Printing vs Lab threshold

kirkt wrote in post #19491788
"Inconsistencies" are a different problem than color management. When you say inconsistencies, do you mean that if you send the same file to the same lab 10 times, you will get 10 different results? Or do you mean that the prints you receive from the lab do not appear like the image on your display?

Printing on a printer at home will be an exercise in futility and cost a lot more if you do not have a color managed workflow nailed down, including a calibrated and profiled display, the proper ink-paper color profiles to drive the printer, and an understanding of the viewing conditions for which the print is intended. These are all "devices" in a color managed workflow and, ideally, you can control them to get the results you want.

Depends on what you want to do, and how close is close enough.

Kirk

The file I sent was back-lit by my old monitor, leading me to believe it was bright enough for a metal print. However, upon receiving it back, I found it was unusablely dark. Fortunately I had opted for color correction from Bay Photo, so a re-print with increased exposure was free. The next image I had problems with had some purple/green fringing that didn't show up until I got the new monitor, however this one wasn't salvageable, so we canceled that order. Had I been able to print a test run at home, I'd have seen the issue.

Consider one more variable...
NOT all commercial prints are INKET prints...many vendors offer photochemical photographic prints (light sensitive emulsions) exposed via laser light, on Fuji Crystal Archivepaper, which comes in a variety of surfaces and paper warmth.
So these prints have the quality, 'depth' and permanence of conventional organic dyes formed in photographic color emulsion, rather than the surface pigment ink inkjet print.

goalerjones wrote in post #19491830
The file I sent was back-lit by my old monitor, leading me to believe it was bright enough for a metal print. However, upon receiving it back, I found it was unusablely dark. Fortunately I had opted for color correction from Bay Photo, so a re-print with increased exposure was free. The next image I had problems with had some purple/green fringing that didn't show up until I got the new monitor, however this one wasn't salvageable, so we canceled that order. Had I been able to print a test run at home, I'd have seen the issue.

It sounds like you don't have a properly calibrated monitor which will yield poor results whether you print at home or if you send your work out to be printed. As part of your monitor calibration process you need to adjust your monitor brightness. If you edit with an overly bright monitor, your prints will be dark. Too dim and the prints will be washed out.

If you are running your monitor at the default (out of the box) brightness I guarantee your prints will be really dark. For my room/viewing light, when I edit I calibrate to a brightness of 90 cd/m2 and my prints match perfectly. The range people use for photo editing is usually between 80 to 110. If your workspace has more subdued lighting you'll be around 80, if your room is really bright you'll be at the 110 end. Out of the box your monitor could be running at about 300 cd/m2! If you don't have a calibration puck with software that lets you set brightness, it's possible you'll need to manually drop your brightness to 25-30%.

Wilt recently posted a handy gradient chart in another thread which would really help you dial things in with regards to brightness and contrast. Hopefully he'll post a link to it again here

Also, when dialing things in don't compare your prints right beside your monitor due to the backlit/reflective difference (your eyes will play tricks on ya!). I study the image on my monitor, looking at how I'm expecting the shadows and highlights to be then view my print on a table in the typical room it will be viewed. Also, if you send your files out to be printed, tell them to print with zero auto corrections. Otherwise you just don't know what the true state of your edits are

would it be worth getting a 6 color printer like the PIXMA iP8720 or the Epson XP-15000? Especially if exposure is the main concern?

goalerjones wrote in post #19492840
would it be worth getting a 6 color printer like the PIXMA iP8720 or the Epson XP-15000? Especially if exposure is the main concern?

If, by "exposure," you mean that the print appearance is different (usually darker) than the image you see on your display, this is not a problem with the printer or its inkset. This is a problem with your color management - the display luminance is too high (the display is too bright) so you are making judgements about image appearance on a device that is not properly calibrated and profiled for consistent color and brightness compared to the output from your printer.

You can google "prints are too dark" or similar terms and you will find that this is one of the main issues people have when trying to print images they have viewed and edited on a computer display.

To test the theory, download a printer reference image like the ones on this page:

https://www.northlight​-images.co.uk …ownload-page-photography/

And print it. On your printer, from a print lab, wherever. BUT JUST PRINT IT - DO NOT EDIT IT. It is a known reference image that has proper tonal distribution, so that takes anything your display might be causing you to do to it out of the equation. Then open a copy of the image and edit it so that it "looks good" to you on your display. Then print that image. The one you edited will likely look too dark when you print it because your display is too bright, causing you to adjust "exposure" downward.

Here is a more detailed discussion of this topic, perhaps it will help in your decision-making process:

https://www.northlight​-images.co.uk/why-are-my-prints-too-dark/

Proper display calibration (bringing the display to a known reference state) and profiling (telling the display how you want it to display color and tone) will hopefully get you closer to a match to a known reference state and bring all of your devices (display, printer, viewing conditions) into agreement.

More photo-oriented printers have pre-made ink-paper profiles that will provide the color management for the printer. Also note that the viewing conditions of your print also affect how bright or dark the print appears compared to the image displayed on your computer. Ideally, you want to have consistent viewing conditions that are intended for viewing the print and judge the print in those conditions. If you print the image and view it in dim window light versus bright daylight versus a halogen light bulb, the print will appear different each time. This is an important part of color management that people often overlook.

Kirk

When I calibrated my laptop to my printer, the first thing I noticed is that my display looked a bit "drab", lower brightness, etc. but my prints looked good. It shows how much out of the factory many different displays are defaulted to "wow" you but aren't set properly for the edit and print folks amongst us.

OP should do this at a minimum...

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=19483707

I would concur with kirkt. Investing in a monitor calibration system will eliminate one variable and enhance you ability to print more accurately. As mentioned Wilt's post will help too. Ink and paper add up so putting some of that $ towards a means to see what is on screen and the printed result accurately is important. Otherwise it is an ongoing exercise in frustration.

did that, monitor definitely got darker. Monitor is the Benq PD2700U, I have the Brightness at 20, contrast is at 50, won't allow me to adjust it.

As for calibration setups, people say Spyder isn't their first choice any more, so is there another one you'd recommend?

Wilt wrote in post #19491840
Consider one more variable...
NOT all commercial prints are INKET prints...many vendors offer photochemical photographic prints (light sensitive emulsions) exposed via laser light, on Fuji Crystal Archivepaper, which comes in a variety of surfaces and paper warmth.
So these prints have the quality, 'depth' and permanence of conventional organic dyes formed in photographic color emulsion, rather than the surface pigment ink inkjet print.

I confirmed this is what Bay Photo uses. I've ordered a print on their art paper for my first trial.

I'm running NEC wide gamut monitors with their SpectraView package that included an Eye One puck. I'll continue with NEC if I need to replace or an Eizo wallet permitting.

Some photographers don't like certain pucks-packages so YMMV. You'll adapt to the gear on hand so it will still benefit you to have a modest calibration package for your printing. Buy what fits your wallet and that the reviews seem reasonable is my suggestion.

goalerjones wrote in post #19493184
did that, monitor definitely got darker. Monitor is the Benq PD2700U, I have the Brightness at 20, contrast is at 50, won't allow me to adjust it.

As for calibration setups, people say Spyder isn't their first choice any more, so is there another one you'd recommend?

Eizo's EX4 calibration puck is a rebranded Spyder X. The puck is very good so perhaps it's the Spyder software that some don't like.

I use the Eizo's Colornavigator software to calibrate my Eizo monitor and BenQ's Palette Master Element to calibrate my BenQ monitor. Colornavigator is the more sophisticated/refined application, but both get the job done.

ra40 wrote in post #19493317
I'm running NEC wide gamut monitors with their SpectraView package that included an Eye One puck. I'll continue with NEC if I need to replace or an Eizo wallet permitting.

Some photographers don't like certain pucks-packages so YMMV. You'll adapt to the gear on hand so it will still benefit you to have a modest calibration package for your printing. Buy what fits your wallet and that the reviews seem reasonable is my suggestion.

It's really unfortunate that NEC dropped the PA line. I really liked my PA241W, but when the CCFL backlights got old the colors were off and it could no longer be calibrated. I ended up buying an Eizo CS2731 to replace it and use a much less expensive BenQ SW240 as a secondary screen. The NEC, when new, was a slightly better monitor as it was true 10 bpc, where both of these are 8 bit + FRC to get 10 bit.

I liked Spectraview II, but the Eizo software is even better IMO.

Bob_A wrote in post #19493357
It's really unfortunate that NEC dropped the PA line. I really liked my PA241W, but when the CCFL backlights got old the colors were off and it could no longer be calibrated. I ended up buying an Eizo CS2731 to replace it and use a much less expensive BenQ SW240 as a secondary screen. The NEC, when new, was a slightly better monitor as it was true 10 bpc, where both of these are 8 bit + FRC to get 10 bit.

I liked Spectraview II, but the Eizo software is even better IMO.

To bad Sharp/NEC dropped the PA line. These were nice alternatives to spending up on Eizo class monitors. A couple buddies run Eizo's, they love them.

ra40 wrote in post #19493579
To bad Sharp/NEC dropped the PA line. These were nice alternatives to spending up on Eizo class monitors. A couple buddies run Eizo's, they love them.

At this stage I cannot justify $2k-$4k for an editing monitor. As nice as they may be.