Printed results not great

"Derek Fountain" wrote in message

On the 30th Dec I started a thread in this newsgroup titled "Colour managed workflow when the printer ignores ICC info." I concluded from the advice I received that working completely in sRGB would be best, while acknowledging that the Frontier machine the lab used might not put out exactly sRGB. Therefore the results would be close to what was on my screen, but there would be some margin of error. I’ve finally gotten around to sending some images off to be printed, and the prints dropped on the doormat this morning.

The result is considerable disappointment. On my screen, in sRGB, the images look bright and colourful, and just how I want them. The prints all look dull and washed out. There’s not just one colour that’s not quite right, it’s all of them. Reds, blues and greens all look flat. Hmph.

Well, that’s unfortunate. I think the first step is to get a bit more quantitative about what you are seeing. Are you comparing the prints to what’s on your screen, or to an inkjet print? Prints will be much less bright than your display. Perhaps you could put one of your image up on a web service such as flickr.com and the rest of us could take a look. If you have a scanner, scan one of your inkjet prints and the corresponding Frontier print, and upload those. That will give us something more quantitative to talk about.

Another thought would be to have some of the same prints done at another service. For example, www.ofoto.com or www.snapfish.com . The cost is about 14 cents per image, and will give you an idea of where your service is in relation to them. I’d recommend including a test image of some sort that incudes a variety of pure colors and a gray step ramp.

Now, the printer has used Fuji Crystal Archive paper, and in my collection of bits and pieces I have a FujiCrystalArchive.icc profile. I can’t remember where I got it from – I downloaded it from somewhere a couple of years back. The thing is, when I soft proof using this profile (with ‘Simulate paper colour’ and ‘Preserve RGB numers’ both on), all the images I’ve had printed look pretty similar to what’s on the screen. They’re still a little flat, but I’d estimate they’re around 90% accurate at worst – many are closer than that. Given this profile is a generic Frontier-with-Fuji-Crystal-Archive-Paper one, as opposed to one specific to the machine the lab is using, perhaps this is a reasonable outcome?

You may simply be looking at the difference between paper and the display.

Back in the original thread, Johan said "If you want to see what comes out of the printer, you still need to do a soft proof of your image, with a Frontier profile. That profile could be (and probably will be) quite different from sRGB, so your soft proof will be different than what you see on screen without a soft proof." That statement seems completely accurate given what I have in front of me.

Soft proofing can be very useful, but there are a few cautions. The biggest problem is that it is not unusual, for some reason, for the profile’s paper white value to be wrong. The next biggest issue is that any pure white screen elements, such as window borders, will make the soft proof image look drab by comparison. The image should be displayed alone on the page, and some time – 20 seconds or more – allowed before you really look at the image.

So where does this leave me and my workflow? It seems that I could continue to work in sRGB, then add an adjustment layer that reduces saturation by 10%. Turn on soft proofing with this FujiCrystalArchive profile, then getting my images looking the way I want them to with the soft proof turned on should leave me pretty close to what I’ll see printed.

If you’re set up correctly, and the printer is printing within the nominal sRGB spec, your prints should look about the way they do on your screen. I can’t tell, given the information availabel so far, whether you want to hold the print next to the screen, and see a continuity of brightness and color, or just get prints that look reasonably close to what you want, when viewed away from the screen. The first goal, of holding the print next to the screen and getting a match, is all but impossible.

But it still seems there’s something of a hit and miss factor in there. Is there anything else I can do, short of getting a full profile from the lab machine to soft proof with?

Any Fuji Frontier profile, or paper profile *should* give a fairly accurate soft proof.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

What follows is something of a rambling, thinking aloud session where I come to my own conclusion based on what you, Mike, and Johan in the previous thread, have said. I’ve hit the send button because you might see fit to correct or educate me further (which I’d appreciate), and someone else might find this information useful. I’m grateful for all your input.

Mike Russell wrote:

Are you comparing the prints to
what’s on your screen, or to an inkjet print? Prints will be much less bright than your display. Perhaps you could put one of your image up on a web service such as flickr.com and the rest of us could take a look.

I’m comparing what’s on my screen (full screen mode in Photoshop) to a print held up next to the display. I’m aware that an exact match between two such different medium’s is going to be close to impossible, but they should be close to the same.

I’ve had 30 prints made, with a selection being these (chosen for their green, blue and red contents, respectively):

http://photos.derekfountain.org/galleries/holidays/USA%20200 5/Helicopter/slides/img_1624.html (http://tinyurl.com/2zsyr4)
http://photos.derekfountain.org/galleries/holidays/USA%20200 5/Hawaii_East/slides/img_1396.html (http://tinyurl.com/2pzkmp)
http://photos.derekfountain.org/galleries/holidays/Tallinn%2 02006/slides/IMG_4513.html (http://tinyurl.com/2jjm8a)

No scanner here, I’m afraid… :o(

accurate at worst – many are closer than that. Given this profile is a generic Frontier-with-Fuji-Crystal-Archive-Paper one, as opposed to one specific to the machine the lab is using, perhaps this is a reasonable outcome?

You may simply be looking at the difference between paper and the display.

I’d be happy to accept that, given the match is close and the lighting in this room (especially at this time of year) is rather poor. However…. (see below).

If you’re set up correctly, and the printer is printing within the nominal sRGB spec, your prints should look about the way they do on your screen. I can’t tell, given the information availabel so far, whether you want to hold the print next to the screen, and see a continuity of brightness and color, or just get prints that look reasonably close to what you want, when viewed away from the screen. The first goal, of holding the print next to the screen and getting a match, is all but impossible.

….this is the bit that puzzles me. I’m pretty sure I’m set up right, and the printer claims to be printing to sRGB, but the prints honestly look nowhere close to the screen image. What I’m after is a moderately close match between the print and the screen when the print is held up close. I’m really not after the impossible, but I’d like to think that all the effort I’m putting in to getting my images just the way I like them will not be lost when I get them printed!

In fact, having pondered it for a while, I think I probably have what I want, just not with the workflow I expected. I was expecting your first sentence of the above quote to be right: "If you’re set up correctly, and the printer is printing within the nominal sRGB spec, your prints should look about the way they do on your screen." This isn’t the way things are, so would I be right in concluding that Johan was right when he said "That *doesn’t* mean however that the Frontier is an sRGB printer!"? That all ties up for me: if it were an sRGB printer I would be getting a close match as you say, but I’m not, so their Frontier isn’t an sRGB printer (or at least isn’t being used as one) as Johan warns.

Furthermore, since when I apply a Frontier profile to my image for soft proofing, I do get something pretty close to a match, certainly within the limitations imposed by my physical environment. That suggest my setup is correct and the labs’ output is close to the ‘normal’ output expected (and profiled) for the general Frontier machine.

I think I’ll send the images for another print run after using soft proofing to change them so they’re (supposedly) going to print as I’d like. What fun this is!

—
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

"Derek Fountain" wrote in message
[re prints not matching monitor]

http://photos.derekfountain.org/galleries/holidays/USA%20200 5/Helicopter/slides/img_1624.html (http://tinyurl.com/2zsyr4)
http://photos.derekfountain.org/galleries/holidays/USA%20200 5/Hawaii_East/slides/img_1396.html (http://tinyurl.com/2pzkmp)
http://photos.derekfountain.org/galleries/holidays/Tallinn%2 02006/slides/IMG_4513.html (http://tinyurl.com/2jjm8a)

Hi Derek,

I took a close look at all three images, and I’m thinking your monitor may be the problem. All three images use the full range from white to black. Two of the three are lacking in midtone and/or shadow constrast. They would be greatly helped with a boost in the midtone.

The first image, of the Hawaiian valley, is too too dark, and lacking some contrast. The mist in the distance further reduces the contrast. Greens are also a little too pure – foliage should be more yellow. The print will probably also be too dark, with a strange overly green look to it.

The second image, of the lava coastline, is too dark, and too saturated, but has good contrast in the midtone and highlight. The sky is excellent, if perhaps too pure a blue – it should be more toward cyan. The foliage is a correct shade of yellow green, however the lava stone in the foreground has a yellow cast, is too dark, and lacks contrast. The printed version of this image will probably reflect these problems, and the best fix would be to increase the overall brightness of the midtone, which would also add contrast to the lava rocks.

The third image, of Tallinn, has good overall brightness, and is saturated almost to a fault. I suspect this one printed reasonably well.

Final conclusion – I’m starting to suspect your display is too bright. I can’re remember from the last thread what your setup is (CRT or LCD) and whether you have calibrated your display. This is where I recommend you put your efforts – working from the soft proof may be a roundabout (and unsatisfactory) way to darken and change the saturation of your display. —

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/

Mike Russell wrote:

I took a close look at all three images, and I’m thinking your monitor may be the problem.

Wow. Nothing like having an expert look at your work to give you feedback on where you’re going wrong. Thanks Mike, I very much appreciate this.

All three images use the full range from white to black.

Can you just clarify if that’s a good thing? I’ve always assumed it’s good since (I think) it means the image is using the full tonal range.

The first image, of the Hawaiian valley, is too too dark, and lacking some contrast. The mist in the distance further reduces the contrast. Greens are also a little too pure – foliage should be more yellow. The print will probably also be too dark, with a strange overly green look to it.

The print is too dark on the left (closest to camera) and washed and faded to the right. To my eye the print doesn’t look overly green, but it does look undersaturated and lacking in contrast. It’s not a pleasing print – I wouldn’t use it in an album. The on screen image is indeed too green, although not notably dark to me eye.

The second image, of the lava coastline, is too dark, and too saturated, but has good contrast in the midtone and highlight. The sky is excellent, if perhaps too pure a blue – it should be more toward cyan. The foliage is a correct shade of yellow green, however the lava stone in the foreground has a yellow cast, is too dark, and lacks contrast. The printed version of this image will probably reflect these problems, and the best fix would be to increase the overall brightness of the midtone, which would also add contrast to the lava rocks.

This print does look dark, but then black rocks and dark blue sea and sky tend to do that. :o) In the print the foreground rocks definitely lack contrast. The shadows in the left foreground and foliage are pretty much black. The blue sky looks OK on the print when viewed in isolation, but lacks saturation when compared to the screen image. The screen image is a bit dark.

The third image, of Tallinn, has good overall brightness, and is saturated almost to a fault. I suspect this one printed reasonably well.

Again, the print is under saturated, and I don’t just mean compared to the screen image. The green trees look OK, but the red rooftops are washed out and have no punch. It’s a passable print. The screen image is over saturated.

Final conclusion – I’m starting to suspect your display is too bright. I can’re remember from the last thread what your setup is (CRT or LCD) and whether you have calibrated your display. This is where I recommend you put your efforts – working from the soft proof may be a roundabout (and unsatisfactory) way to darken and change the saturation of your display.

I have 2 LCD monitors, one old and cheapie Hyundai, and a new Samsung SM940T which I got last week. Both monitors have been calibrated with a Spyder, and I /thought/ (see below) when used with Photoshop, images look close to identical on both. I replaced the Hyundai because its viewing angle was crap – all the colours changed when I sat up straight, so I had to check colours by backing off from the screen 5 feet! The Samsung is much better in this respect.

The images on my website were created using the Hyundai monitor, whereas the prints where created with the Samsung. That’s obviously a dozey thing to do, but until I spent the last hour carefully analysing these images on my new screen, I thought this monitor, once calibrated, looked the same as the old one. Looking at the images on my website (which I rarely do, since I have bigger local copies) I can see the criticisms you make. This implies my old screen was wrong, and that my new screen, like yours, is right, and therefore shows up the errors in my existing images.

Here’s where I go from here:

1) I’ve taken up far too much of your time already, so I’m going to take up some more of it. :o) I’ve signed up for your CurveMeister class for next month. I thought I knew a bit about controlling colour with curves, but your assessment has demonstrated how much more I have to learn. Yellow cast in my black rocks indeed… :o)

2) I told the Photo lab I wasn’t happy, and although I made it clear I knew it was my fault and was just after guidance from them, they refunded all my money for this print set, including postage. So I’m going to have another go, having soft proofed against the generic Frontier profile I have. (That kind of service is worth a plug for them IMHO: http://www.photobox.co.uk/)

3) I’m going to persevere!

—
Derek Fountain on the web at http://www.derekfountain.org/

From: "Derek Fountain"

Can you just clarify if [a range from pure white to black] is a good thing?
I’ve always assumed it’s good since (I think) it means the image is using the full tonal range.

Yes, absolutely. Although there are exceptions, most images, including very high and low key ones, have something that is pure white or black. If an image has this full range, as yours do, but still looks dull, the problem is generally a lack of midtone contrast.
….
[re town image]

http://photos.derekfountain.org/galleries/holidays/Tallinn%2 02006/slides/IMG_4513.html (http://tinyurl.com/2jjm8a)
Again, the print is under saturated, and I don’t just mean compared to the screen image. The green trees look OK, but the red rooftops are washed out and have no punch. It’s a passable print. The screen image is over saturated.

Oversaturated for me as well, but not dark at all. The fact that this image appears hyper saturated on my monitor indicates a second problem – photobox is printing too dark, and this makes the colors look less intense.

The images on my website were created using the Hyundai monitor, whereas the prints where created with the Samsung. That’s obviously a dozey thing to do, but until I spent the last hour carefully analysing these images on my new screen, I thought this monitor, once calibrated, looked the same as the old one. Looking at the images on my website (which I rarely do, since I have bigger local copies) I can see the criticisms you make. This implies my old screen was wrong, and that my new screen, like yours, is right, and therefore shows up the errors in my existing images.

Try tilting the spyder slightly to match your exact viewing angle when you calibrate your Hyundai.

Here’s where I go from here:

1) I’ve taken up far too much of your time already, so I’m going to take up some more of it. :o) I’ve signed up for your CurveMeister class for next month. I thought I knew a bit about controlling colour with curves, but your assessment has demonstrated how much more I have to learn. Yellow cast in my black rocks indeed… :o)

This is great – obviously you have a lot of interest in better color, and I’m guessing you’ll pick up some interesting information. Calibration is like GPS – it’s blazingly accurate, in its own way, but you would never use it to drive a car in traffic, or thread a needle. For that, you need hands-on adjustment, and some knowledge of how the pieces fit together.

2) I told the Photo lab I wasn’t happy, and although I made it clear I knew it was my fault and was just after guidance from them, they refunded all my money for this print set, including postage. So I’m going to have another go, having soft proofed against the generic Frontier profile I have. (That kind of service is worth a plug for them IMHO: http://www.photobox.co.uk/)

This is good business practice, and they may well deserve another chance. I recommend that you send your next set of images out to a second service as well. BTW – there are a number of standardized images out there that you can use to calibrate each service.
http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

Do remember that printing services will normally tweak your images, and you may want to ask that they not do so.

3) I’m going to persevere!

and you’re almost there.
—
Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com/forum/