Help! print to warm and dark

Windward wrote in post #11803322
The photo is saved as raw with an SRGB profile on the camera. I open the image, edit it and save as a JPG with an SRGB Profile at 300dpi. A duplicate of the print is converted to the printers Fuji profile, saved and sent to the printers. There is seldom a significant change in how the image appears. I have tried an alternative printer who asks for files in an SRGB profile and they all look pretty much the same.

Could this be part of the problem, converting to the Fugi profile and not to sRGB? I would think that the Fugi profile would only be used to soft Proof to make minor adjustments and the final file sent to the printer as a sRGB file.

René Damkot wrote in post #11809235
Actually, the print should be pretty close to a softproof. (disregarding that they are different media).

If I soft proof with simulate paper colour enabled there is a big difference to the saturation (screen looks washed out) but otherwise little change. from sRGB to Fuji Frontier

I've tested my setup using the Outback Print test image (in the first link you got), and the softproof on my CRT matched the print pretty damn close.

Not sure which is the Outback Test Image but the image I am using is http://www.dscolourlab​s.co.uk/images/calibra​tion_image.jpg.

What exactly do you see?


Does white look white & black, black?
Do you see all steps in a gray wedge? (is the difference between (0,0,0) and (10,10,10) visible for instance?
Is a gray wedge neutral?
etc.

The whites and blacks are ok, I see all the steps, the wedge looks very slightly cooler than the print. The fleshtones and the colours in the Gretag-Macbeth colour chart look more saturated on the print or brighter (back lit) and less saturated on the screen.

What values?

I will have to run a report from the Argyll software to get the calibrated/uncalibrate​d values. Probably won't be able to until tomorrow - work pressure etc.

Should be possible IMO.

Hope so!

View your prints in good daylight or something similar..

Awaiting daylight lamp!

MrAl wrote in post #11809294
Could this be part of the problem, converting to the Fugi profile and not to sRGB? I would think that the Fugi profile would only be used to soft Proof to make minor adjustments and the final file sent to the printer as a sRGB file.

Images were shot in Raw with sRGB as the camera profile. Adjusted in camera raw, opened in PS as 8 bit RGB with sRGB profile, image size changed to 300 d.p.i., edited then duplicated and finally "converted to profile" using the DSL Fuji profile and uploaded onto the printers site as they requested. I soft proofed during editing using the Fuji profile in PS. I assumed that they knew what they wanted and did as I was told. I don't know if this is a correct workflow.

I am not clear whether I should change to a bit depth of 16 after opening in PS.

Do not convert to the printer profile. It is only for soft proofing.

Your prints are dark because your monitor is set to bright. So, change the brightness (luminance) of your monitor. Virtually every monitor, out of the box, is WAY to bright.

Then calibrate it, again.

bohdank wrote in post #11809908
Do not convert to the printer profile. It is only for soft proofing.

Your prints are dark because your monitor is set to bright. So, change the brightness (luminance) of your monitor. Virtually every monitor, out of the box, is WAY to bright.

Then calibrate it, again.

I converted to printer profile as the printshop asked for it that way, but hey ho I can send them as sRGB.

The Argyll software checks monitor luminance and it was adjusted and was cranked down v.low before calibration.

I have just looked at the meta data of my camera raw's and it says "untagged" profile, although my camera is set to sRGB (canon EOS40D). Don't know if that is relevant to anything, cos I think we have established that this is a software issue as we have been using Fuji's test images not just mine.

Windward wrote in post #11809804
I am not clear whether I should change to a bit depth of 16 after opening in PS.

The only need to go to 16 bpc is if you need to make wild color adjustments. Most of the time there is really no need.

Windward wrote in post #11810029
I have just looked at the meta data of my camera raw's and it says "untagged" profile, although my camera is set to sRGB (canon EOS40D). Don't know if that is relevant to anything...

It's not... raw files don't have a color space. It doesn't matter what you have your camera set to. The camera color space setting only applies if you are shooting JPGs.

Windward wrote in post #11810029
I have just looked at the meta data of my camera raw's and it says "untagged" profile, although my camera is set to sRGB (canon EOS40D). Don't know if that is relevant to anything, cos I think we have established that this is a software issue as we have been using Fuji's test images not just mine.

It would be sRGB if jpeg was coming out of the camera, when shooting RAW the RAW editor assigns the profile (color space) you have set in your options along with the bit depth. Your camera actually captures a 12 bit file I believe.

So, what is the luminance level your monitor is now set to ?

bohdank wrote in post #11810159
So, what is the luminance level your monitor is now set to ?

I am on the laptop now and won't get to my desk top until I finish working, will check luminance, black and white levels tomorrow morning and post then.

MrAl wrote in post #11810134
It would be sRGB if jpeg was coming out of the camera, when shooting RAW the RAW editor assigns the profile (color space) you have set in your options along with the bit depth. Your camera actually captures a 12 bit file I believe.

Thanks Mr Al, been looking at ACR and my workflow options seem to be set to 16 bit and sRGB is the step up from 12 bits to 16 going to cause a problem. I've read a bit about bit depth and 16 seems to be the way to go.

With a Raw conversions you have the choice between 16 bit and 8 bit -- the 14 bits of the Raw file are just for the Raw data.

Of course, a 16 bit tiff will retain the maximum image quality, and for a Photoshop "project file" it's considered "best practice". This is especially true if you want to do major processing in Photoshop.

For minor tasks, though, 8 bit can be fine (and of course dramatically keep a lower file size). And, for a final output for print or for the Web you'll convert to an 8 bit jpeg at any rate.

As far as whether you want to save a "project file" that depends on how much you've put into it. If it's a quick little task that you can quickly replicate (such as an action for sharpening, convert to 8 bits, convert to sRGB, resize for Web) then you don't need to save a 16 bit tiff for the future. But if you have multiple layers with "serious" edits then you might want to save that tiff for future reference.

Windward... If you're working strictly in an sRGB workflow environment, there's little if anything to be gained by going 16bit.

OTOH, if you work in a larger color space, Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB, you need to stay in 16 bit for as long as you can until the point of converting to an 8bit sRGB JPG. Otherwise you can experience banding in your images.

bohdank wrote in post #11809908
Do not convert to the printer profile. It is only for soft proofing.

Depends on what the printer specifies.
I've converted to a printers (store) profile, with good results.