Lab print differs from screens

James Blonde

James Blonde

Messages
385
Name
Scott
Edit My Images
Yes
I've had some requests for prints of one of my landscapes, and have used my goto pro lab of choice.

When they arrived, my wife pointed out that she thought they were really dark and I kind of brushed it off, however having checked them out, it's not her imagination. They are much darker than the screen images, and warmer (which I can kind of live with given that it's a sunset, but that's not really the point). I originally thought it was that I hadn't calibrated my screens for a long time, so had a bit of a facepalm moment, until i found that when I did calibrate my screens, they actually lightened rather than darkened the processed image. The ones on lustre paper seem a fair bit darker than the ones on the metallic paper.

I've always found accurate printing to be a bit of a dark art at home, and thought I'd got to a place where prints pretty well matched the screen. When choosing the lab, I never had any real issues with my test prints, and felt fairly comfortable using the auto fulfilment options on my website. It's only now I've moved back to my home town I've started getting customer prints sent to me rather than straight to customers (most of whom are local) that I'm noticing discrepancies, which just makes me question my products. I've no idea if the problem is me or the lab, though in this case, multiple screens of different types, are more consistent than the print, so I'm suspecting the lab in this case. Is there any way to be sure??

and a general moan, but I wish there was a local lab or printer who I could visit, get face to face advice from, see and correct prints quickly, and ultimately work together to print the products I want. Or that I had high enough volumes that I could invest in knowledge and equipment myself to do professional quality printing, larger sizes, etc. People seem to like my work, but I'm finding creating a consistent product that I can trust and sell far harder and more frustrating than any other part of the process! I thought a pro lab was the best option, but not so sure any more. :(
 
The 'recieved wisdom' of or that are darker than on screen is lack of or screen calibration issues.

Perhaps you could add some context:-

1) how and what are you using to calibrate your screen?

2) you mention test prints from lab(s) that were good ~ is it the same lab you are using for the customer prints i.e. what if any are the differences between the tests and the final prints?

3) just what is your workflow and what colourspace are you working in & are you confirming to the file characteristics the pro lab requires?

Context is all as by your description there can only be conjecture and speculation without fuller details:)

PS have you asked the lab for their insight/explanation?
 
Last edited:
Thanks! and yep, I need to know if I'm the problem and how to fix me, as much as needing to know if it's the lab!

1. Using a Colormunki Display to calibrate the screen. I'd previously also carried out some test prints on my printer to make sure that, at least locally, the screen and prints matched (I'd got them as close as I think I could, given it's a well regarded but not expensive printer I'm using)

2. Yes - had a number of test prints done by various labs, of which this was the best lab for both prints colour and tone matching what I wanted, and for customer service.

3. THAT is an interesting question, and colour spaces have been where I've got lost before. So definitely a good question, and if you don't find that my workflow is screwey, I'll be stunned! :D However is it THE smoking gun, or just a minor player? I also looked into colour spaces a bit about 6 months ago, and have promptly forgotten everything I might have learned / picked up. Workflow - I import raw into Lightroom, and then open then directly in PS and do all my raw processing in Photoshop ACR (rather than LR ACR - I just don't like the interface) and once I've made my changes, save the file as a PSD in PS, and then save as a JPG maximum quality. For the last year or so, I've used ProPhoto RGB as the colour space, though just noticed that I was using AdobeRGB in ACR and converting to ProPhoto RGB when I went back into Photoshop. I'd kind of assumed at this stage that because I was working with a raw image, the colour space wasn't coming into play yet? This paragraph is going to generate more questions than it answers I suspect!

(I'll do a local test print tomorrow, which may also help troubleshoot this...)

and the PS - no, not yet, only had a chance to properly compare them this evening, and I have enough doubt in my own workflow to want to check whether I'm the problem first....
 
Unless your photolab can specifically use AdobeRGB and ProPhoto RGB then that will be at least a partial source of the problem. I had an issue a couple of years back where I was exporting images from LR to another app as ProPhoto RGB, then re-importing, and even though LR was instructed to output images as sRGB, it was actually putting out ProPhoto RGB but showing sRGB in the metadata. Cue dark & muddy prints from my usual printer, only fixed when LR was re-set to use sRGB only.

I also had issues with another well known printer more recently, where images were again dark & excessively warm. Using their colour profile helped, but only a little, and I went back to my usual slightly more expensive printer because they just did a better job for me.
 
@James Blonde what luminance value have you calibrated your screen to?

For print you are better off editing in a dark room with the luminance at an absolute max of 100cda.
 
Craig_85 said:
@James Blonde what luminance value have you calibrated your screen to?

For print you are better off editing in a dark room with the luminance at an absolute max of 100cda.
Click to expand...
This... Although I differ on the dark room bit and prefer dimly lit although I do use hoods on my monitors.

X-rite defaults to 120cd^2 which is generally far too high. Your luminance value should be determined by comparison to a good reference print under the lighting you are going to be viewing it in...
 
I thought I'd reset to 100, but on checking, it appeared to have reset to 120. I've recalibrated again down to 100, but would say the print is still a lot darker. (though had I processed it with this calibration I might have brightened the shadows a little, which might have corrected a little). The warmth appears to match the print better.

This is generally a dark room, with no real sources of glare or reflection.

When saving as a jpg from Photoshop, I am converting to sRGB, which is the colourspace the printer requests. The jpg seems to match the tone and brightness of the original pretty well. I haven't used any lab supplied profiles as they say you shouldn't need them if they do the colour correction, and I should probably have said, I did specify lab colour correction in the order.

Having had another look at the prints (2 on metallic, 2 on lustre and 1 on a smooth art silk fine art paper) the lustre prints are noticeably darker than the other paper types. So I still think there might an issue, but needs more investigation my end.

Off the back of this, I know I'm going to have to spend time looking at colour management again cos I can't go through this every time I want to print something, use a lab, etc etc. It's a result of not printing regularly or in any volume, and transitioning from just a photographer to printing and selling very very low volumes! It gets to a point where you feel you either need to commit and print and sell more regularly, or back off! Meh! :(

Thanks all - any recommendations on where to get colour management tutorials?
 
What monitor are you using?

The reason I ask because you mention ProPhotoRGB, now I know little about the gamut of that profile.......but aRGB is wider gamut than sRGB. However, not all monitors can show aRGB gamut but do show 100% of sRGB. So unless you are working with an end to end workflow where aRGB is usable and the pro lab uses aRGB then stick with sRGB from the beginning.......this is best(?) where working in raw for the initial PP'ing to get the most out the image before saving as an sRGB file.

To summarise, AFAIK unless the lab can handle other profiles then stick to sRGB. In the past in have also used the lab's profile to soft proof and adjust the pp to pull out of gamut areas back in.
 
Surely you would be better off calibrating your monitor and then using a printer that will send you a profile, I don’t understand why you would send anybody a file and ask them to colour correct it. You need to get it looking as YOU want it to look on screen, convert to their profile and off it goes. I think the first thing to do is actually talk to the printer and if he’s a good one (which I’m sure he is) you will be able to find a solution. This is why I always print my own.
 
Last edited:
You see this is where there is so much conflicting advice about what colour space is best to work in. I guess I've bought into the argument that I don't want to throw colour away until I have to, even if I can't use it right now, and as long as I check the conversion to sRGB that goes to the printer matches what I want to print, I should be OK. Might be the wrong argument! :)

The lab do offer profiles, but suggest you shouldn't need to use them, and I haven't in the past without any real issues. The big difference with this image is that it has a lot of dark detail. Soft proofing using their profiles desaturates the image a fair bit (a lot more so than has happened to the end print) and darkens it a little, but the print is still darker.

Ultimately, Ideally I would print my own, but the volumes I'd be printing just can't justify the cost of a decent printer, especially as I'm printing on larger paper sizes.
 
Last edited:
If you have to use aa printing lab then have you not taken the dark print to him and asked him why and what you can do about it. I understand the disappointment but maybe you are overthinking it and not just taking the easy route.... talking to him, I doubt he bites (but I may be wrong).
 
when you have finished with the image you should “convert” to their profile and not assign profile. Converting the image will give your look to their profile. Not many printers actually go to the effort of colour managing and just convert to their colour space if necessary and send it to the printer.the chances of your calibration being the same ad theirs is virtually nil.
 
gerry s said:
when you have finished with the image you should “convert” to their profile and not assign profile. Converting the image will give your look to their profile. Not many printers actually go to the effort of colour managing and just convert to their colour space if necessary and send it to the printer.the chances of your calibration being the same ad theirs is virtually nil.
Click to expand...
Surely that will depend on the particular lab... If you have converted to their profile which was supplied for soft-proofing the image and they prepare your print using that same profile as the 'translator' then you are into the realms of incorrectness due to double profiling.
If they are not colour managing at all then this advise is right.
If they are colour managing this advise is incorrect.
It is surely better to check with the lab... If I am preparing a print for someone my profile is supplied purely for the purposes of soft- proofing and they are instructed to send me that soft-proofed file in either aRGB or sRGB.
 
And I asked in post #2 as to whether the OP had asked the lab for an explanation.

;)
 
They're a big, well known and regarded professional lab, I know I could call them up tomorrow when they open, and they have been responsive to a point about my art paper print issues, but the distance makes it impossible to have any sort of meaningful and responsive relationship with them. I could send them the dark photo, but then I wouldn't have a copy to discuss it - I can just drop in and talk printing with them. I know I've got a lot to learn, but I'm not sure they're the people I'm going to learn it from. Whilst they've fixed the issue with the art paper prints, they haven't told me why it might have happened or offered any advice to avoid it in future, so my level of trust in the product has reduced, and the fact I've already had issues, and then go back with another just makes me look like i'm out to find fault or something. I'd imagine 99% of their customers are perfectly happy, but they're probably doing volume print orders day out, day in, and have their workflows, calibration, colour management, etc completely sorted.
 
Three choices:-
Talk through your problems with your printer
Find another printer close to home you can work with
Print your own (you know it makes sense)
 
gerry s said:
Three choices:-
Talk through your problems with your printer
Find another printer close to home you can work with
Print your own (you know it makes sense)
Click to expand...

I'll do 1 today
I've been looking at 2 but not been able to find one yet
and I'd quite happily do 3 if I thought I'd be printing enough volume to make it worth it and not end up with dried out print heads or ruined inks or any of those other horror stories I hear! :eek::D I want / need to be in more control of this printing thing one way or another....!
 
James Blonde said:
I want / need to be in more control of this printing thing one way or another....!
Click to expand...
That will still involve learning about colour management and implementing a managed workflow.

You need to find a printer, possibly closer to home that you can liaise with to achieve your desired output, this also involves the printer supplying you with accurate up to date profiles for soft proofing (I read an article the other day that analysed lab supplied profiles and some originated way back 2006/2008) plus providing you with the correct workflow for those profiles.

You do not have to produce full sized prints first off, simply get the lab to produce a smaller print on your chosen media, depending of the subject matter but a 6 x 4 inch print may be large enough to make a judgement, but around a 10 x 8 inch should give you plenty of information in order to call whether you are good to go for a larger version.

At the end of the day the only way you will be in full control is to print your own, to which there is a learning curve....
 
. _DSC1236 very small.jpg
LongLensPhotography said:
Can we see the image(s) in question please? It might be quite obvious then.
Click to expand...

Yes you can! :)

So what I see is a well (possibly a little over) saturated image, definite blue / purple in the sky, and a dark church in the middle of a lighter smokey town / hills. What was printed was a fair bit warmer (less blue) and a much darker foreground, particularly in the lustre images. Taking a photo of the print just isn't showing what I'm seeing so seems pointless, but will be curious to know what you guys who know what you're talking about see!

Interestingly, I found and visited a local printer today. He did a couple of test prints from an EPS file on his large format printer on normal silk papers, which look VERY dark and with the saturation drained out of them. the closest profile I could find in Photoshop to what the print looks like was either a Canon IJ Color Printer Profile 2005 or a Fujifilm F125 printing density, but even those are nowhere near as dark as what he produced, and he doesn't have any profiles I can apply, so not sure i'm any better off as correcting would be trial and error, but at least he's local.

(though here's something odd. I always save 2 copies of the jpg - one full size for printing, and one reduced to around 72dpi / 1200 x 800 for web. I accidentally uploaded the 72dpi / 1200 x 800 copy here and it looked much more like what he printed than the photo I've been seeing and processing on the screen (and the 800 x 600 version I've now added here).


Oh, and for those of you who are saying I should print my own, this chap is selling a nice printer - I think it's a Canon IP6400 12 colour large format printer - for £700, though needs new inks and possibly 2 new print heads.... That would just be silly, wouldn't it.... Like giving a monkey a Ferrari and expecting them not to destroy it in 2 minutes... :tumbleweed:
 
Last edited:
James Blonde said:
That would just be silly, wouldn't it.... Like giving a monkey a Ferrari and expecting them not to destroy it in 2 minutes...
Click to expand...
Yes! Don't go there. But it's a powerful fantasy. Depends how much disposable income you have. I'm sticking with the lab route for my stuff.
 
James Blonde said:
. View attachment 118810


Yes you can! :)

So what I see is a well (possibly a little over) saturated image, definite blue / purple in the sky, and a dark church in the middle of a lighter smokey town / hills. What was printed was a fair bit warmer (less blue) and a much darker foreground, particularly in the lustre images. Taking a photo of the print just isn't showing what I'm seeing so seems pointless, but will be curious to know what you guys who know what you're talking about see!

Interestingly, I found and visited a local printer today. He did a couple of test prints from an EPS file on his large format printer on normal silk papers, which look VERY dark and with the saturation drained out of them. the closest profile I could find in Photoshop to what the print looks like was either a Canon IJ Color Printer Profile 2005 or a Fujifilm F125 printing density, but even those are nowhere near as dark as what he produced, and he doesn't have any profiles I can apply, so not sure i'm any better off as correcting would be trial and error, but at least he's local.

(though here's something odd. I always save 2 copies of the jpg - one full size for printing, and one reduced to around 72dpi / 1200 x 800 for web. I accidentally uploaded the 72dpi / 1200 x 800 copy here and it looked much more like what he printed than the photo I've been seeing and processing on the screen (and the 800 x 600 version I've now added here).


Oh, and for those of you who are saying I should print my own, this chap is selling a nice printer - I think it's a Canon IP6400 12 colour large format printer - for £700, though needs new inks and possibly 2 new print heads.... That would just be silly, wouldn't it.... Like giving a monkey a Ferrari and expecting them not to destroy it in 2 minutes... :tumbleweed:
Click to expand...


OK, firstly the inkjet will print brighter or closer to screen than C-types, just bare in mind these have to be in reasonably frequent use to avoid drying of ink and expensive damage... I really don't like C-types and their extremely narrow colour gamut (far less than sRGB!) - only good for portraits and weddings.


I'm actually not surprised about how you describe the prints.

1) If you crop the image just to the sky you will see in the histogram there is almost no blue there. That's not necessarily a bad. But it could certainly be a little bit brighter.
2) Crop to the foreground and the histogram is all in shadow area. It will print very dark. Remember prints are not backlit by LEDs! You could easily increase exposure +1 or more to the ground by adding a grad. Also this is where all the blue colour is... (not in the sky!)
3) You've done a reasonably good job controlling highlights within the outdated and narrow sRGB profile and avoiding clipping. However, this was done by bringing exposure down across the board. A slightly better strategy is to use local adjustments where possible: a) increase ground exposure, b) add radial filter (whites -10, saturation -10, exposure -0.1, feather 90% in Lightroom) around the brightest part across the horizon. c) perhaps adjust white balance slightly towards blue end. Then you can boost exposure.
if you print yourself you won't be limited to sRGB and then you won't have such headache to with the reds.
4) Make sure you edit on light grey (18%) background, as default black will surely lead to false impression of brightness.

Just to give you an idea I went through a similar process years ago with this image http://www.longlensphotography.co.uk/bristol/h291ca909
To start with it was edited a bit like yours. The first test prints were horrid dark. Now after some tweaking (as displayed) it gives well exposed prints I'm more than happy to sell. The sole purpose of cheap 6x4" prints is that you can test at very low cost and bin them.
 
LongLensPhotography said:
Just to give you an idea I went through a similar process years ago with this image http://www.longlensphotography.co.uk/bristol/h291ca909
To start with it was edited a bit like yours. The first test prints were horrid dark. Now after some tweaking (as displayed) it gives well exposed prints I'm more than happy to sell. The sole purpose of cheap 6x4" prints is that you can test at very low cost and bin them.
Click to expand...

Yep, can see what you mean with yours and what I'm probably looking to achieve with the screen version, so thanks for that! :D

I tend to be fairly broad brush with my adjustments - a grad is usually as broad as I go and only rarely use local adjustment / brushes, but I think that's down to my lack of accuracy and use of brushes. I'll have a play around with this again then and see what I can do more locally.

As for this printer, yep, it's a pipe dream and if the colour gamut of that type of printer is part of the problem with the prints he did for me, then I don't think I'd want to touch it as it's just so very different to what's on the screen. I'm very aware of the maintenance headaches with those things, and the need for them to be used regularly, which is partly why I haven't done my own printing - I haven't done enough of it!. Hell, I have enough of a problem with my Canon MG7750 desktop printer, where lack of use of some colours resulted in a clogged head and wasting a ton of ink getting it working again! But it's also getting to a stage that, maybe I would print more if I had a decent larger printer? I mean people buy prints, they don't buy jpgs. hmm...
 
A compromise would be to find a good knowledgeable local printer that will take 16bit aRGB or prophotoRGB TIFF files and finish the rest. It won't be cheap, won't integrate well into crappy platforms like Zenfolio, but will deliver great prints with zero hardware cost.
 
Epson sc-p600/800 (A3/A2)
No head problems with this model
Print permanence between 100 to 200yrs
No problems with irregular printing
Absolute control of output.
Brilliant b&w with abw
Stunning colour printing
Why would you leave it to somebody else?
 
How do they cope with periods of not being used? and how much are they? and what are ink costs like? (Not trying to temp me.... noooooooo......not at all...... and it isn't working...... noooooooo)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top