Metallic paper or exposure problems?

I'm working with Miller's and ordered some non-corrected prints to check my calibration. I tend to like my portraits a bit on the warm side and when they correct it's a bit cool for my taste. Anyway, the colors are good but the prints on metallic paper are about 1/3 stop underexposed. Is this the nature of metallic or is my calibration off? The histogram looks good to me.

Are you soft proofing first, with simulate paper/ink? What does that look like histogram wise? The other thing to remember is that even when set up correctly it is only an approximation. There are screen and print are such different mediums that it is not really possible to get a perfect match with soft proofing even when it is all calibrated correctly. On top of this there is always going to be differences in how you see the print, as the print viewing conditions really matter too. I just picked up an A4 sized print and held it in the bright midday (It's 12:04 right now) sun streaming in my window. Swing the print so that it is no longer in direct light and there is a really noticeable drop in perceived brightness. It's a monochrome print, with no toning and looks really good in the indirect light. Under a traditional Tungsten bulb (I still have one here, 60W @ about 8 feet) it looks dark and also takes on a very warm tone. If you know what the viewing conditions will be for that print beforehand there is nothing wrong in adjusting the image so that you get the image looking how YOU want it to, in the conditions under which it will be displayed.

Alan

Thanks for chiming in. Yes, I was softproofing with simulate paper/ink. Histogram looks good to me with no extremes. I printed three images. One is good and two are meh. I think it might have something to do with paper but I am not certain. It just seems the white/off-white portions are more dull. LOL I know, not very technical.

Here is the image

Yes well sometimes we do have to tweak the image a bit to get the best results, thats one of the main reasons that doing hard proofs is also useful. Depending on the paper/process involved it could even be that they had gone a bit long on the developing chemistry. Exhausted chemicals can cause all sorts of problems, from under development right through to colour casts. Finding a lab with good QC can sometimes be just as important as price. Many labs will have multiple machines with different paper types in them, so while one machine is turning out good prints, other paper types may have issues. Get the prints run through when the machine has just had the chemistry refreshed and they will likely turn out OK. Thats why caring about things like QC are important, as there are many variables that the lab needs to keep on top of to consistently turn out good images. It was the same when I used to do my own printing at home in the darkroom, lots of things to pay attention to to get consistently good results. Although I am quite lucky in that I seem to have found a lab here in the UK that has very good QC and is also really cheap too.

What I would do is if some of the prints are OK and others are not, I would complain to the lab about it. From what you are saying in your second post I would try that first. If the good prints you got back matched the soft proof, then I would expect all of the prints to match the soft proofs. If it's dark but otherwise OK maybe its down to you, but if it's as you say meh, and muddy looking I going to suspect the lab.

Alan

Thank you very much! This does help.

Great I think that last post got a bit away from me, and started to ramble. Glad it helped you though.

Alan