UK - Photobox users

[blue_max]

I have used Photobox for a while now and my recent pictures were extremely dark.

Here is an example of the file I sent them.

http://www.mcreativeonline.co.uk/POTN/_MG_0542.jpg

In this example, there is virtually no detail in the woman's hair on the left hand side of the print and it generally looks drab and lifeless.

To their credit, they gave me a credit for the prints to allow me to adjust and resubmit for printing. HOWEVER, they suggested I calibrate my monitor and use their profile. I did mention that I have a recently purchased, expensive Eizo monitor and it is calibrated using a hardware calibrator - and I can soft proof with their profile and it still looks fine.

I really don't know what to do now. Hopefully the sample pic looks ok here.

Is anybody else finding their prints coming out dark? I wonder if it may be a mac thing perhaps.

I would appreciate any experiences.

Thank you.

Graham

[E Spiller]

Hallo Graham,

I have just started using Photobox and had the same problem. They also refunded my prints and suggested calibrating the monitor. I tried adjusting monitor Brightness and Contrast to match their claibration print but this made the screen to dull for normal viewing. I don't think there is much wrong with the monitor settings anyway as other peoples photos, from Flickr say, look ok.

My solution is to temporarily lighten images before I send them online. I sent a whole batch with different Gamma settings (and Saturation and Sharpness settings) to compare and have concluded that shifting the Gamma slider (in Levels) from 1.0 to 1.2 achieves the desired result.

I am now happy with Photobox and like the fact that they don't fiddle about with your resolution/sharpness etc. The only thing I dislike is the lack of a 'no-borders' option.

Ted S

[dave_bass5]

Hi
Yep, same here. After a few attempts i just do what Ted does and over lighten the images slightly, although i only do it in the shadows.
I use a great plug-in called Lighmachine and this seems to help me a lot.
How do the shots look in,say IE of windows picture/fax viewer (or are you on a MAC?), something that isnt colour managed.

[dawnrogers]

Yep I have the same problem with them, the up shot of it is they do enahnce prints below
7 x 5 so if you get this photo printed 7 x 5 you'll find that is signficantly brighter than this one you have uploaded.....which I guess was printed bigger than 7 x 5? So I over brighten them before uploading as it seems the only way.......its a bit of pain really but their machines don't carry out any enhancements over 7 x 5 and even with a calibrated monitir which I have I still have to over brighten them.

[steve75]

Hi Graham, i've been using them alot recently for printing customers orders, 7x5 & 9x6 prints - all have been great and look exactly as they did on my monitor with the exception of one recent order - i ordered about 7 or 8 photos of differing sizes [7x5 & 9x6's] for customer orders in addition to those i ordered 1 A4 print for myself to submit to a competition - all the 7x5's and 9x6's lokked great and exactly as they do on my monitor, but, the A4 print i ordered for myself is is dark and the colours are very muddy looking, nothing like what it looks on my monitor or on my home prints. It was only a problem on the one A4 print though and the others are all perfect, so i don't know if the problem is related to your issues or not? still it was very dissapointing, i will ring them when i get the chance and see what they say - the calibration excuse they gave you won't wash though, they will need to explain how all other photos i ordered look exactly as they did on the monitor yet this one doesn't.....

ps, your shot looks fine on my work monitor, which is actually darker than my home monitor.

[aliflack]

Sorry to say it - but on my calibrated monitor, there is only detail on the top of the ladies head on the left, so it doesn't surprise me that Photobox would print it that way.

It took my a load of guess work to get prints with Photobox to look right, but as soon as I used a Spyder calibration kit, they matched perfectly...

When you did your calibration, had you left the monitor on for an hour or so beforehand to allow it to fully warm up?

[dave_bass5]

looks fine on both my calibrated monitors. I can see detail in the hair right up to the edges.

[lennythelens]

Just some question to try to expand my understanding - not flames

When you all say calibrated, calibrated to what? If one monitor is calibrated to 5500k 1.8gamma then one is calibrated to 6500k 2.2 gamma then each adjusted files will look different if you are processing under different lighting conditions?

Also when I last used Photobox
(prints were a little dark!) then checked their website says they don't have profiles. But you can download a calibration image. They also say use sRGB and also say 'An image that looks bright and clear on the screen should produce a superb print.'

[aliflack]

When you all say calibrated, calibrated to what? If one monitor is calibrated to 5500k 1.8gamma then one is calibrated to 6500k 2.2 gamma then each adjusted files will look different if you are processing under different lighting conditions?

As I understand it, not necessarily!

The whole point of performing monitor calibration is to match the output of your PC to the monitor in question. As monitors are not created equal, calibration should mean that the same red outputed by a PC is displayed the same on different monitors. If that means that one gets set to 5500k and the 6500k that just shows how inconsistent the monitors are!

To be clear - it's the output of the PC that is tweaked when doing colour management calibration. While you need to set the monitor settings along the way, it's the software settings on your PC that are the ones targetted by calibration.

In my case I used the Spyder calibration tool which tweaks the output of my PC to ensure that black/white levels and colours are reproduced by my monitor accurately compared to Spyder's definition of what they should look like... does that make sense?

[gcogger]

Gamma and white point are choices - there's no right or wrong.

The white point determines the spectral content of 'pure white' on the monitor. 'White' itself means little without specifying the colour temperature. If one person calibrates to 5000K and another to 6500K then each has made a perfectly 'correct' choice. Put the monitors next to each other, however, and images will look slightly different on the 2 screens. It's a bit like holding a sheet of white paper so that half of it is in the sun, and half in the shade. the colour of the 2 halves will be slightly different, but neither is more correct than the other.
Convention dictates that 6500K is used, but 5000K is used by some and can give better matching between screen and print under typical lighting. The human brain tends to compensate for different white points anyway, so the choice isn't as critical as it seems.

Gamma determines the input/output curve - i.e. how bright an RGB value of 127,127,127 is in relation to 255,255,255. Again this is subject to choice - PCs used to use 2.2 and Macs 1.8. The convention these days, however, has very much moved to a universal 2.2 gamma.

[lennythelens]

Aliflack. Thanks. Yes I'm with you on that.

gcogger. Thanks. That rounds it off. :-)

[dawnrogers]

I think some of the problem lies with Photobox, I have calibrated my monitor with spyder 2 express and it was fine...but this week....its all gone to pieces, the prints came back dark...I haven't altered any thing but I suspect they have...so here we go again....

[lkb-28]

Hi Guys;

Just thought you may care to be aware that I have the OPPOSITE problem with Photobox...

Until now, I have been delighted with output & service from Photobox, but I've just had two large-ish canvases back from them this morning that are totally washed-out compared to the original image & locally printed proof from my printer...

Here's what I sent them;

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w103/Billy_Bodgit/Sundries/Norway_Canvas_1.jpg

Here's what I got back;

http://i174.photobucket.com/albums/w103/Billy_Bodgit/Sundries/P1010614.jpg

Even allowing for some slight colour differentiation between camera's (second was taken with a P&S for easy ref...), and some slight differentiation on printing, I think it's way-off...

I've e-mailed Photobox, and will keep y'all posted...

Cheers;

Lee

[dave_bass5]

Damn thats bad.
Im sure they will sort you out.
Good luck.

[lkb-28]

Damn thats bad.
Im sure they will sort you out.
Good luck.

Hi Dave;

Yes - at this time I have every confidence that it will be resolved; one way or the other!

In all honesty, as I said, I've been really pleased with their output until now, and for the few irritations I've had with them in the past, their customer service has been excellent; so I don't think there will be a real problem; it's just bl**dy annoying!

Cheers;

Lee

[Box Brownie]

I look forward to any feedback here as it has been a while since I used them and that was for 7x5's but I was planning on doing 10x8 or a little larger but not poster size so they should all be done on the Fuji Frontiers 370 or 390 not the large Polytecknika (spelling?).

They had/used to have a very good reputation so if they have gone badly downhill I wonder who else I/we should consider using?

:)

[AlanMac]

Hi, I have used photobox extensively over the last three or four years, but mainly for proofs and smaller prints. I have found you need to give the files a little tweak in curves to bring out the best in them. For larger prints (16 x 12's etc) and particularly canvasses I wouldn't pass Peak Imaging. The quality of finish of the canvasses is superb. Just my thoughts. Alan