, why are you saving from a Tiff to a JPEG. Jpeg is a lossy compression isn't it, therefore it will degrade the image.

Try saving the Tiff file out with LZW compression instead which is lossless. Use sharpening with caution as it will not technically sharpen an image, just make it look gritty.

Might be worth asking if the printer uses downsampling as well.

Edited by Pixel Pusher on Monday 18th November 21:37

[flat-planedCrank]

Initial thoughts...


Is your screen calibrated correctly?



Are the delivering the exact size of image to the printer that they request?

Last time I had stuff printed I supplied images that were over the specified resolution - the process was automated so I guess the printer just scaled them. The result was aliasing and a lack of detail.

Second time round I scaled / cropped them to the exact resolution (and set them to the required dpi just in case the automated process decided to intervene), then output sharpen. I was happy with the printed results




How much output sharpening are you doing? Found things can look a bit 'crispy' on-screen but look good printed.

[2slo]

Pixel Pusher said:

Unless I am misreading your post, why are you saving from a Tiff to a JPEG. Jpeg is a lossy compression isn't it, therefore it will degrade the image.

Try saving the Tiff file out with LZW compression instead which is lossless. Use sharpening with caution as it will not technically sharpen an image, just make it look gritty.

Might be worth asking if the printer uses downsampling as well.

Okay, I know JPEG does compress the file but my understanding was that print labs needed JPEG format to print from? Correct me if I'm wrong here. I will also ask about the downsampling (by which I assume you mean reduction in image resolution and/or quality to fit their print spec?).
Fair comment about the sharpening. I tend to sharpen on the side of caution as it's easy to go to far. Thanks for your comments.

[ReaderScars]

Perhaps find out exactly what file format they can handle. If EPS is one of them, I would save the file as an EPS as early as your workflow will allow and continue to edit, then save.

EPS (Encapsulated PostScript) has always been a print-focused format. No compression or anything, so always bigger file sizes than TIFFs or JPEGs, but optimised for print.

[LongQ]

Hmm.

£1.50 a print. That's about what I reckon my home printed A4's cost, more or less.

Now I used to hate printing because the waste rate was truly dreadful BUT that was printing directly from the RAW file and for some reason the favoured editor and the printer driver had a very poor working relationship.

The addition of a new editor to the work flow (same printer, inks and paper supplies and still printing directly from the RAW file) and the entire process runs smoothly and produces good results that are also predictably controllable without too much effort at all should I decide to tweak things.

However if you really don't want to try it and you are following the guidance from the chosen supplier it might just be worth trying an alternative source with the the same image(s) to see how they compare. Testing the market for a few quid probably makes sense. If you do it would be interesting to hear about your findings.

Or you could send me a file and crop information and I'll see what I can make of it. I'll guess that you don't use Capture One so no guarantee I could replicate the colours precisely compared to whatever you do use but sharpness should be relatively unrelated to colour and exposure differences so long as they are not too wildly different. In any case if I had the jpg that should provide a reasonable point of reference.

By the way I don't claim to be an expert by any measure - just interested to see how things compare as I work towards getting some large prints done by one of the print vendors. Which one I have not yet decided, hence the interest.

[2slo]

flat-planedCrank said:

Initial thoughts...


Is your screen calibrated correctly?

AFAIK yes, based on a) the screen is apparently factory calibrated and b) a friend checked it with a device called a spyder which suggested it was good

flat-planedCrank said:

Are the delivering the exact size of image to the printer that they request?

Last time I had stuff printed I supplied images that were over the specified resolution - the process was automated so I guess the printer just scaled them. The result was aliasing and a lack of detail.

Second time round I scaled / cropped them to the exact resolution (and set them to the required dpi just in case the automated process decided to intervene), then output sharpen. I was happy with the printed results

How much output sharpening are you doing? Found things can look a bit 'crispy' on-screen but look good printed.

Hmm, that's interesting. All I've done is uploaded the full size saved JPEG to the printers website on the assumption that their A4 print will look best without me reducing the image size. I proof the colours and use the sRGB colour profile that they recommend and to be fair, I've no issue with the resulting print colours. Perhaps though, if I scaled to their exact resolution before uploading, that might help. A good point, I'll take that up with them.
As to output sharpening, each image is different, typically though if I use Nik sharpener pro3 as discussed above, I wouldn't add much, probably around 5 to 10% on structure, local contrast and focus, maybe less. I see output sharpening as really just that final slight tweak to what should already be pretty much done. What you say about the difference between on screen and printed is what I'm finding but at a lower level if you get my drift, i.e. I get the digital image looking right on screen but the printed image looks undersharpened. This would suggest maybe overdoing it a bit on screen to allow for the print coming back less sharpened. I enjoy the taking and processing of photographs, but printing
Thanks for your advice, good points. I'm making up a list of questions to ask the printers before sending any more in.

[2slo]

ReaderScars said:

Perhaps find out exactly what file format they can handle. If EPS is one of them, I would save the file as an EPS as early as your workflow will allow and continue to edit, then save.

EPS (Encapsulated PostScript) has always been a print-focused format. No compression or anything, so always bigger file sizes than TIFFs or JPEGs, but optimised for print.

I didn't know that, I'll try it, thanks.

[2slo]

LongQ said:

However if you really don't want to try it and you are following the guidance from the chosen supplier it might just be worth trying an alternative source with the the same image(s) to see how they compare. Testing the market for a few quid probably makes sense. If you do it would be interesting to hear about your findings.

Agreed, this is something I will be doing once I get my workflow optimised so I know I'm uploading the best I can do.

LongQ said:

Or you could send me a file and crop information and I'll see what I can make of it. I'll guess that you don't use Capture One so no guarantee I could replicate the colours precisely compared to whatever you do use but sharpness should be relatively unrelated to colour and exposure differences so long as they are not too wildly different. In any case if I had the jpg that should provide a reasonable point of reference.

By the way I don't claim to be an expert by any measure - just interested to see how things compare as I work towards getting some large prints done by one of the print vendors. Which one I have not yet decided, hence the interest.

Thanks, that's a kind offer but I don't want to put you to any trouble, I'll ask the questions of the printers.
I don't use capture one, I did seriously consider it after a discussion on here some months ago where it was recommended, I didn't go for it for the sole reason I had elements 10 at the time which meant upgrading to LR4 and CS6 (which I now use) wouldn't be quite as steep a learning curve as an entirely different software package, albeit from what I understand there are many similarities.
Once I work through this and make progress I'll update on here. Might have to be done carefully as to avoid PH naming rules.

[rex]

When printing an image the image on the screen is just a part of the process of creating the final print and should not be treated as an end result that can just be shipped off and come back looking exactly the same regarding the sharpening. The amount of sharpness you require will depend on the size of the final image and the type of paper used.

[The_Jackal]

I was under the impression printing always required more sharpening than what you see on screen, purely because of the printing process and how inks bleed and reduce some of the sharpness you see on screen.
Don't the printers have a recommended format and spec for best results? Are you allowed to say who your printer is in case anyone here uses them and can offer practical real world advice for working with them?

[flat-planedCrank]

2slo said:

flat-planedCrank said:

Initial thoughts...


Is your screen calibrated correctly?

AFAIK yes, based on a) the screen is apparently factory calibrated and b) a friend checked it with a device called a spyder which suggested it was good

flat-planedCrank said:

Are the delivering the exact size of image to the printer that they request?

Last time I had stuff printed I supplied images that were over the specified resolution - the process was automated so I guess the printer just scaled them. The result was aliasing and a lack of detail.

Second time round I scaled / cropped them to the exact resolution (and set them to the required dpi just in case the automated process decided to intervene), then output sharpen. I was happy with the printed results

How much output sharpening are you doing? Found things can look a bit 'crispy' on-screen but look good printed.

Hmm, that's interesting. All I've done is uploaded the full size saved JPEG to the printers website on the assumption that their A4 print will look best without me reducing the image size. I proof the colours and use the sRGB colour profile that they recommend and to be fair, I've no issue with the resulting print colours. Perhaps though, if I scaled to their exact resolution before uploading, that might help. A good point, I'll take that up with them.
As to output sharpening, each image is different, typically though if I use Nik sharpener pro3 as discussed above, I wouldn't add much, probably around 5 to 10% on structure, local contrast and focus, maybe less. I see output sharpening as really just that final slight tweak to what should already be pretty much done. What you say about the difference between on screen and printed is what I'm finding but at a lower level if you get my drift, i.e. I get the digital image looking right on screen but the printed image looks undersharpened. This would suggest maybe overdoing it a bit on screen to allow for the print coming back less sharpened. I enjoy the taking and processing of photographs, but printing
Thanks for your advice, good points. I'm making up a list of questions to ask the printers before sending any more in.

May be one of those occasions where you can't view their printing pipeline so supplying file that exactly meets their requirements could help Plus, as output sharpening should be the last operation applied to the image, if they are scaling the image you may be losing definition there too.


Another thought... is the paper uncoated? It looks more porous and textured but imo can make the images lack the sort of precision that coated paper can deliver.

[LongQ]

2slo said:

Thanks, that's a kind offer but I don't want to put you to any trouble, I'll ask the questions of the printers.
I don't use capture one, I did seriously consider it after a discussion on here some months ago where it was recommended, I didn't go for it for the sole reason I had elements 10 at the time which meant upgrading to LR4 and CS6 (which I now use) wouldn't be quite as steep a learning curve as an entirely different software package, albeit from what I understand there are many similarities.
Once I work through this and make progress I'll update on here. Might have to be done carefully as to avoid PH naming rules.

Well I agree with your approach but the offer is still open if you feel it might be useful at some point down the road.

In fact if you are sending a jpg to the printers it would be easy to print on my printer just as is and see what happens compared to your prints. However I would be using an Inkjet and suitable paper and I would assume that your printer is likely to be using something else, even though glossy.

[Pixel Pusher]

2slo said:

I will also ask about the downsampling (by which I assume you mean reduction in image resolution and/or quality to fit their print spec?).

Yes, but it may be done automatically by their RIP or printing device, not by the operators.

[2slo]

Thanks everyone for the replies to this so far. Progress today is I'm looking into an alternative printers (on recommendation) who apparently have a guide to their profile from the point of saving the finished image onwards. I'll update as I know more.

[LongQ]

2slo said:

Thanks everyone for the replies to this so far. Progress today is I'm looking into an alternative printers (on recommendation) who apparently have a guide to their profile from the point of saving the finished image onwards. I'll update as I know more.

Looking forward to your updates. I may need to dive into the market soonish and would rather do so with some trusted background advice then not.

Recently my management asked me to take some snaps at a family gathering (shudder), took my output to Boots to print and then complained that the results were rather dark. Indeed they were. Very. My marginally lightened home prints were found to be acceptable (I was amazed.)

There are few, maybe no true, standards and fewer consumers who give a damn about anything close to quality (denizens of this thread excepted!). Experimentation, assessment and some costs will be likely if you are particular about the results required. It's all part of the experience. IMHO.

[BlimeyCharlie]

I don't do much printing but do a batch together when I have to.
Never bother with home printing, just take it to a commercial printing company who do it for me.

I always get a proof done, then make sure my screen back home matches the print, not the other way around. Once happy I then get the prints done.
Can never get it 100% to match but so long as it is close then I'm not wasting money.

I do this proofing every time, as there are too many variables in between visits, such as new ink, machinery, paper and so on.
Don't add sharpening myself, just make sure I am happy with what I want.

When I get a proof done I make sure there is good tonal range, from black to white, and colours too.
Make sure you use the same colour profile as printer uses, such as Adobe RGB, the dpi needs to be 300 (unless advised otherwise) and also check if printer is RGB or CYMK for example.

Cost might be slightly more per print this way, but don't have any waste to pay for unless I mess it up, don't have to buy ink, don't have a printer taking up space gathering dust, don't have to worry about it running out of paper, or buying paper, or all those other hassles.
The guy who does my printing told me that the machine he uses has £1200.00 worth of ink sitting in it. Each time he switches it on it checks to see that the ink is flowing and nozzles are clear and actually wastes ink doing this.

Expensive and unless you do loads of printing it does not make sense.

[ReaderScars]

BlimeyCharlie said:

I always get a proof done, then make sure my screen back home matches the print, not the other way around. Once happy I then get the prints done.
Can never get it 100% to match but so long as it is close then I'm not wasting money.

The above is excellent advice OP - because if the commercial outfit is worth it's salt then the full workflow will be calibrated/profiled - meaning you just have to tweak your monitor display settings to match the proof as closely as possible and you should have good correlation with industry standards.