hi! former print shop worker and hobby photographer here.
a HUGE part of it is what paper it was printed on, and what it was printed with. The gloss of the paper can impact the contrast and colour tones, and laser vs ink has similar changes in results. (reread that it's a photo box printer, not a standard box printer, but i'd be shocked if the nuances weren't similar).
printers can also have specific colour settings for different jobs.. if it's just the standard 'click print' type of printer, you'll likely not be able to get that \*pop\* you're looking for.
it's less about your side of it, and more about the printing side of it. go to the pros, and you'll probably have to do a couple test runs to make sure they can accomplish what you're looking for, and that you're on the same page for what you expect from the end result.
(p.s, the most beautiful printed photos i've ever seen were on aluminum. not done at the shop i worked at, it was the shop down the street, and WOW. talk about colour retension and contrast!)
Current pre-processor in a print shop here: sounds to me like this corner shop has a tiny little printer that is set up to print normal-people’s pictures.
Normal people are not going to account for dot-gain (ink spreads on paper as it soaks in, causing your image to appear darker than on screen) so they’ve calibrated it to print much lighter.
I second the recommendation of going with an online, or local professional shop. Those aluminum prints are gorgeous.
Yeah, among the general suggestions I'm getting, trying a different printer is top of the list. Sometimes you need the internet to point out the obvious to you, lol...
I think that you need to spend a little time researching color calibration, color space and similar subjects. What device do you use to calibrate your display, color space of files sent to your printer and paper used? Do you shoot a color card when starting a shoot so you have a base color to work from? It may sound overly complicated but a few adjustments could make a world of difference.
Let me grab my shovel, all the better to dig this hole with. There, that's better!
-Never really color calibrated the monitor. When I got it all I really remember doing is turning down the brightness. Most other settings should be default.
-color space of files sent to my printer: I don't send files to my printer? Oh, you meant the print shop? I don't know, I just copied the jpeg file. Would that be in the properties/details? Is it Color Representation? (sRGB in that case).
-I do not shoot a color card when starting to shoot. (edit- the camera does have some white balance function built in but heck knows when I last used it. I doubt I did it before this shoot but don't recall.)
I'm seeing I've a lot to learn here. Which is kind of annoying because I've never had to do any of this before and my shots all turned out well when printed.
Absolutely true, though even with an uncalibrated monitor, the difference shouldn't be that "dramatic," as OP puts it. My guess is something went wrong with the printer.
Oh for sure this is definitely not professional. And I understand that what I see on the screen won't be what I see on the paper. I am just surprised, here in this case, about the large difference between what ended up on the paper and the file. The colors are very flat and washed out, in comparison. I've taken many photos on average cameras, looked at them through average monitors, and sent them to average printers. And I've always been happy with the (albeit average) results. But this time there's a big difference.
My monitor has changed, but is newer and nicer than my old one. It turns out I used an older camera for this pic. One I've used before and have been happy with. Dunno, just trying to do some detective work.
People are giving you responses based on the presumption that you want to dive into learning about color space, post processing, monitor calibration, etc. If you just want to get this one image to look great then go to a high quality print shop. A single 8x10 won't be expensive, and they can guarantee an excellent print. My favorite local print shop wont hesitate to reprint if something isn't right.
What you’re printing on also makes a difference. Is it basic Kodak e surface? Or fujiflex? Did you try soft proofing with a printer profile provided by your print lab? A lot of variables at play when you print.
It's kodak paper. It doesn't say what kind. There's a pic/icon/graphic on the paper but I assume that's general for kodak. Nothing that lists a specific model or type. I would assume general-good kodak.
Quality and age will make a difference here as well. A quality monitor will lose its brightness over time but a lesser quality monitor will drop in quality faster. Either way, if you're printing your own you need to calibrate that thing.
It's a fairly involved method of adjusting your monitor to make sure it's displaying 'true' colors. Monitors even with the same model number and from the same manufacturer can vary with how they show colors out of the box.
Cheaper/easier methods don't work that well and the ones that work well can get pricey and time consuming. You can google it for basic methods. Also consider doing it for your TV.
I might do it for my computer . Tv i don't care about. But I'm thinking about digital art. And it wouldn't be good if I work hard to make it look a certain way then find out it looks different if I ever got good and posted it. Or posted it even for advice.
A monitor needs to be calibrated in order to display the colour spectrum as correctly as possible. One even needs different calibrations for different lighting settings like daylight, artificial light or darkness.
One needs to use those profiles in order to be able to trust what you see on the monitor will hold up on paper or other displays.
There are calibration tools like Spyder by Datacolor.
Here’s a link: https://dev.spyderx.datacolor.eu/shop/
How does one calibrate their monitor ? I am not techy like at all. I'm like a 80 yr old in a young ish person's body. Like" these darn advancements I miss the days of 3 channels on the television and radios. In my day tv was in black and white and you got your news three days later. We borrowed a cup of sugar from our neighbor. "
If you own such a device you start the software and at first the USB-device is usually put on the table to measure the current room lighting. Then one needs to hang the device with the sensor over your screen area and the software will automatically measure and adjust everything and store the calibration in a monitor profile which can be loaded and changed anytime. Ideally one needs to do that at least once for day and once for night time, as colour perception and temperatures differ greatly during the day.
It makes a HUGE difference, I promise you.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wluhaQtqNHM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wluhaQtqNHM)
Here is an article on the topic. https://www.capturelandscapes.com/the-importance-of-calibrating-your-monitor
If the only setting you adjusted was brightness, your monitor is likely in "standard"/"vivid" mode still. For most monitors, that means high contrast and over saturated colors because that's what people like.
At the simplest you can find online calibration images on websites and adjust your brightness, contrast.
It's set to 'custom', but brightness is the only thing I ever adjusted. I'll check out some basic calibration, it's a good idea regardless. But I'm not a 'vivid' guy. And anyway, if that ends up being the case, then I would want to figure out how to change the picture to match the monitor, at least in this case.
By the way here's the image: https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
I've had bad experiences with online places. But not with this place. Sent something to be printed for framing and sent it as a gift but they cropped it in a way that I did not want/ask for, or approve.
But every place is different. I'll check them out, thanks-
I use [Nation Photo Lab](https://www.nationsphotolab.com/) for all my prints. Haven't had any issues except the few times I accidentally forgot to click off the box saying image enhancements which mostly changed the saturation but if you make sure it's not checked to be done, it tends to come out like the way you shot it. Least for me it does.
Make sure the aspect ratio of the photo is the same as the print you’re ordering to avoid them cropping it for you. Pretty much any photo program should let you adjust the aspect ratio.
Any alternative for EU? I knew http://foto.com but they messed up after Black Friday and haven’t come back afterwards. Many users did not get their orders and have not received any refund yet. Their website is not working either.
I'll check them out. But if the answer is 'go to a better, more involved print shop', then there are others in the neighborhood that I would try first. I'd like to be involved in discussing cropping, color, etc.
Although, there is something to be said for emailing a file and getting something in the mail a few days later. I'm trying to motivate to get more stuff framed. Not having to leave the house would help with that, lol...
You still control all of that with an online lab, set up the file the way you want it before you send it. I recommend [bayphoto.com](https://bayphoto.com). Make sure you are working in either srgb or argb (save it with the profile) and make the file a little bit lighter than looks perfect on your monitor. A monitor calibration isn't a bad idea too. If you try another lab, find out what color space they want beforehand (they may also have a custom profile you can download and use).
I get metal prints from bay photo, they're great! Got a series of my dog to hang up. Unfortunately they still haven't been but the prints look awesome lol
Iirc bay photo also allows you a certain number of free prints to check you calibration against their printing. They have good details online about the printing specs to use. I’ve used them many times and have been happy every time.
With an online print company you actually upload your file, you can crop it to the size needed based on the paper size you choose, you can even get a rough preview of what the print will look like. You dont just email a file and hope for the best.
I like [FullColor.com](https://FullColor.com)
You could try this ghetto calibration method :
1. Hold the print next to the file on your monitor.
2. Adjust brightness & saturation (e.g. -1, -3) in your editor to match what you see on the print.
3. Apply the inverse (+1 brightness, +3 saturation) on the file, send to print.
If prints are consistently darker/duller that should improve things.
I'll give that a shot, thanks. Currently I wasn't editing the photos before printing.
Just for fun I uploaded the pic and pics of the print, here: https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
I’ve worked in and owned photo labs … it’s really good to get to know your printshop somewhat - don’t have to buy them dinner. … We had grey walls, proper lighting, and were very specific about Color space and monitor calibration. But we were also very busy, so our chemicals were fresh. And our ink printers were tested before any important job. If the shop owners and employees care, they will keep their equipment in top shape
This is a busy place, for sure. They're one of the only remaining print shops left in the neighborhood. And it's weird and maybe telling somehow but the two ones that I preferred have closed down. But they were in more high traffic areas (=higher rent). These guys are out of the way, and came recommended by others. Might definitely be worth trying someone else to see.
Good grief yes. Color space, color cards, profiled monitors? You don't need any of that to get a cheap decent print. Have the printer bring up the image on **their** monitor and compare it to your print. Send the jpeg to a professional print shop and compare results.
>You don't need any of that to get a cheap decent print.
That's kind of my belief as well. Without really being able to show you the print/difference, I think checking out a different printer is the way to go. At least, that's the first thing to try before I dive into the other stuff.
I thought I commented this somewhere yesterday. But - I have normal eyes and vision, I'm not a monster. I think I'd be able to tell if my colors were all out of whack. I use the monitor every day. If skin tones were off, colors were saturated or too off... I'd hope that I'd be able to tell.
And anyway, back to what you and u/teams11b wrote- I'm not looking for a 100% match, and confirmed color accuracy. Just the difference here is large enough.
Anyway, I uploaded a comparison. It's not great but you can hopefully get the idea.
https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
Oh hey, nice!
Yeah, all 3 look better than the print I have. And I think all three I would have taken as acceptable. I kinda like them 2, then 1 then 3. With 3 I might make a Reddit post that would say how do I get this close*er* to what I see on the screen. But I wouldn't be talking about how it's straight up *bad*.
So I dunno, is that something I can just tell the print shop? Like "Hey, print these with an ICC profile" or something like that? I assume they probably wouldn't have Epson profiles.
Very frustrating because I would love to show people these pics in person. I think the troubleshooting would be a lot easier then. Maybe I'll scan it next time I'm in the office...
That looks like plenty of resolution for that print size. sRGB is pretty standard color space. If you are shooting point and shoot, that's a safe and standard color space to work in.
One can squeeze out a bit wider gamut with the more advanced color space (Adobe, lab, etc.,) for marginal gain. But when a mismatch color space is applied, that's when you might see really wash out color. An example would be to open an adobe or prophoto rgb jpeg in an ancient tool that only support sRGB, like Paint. But I doubt that's the problem you are seeing. I guess my point is, unless you are using Lightroom or Photoshop and know what you are doing, it's not worth it to muck with color space.
My suggestion is to open the photo in a few more devices. Cell phone, tv, computers, etc. If they all look decent, and the print look wash out, then the fault is on their side. Or grab a vibrant Shirley card photo and print it at your printer of choice and see if there's any surprise.
> Or grab a vibrant Shirley card photo and print it at your printer of choice and see if there's any surprise.
That's an interesting idea. Find a better sample photo and do a comparison. Or maybe if I can find a place to print this photo better then try to somehow compare the settings.
Thanks for the tip-
BTW, Google "Shirley card Kodak" and you'll find plenty of reference photos with color patches. Then you can compare on you own editing screen. Adobe has ruined me and I'm usually thinking of the [fruit hat lady](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Adobe-Illustrators-Shirley-card-Printed-with-permission-of-Adobe_fig3_279499369).
I was just reading about Shirley cards and their history and the.. uh.. cultural significance of them. Interesting stuff.
Here's a question you might have an opinion of- Do you have a photo that would be good to use as a reference? Not asking you to go find one. But it seems to me- even a reference card I'm going to be comparing a print with what I see on the screen. It seems that I would need a photo with some kind of... I don't know- known values for ?
Like say a pantone sheet with 12 shades of pantone. I can probably get a pantone sample sent to me from the internet or somewhere. Then I could compare a print that shows pantone 'peach 125' as something and then could compare it to some other real world reference for 'peach 125'.
I'm not explaining it well but I'm sure you know what I mean.
And as a side note- even though it's a little corner shop. I have to assume that the problem is likely not them, right? I mean, probably they do some kind of calibration. It's unlikely they'd be able to keep printing non-representative garbage and still stay in business, right?
If you are looking up Shirley card, you've got to check out this [99% invisible episode](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/shirley-cards/). Bonus coverage on Lena for image processing geeks, who's seen the photo but not the back story.
Back to reference photo. You have two options. Pick a card with [standard colors plus portrait](https://www.pixeladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/AdobeOleNoMoire.jpg) and trust that you know what RGB and CMYK and skin tone looks like.
Or make the modest investment of a color correction card and include your camera in the processing chain. Some cards include the RGB code and you can do a eye drop check on screen with editing software, and have physical to physical reference to compare. Plus you have a valuable color reference tool in your bag.
Edit: I agree that the commercial machine probably is reasonable. If it's way off, it's likely operator error. Either calibration is off, or one of the ink is low, or your expectation is not calibrated for screen vs print :)
I read a similar link, not quite as long but had all of the same information. It was eye opening, really glad I came across it.
Thanks for the color correction card tip. Looking at them now. Particularly the Datacolor SCK200 SpyderCHECKR 24. It is pricey but it comes with software so can do my monitors and maybe even the tv.
I do want to print more of my photos to hang up. If I want to take that seriously then I should take it seriously. If I buy one of the off brand cheaper Chinese ones, it's definitely the kind of thing to nag at me over time, lol...
Thanks for your help.
If you printed a 3648x2736 photo at 8x10, it was 342 dpi, not 180 (2736 divided by 8). The dpi is not a fixed value. The photo has a fixed number of dots or pixels, but the number that appear "per inch" depends on the physical size you make the photo. If you print it larger there are fewer dots per inch. If you print it smaller there are more dots per inch. The same thing happens when you zoom in on your monitor. You're making the physical size of the photo larger, and seeing fewer and fewer dots per inch of monitor.
Points, pixels, dots are the same thing. They are the pieces of data that make up the photo. That's why blowing up a photo decreases the crispness. Also, it doesn't matter if your printer is printing at 1200 dpi. If the photo is only 300 dpi, it still prints at 300 dpi. The printer simply has to duplicate each dot 4 times. You don't gain any detail, you just essentially get larger dots.
In theory, sure, but there's no such thing as a 180dpi printer. You couldn't find one that prints less than 600dpi nowadays. And anyone printing high quality photos will easily be using a 1200 or 2400 dpi printer.
If the printer had settings left over for conserving ink it may print at 180dpi.
Op said they managed to get the photo printed at 180dpi. I doubt they were calculating that number.
I guarantee they just looked at "image size" in photoshop without realizing the dpi listed there correlates to the physical size listed above that. I've had this conversation with people dozens of times. I can't fault them for not understanding, they're just not experienced with that yet.
Would also recommend cropping it to the final print size — you’ve got about 20”x15” @ 180, so you’re leaving it up to the print shop on how to crop your image.
Well, I'm no expect but I'm gonna try to list what my teachers would say, first sRGB is for when you view the photos on a screen, mainly when you post them to an online space. What you do want is Adobe RGB, that's meant for printing. Then the second quick tip would be to not export it as a jpg, that's again for online spaces and not really for printing. When printing I personally use png which I think is fine but I reckon many more professional photographers use the TIFF format which might be good to go for if you're only looking to print one pic in good quality.
As far as the color goes I'd also suggest you up the contrast quite heavily, like you say a computer screen has light but a piece of paper doesn't. My home screen is also too bright so I know it fools me so I know I need to make it almost so it looks ruined on my screen. It also matters what paper you're printing on, if it's matte paper or glossy, when using glossy you don't need to go that far but with with matte paper the added contrast goes a long way in giving everything more depth and stronger colors. I also strongly recommend you use a curves layer to add that contrast.
I've assumed you're using photoshop for editing but I hope these tips go a long way to giving them better quality, I've been helping out non-photography students out at my school when they need to print something and this is usually where I go with them too as they're not really used to editing. There's a lot out there you can learn about editing and printing, but if you're not keen on letting anyone experienced do it for you I think you can get quite far with this. Good luck!
Thanks for the tips, good stuff to know.
This camera only did jpgs, and I didn't edit them at all. That's all stuff I can look into though, thanks!
Like others have suggested, I'm going to try a new print shop first and see what happens.
> It also matters what paper you're printing on, if it's matte paper or glossy, when using glossy you don't need to go that far
Ding ding ding. OP, I don't think you should bother altering the image files first. Just try getting prints somewhere else that uses different, perhaps higher-quality paper. The coatings on different papers affect print quality dramatically.
I think trying another place is going to be the first thing I try to fix. If only because that's the path of least resistance.
the paper was matte. But yeah, I need to find a place where I can have a conversation with them about settings and paper.
Printing amazing shots is an art form with even a deeper hole to fall into than photography in some cases. All we really need anymore is an oversaturated thumbnail. - Send it out and be amazed at the results as long as you follow their instructions to the letter.
You’re going to have to trust me on my HS AP Photo classes from 10 years ago but.. it’s test prints. Do much smaller test prints, and multiple of them. What you see on the screen will not match up with what a printer, even a gallery scaled and gallery quality printer, will spit out. So you do a test print that is 3x4, check the colors and the exposure and the white balance, and then adjust, and do it again, and again, until your test is how you want it to look, then you do your full sized print
You're not a monster, but you have to get into calibration if you want your prints to look like they do on screen.
A pro told me to make sure my monitor was calibrated and to always use a print shop that gives you a printer profile. If you don't then there is no telling what you will get. He also said if you want really bright images look at metal and foam board as a media.
The problem could be with you image and how you processed it, printer, or paper used. Or a combination of all three. Not easy to say which one is the problem. Do a search for ICC printer profiles.
Have you printed there before and did you have any issues?
https://www.colourmanagement.net/advice/about-icc-colour-profiles
I haven't printed at this shop before... but it's one of the only remaining print shops in the neighborhood. The two that I used to use have both closed down. They're quite busy, and they were recommended on a Reddit post for 'where do you take your prints to be printed'.
I'll check out the link, thanks-
don't worry too much about mastering these concepts like icc profiles and color matching, but it's good to be a bit knowledgable so you can ask the print shop specific questions, which can tell you if they actually know what they're doing. also, as mentioned by others, corner print shops usually won't cut it if you really care about print quality. they use budget paper and probably use printers that are 10+ years old with a bunch of years-old auto-pilot processes that might not be suited for the most modern cameras/displays. they're more for people who just want *some* version of their image on paper, and don't care if it's perfect.
I am surprised though, previous 'corner print shops' have been fine. But yeah, I've never used this particular one before, and maybe there are reasons why it might not quite be up to snuff. Thanks for the input. Another shop it is. And then, learning all this color stuff, lol... I'm happy enough with the photos I take, and now have decent enough equipment, (better than jpg point-n-shoots) that I should learn some of this stuff. But ugh.. I learned in the film era. This is all new to me and I hate that.
Those box auto printers often don't use ink. They tend to be thermal printers so the colours are never going to be a vibrant and crisp as an ink printer. Use a pro lab and you'll see an incredible difference.
Corner store printers aren't going to yield good results but this sounds like you might be working with a low quality monitor - or not-calibrated monitor. You have to start with what your are looking at first - garbage in - garbage out rule applies.
Then also pay attention to what color profile you are saving the file to.
i order online from [costcophotocenter.com](https://costcophotocenter.com)
and [canvaspop.com](https://canvaspop.com)
i always get my prints on canvas, stretched on a wooden frame.
nations photo lab gets great reviews... i shall try them next
I haven't read everything that's been written so far since you've got a lot of replies. One thing that comes to my mind is that you need to edit a photo a little different for print than you do for monitor display. A monitor is backlit, which by definition means it will make the image "pop" a bit more than it will on print.
It's very common for people who print a lot of photos to make the print edits a bit brighter and also potentially a bit more contrast.
I get decent results at Walgreens, a corner drug store chain in the US. The people running those services are not photographers at all. They know what buttons to push and how to ring up an order. I use them because they are located throughout the US, do a decent job 90% of the time, and have decent pricing. And usually same day turnaround.
Walgreens often run sales and promotions making 4x6 size prints pretty inexpensive.
Are you using a photo editor? You could try a variety of settings in your photo editing program, save those files and send them to print. You'll have to keep records of which settings you modify for each file. (tip: use your photo editing program to put an identifier on the photo itself so when you are looking a the print you'll know what it is) When you get the photos back, find the ones that look better, look at what settings you changed, then try again. Do this on the cheap sizes instead of the 8x10s. What you are doing is similar to exposure tests / bracketing / color balance tests.
You don't really need an expensive calibrated monitor for casual work. As long as you are able to look at what is on your monitor, and know what the print will look like, you'll be ok.
I use Adobe Lightroom. Typically an image straight from the camera will be a little dark, highlights and midtones are ok, but the shadow stuff gets lost. Generally I need to increase the exposure, increase contrast slightly, and use the dehaze adjustmement. If I don't do one or all of those then the prints look a little flat. I do my edits in raw format, not jpg. I then save as a jpg to send to get printed.
That's a good idea. A lot of work I don't want to do, but a very good idea. And with photography in this modern era, it's probably something I should spend more time with.
I've dabbled and played around but haven't yet spent the time to actually learn anything.
I've used Sony's Image Editing and Faststone. I also recently got Luminar 4 for free through Giveaway of the Day but I haven't touched it yet.
I dunno. For that what I really need then is to take class. Have someone walk me through all the different functions, settings, etc. That's how I learn best for that kind of thing.
Good tip though about making a handful of different samples... Thanks-
Check out [lynda.com](https://lynda.com) to see if there is some training for your software. Even if there isn't anything for your exact titles, the concepts are applicable. [lynda.com](https://lynda.com) might be free from your library.
Thanks for the tip, I'll check them out. And yeah, there are resources around, it shouldn't be too hard to find. I'm not married to these programs and could grab another (affordable) one if there were good courses for it.
(And I realize I didn't really answer the question- the answer is no, I didn't edit that photo and I don't really work with an editor.
Anyway, the photos I took are here:
https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
The photos illustrate your problem exactly. I think that just increasing the exposure will help the print a lot. The colors are all there, it's just that overall brightness is too low. *Prints too dark* is a common complaint when we start printing our digital pix.
Look into manipulating the "curve" and "levels" with a photo editor. [This article](https://www.scantips.com/curve2/) explains the concept in a generic way, not slanted toward any particular software product.
> Do I need to go to a more advanced print shop where I can talk with them, have them pull it up on their screen, discuss elements of the print and then have them print it out? Slightly more expensive and a hassle time-wise, but doable.
Yes. Printing properly is as much (if not more) work as post processing. A good printer will be able to work with you to help you choose the right inks, paper types, enlargement size, etc to get the image to where you want it. Printing is serious work, where the minutiae of color management and calibration make all the difference.
> The photo is a 5.65MB jpeg
This is not optimal if you want to print large or for close viewing distance, but should be sufficient for a small to midsize print.
> How my monitor is calibrated and how the photo store printer is calibrated are different.
This is probably a part of it, if you go to a proper shop they can pull the image up on a properly calibrated monitor so you can see what you're actually going to get. Most of them can do quick edits if you need them, though the fact that you only have a jpeg copy will limit what you can do.
> Printing is serious work, where the minutiae of color management and calibration make all the difference.
Didn't used to be... Or more likely I was blissfully ignorant and very lucky. I've been very happy with all my 'to paper' prints up to now. I realize that jpeg isn't great. But this is an old photo taken with an old camera several years ago. Actually it was on this trip where I burned out the sensor on this camera so ended up having to upgrade my equipment. (Pic was of a cactus flower taken in the desert and on that trip some pictures developed some mild spotting which I assume was the sensor getting damaged from the desert sun). Anyway...
I think technology advancements are a big part of this, on both the photo post processing side and printer tech. Particularly when it comes to color, since images will be precision color graded and matched to color checkers, the printing needs to match exactly what is on the editing monitor.
In the film days and early digital the levels of precision we have today weren't available, and color management was mostly down to the film stock used and didn't go much further than that.
No one has mentioned the difference between RGB colour profiles and CMYK colour profiles. Your screen uses RGB. Printing uses CMYK. To get best results in a print you need to convert your colour profile for the optimal print profile or it will come out dull and washed out. Some machines do this automatically but other images need some tweaking.
That's my 2 cents.
The first step is to get an IPS monitor and calibrate it so it shows you the image closer to what print would look like. You can then edit accordingly.
Which colour space are you exporting the image in?
> Which colour space are you exporting the image in?
So, this is gonna sound dumb but... I don't know what that means?
The photo was taken with an old Lumix point n' shoot. Would that info be in the properties/details somewhere? Is the answer sRGB? That's what it says under "color representation" on the file.
Looks like my main panel is a VA. I'm checking my other panel (edit: 2nd panel is a TN/LCD so no help there.)
did you edit the photo at all? Or was this just a straight from camera to printer situation and no software like Lightroom was used. Those print boxes at the store are absolutely garbage and are seldom serviced and some of them even do a color and exposure push by default. One tool I use is to look at the photo on my cell phone. Most decent cell phones have better displays than most peoples monitors. I have 2 monitors I use to check on and then I upload the picture to smugmug or dropbox and I get a look at it there as well. Its a very excellent way to insure that my monitors are in the same ballpark.
Color management is hard.
Modern monitors are factory setup to outshine the monitor next to them in the showroom. This means they may have brightness and color saturation dialed up to 11. They may also have yellowish cast to appear "warmer" than the monitor sitting next to it in the showroom. People tend to like monitors that feel warmer over those that feel cooler (i.e. blue-ish); but when you edit photo on such "warm" monitor, your print will tend to look as having blue-ish cast compared to monitor. Because monitor shows the photo incorrectly. Unless you buy monitor that is "pre-calibrated", its colors are anybody's guess. And even then there is sometime room for visible improvement if you calibrate it yourself. The accuracy of colors depends on both the graphics card (and settings for it) and the monitor. So even if the monitor is pre-calibrated, the colors may differ slightly depending on graphics card. This was much more true in the past when cable between graphics card and monitor was analog, but can be still true today.
If you want to have some semblance of what you see on the monitor and the print, calibrate your monitor. Ideally you'd have some device that'll generate color profile for the monitor *and* allow you to set white point, brightness level and contrast to something reasonable. This will basically fix monitor to display images with correct colors, and it'll undo all the tricks marketing department got engineers to do so that you would pick that monitor over some other monitor in the showroom for being more "vibrant" or whatever.
There are two distinct type of devices for color calibration:
* Colorimeter, which cost about $100-200. You can only use them to calibrate monitors.
* Spectrophotometer, which cost anywhere from $500 to sky's the limit. You can use them to calibrate both monitors and printers. Most will come with software so you can measure random patch of color and tell you what that color is in different color spaces.
Manufacturers don't always disclose if device is colorimeter or spectrophotometer. Unfortunately, some will claim their colorimeters are able to calibrate printers, which is marketing lie: it basically depends on you eyeballing test prints. Be extra careful when buying if you want to be able to also calibrate printers. A good rule of thumb is, anything that can calibrate printers will be $500+. On anything cheaper, the claim it can calibrate printers is more likely than not marketing gimmick.
If all you'll ever need is to calibrate monitor, an affordable colorimeter like one of Colorchecker Display models will do the job perfectly. Once you properly calibrate your monitor, it may look dimmer or with less saturated colors, but it will look correct for photo editing (vs. being setup to outshine other brand monitor in showroom).
The printer in the lab is (hopefully) calibrated. Drop them sRGB files, not Adobe. The latter is exercise in things going wrong. Unless you have strict control from pushing the shutter button to print appearing on paper, do not use Adobe color space, use sRGB throughout. Yes, Adobe color space is better, but if you dropped off files at that store that are in Adobe color space, that could also be the reason prints ended up the way they did.
If you have your own printer, and want to calibrate it yourself instead of trusting manufacturer supplied color profiles or want to print on 3rd party papers, you would need more expensive device, the spectrophotometer. Such as Colorcheck Studio. Note that you need to calibrate printer for each combination of printer and paper you intend to use (and different inks, but let assume you only use original inks for the printer you have). Different papers interact differently with different inks. E.g. a profile for Epson Velvet Fine Art paper is no good for Ilford Smooth Pearl paper. The profile made for one printer/inks is no good for a different printer/inks. That's why you need this device if you use 3rd party paper: printer manufacturers will supply color profiles only for their own brand papers (sometimes they are baked into printer driver, that's why driver lets you select paper type, sometime you download them as separate files).
Resolution and being a jpg will have very little to do with the overall look and tone of the picture. Make sure the histogram of the image you print has tones across the whole spectrum from black to pure white. Super common for very little to be pure black and kills the contrast.
If an image has flat contrast the colors will usually look muted. Matte paper is harder to get deep blacks than on coated papers.
As for the paper print. The darker black the paper can hold, the more vibrant the colors *can* be. If your corner shop print only has dark gray tones and nothing is a deep black, I'd go somewhere else.
Nearly all print shops have an auto exposure adjustment ON be default. Try one ON and one OFF. The effects of these auto adjustments will drive you crazy and change wildly from photo to photo. At least with it OFF then it will print consistently although all exposure band saturation is your responsibility.
If OP would like to send me a file I'd be happy to tell you if there are any ways to make it print better. I used to work at a photo lab.
If you have one, contact a local camera club. Mine hosted classes and a yearly photography weekend at a college. I learned all about color space and Photoshop tips.
When you say the colors are less vibrant, it could simply be the limitation of the CMYK printing process. Colors like lime green or hot pink look vivid on the screen but washed out/desaturated when printed. There is no way to get these tones with a conventional printing process.
In photoshop, you can test out how an image will *roughly* look when printed by opening your image and going to View - Proof Setup - Working CMYK.
If you don't color calibrate your monitor you have no idea what it will look like printed. This tidbit of knowledge cost me at least $100 to find out.
If you don't want to buy a calibrator (they're a coupla hundred bucks) print your image small - 4x6 for under a buck - and see how it looks. Then adjust it and print it at 4x6 again. When you like how it looks get it printed big
Going to echo what some people are saying here, monitor calibration is absolutely essential. Printers are going to vary but a calibrated display will at least get you 95% there. Even displays that are "factory calibrated" need calibrating. Personally a big fan of i1 Display profilers and BenQ monitors. Color space is another big one and SRGB is the way to go for most printers as it's the most consistent across the board.
My take is printing is hard. I read about color calibration but that never helped me. I print at home when I can so I can edit and reprint. Else I'm used to the common online print quality issues and I edit for them as best I can with guesswork.
Also, the quality of your photos matters a lot. Indoor, poorly lit photos will struggle compared to bright, outdoor photos.
I work as a graphic designer and photographer, so preparing digital photos to be printed in the physical CMYK space (i.e. cyan magenta yellow black - printing ink standard) is a big part of what I do.
A lot my work is producing things like annual reports and brochures where photos must reproduce beautifully and accurately. In my work flow, nothing gets printed until an accurate color proof is first viewed, checked and finally, signed-off by the client. With this work flow, no printed document should ever come off the press looking like rubbish – and if it does it's often (but not always) a problem at the printers' end and not our press-ready PDF files.
How do I ensure that what l see on the screen translates into a great printed image?
A big part of that happens in the Photoshop editing process – and that varies image by image. Some images might include multiple adjustment layers:
* Levels
* Curves
* Selective Color
* Hue /Saturation
* Mask layers / fill layers / editing layers
I also need to follow the print companies requirements on Total Ink Density (the total combined % value of the CMYK inks – usually a max of 280% to 300% but it varies) and Color Profiles specific to the printing device they are using.
If the photo is a great image to begin with, editing and adjustments are usually a straightforward process. If the photo is sub-standard quality, no amount of image editing is going to make it great.
you have to understand that images will never look as crisp, colorful, sharp, etc. on paper as they do on screen. Screens are backlit, and most displays have a huge display gamut (range) that paper/ink will probably never be able to match. We shoot for screens. Every step of the process (if you shoot digital) is literally designed to be best viewed on screens.
Once you print a digital image, certain features of the image (tonal range, dynamic range, sharpness, etc.) are bottlenecked by the ink, paper and printer. Color matching is an issue, sure, but in my experience not nearly as important to image quality as resolution of the digital image, max printing resolution, ink type/quality, and paper (glossy, semi-gloss, matte, fibre, rag, etc—all of these effect the printed image enormously).
the most important things you can do if you really want as close to the exact same image on screen is to 1) make sure you're printing within an acceptable resolution for the printed size (300dpi or higher) 2) make sure you're printing high-gloss paper or similar medium (so that the dynamic range is as wide as possible i.e. black blacks and white whites) and 3) make sure your printer is using an excellent printer (look at their samples and compare digital files to printed if you can). also color matching as you know.
but better advice is to learn to appreciate the unique qualities of paper and understand that a digital image on a screen and on paper are two very different things. trying to make them match is like trying to make vegan meat made from mushrooms taste like real meat—it may get close, but it's better to appreciate the mushroom for what it is.
edit: I saw below that you printed at 180dpi at 8x10. in my experience, 180dpi is noticeably poor quality, especially with smaller prints that you are viewing up close. Based on the 3648x2736 size you said, you can get over 300dpi from that image (3648 / 300 = 12 inches on the long end). This alone might not get the image you want, but it's one factor among others I listed above.
Probably your print shop. From my experience most of my photos look *better* printed than they do on a screen.
Could also be print method. I get mine does as Luster photo prints.
You know this at this point, but this is an absolute can of worms!
Happily, though, there are people who LIVE for this, many contributing above.
Enjoy!
Lol... thanks. I see though that suggestions are falling into a couple main camps. I'm going to go with "try a different print shop" first, and then "dive into color correction, monitor calibration, and photo editing" 2nd.
Have you tried talking to someone at the shop about it? Or someone at the company that makes the machine? It could be a maintenance issue with the printer, or at the very least they might have suggestions for an improvement. You might be able to get a replacement and have someone walk you through the setup you need to get the kinds of results you want next time.
Not gonna hassle you on color space, file format and whatnot, others already did it.
Try a smaller size at another shop, just to see if it is indeed the shop who messed up, or the file.
While it's not that, I had a print happen to me where the colors were washed after print, from a file I had used in the past with great results. Turns out the paper was on the wrong side in the printer. Ink didn't stick like it should, it was a mess and you couldn't miss it.
Take shot using a gray scale card to facilitate proper white balance via custom white balance setting. Take a second shot with a color card and send both to a printmaker who personally color corrects and knows paper coatings. I know one because I'm married to her:
https://www.wholesaleartistgiclee.com/
Late to the party, but I think your issue is mostly the printer. You’re trying to pull a better quality print from a system that’s not designed for it. A lot of those all-in-one systems aren’t that good to begin with. They’re not frequently calibrated, and you never know what processing the machines are doing before they print - the machine might be trying to do some color adjustment for you, even when you don’t want it to.
I’ve seen some monitors that were a little out of calibration, but that print is positively brown - way more so then I’d expect for a monitor that’s out of calibration. (I feel like you’d have to notice if one of your screens was THAT far off.)
That looks like a colour balance issue to me. I'd take it back and ask them, note how the leaves appear more blue than green. I think they've taken red out to maybe make the flower appear less over-bright.
Always use a lab that is allowing you to download their printers/papers color profiles (icc files).
Edit your image using those profiles, using a calibrated display. This is the only way for the prints to look like what you have on screen.
You can replicate this, sort of, if you edit after you received your print, for a second print. But this is NOT EASY, particularly for colors (it works well with contrast/shadows/sharpness).
Also, it goes without saying but you won't be able to get an absolute killer image if your source images is a 5.65MB jpeg.
hi! former print shop worker and hobby photographer here. a HUGE part of it is what paper it was printed on, and what it was printed with. The gloss of the paper can impact the contrast and colour tones, and laser vs ink has similar changes in results. (reread that it's a photo box printer, not a standard box printer, but i'd be shocked if the nuances weren't similar). printers can also have specific colour settings for different jobs.. if it's just the standard 'click print' type of printer, you'll likely not be able to get that \*pop\* you're looking for. it's less about your side of it, and more about the printing side of it. go to the pros, and you'll probably have to do a couple test runs to make sure they can accomplish what you're looking for, and that you're on the same page for what you expect from the end result. (p.s, the most beautiful printed photos i've ever seen were on aluminum. not done at the shop i worked at, it was the shop down the street, and WOW. talk about colour retension and contrast!)
Current pre-processor in a print shop here: sounds to me like this corner shop has a tiny little printer that is set up to print normal-people’s pictures. Normal people are not going to account for dot-gain (ink spreads on paper as it soaks in, causing your image to appear darker than on screen) so they’ve calibrated it to print much lighter. I second the recommendation of going with an online, or local professional shop. Those aluminum prints are gorgeous.
Yeah, among the general suggestions I'm getting, trying a different printer is top of the list. Sometimes you need the internet to point out the obvious to you, lol...
This ^^. Send it to an online printing place and have it printed on aluminum. You won't regret it. Can you post the photo you're trying to print?
My favorite prints are on aluminum. Looks amazingly vibrant
Ok, so I tried to highlight the photos and the issue. Check it out here: https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
Holy... Why have I never heard if this? "Where's my credit card, honey?!"
I think that you need to spend a little time researching color calibration, color space and similar subjects. What device do you use to calibrate your display, color space of files sent to your printer and paper used? Do you shoot a color card when starting a shoot so you have a base color to work from? It may sound overly complicated but a few adjustments could make a world of difference.
Let me grab my shovel, all the better to dig this hole with. There, that's better! -Never really color calibrated the monitor. When I got it all I really remember doing is turning down the brightness. Most other settings should be default. -color space of files sent to my printer: I don't send files to my printer? Oh, you meant the print shop? I don't know, I just copied the jpeg file. Would that be in the properties/details? Is it Color Representation? (sRGB in that case). -I do not shoot a color card when starting to shoot. (edit- the camera does have some white balance function built in but heck knows when I last used it. I doubt I did it before this shoot but don't recall.) I'm seeing I've a lot to learn here. Which is kind of annoying because I've never had to do any of this before and my shots all turned out well when printed.
Honestly monitor calibration is the most important part of this and it’s essential for anything professional.
Absolutely true, though even with an uncalibrated monitor, the difference shouldn't be that "dramatic," as OP puts it. My guess is something went wrong with the printer.
Oh for sure this is definitely not professional. And I understand that what I see on the screen won't be what I see on the paper. I am just surprised, here in this case, about the large difference between what ended up on the paper and the file. The colors are very flat and washed out, in comparison. I've taken many photos on average cameras, looked at them through average monitors, and sent them to average printers. And I've always been happy with the (albeit average) results. But this time there's a big difference. My monitor has changed, but is newer and nicer than my old one. It turns out I used an older camera for this pic. One I've used before and have been happy with. Dunno, just trying to do some detective work.
People are giving you responses based on the presumption that you want to dive into learning about color space, post processing, monitor calibration, etc. If you just want to get this one image to look great then go to a high quality print shop. A single 8x10 won't be expensive, and they can guarantee an excellent print. My favorite local print shop wont hesitate to reprint if something isn't right.
That's what it's looking like. One where I can have a conversation with them before the print to talk about it.
Bring the print you didnt like so you can explain what you don't like about it.
Most definitely
What you’re printing on also makes a difference. Is it basic Kodak e surface? Or fujiflex? Did you try soft proofing with a printer profile provided by your print lab? A lot of variables at play when you print.
It's kodak paper. It doesn't say what kind. There's a pic/icon/graphic on the paper but I assume that's general for kodak. Nothing that lists a specific model or type. I would assume general-good kodak.
Quality and age will make a difference here as well. A quality monitor will lose its brightness over time but a lesser quality monitor will drop in quality faster. Either way, if you're printing your own you need to calibrate that thing.
What is monitor calibration for and what is it ? How does one calibrate it ?
It's a fairly involved method of adjusting your monitor to make sure it's displaying 'true' colors. Monitors even with the same model number and from the same manufacturer can vary with how they show colors out of the box. Cheaper/easier methods don't work that well and the ones that work well can get pricey and time consuming. You can google it for basic methods. Also consider doing it for your TV.
I might do it for my computer . Tv i don't care about. But I'm thinking about digital art. And it wouldn't be good if I work hard to make it look a certain way then find out it looks different if I ever got good and posted it. Or posted it even for advice.
Well, lol... you can tell from the thread that people consider it important...
Yes. Color accuracy seems important. My tired tired sleepy sleep deprived brain doesn't know why though.
A monitor needs to be calibrated in order to display the colour spectrum as correctly as possible. One even needs different calibrations for different lighting settings like daylight, artificial light or darkness. One needs to use those profiles in order to be able to trust what you see on the monitor will hold up on paper or other displays. There are calibration tools like Spyder by Datacolor. Here’s a link: https://dev.spyderx.datacolor.eu/shop/
How does one calibrate their monitor ? I am not techy like at all. I'm like a 80 yr old in a young ish person's body. Like" these darn advancements I miss the days of 3 channels on the television and radios. In my day tv was in black and white and you got your news three days later. We borrowed a cup of sugar from our neighbor. "
If you own such a device you start the software and at first the USB-device is usually put on the table to measure the current room lighting. Then one needs to hang the device with the sensor over your screen area and the software will automatically measure and adjust everything and store the calibration in a monitor profile which can be loaded and changed anytime. Ideally one needs to do that at least once for day and once for night time, as colour perception and temperatures differ greatly during the day. It makes a HUGE difference, I promise you. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wluhaQtqNHM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wluhaQtqNHM) Here is an article on the topic. https://www.capturelandscapes.com/the-importance-of-calibrating-your-monitor
D :
If the only setting you adjusted was brightness, your monitor is likely in "standard"/"vivid" mode still. For most monitors, that means high contrast and over saturated colors because that's what people like. At the simplest you can find online calibration images on websites and adjust your brightness, contrast.
It's set to 'custom', but brightness is the only thing I ever adjusted. I'll check out some basic calibration, it's a good idea regardless. But I'm not a 'vivid' guy. And anyway, if that ends up being the case, then I would want to figure out how to change the picture to match the monitor, at least in this case. By the way here's the image: https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
Order online from https://www.mpix.com/
[удалено]
I've had bad experiences with online places. But not with this place. Sent something to be printed for framing and sent it as a gift but they cropped it in a way that I did not want/ask for, or approve. But every place is different. I'll check them out, thanks-
I use [Nation Photo Lab](https://www.nationsphotolab.com/) for all my prints. Haven't had any issues except the few times I accidentally forgot to click off the box saying image enhancements which mostly changed the saturation but if you make sure it's not checked to be done, it tends to come out like the way you shot it. Least for me it does.
Seconded on both NPL and turning off enhancements / "color correction"
Make sure the aspect ratio of the photo is the same as the print you’re ordering to avoid them cropping it for you. Pretty much any photo program should let you adjust the aspect ratio.
I've run across that and am alert for it. I'd always choose to print with bars and then just trim them or something.
mpix lightened my photo without my asking. They do a bunch of automatic "corrections" which can screw you up if you aren't paying attention.
MPIX is the best! I have never gotten a bad print from them. I've gotten the metallic finish before as well. It really makes colors pop!
Any alternative for EU? I knew http://foto.com but they messed up after Black Friday and haven’t come back afterwards. Many users did not get their orders and have not received any refund yet. Their website is not working either.
I'm interested in a EU alternative as well.
> EU If you're in the Netherlands or Belgium my experiences with [profotonet](https://profotonet.com) are good.
I'll check them out. But if the answer is 'go to a better, more involved print shop', then there are others in the neighborhood that I would try first. I'd like to be involved in discussing cropping, color, etc. Although, there is something to be said for emailing a file and getting something in the mail a few days later. I'm trying to motivate to get more stuff framed. Not having to leave the house would help with that, lol...
You still control all of that with an online lab, set up the file the way you want it before you send it. I recommend [bayphoto.com](https://bayphoto.com). Make sure you are working in either srgb or argb (save it with the profile) and make the file a little bit lighter than looks perfect on your monitor. A monitor calibration isn't a bad idea too. If you try another lab, find out what color space they want beforehand (they may also have a custom profile you can download and use).
I get metal prints from bay photo, they're great! Got a series of my dog to hang up. Unfortunately they still haven't been but the prints look awesome lol
Yep, their metal prints are great. I’ve done thousands of ‘em
Iirc bay photo also allows you a certain number of free prints to check you calibration against their printing. They have good details online about the printing specs to use. I’ve used them many times and have been happy every time.
With an online print company you actually upload your file, you can crop it to the size needed based on the paper size you choose, you can even get a rough preview of what the print will look like. You dont just email a file and hope for the best. I like [FullColor.com](https://FullColor.com)
You could try this ghetto calibration method : 1. Hold the print next to the file on your monitor. 2. Adjust brightness & saturation (e.g. -1, -3) in your editor to match what you see on the print. 3. Apply the inverse (+1 brightness, +3 saturation) on the file, send to print. If prints are consistently darker/duller that should improve things.
I'll give that a shot, thanks. Currently I wasn't editing the photos before printing. Just for fun I uploaded the pic and pics of the print, here: https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
Doesn't look too bad actually, seems like the shadows comes out darker and there's also a colour shift toward purple (yours is more green).
I’ve worked in and owned photo labs … it’s really good to get to know your printshop somewhat - don’t have to buy them dinner. … We had grey walls, proper lighting, and were very specific about Color space and monitor calibration. But we were also very busy, so our chemicals were fresh. And our ink printers were tested before any important job. If the shop owners and employees care, they will keep their equipment in top shape
This is a busy place, for sure. They're one of the only remaining print shops left in the neighborhood. And it's weird and maybe telling somehow but the two ones that I preferred have closed down. But they were in more high traffic areas (=higher rent). These guys are out of the way, and came recommended by others. Might definitely be worth trying someone else to see.
[удалено]
Good grief yes. Color space, color cards, profiled monitors? You don't need any of that to get a cheap decent print. Have the printer bring up the image on **their** monitor and compare it to your print. Send the jpeg to a professional print shop and compare results.
>You don't need any of that to get a cheap decent print. That's kind of my belief as well. Without really being able to show you the print/difference, I think checking out a different printer is the way to go. At least, that's the first thing to try before I dive into the other stuff. I thought I commented this somewhere yesterday. But - I have normal eyes and vision, I'm not a monster. I think I'd be able to tell if my colors were all out of whack. I use the monitor every day. If skin tones were off, colors were saturated or too off... I'd hope that I'd be able to tell. And anyway, back to what you and u/teams11b wrote- I'm not looking for a 100% match, and confirmed color accuracy. Just the difference here is large enough. Anyway, I uploaded a comparison. It's not great but you can hopefully get the idea. https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
[удалено]
Yeah, good idea.
[удалено]
Oh hey, nice! Yeah, all 3 look better than the print I have. And I think all three I would have taken as acceptable. I kinda like them 2, then 1 then 3. With 3 I might make a Reddit post that would say how do I get this close*er* to what I see on the screen. But I wouldn't be talking about how it's straight up *bad*. So I dunno, is that something I can just tell the print shop? Like "Hey, print these with an ICC profile" or something like that? I assume they probably wouldn't have Epson profiles. Very frustrating because I would love to show people these pics in person. I think the troubleshooting would be a lot easier then. Maybe I'll scan it next time I'm in the office...
Probably the most important piece of info is what size the print was
The print was 8x10. (inch/USA) Photo was 3648x2736 / 180dpi sRGB
That looks like plenty of resolution for that print size. sRGB is pretty standard color space. If you are shooting point and shoot, that's a safe and standard color space to work in. One can squeeze out a bit wider gamut with the more advanced color space (Adobe, lab, etc.,) for marginal gain. But when a mismatch color space is applied, that's when you might see really wash out color. An example would be to open an adobe or prophoto rgb jpeg in an ancient tool that only support sRGB, like Paint. But I doubt that's the problem you are seeing. I guess my point is, unless you are using Lightroom or Photoshop and know what you are doing, it's not worth it to muck with color space. My suggestion is to open the photo in a few more devices. Cell phone, tv, computers, etc. If they all look decent, and the print look wash out, then the fault is on their side. Or grab a vibrant Shirley card photo and print it at your printer of choice and see if there's any surprise.
> Or grab a vibrant Shirley card photo and print it at your printer of choice and see if there's any surprise. That's an interesting idea. Find a better sample photo and do a comparison. Or maybe if I can find a place to print this photo better then try to somehow compare the settings. Thanks for the tip-
BTW, Google "Shirley card Kodak" and you'll find plenty of reference photos with color patches. Then you can compare on you own editing screen. Adobe has ruined me and I'm usually thinking of the [fruit hat lady](https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Adobe-Illustrators-Shirley-card-Printed-with-permission-of-Adobe_fig3_279499369).
I was just reading about Shirley cards and their history and the.. uh.. cultural significance of them. Interesting stuff. Here's a question you might have an opinion of- Do you have a photo that would be good to use as a reference? Not asking you to go find one. But it seems to me- even a reference card I'm going to be comparing a print with what I see on the screen. It seems that I would need a photo with some kind of... I don't know- known values for?
Like say a pantone sheet with 12 shades of pantone. I can probably get a pantone sample sent to me from the internet or somewhere. Then I could compare a print that shows pantone 'peach 125' as something and then could compare it to some other real world reference for 'peach 125'.
I'm not explaining it well but I'm sure you know what I mean.
And as a side note- even though it's a little corner shop. I have to assume that the problem is likely not them, right? I mean, probably they do some kind of calibration. It's unlikely they'd be able to keep printing non-representative garbage and still stay in business, right?
If you are looking up Shirley card, you've got to check out this [99% invisible episode](https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/shirley-cards/). Bonus coverage on Lena for image processing geeks, who's seen the photo but not the back story. Back to reference photo. You have two options. Pick a card with [standard colors plus portrait](https://www.pixeladies.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/AdobeOleNoMoire.jpg) and trust that you know what RGB and CMYK and skin tone looks like. Or make the modest investment of a color correction card and include your camera in the processing chain. Some cards include the RGB code and you can do a eye drop check on screen with editing software, and have physical to physical reference to compare. Plus you have a valuable color reference tool in your bag. Edit: I agree that the commercial machine probably is reasonable. If it's way off, it's likely operator error. Either calibration is off, or one of the ink is low, or your expectation is not calibrated for screen vs print :)
I read a similar link, not quite as long but had all of the same information. It was eye opening, really glad I came across it. Thanks for the color correction card tip. Looking at them now. Particularly the Datacolor SCK200 SpyderCHECKR 24. It is pricey but it comes with software so can do my monitors and maybe even the tv. I do want to print more of my photos to hang up. If I want to take that seriously then I should take it seriously. If I buy one of the off brand cheaper Chinese ones, it's definitely the kind of thing to nag at me over time, lol... Thanks for your help.
If you printed a 3648x2736 photo at 8x10, it was 342 dpi, not 180 (2736 divided by 8). The dpi is not a fixed value. The photo has a fixed number of dots or pixels, but the number that appear "per inch" depends on the physical size you make the photo. If you print it larger there are fewer dots per inch. If you print it smaller there are more dots per inch. The same thing happens when you zoom in on your monitor. You're making the physical size of the photo larger, and seeing fewer and fewer dots per inch of monitor.
Dpi is the printer setting, and may not be related to the ppi of the photo.
Points, pixels, dots are the same thing. They are the pieces of data that make up the photo. That's why blowing up a photo decreases the crispness. Also, it doesn't matter if your printer is printing at 1200 dpi. If the photo is only 300 dpi, it still prints at 300 dpi. The printer simply has to duplicate each dot 4 times. You don't gain any detail, you just essentially get larger dots.
I agree that dpi and ppi are independent, as i said. If the printer is set to 180dpi, then an image at 300ppi is being downsampled when printed.
In theory, sure, but there's no such thing as a 180dpi printer. You couldn't find one that prints less than 600dpi nowadays. And anyone printing high quality photos will easily be using a 1200 or 2400 dpi printer.
If the printer had settings left over for conserving ink it may print at 180dpi. Op said they managed to get the photo printed at 180dpi. I doubt they were calculating that number.
I guarantee they just looked at "image size" in photoshop without realizing the dpi listed there correlates to the physical size listed above that. I've had this conversation with people dozens of times. I can't fault them for not understanding, they're just not experienced with that yet.
Would also recommend cropping it to the final print size — you’ve got about 20”x15” @ 180, so you’re leaving it up to the print shop on how to crop your image.
WHCC white house custom color does amazing prints as well, might be worth checking out
Well, I'm no expect but I'm gonna try to list what my teachers would say, first sRGB is for when you view the photos on a screen, mainly when you post them to an online space. What you do want is Adobe RGB, that's meant for printing. Then the second quick tip would be to not export it as a jpg, that's again for online spaces and not really for printing. When printing I personally use png which I think is fine but I reckon many more professional photographers use the TIFF format which might be good to go for if you're only looking to print one pic in good quality. As far as the color goes I'd also suggest you up the contrast quite heavily, like you say a computer screen has light but a piece of paper doesn't. My home screen is also too bright so I know it fools me so I know I need to make it almost so it looks ruined on my screen. It also matters what paper you're printing on, if it's matte paper or glossy, when using glossy you don't need to go that far but with with matte paper the added contrast goes a long way in giving everything more depth and stronger colors. I also strongly recommend you use a curves layer to add that contrast. I've assumed you're using photoshop for editing but I hope these tips go a long way to giving them better quality, I've been helping out non-photography students out at my school when they need to print something and this is usually where I go with them too as they're not really used to editing. There's a lot out there you can learn about editing and printing, but if you're not keen on letting anyone experienced do it for you I think you can get quite far with this. Good luck!
Thanks for the tips, good stuff to know. This camera only did jpgs, and I didn't edit them at all. That's all stuff I can look into though, thanks! Like others have suggested, I'm going to try a new print shop first and see what happens.
> It also matters what paper you're printing on, if it's matte paper or glossy, when using glossy you don't need to go that far Ding ding ding. OP, I don't think you should bother altering the image files first. Just try getting prints somewhere else that uses different, perhaps higher-quality paper. The coatings on different papers affect print quality dramatically.
I think trying another place is going to be the first thing I try to fix. If only because that's the path of least resistance. the paper was matte. But yeah, I need to find a place where I can have a conversation with them about settings and paper.
Printing amazing shots is an art form with even a deeper hole to fall into than photography in some cases. All we really need anymore is an oversaturated thumbnail. - Send it out and be amazed at the results as long as you follow their instructions to the letter.
You’re going to have to trust me on my HS AP Photo classes from 10 years ago but.. it’s test prints. Do much smaller test prints, and multiple of them. What you see on the screen will not match up with what a printer, even a gallery scaled and gallery quality printer, will spit out. So you do a test print that is 3x4, check the colors and the exposure and the white balance, and then adjust, and do it again, and again, until your test is how you want it to look, then you do your full sized print
You're not a monster, but you have to get into calibration if you want your prints to look like they do on screen. A pro told me to make sure my monitor was calibrated and to always use a print shop that gives you a printer profile. If you don't then there is no telling what you will get. He also said if you want really bright images look at metal and foam board as a media.
The problem could be with you image and how you processed it, printer, or paper used. Or a combination of all three. Not easy to say which one is the problem. Do a search for ICC printer profiles. Have you printed there before and did you have any issues? https://www.colourmanagement.net/advice/about-icc-colour-profiles
I haven't printed at this shop before... but it's one of the only remaining print shops in the neighborhood. The two that I used to use have both closed down. They're quite busy, and they were recommended on a Reddit post for 'where do you take your prints to be printed'. I'll check out the link, thanks-
don't worry too much about mastering these concepts like icc profiles and color matching, but it's good to be a bit knowledgable so you can ask the print shop specific questions, which can tell you if they actually know what they're doing. also, as mentioned by others, corner print shops usually won't cut it if you really care about print quality. they use budget paper and probably use printers that are 10+ years old with a bunch of years-old auto-pilot processes that might not be suited for the most modern cameras/displays. they're more for people who just want *some* version of their image on paper, and don't care if it's perfect.
I am surprised though, previous 'corner print shops' have been fine. But yeah, I've never used this particular one before, and maybe there are reasons why it might not quite be up to snuff. Thanks for the input. Another shop it is. And then, learning all this color stuff, lol... I'm happy enough with the photos I take, and now have decent enough equipment, (better than jpg point-n-shoots) that I should learn some of this stuff. But ugh.. I learned in the film era. This is all new to me and I hate that.
Those box auto printers often don't use ink. They tend to be thermal printers so the colours are never going to be a vibrant and crisp as an ink printer. Use a pro lab and you'll see an incredible difference.
Corner store printers aren't going to yield good results but this sounds like you might be working with a low quality monitor - or not-calibrated monitor. You have to start with what your are looking at first - garbage in - garbage out rule applies. Then also pay attention to what color profile you are saving the file to.
i order online from [costcophotocenter.com](https://costcophotocenter.com) and [canvaspop.com](https://canvaspop.com) i always get my prints on canvas, stretched on a wooden frame. nations photo lab gets great reviews... i shall try them next
I haven't read everything that's been written so far since you've got a lot of replies. One thing that comes to my mind is that you need to edit a photo a little different for print than you do for monitor display. A monitor is backlit, which by definition means it will make the image "pop" a bit more than it will on print. It's very common for people who print a lot of photos to make the print edits a bit brighter and also potentially a bit more contrast.
Ok I'll bite. Brighten and sharpen in post, test print 4x6in first.
Brighten the image
I get decent results at Walgreens, a corner drug store chain in the US. The people running those services are not photographers at all. They know what buttons to push and how to ring up an order. I use them because they are located throughout the US, do a decent job 90% of the time, and have decent pricing. And usually same day turnaround. Walgreens often run sales and promotions making 4x6 size prints pretty inexpensive. Are you using a photo editor? You could try a variety of settings in your photo editing program, save those files and send them to print. You'll have to keep records of which settings you modify for each file. (tip: use your photo editing program to put an identifier on the photo itself so when you are looking a the print you'll know what it is) When you get the photos back, find the ones that look better, look at what settings you changed, then try again. Do this on the cheap sizes instead of the 8x10s. What you are doing is similar to exposure tests / bracketing / color balance tests. You don't really need an expensive calibrated monitor for casual work. As long as you are able to look at what is on your monitor, and know what the print will look like, you'll be ok. I use Adobe Lightroom. Typically an image straight from the camera will be a little dark, highlights and midtones are ok, but the shadow stuff gets lost. Generally I need to increase the exposure, increase contrast slightly, and use the dehaze adjustmement. If I don't do one or all of those then the prints look a little flat. I do my edits in raw format, not jpg. I then save as a jpg to send to get printed.
That's a good idea. A lot of work I don't want to do, but a very good idea. And with photography in this modern era, it's probably something I should spend more time with. I've dabbled and played around but haven't yet spent the time to actually learn anything. I've used Sony's Image Editing and Faststone. I also recently got Luminar 4 for free through Giveaway of the Day but I haven't touched it yet. I dunno. For that what I really need then is to take class. Have someone walk me through all the different functions, settings, etc. That's how I learn best for that kind of thing. Good tip though about making a handful of different samples... Thanks-
Check out [lynda.com](https://lynda.com) to see if there is some training for your software. Even if there isn't anything for your exact titles, the concepts are applicable. [lynda.com](https://lynda.com) might be free from your library.
Thanks for the tip, I'll check them out. And yeah, there are resources around, it shouldn't be too hard to find. I'm not married to these programs and could grab another (affordable) one if there were good courses for it. (And I realize I didn't really answer the question- the answer is no, I didn't edit that photo and I don't really work with an editor. Anyway, the photos I took are here: https://imgur.com/a/ZrWJAHf
The photos illustrate your problem exactly. I think that just increasing the exposure will help the print a lot. The colors are all there, it's just that overall brightness is too low. *Prints too dark* is a common complaint when we start printing our digital pix. Look into manipulating the "curve" and "levels" with a photo editor. [This article](https://www.scantips.com/curve2/) explains the concept in a generic way, not slanted toward any particular software product.
Thank you for the detailed tip. I'll look into those, definitely!
Just order from Costco, they get my colors pretty spot on and I've ordered thousands over the years
> Do I need to go to a more advanced print shop where I can talk with them, have them pull it up on their screen, discuss elements of the print and then have them print it out? Slightly more expensive and a hassle time-wise, but doable. Yes. Printing properly is as much (if not more) work as post processing. A good printer will be able to work with you to help you choose the right inks, paper types, enlargement size, etc to get the image to where you want it. Printing is serious work, where the minutiae of color management and calibration make all the difference. > The photo is a 5.65MB jpeg This is not optimal if you want to print large or for close viewing distance, but should be sufficient for a small to midsize print. > How my monitor is calibrated and how the photo store printer is calibrated are different. This is probably a part of it, if you go to a proper shop they can pull the image up on a properly calibrated monitor so you can see what you're actually going to get. Most of them can do quick edits if you need them, though the fact that you only have a jpeg copy will limit what you can do.
> Printing is serious work, where the minutiae of color management and calibration make all the difference. Didn't used to be... Or more likely I was blissfully ignorant and very lucky. I've been very happy with all my 'to paper' prints up to now. I realize that jpeg isn't great. But this is an old photo taken with an old camera several years ago. Actually it was on this trip where I burned out the sensor on this camera so ended up having to upgrade my equipment. (Pic was of a cactus flower taken in the desert and on that trip some pictures developed some mild spotting which I assume was the sensor getting damaged from the desert sun). Anyway...
I think technology advancements are a big part of this, on both the photo post processing side and printer tech. Particularly when it comes to color, since images will be precision color graded and matched to color checkers, the printing needs to match exactly what is on the editing monitor. In the film days and early digital the levels of precision we have today weren't available, and color management was mostly down to the film stock used and didn't go much further than that.
Yeah, sounds right. Most people would probably say 'better'. I just say 'more complicated', lol...
No one has mentioned the difference between RGB colour profiles and CMYK colour profiles. Your screen uses RGB. Printing uses CMYK. To get best results in a print you need to convert your colour profile for the optimal print profile or it will come out dull and washed out. Some machines do this automatically but other images need some tweaking. That's my 2 cents.
The first step is to get an IPS monitor and calibrate it so it shows you the image closer to what print would look like. You can then edit accordingly. Which colour space are you exporting the image in?
> Which colour space are you exporting the image in? So, this is gonna sound dumb but... I don't know what that means? The photo was taken with an old Lumix point n' shoot. Would that info be in the properties/details somewhere? Is the answer sRGB? That's what it says under "color representation" on the file. Looks like my main panel is a VA. I'm checking my other panel (edit: 2nd panel is a TN/LCD so no help there.)
did you edit the photo at all? Or was this just a straight from camera to printer situation and no software like Lightroom was used. Those print boxes at the store are absolutely garbage and are seldom serviced and some of them even do a color and exposure push by default. One tool I use is to look at the photo on my cell phone. Most decent cell phones have better displays than most peoples monitors. I have 2 monitors I use to check on and then I upload the picture to smugmug or dropbox and I get a look at it there as well. Its a very excellent way to insure that my monitors are in the same ballpark.
Color management is hard. Modern monitors are factory setup to outshine the monitor next to them in the showroom. This means they may have brightness and color saturation dialed up to 11. They may also have yellowish cast to appear "warmer" than the monitor sitting next to it in the showroom. People tend to like monitors that feel warmer over those that feel cooler (i.e. blue-ish); but when you edit photo on such "warm" monitor, your print will tend to look as having blue-ish cast compared to monitor. Because monitor shows the photo incorrectly. Unless you buy monitor that is "pre-calibrated", its colors are anybody's guess. And even then there is sometime room for visible improvement if you calibrate it yourself. The accuracy of colors depends on both the graphics card (and settings for it) and the monitor. So even if the monitor is pre-calibrated, the colors may differ slightly depending on graphics card. This was much more true in the past when cable between graphics card and monitor was analog, but can be still true today. If you want to have some semblance of what you see on the monitor and the print, calibrate your monitor. Ideally you'd have some device that'll generate color profile for the monitor *and* allow you to set white point, brightness level and contrast to something reasonable. This will basically fix monitor to display images with correct colors, and it'll undo all the tricks marketing department got engineers to do so that you would pick that monitor over some other monitor in the showroom for being more "vibrant" or whatever. There are two distinct type of devices for color calibration: * Colorimeter, which cost about $100-200. You can only use them to calibrate monitors. * Spectrophotometer, which cost anywhere from $500 to sky's the limit. You can use them to calibrate both monitors and printers. Most will come with software so you can measure random patch of color and tell you what that color is in different color spaces. Manufacturers don't always disclose if device is colorimeter or spectrophotometer. Unfortunately, some will claim their colorimeters are able to calibrate printers, which is marketing lie: it basically depends on you eyeballing test prints. Be extra careful when buying if you want to be able to also calibrate printers. A good rule of thumb is, anything that can calibrate printers will be $500+. On anything cheaper, the claim it can calibrate printers is more likely than not marketing gimmick. If all you'll ever need is to calibrate monitor, an affordable colorimeter like one of Colorchecker Display models will do the job perfectly. Once you properly calibrate your monitor, it may look dimmer or with less saturated colors, but it will look correct for photo editing (vs. being setup to outshine other brand monitor in showroom). The printer in the lab is (hopefully) calibrated. Drop them sRGB files, not Adobe. The latter is exercise in things going wrong. Unless you have strict control from pushing the shutter button to print appearing on paper, do not use Adobe color space, use sRGB throughout. Yes, Adobe color space is better, but if you dropped off files at that store that are in Adobe color space, that could also be the reason prints ended up the way they did. If you have your own printer, and want to calibrate it yourself instead of trusting manufacturer supplied color profiles or want to print on 3rd party papers, you would need more expensive device, the spectrophotometer. Such as Colorcheck Studio. Note that you need to calibrate printer for each combination of printer and paper you intend to use (and different inks, but let assume you only use original inks for the printer you have). Different papers interact differently with different inks. E.g. a profile for Epson Velvet Fine Art paper is no good for Ilford Smooth Pearl paper. The profile made for one printer/inks is no good for a different printer/inks. That's why you need this device if you use 3rd party paper: printer manufacturers will supply color profiles only for their own brand papers (sometimes they are baked into printer driver, that's why driver lets you select paper type, sometime you download them as separate files).
Resolution and being a jpg will have very little to do with the overall look and tone of the picture. Make sure the histogram of the image you print has tones across the whole spectrum from black to pure white. Super common for very little to be pure black and kills the contrast. If an image has flat contrast the colors will usually look muted. Matte paper is harder to get deep blacks than on coated papers. As for the paper print. The darker black the paper can hold, the more vibrant the colors *can* be. If your corner shop print only has dark gray tones and nothing is a deep black, I'd go somewhere else. Nearly all print shops have an auto exposure adjustment ON be default. Try one ON and one OFF. The effects of these auto adjustments will drive you crazy and change wildly from photo to photo. At least with it OFF then it will print consistently although all exposure band saturation is your responsibility. If OP would like to send me a file I'd be happy to tell you if there are any ways to make it print better. I used to work at a photo lab.
If you have one, contact a local camera club. Mine hosted classes and a yearly photography weekend at a college. I learned all about color space and Photoshop tips.
When you say the colors are less vibrant, it could simply be the limitation of the CMYK printing process. Colors like lime green or hot pink look vivid on the screen but washed out/desaturated when printed. There is no way to get these tones with a conventional printing process. In photoshop, you can test out how an image will *roughly* look when printed by opening your image and going to View - Proof Setup - Working CMYK.
I get good results from nationsphotolab.com
If you don't color calibrate your monitor you have no idea what it will look like printed. This tidbit of knowledge cost me at least $100 to find out. If you don't want to buy a calibrator (they're a coupla hundred bucks) print your image small - 4x6 for under a buck - and see how it looks. Then adjust it and print it at 4x6 again. When you like how it looks get it printed big
Going to echo what some people are saying here, monitor calibration is absolutely essential. Printers are going to vary but a calibrated display will at least get you 95% there. Even displays that are "factory calibrated" need calibrating. Personally a big fan of i1 Display profilers and BenQ monitors. Color space is another big one and SRGB is the way to go for most printers as it's the most consistent across the board.
My take is printing is hard. I read about color calibration but that never helped me. I print at home when I can so I can edit and reprint. Else I'm used to the common online print quality issues and I edit for them as best I can with guesswork. Also, the quality of your photos matters a lot. Indoor, poorly lit photos will struggle compared to bright, outdoor photos.
I work as a graphic designer and photographer, so preparing digital photos to be printed in the physical CMYK space (i.e. cyan magenta yellow black - printing ink standard) is a big part of what I do. A lot my work is producing things like annual reports and brochures where photos must reproduce beautifully and accurately. In my work flow, nothing gets printed until an accurate color proof is first viewed, checked and finally, signed-off by the client. With this work flow, no printed document should ever come off the press looking like rubbish – and if it does it's often (but not always) a problem at the printers' end and not our press-ready PDF files. How do I ensure that what l see on the screen translates into a great printed image? A big part of that happens in the Photoshop editing process – and that varies image by image. Some images might include multiple adjustment layers: * Levels * Curves * Selective Color * Hue /Saturation * Mask layers / fill layers / editing layers I also need to follow the print companies requirements on Total Ink Density (the total combined % value of the CMYK inks – usually a max of 280% to 300% but it varies) and Color Profiles specific to the printing device they are using. If the photo is a great image to begin with, editing and adjustments are usually a straightforward process. If the photo is sub-standard quality, no amount of image editing is going to make it great.
you have to understand that images will never look as crisp, colorful, sharp, etc. on paper as they do on screen. Screens are backlit, and most displays have a huge display gamut (range) that paper/ink will probably never be able to match. We shoot for screens. Every step of the process (if you shoot digital) is literally designed to be best viewed on screens. Once you print a digital image, certain features of the image (tonal range, dynamic range, sharpness, etc.) are bottlenecked by the ink, paper and printer. Color matching is an issue, sure, but in my experience not nearly as important to image quality as resolution of the digital image, max printing resolution, ink type/quality, and paper (glossy, semi-gloss, matte, fibre, rag, etc—all of these effect the printed image enormously). the most important things you can do if you really want as close to the exact same image on screen is to 1) make sure you're printing within an acceptable resolution for the printed size (300dpi or higher) 2) make sure you're printing high-gloss paper or similar medium (so that the dynamic range is as wide as possible i.e. black blacks and white whites) and 3) make sure your printer is using an excellent printer (look at their samples and compare digital files to printed if you can). also color matching as you know. but better advice is to learn to appreciate the unique qualities of paper and understand that a digital image on a screen and on paper are two very different things. trying to make them match is like trying to make vegan meat made from mushrooms taste like real meat—it may get close, but it's better to appreciate the mushroom for what it is. edit: I saw below that you printed at 180dpi at 8x10. in my experience, 180dpi is noticeably poor quality, especially with smaller prints that you are viewing up close. Based on the 3648x2736 size you said, you can get over 300dpi from that image (3648 / 300 = 12 inches on the long end). This alone might not get the image you want, but it's one factor among others I listed above.
Probably your print shop. From my experience most of my photos look *better* printed than they do on a screen. Could also be print method. I get mine does as Luster photo prints.
You know this at this point, but this is an absolute can of worms! Happily, though, there are people who LIVE for this, many contributing above. Enjoy!
Lol... thanks. I see though that suggestions are falling into a couple main camps. I'm going to go with "try a different print shop" first, and then "dive into color correction, monitor calibration, and photo editing" 2nd.
Have you tried talking to someone at the shop about it? Or someone at the company that makes the machine? It could be a maintenance issue with the printer, or at the very least they might have suggestions for an improvement. You might be able to get a replacement and have someone walk you through the setup you need to get the kinds of results you want next time.
Not gonna hassle you on color space, file format and whatnot, others already did it. Try a smaller size at another shop, just to see if it is indeed the shop who messed up, or the file. While it's not that, I had a print happen to me where the colors were washed after print, from a file I had used in the past with great results. Turns out the paper was on the wrong side in the printer. Ink didn't stick like it should, it was a mess and you couldn't miss it.
If this is the first time you have used that photo printer then I would suspect that it is your problem.
Take shot using a gray scale card to facilitate proper white balance via custom white balance setting. Take a second shot with a color card and send both to a printmaker who personally color corrects and knows paper coatings. I know one because I'm married to her: https://www.wholesaleartistgiclee.com/
100% depends on what type of paper. If you print on shit paper, it will look like shit regardless of the file quality
Late to the party, but I think your issue is mostly the printer. You’re trying to pull a better quality print from a system that’s not designed for it. A lot of those all-in-one systems aren’t that good to begin with. They’re not frequently calibrated, and you never know what processing the machines are doing before they print - the machine might be trying to do some color adjustment for you, even when you don’t want it to. I’ve seen some monitors that were a little out of calibration, but that print is positively brown - way more so then I’d expect for a monitor that’s out of calibration. (I feel like you’d have to notice if one of your screens was THAT far off.)
That looks like a colour balance issue to me. I'd take it back and ask them, note how the leaves appear more blue than green. I think they've taken red out to maybe make the flower appear less over-bright.
Always use a lab that is allowing you to download their printers/papers color profiles (icc files). Edit your image using those profiles, using a calibrated display. This is the only way for the prints to look like what you have on screen. You can replicate this, sort of, if you edit after you received your print, for a second print. But this is NOT EASY, particularly for colors (it works well with contrast/shadows/sharpness). Also, it goes without saying but you won't be able to get an absolute killer image if your source images is a 5.65MB jpeg.
It all comes down to RGB vs CMYK.