Printing preparation tips? - DPChallenge Forums

05/03/2008 10:59:46 AM · #1

OK, so I'm severely disappointed with some prints I got back today! I have taken loads of shots recently, and all being in raw the missus never gets to see the ones I deem snapshotty, so I decided to get a load printed out. I'd still rather use the DLSR instead of the point & shoot so might as well get used to printing out the amateur looking stuff too.

Loads of the prints came out with odd looking colours, strange artefacts and other oddities, and a beige strip across the bottom! So I thought I'd post an example up here to see if anyone can point out where I went wrong in processing.

So I go through some pics, open in ACR, do a minimal amount of editing in

So:

1. Straight from camera, default ACR settings, WB of 3950

2. Straight from Camera, WB of 5200.

3. Minor dodge and burn.

4. Increase master saturation by 5.

5. Curves Contrast Boost "S-curve".

6. Today's Print

7. Another dodgy print

Most of the image sizes were 3008 x 2000 (straight from the camera), or they were cropped specifically in PS to a 3x2 ratio, therefore should print out perfectly on 6x4, or am I missing something? All the prints have the beige band across the bottom!

Also, virtually every print came out a bit yellowy/greeny, even with a properly set white balance. I'm sure the print shop would be using an sRGB colour profile but I forgot to ask, should they be?

Please can you help, I don't know whether to go back to the shop and complain? Or whether it's my fault, am I adding too much contrast/saturation?

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

05/03/2008 12:27:42 PM · #2

Did you go to Target, or some Kodak Kiosk?

or did you take the time to find a professional lab that offers services like print analysis?

If you went to the former, then you get what you buy.

For a few dollars more, from the later, you get the original vision you seek from your images.

Tamron 16-300mm Di II VC PZD MACRO w/Canon Nikon mount

05/03/2008 12:35:55 PM · #3

No, it was over £20 at a professional photo place. But even my point & shoot ones would probably come out better...

What's going on?

Man_Called_Horse

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

05/03/2008 12:44:06 PM · #4

Originally posted by rob_smith:

No, it was over £20 at a professional photo place.

I don't want to seem like I am being picky on semantics, but, is the place a LAB, or a camera store? a "professional photo place" doesn't help.

Here in LA, CA we have as many film labs as there are Starbucks.

They will all offer different services to help with your imagery.

If in fact you have visited a lab, get your monies worth and ask them what the hell is going on? and have them fix the problem.

If they can not fix the problem, then find a better lab that offers full customer service.

JulietNN

Canon EOS-7D

05/03/2008 12:46:15 PM · #5

wow that is terrible, I am so sorry that happened, they look fine before they got printed

hanneke

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

05/03/2008 01:06:41 PM · #6

Ask for their ICC color profiles and calibrate your monitor. That might help!

idnic

Canon EOS-60D

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

05/03/2008 01:16:29 PM · #7

Have you calibrated your monitor? Could be YOU that is off in color.... ;)

cpanaioti

Canon EOS-40D

Canon EF 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6 DO IS USM

05/03/2008 01:36:19 PM · #8

1) no printer uses sRGB

however,

a lot of print labs assume that digital files are in the sRGB colour space and convert to the printer profile accordingly

2) if you want to be able to soft proof your prints before sending your files to a particular lab you need the printer profile that the lab uses.

Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR

05/03/2008 02:36:10 PM · #9

My monitor isn't calibrated but that's another issue, on another thread. I suppose what I'm asking is:

1. Does the final one look alright to you? And by asking this I'm hoping enough people with calibrated screens can give me a suitable view.

2. Calibrated or not, I know if I took P&S ones they would have come out fine.

3. It's definitely not a pro lab, but it is run by knowledgeable people who should know what they are doing. It's a lab attached to a very good camera store. But I want to be able to get good results without going "pro" as it were, I just need to know if it's me, my pc, or them?

Thanks so far.

swordandsigil

Nikon D5100

05/03/2008 02:43:36 PM · #10

There are all kinds of factors that can come into play when your work is printed at a lab. For one thing the prints that you got back seem to have a contrast problem which can indicate that the lab has its contrast setting too high on their digital imager in order to make up for a chemical imbalance that causes low contrast results (under concentrated developer, poor bleach, dirty stabilizer, yada, yada, yada). Chemical balance in the processor plays a huge role in print quality. If the chemicals are out of balance, all kinds of color and contrast issues can occur. I can't be sure without actually seeing the chemistry plots for the lab you went to but yellow, green tinged photos can mean that there is an issue with the bleach solution in the processor. Of course the problem can also be as simple as the operator's eye for color, or lack of it since it's the operator that decides the overall color corrections for any image. As cpanaioti said no printer uses RGB, all processors use subtractive (CMYK) color. I usually work in RGB for web work, but if I want to take anything to be printed, I post process using CMYK, it solves some but not all of the problems. The beige band at the bottom of your prints makes me think that the cutter unit is out of alignment or their aspect ratio is off in their imager settings. If this is the case, the color of the band (beige) definitely indicates dirty stabilizer. Sorry if I'm being a little lengthy but having worked as a service tech for Fuji, Noritsu and Agfa over the years (not all at once, mind you) I get a little techy and that said, I think you should take your work to another lab. It may be a good idea to limit the contrast and saturation corrections if you are taking your work to a lab just to be on the safe side. In my experience, lab owners like to set their contrast and saturation settings a little higher than what is suggested by the equipment manufacturer.

kgeary

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Sigma 35mm f1.4 DG HSM for Nikon

05/03/2008 04:04:10 PM · #11

How about this...

Take them somewhere else and try again.

The "final" you provided looks fine. No way should it look as bad as your print does, for any reason. If your monitor's calibration was way off, we'd be able to tell you that by looking at the picture on our monitors, so that's not the problem.

I say you take the files to another printing place and try again. just take one of the files in question, it'll cost you less than a dollar to get your answer.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/03/2008 04:07:39 PM · #12

How can photo processors (Fuji, Noritsu) use subtractive color, when they are exposing RGB photo paper? AFAIK, the CMYK color space only applies when the color is generated by applying pigments/inks to paper, as in offset printing, or color larers or ink-jet printers.

Photo paper contains light-sensitive dyes, and are exposed by light; nothing is "applied" to the paper.

I recommend reading about color spaces, color management, and the use of printer profiles at Dry Creek Photo -- Costco uses their profiles; personanly I think I use sRGB throughout, and my (Costco) prints always look pretty much as I expect.

05/03/2008 04:20:00 PM · #13

This is printing from digital files, so it would be pigments/inks wouldn't it?

Canon EF-S 18-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

05/03/2008 04:21:27 PM · #14

The beige band bit is interesting though, as it does show that if there is no image there then it is a dull yellow, instead of white; there must be something off...

SteveJ

Canon EOS-7D

05/03/2008 04:40:53 PM · #15

I know very little about these things, but it looks like something in their equipment needs cleaning. It isn't just one shot, both examples show the same fault, which suggests to me, they have an issue with their gear that needs addressing.

Did you question the quality of the prints at the time? I would expect to get them reprinted free of charge if they were that quality. Oh, and I wouldn't be using them again!

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

05/03/2008 05:23:40 PM · #16

Originally posted by rob_smith:

This is printing from digital files, so it would be pigments/inks wouldn't it?

No -- it has nothing to do with whether the image is digital or not. Photo printers such as the Fuji Frontier or Noritsi expose ordinary photographic print paper -- exactly the same thing you'd use to make a print from a film negative -- but using either lasers or high-resolution CRTs and colored filters to expose the paper. The photo-sensitive dyes in the paper then form the colors after being run through a developing process. Those dyes are sensitive to the RGB colors, much as our retinas. These machines are only found in printing labs.

Ink-jet and bubble-jet printers spray tiny drops of ink onto paper -- these are the subtractive (Cyan, Magenta, Yellow) colors, which form the illusion of continuous-tone by absorbing specific wavelengths (colors) of light.

Color lasers use the same colors, but form the image by electrostatic transfer of tiny particles of colored plastic (toner) to the paper, where it is then fused (melted) into the paper fibers for relative permanency vis-a-vis often water-soluble inkjets.

wheeledd

Panasonic LUMIX-DMC ZS100

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

05/03/2008 10:24:43 PM · #17

Rob,

Your images look fine on my calibrated monitor. A decent photo lab should be able to make good prints from the files you have shown us. You should not have to trouble-shoot what is wrong with the prints. I think there are two strategies you should consider:

1) Switch labs. Take your files to another lab and have them printed. If the second lab produces good prints from exactly the same files, take the prints back to the first lab and show them the good prints. Demand your money back for the crap they did for you. [This strategy worked for me the last time I got prints I didn't like.]

2) Demand reprinting. Tell the lab that did the prints that they are not satisfactory and ask them to reprint them. This strategy is good IF the lab has a reputation for high-quality printing. They will either reprint them or tell you that there is something you need to do with your files so that they can make good prints from them.

Price and quality tend to be related. If you are using a lab with really low prices, you should not expect high quality or willingness to reprint. Professional labs expect a certain percentage of their jobs to need to be reprinted to satisfy customer expectations and they set their prices accordingly.

~~DanW

SDW

Canon EOS-60D

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

05/03/2008 11:35:44 PM · #18

I don't know what went wrong but I think it was at the lab. My monitor is calibrated and so is my printer.

I hope you don't mind but here is a copy of your posted picture, placed in CS3 and with no processing except to set it to 4x6. I printed it on my printer [HP C-8180] on 4x6 photo paper then took a picture of it with my 40D. Again no editing except to resize for web. The print is very good, color and luminosity even with it being printed @ 72dpi. Here is a picture of it. I can scan it as well if you would like a better view.

[thumb]675794[/thumb]

Scanned version
[thumb]675796[/thumb]

Message edited by author 2008-05-03 23:43:00.

swordandsigil

Nikon D5100

Pentax SMC DA 18-55mm f3.5-5.6 AL WR

05/04/2008 01:21:13 AM · #19

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It is true that photographic papers possess layers that are sensitive to red, green and blue light, however, after the paper is exposed, the dye layers that form are cyan, magenta and yellow and therefore the actual printing process is dependent on the CMYK premise. Feel free to check the Society For Photofinishing Engineers Manual: SPFE Reference Manual chapter 13: Photofinishing Technology: Theory and Application, its very informative.

Tajhad

Canon EOS R

Canon RF 24-105mm F/4L IS USM

05/04/2008 03:13:22 AM · #20

This printing aspect has perplexed me for ages as well.
Recently I took some shots (shoot in AdobeSGB and edit in AdobeSGB). The shots looked great on the screen (monitor is calibrated). Printed them out on a S820 canon - looked terrible I can't get profiles for my printer (too old)but have played around with various settings - some come out all right, some not.
I thought that maybe it was my colour space. I got some other shots to take to a lab and thought I would convert them to sRGB.
The AdobeSGB shots looked good on the screen. When I converted them to sRGB - they looked terrible. I futher enhanced them to try and get them as close as the shots in AdobeRGB. I then took both to the lab to see the difference.Both seemed more saturated and contrasty than my originals but the sRGB prints looked slightly better. The owner of the lab (a photographer) wasn't there but when I asked the worker - he told me he thought they printed in CMYK.But he wasn't very knowledgeable. I'm yet to go back and see the owner.
GeneralE - you mentioned CMYK. Do the labs print in this colour space? Or is this guy talking through his hat?
Should you convert AdobeRGB to the sRGB colour space? (which seems pointless to work in AdobeRGB as it appears you have to do some futher adjustments). I'm very unclear about whether inkjets read Adobe RGB or sRGB or are able to convert them.
As far as the original poster is concerned - his shots look fine on my monitor, so I suspect a printer problem. But what the answer is I have no idea.
From another person in the dark.

Message edited by author 2008-05-04 03:14:15.

ignite

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

05/04/2008 03:43:39 AM · #21

I got a few photos printed from a Kodak Lab, and they came out pretty good. My monitor is not calibrated, and I didn't have their printer profile. I just did what I normally do in Photoshop and the prints were good.

What I'm trying to say is, your prints shouldn't come out bad for any reason if they look good on the monitor. The beige band sounds like a printing problem.