Generally speaking, do my posted photos look...

[Brownie]

...too dark?

I just had a bunch of photos printed for my new office. 1 - 22" x 28", 1 - 16" x 20", 2 - 11" x 14", and 11 - 8" x 10". For the most part, they all turned out great. The larger prints are all exactly as expected. Of the 11 - 8 x 10s, there are 4, maybe 5 that are too dark. One is so dark it's almost unviewable.

To set the stage, my monitors are calibrated. Of course that doesn't take into account the ambient light, but that is usually pretty typical from day to day.

The company I used has a reprint guarantee, but before I call them and start asking them to fix it I want to make sure it's not me. Out of curiosity, I opened the dark ones in MS Photo and hit auto-enhance. Without fail they all ended up a lot brighter. But then I also downloaded some that turned out perfectly, and auto-enhance tried to brighten them further, which put them over the top.

As an example, this is the one that turned out very dark. Top is as I processed, bottom is after auto-enhance. The auto-enhanced version almost seems too bright. Thoughts? Those of you who've seen many of my images, are they typically too dark?

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 8000

• ILCE-7M4
• FE 200-600mm F5.6-6.3 G OSS
• 600.0 mm
• ƒ/6.3
• 1/640 sec
• ISO 8000

 

[mapleleaf56]

I don’t find your photos to dark to be honest..
Sometimes my background is a to dark for my liking, I use Lightroom to edit and you can actually select the subject or the background and it does an excellent job, and then I can edit one or the other or both..
I feel in your example maybe you globally lightened it ? Where as with selectively editing you have more control..

 

[MrFotoFool]

As someone who worked at a sustantial photo lab for twenty years, I feel I can address the issue. Monitors vary widely and there is no way for any lab to guarantee a print will look as it does on your home monitor. As a general rule of thumb, images print darker (and sometimes less saturated) than they do on most monitors. It's also a different medium: a print is a piece of paper lit by ambient light whereas a monitor is an electronic image that is lit from behind.

Before I do a big print, I order 8x10 test prints, often having two or three different versions (some lighter). To save money, I will lay out two (or even three or four) on a sheet. I use a small text box to type the file name directly on top of the image so I know which one is which. If I am doing a very large print (30x40 inch or bigger) I will also enlarge image to full size then crop out an 8x10 piece of that image and order an 8x10 to make sure it's not too pixelated.

Another option is to use a lab (like the mighty Bay Photo) that gives an option for them to correct the color and density for you. I hope this helps.

 

[MrFotoFool]

As for the sample images you posted, even on my fairly bright monitor the top one looks too dark. The bottom one is better.

 

[spudhead]

OK Tim Fred seems to have the info on this one but for the second auto enhanced shot is way over on my monitor and the top one a little too dark, having said that I would never press auto enhance on any of my shots in capture one it terrible.

 

[Brownie]

As someone who worked at a sustantial photo lab for twenty years, I feel I can address the issue. Monitors vary widely and there is no way for any lab to guarantee a print will look as it does on your home monitor. As a general rule of thumb, images print darker (and sometimes less saturated) than they do on most monitors. It's also a different medium: a print is a piece of paper lit by ambient light whereas a monitor is an electronic image that is lit from behind.

Before I do a big print, I order 8x10 test prints, often having two or three different versions (some lighter). To save money, I will lay out two (or even three or four) on a sheet. I use a small text box to type the file name directly on top of the image so I know which one is which. If I am doing a very large print (30x40 inch or bigger) I will also enlarge image to full size then crop out an 8x10 piece of that image and order an 8x10 to make sure it's not too pixelated.

Another option is to use a lab (like the mighty Bay Photo) that gives an option for them to correct the color and density for you. I hope this helps.

Ok, but your response takes in variables that exist from monitor to monitor, person to person, and print job to print job. These were all processed on the same monitor, by the same person, under the same conditions, and printed by the same lab at the same time, so those variables don't apply. This isn't the first time I've had prints done, just the first time there's been a problem.

I expect that your monitor will look different than mine, but assuming the lab doesn't change anything from what I've sent them the results should be consistent across the job. And since of the 15 prints I ordered most are fine, including the large prints, the 4 or 5 that aren't are an anomaly. What I'm trying to sort out is what could've caused this difference when everything was consistent.

The company has a guarantee that they'll reprint anything I'm not happy with, so there's no reason to spend my money on test prints. They do offer color correction but I don't use it, as color isn't the problem.

 

[Brownie]

OK Tim Fred seems to have the info on this one but for the second auto enhanced shot is way over on my monitor and the top one a little too dark, having said that I would never press auto enhance on any of my shots in capture one it terrible.

Yeah, I was just trying to get an idea while I'm at work since I don't have any processing programs here. I'll mess with them a bit when I get home and see what happens by comparison.

 

[spudhead]

Yeah, I was just trying to get an idea while I'm at work since I don't have any processing programs here. I'll mess with them a bit when I get home and see what happens by comparison.

I have very little printed here in the UK because they always mess with the images, my mates shop is the only place they do not mess with images unless you ask them too. And that is why so many art and photography students use them.

 

[Uncle Kevriano]

Occasionally maybe, of the above images I do find the bottom one better, but I am guilty of underexposing sometimes because I like the deep, rich contrasty look, so what I find pleasing ,may look wrong to others. Overall though, everything looks pretty good to me.

 

[Landshark99]

The top one looks too dark and the bottom one too bright on my screen. Since you are not the one printing you are not in control of all of the variables, even though your monitor maybe calibrated for you, the lab could change theirs and you would not know. For that matter unless they have the same printer tech always do the printing that is another variable. I would just let they know the corrections you would like and have them reprint the images. If I am completely honest I do not know if I have ever been truly happy with any lab's first attempt at a print for me, including myself on my printer, but then again we all see things they way we see them.

 

[Brownie]

The top one looks too dark and the bottom one too bright on my screen. Since you are not the one printing you are not in control of all of the variables, even though your monitor maybe calibrated for you, the lab could change theirs and you would not know. For that matter unless they have the same printer tech always do the printing that is another variable. I would just let they know the corrections you would like and have them reprint the images. If I am completely honest I do not know if I have ever been truly happy with any lab's first attempt at a print for me, including myself on my printer, but then again we all see things they way we see them.

Of the 15 I had done, 4 are too dark. I'm very happy with the rest. The thing is, all of the variables people keep citing don't make any sense, with the exception your suggestion of a possible change in the technician. I can buy that one. Seems like anything else would be like changing horses in mid-stream.

FWIW, I agree with your assessment. Top one too dark, bottom one too bright. I think that this one at least is on me. I'll mess with them more when I get home and will likely just reorder on my own dime.

 

[Deleted Member 5045]

I'll mess with them more when I get home and will likely just reorder on my own dime.

The boys have covered this one so I'm not going to add anything about the images. What I will add though is that refund/discount thingy you got is coming in handy right now hey mate!

 

[Brownie]

The boys have covered this one so I'm not going to add anything about the images. What I will add though is that refund/discount thingy you got is coming in handy right now hey mate!

Not necessarily. If I determine it's my own fault I'll bite the proverbial bullet.

 

[Clide]

Tim, did you post process all the images you submitted for printing to your liking or did you submit your photos for printing without post processing? Are you able to compare the out of the camera histograms on your post processing software of the 4 or 5 dark images you do not like to the images you thought were just right? Are the images that are too dark on the dark side of the histogram spectrum? Is it possible that even though your monitors are calibrated the darker images may be viewed as being just right or even slightly dark on your monitors. When your photos are then sent to the printers the ones that are on the dark side of the histogram spectrum are going to be returned darker than what you are seeing on your monitor? You might check out a fellow named Jose Rodriguez, https://www.youtube.com/user/cheo1949/featured. He talks more about printing from your own printer and is a bit long winded but very good info. It appears to me the first image is too dark, and the second image was globally lightened by the software. I have only been a member for a short time, over all your images look great to me.
Jose Rodriguez Photo Printing Techie
Jose Rodriguez Photo Printing Techie
@cheo1949
Asking this question for my own education. I do print at home and have run into many issues of what I see on the monitor and what I get out of the printer.

 

[Brownie]

I only shoot RAW, so everything is processed.

So, let me go back and address the two images one more time: The first one was the one I processed and sent in. The second one is simply put through MS Photos auto-enhance for the sole purpose of seeing how it would treat the image over and above what I had done. It made it (obviously) much, much lighter. Auto-correct isn't always right, or even all that pleasing, but the purpose wasn't a finished image. The amount that it was lightened is an indicator that I had it too dark, by a lot. Yes, it was lightened globally, because I was at work and didn't have anything to process with other than MS Photos.

 

[Brownie]

I reprocessed the image. This time, after making the RAW adjustments I used Affinity's built-in auto-level. It over-brightened a bit, but not as much as the one above. I pulled it back until it looked right and exported, then compared it to the one I had done before. It is slightly brighter. Not so much as I'd expect a huge difference in the outcome. So...I think this is on them. I'm going to ask them to reprint four images that are too dark.

I'm putting my money on @Landshark99's idea. The regular tech went to lunch and the trainee finished the job!

 

[Paul stuart]

to me i prefer the 1st image perhaps the subject needs a little lift ,but the second has a global lift across the whole image so now the background has become distracting in my opinion i find my self looking at the grasses and not the bird ,the first one i can still see make out habitat ,but it still always subjective,i took a sceen grab and had aplay if you do not mind one in luminar neo one in photoshop the other lightroom ,your composition was basically spot on i tried to use luminar neo cropping ai and all it did was crop in slightly and left your little bird on the thirds.

 

[Deleted Member 5003]

The above discourse as regards camera image, monitor view, printer view and print image does not address the need for consistency of monitor/ colour/final printer settings.

Dont wish to set up an unnecessary argument but refer to mark ghalers treatment of monitor/printer colour consistency...he sets out a very clear and detailed treatment of gamut,colour profiles etc etc which need to be standardised across the camera,monitor and print cycle process ........printing is not just about turning up with a file flash drive and expecting the same result as a home desktop image.....

Having worked in the business and personal graphics print arena, consistency of camera image through final printer reproduction through commercial outlets is a complicated process, involving detailed communication of settings, to achieve reflective commercial image quality......

 

[Paul stuart]

The above discourse as regards camera image, monitor view, printer view and print image does not address the need for consistency of monitor/ colour/final printer settings.

Dont wish to set up an unnecessary argument but refer to mark ghalers treatment of monitor/printer colour consistency...he sets out a very clear and detailed treatment of gamut,colour profiles etc etc which need to be standardised across the camera,monitor and print cycle process ........printing is not just about turning up with a file flash drive and expecting the same result as a home desktop image.....

Having worked in the business and personal graphics print arena, consistency of camera image through final printer reproduction through commercial outlets is a complicated process, involving detailed communication of settings, to achieve reflective commercial image quality......

as long as you keep your colour space true and calibrate everything monitor and printer and use paper profile you will get close ,commercial is different becuase the colour space is cymk ,which makes it difficult from a rgb ,to be honest most canon and epson printers are pretty good off the bat with there management ,but to be honest the viewers will never know and half the time i can not tell the difference either.It is all about the look you want from your print and knowing what papers achieve what results ,

 

[Brownie]

to me i prefer the 1st image perhaps the subject needs a little lift ,but the second has a global lift across the whole image so now the background has become distracting in my opinion i find my self looking at the grasses and not the bird ,the first one i can still see make out habitat ,but it still always subjective,i took a sceen grab and had aplay if you do not mind one in luminar neo one in photoshop the other lightroom ,your composition was basically spot on i tried to use luminar neo cropping ai and all it did was crop in slightly and left your little bird on the thirds.View attachment 30571View attachment 30572View attachment 30573

You completely and totally misunderstood the point of the thread. I am not asking anyone to reprocess my images or for advice on processing. Please go back and re-read the thread. The global lift was just to make a comparison between what I processed and what a computer might do. It was MS Photos for Pete's sake, what else might one expect? The whole idea of that part of the post was to see if perhaps I didn't brighten the image enough.

I've communicated with the printer and expect the 16 x 20 and four of the 8 x 10s to be reprinted.

 

[Brownie]

........printing is not just about turning up with a file flash drive and expecting the same result as a home desktop image.....

Actually, it is. I've had hundreds of photos printed through them for myself and customers and have never had a problem before. I recommend them very highly. They pre-print proofs on 'contact sheets' to make any necessary adjustments prior to making the full-size print, and send the proofs with the order. Sometimes there's one, sometimes two or three. These folks print for professionals and will drop ship to a customer for you, sight-unseen by the photographer, so consistency is an expectation. That's why I'm having a hard time understanding exactly what happened. Right now they're taking a look at the files and we'll have a discussion before they reprint.

The monitor has been calibrated. In fact, now that I think about it previous print jobs were processed on an uncalibrated monitor. Coincidence?

 

[Brownie]

So, the last communication from the printer is interesting. In the future if I want them to check brightness, contrast, etc., I am to check 'color correction'. Huh? I don't want the color 'corrected'. That feature is for family snapshots that someone sends in. Basically, they do what a camera or software program does with a jpeg. They try and interpret what you want. Skin tones, contrast, brightness, 'warmth' (their words) etc. No thanks. What if I chnged the white balance on purpose, or desaturated, or anythning else? If I'm going to let them choose what it'll look like I may as well just shoot jpeg. Their second option is to download some ICC files for soft proofing. This sounds more like it, so I'll look into that. In the meantime they're reprinting the images I asked for, but I told them to NOT adjust the color. One of them is a matched set of autumn photos and I don't want the color changed.

I still don't understand the difference between then and now, or for that matter how some of these turned out fine and others not. Disappointing, I have trusted them for years. I may start looking around for other options.

 

[Brownie]

Updated update: I think I can download their ICCs to Affinity, if needed. They already have 30 in the program. I'll check when I get time and do a test print with them.

And now I'm wondering if my recent change to the 4k monitor and the in-windows calibration is the culprit.

 

[Paul stuart]

You completely and totally misunderstood the point of the thread. I am not asking anyone to reprocess my images or for advice on processing. Please go back and re-read the thread. The global lift was just to make a comparison between what I processed and what a computer might do. It was MS Photos for Pete's sake, what else might one expect? The whole idea of that part of the post was to see if perhaps I didn't brighten the image enough.

I've communicated with the printer and expect the 16 x 20 and four of the 8 x 10s to be reprinted.

No i did not misunderstand you ,your prints came out dark not all of them ,guess what take control and print your own if you want full control ok not always achievable find a printers that you can rely on ,if your chosen one does not recognise the inconsistant prints find another ,you asked if we thought your images are to dark well the one you have chosen does look to dark ,but that may have been your intent ,the other image is clearly to bright and distracting,but then you do not need my opinion ,but here it is somewhere in the middle between the two

 

[Brownie]

No i did not misunderstand you ,your prints came out dark not all of them ,guess what take control and print your own if you want full control ok not always achievable find a printers that you can rely on ,if your chosen one does not recognise the inconsistant prints find another ,you asked if we thought your images are to dark well the one you have chosen does look to dark ,but that may have been your intent ,the other image is clearly to bright and distracting,but then you do not need my opinion ,but here it is somewhere in the middle between the two

Thanks so much for your input, it's priceless...

 

[Paul stuart]

Thanks so much for your input, it's priceless...

no problems, it is what forums are for.

 

[Brownie]

8 x 10 replacements arrived today. I won't know how they turned out until I get home. They just shipped 16 x 20 shipped this morning. Seems like a waste to split it, but it's their dime.

I did download their ICC profile and installed it into Affinity. It makes a difference but not as much as I expected. I don't think it would've made much change in those that were reprinted.

I was planning on a few 5 x 7s for a 3-image frame I have, will poke through my photos for something suitable for a tryptic and use them to try out this new method for printing.

 

[spudhead]

8 x 10 replacements arrived today. I won't know how they turned out until I get home. They just shipped 16 x 20 shipped this morning. Seems like a waste to split it, but it's their dime.

I did download their ICC profile and installed it into Affinity. It makes a difference but not as much as I expected. I don't think it would've made much change in those that were reprinted.

I was planning on a few 5 x 7s for a 3-image frame I have, will poke through my photos for something suitable for a tryptic and use them to try out this new method for printing.

fingers cross then Tim

 

[Brownie]

Replaced photos are very nice.

I sent them another order for 3- 5" x 7" Sepias and 1- 8" x 10" B&W. I used their ICC profile to soft proof, and I also recalibrated my monitor just to be certain. Photos all turned out perfect, very satisfied. This will absolutely be my method going forward. Then, if I get a few that are too dark I'll know it's them.

 

[Rick Dahms]

Yup. If the pictures are consistent on your monitor, regardless of calibration or ICC presets, but not consistent in the prints, it’s them not you. Glad you got it sorted out.