DSCL again

U

User.82148

Suspended / Banned
Messages
846
Edit My Images
Yes
I have used DSCL on quite a few occasions and have never had a problem, however my last order resulted in dark prints one mounted on aluminium and the other on wood. My desktop screen is calibrated and I used the relevant DSCL print profile. After I asked them to check if it been correctly printed they sent me a 7x5 print which is very similar to the original product. This suggests my set up is wrong and/or is not compatible with their settings.

Other than one other order, which was fine, I have not used their print profile.

I have had no issues with other print labs including Loxley.

Am I doing something wrong?
 
Did you soft proof with the profile? Did you send them an sRGB file? Even though your screen is calibrated the luminance may still be set too high.
 
My attitude is that generally, labs use standardised systems and a degree of quality control for print production. We individual photographers, though, might not.

So here, you've been using an unfamiliar medium (or two), which I haven't used so can't comment about them. Maybe you were lucky before. HOW did you employ their print profile? This is an exact workflow question. Did you soft-proof with it, or convert to it and embed it?
 
PhilH04 said:
Did you soft proof with the profile? Did you send them an sRGB file? Even though your screen is calibrated the luminance may still be set too high.
Click to expand...

I exported from tiff and embedded their profile, not soft proofed. I have sinced checked on Lightroom using soft proofing and noticed no difference. Sent as sRGB.
 
droj said:
My attitude is that generally, labs use standardised systems and a degree of quality control for print production. We individual photographers, though, might not.

So here, you've been using an unfamiliar medium (or two), which I haven't used so can't comment about them. Maybe you were lucky before. HOW did you employ their print profile? This is an exact workflow question. Did you soft-proof with it, or convert to it and embed it?
Click to expand...

I exported from Tiff to jpeg embedded at this stage. No proofing. This was consistent with their guidance. I have sinced soft proofed the jpg and noticed no difference.

I'm prepared to admit I did something wrong, just want to know what.
 
I get confused. Let's go back to square one. You have a picture file, your original - a tif, you say? It must have a colour space - but what? What's your starting point? And what apps are you using during the transition?

Or if I may gallop ahead - their print profile for a specific medium is for soft-proofing purposes only. You perform soft-proofing on your original file, and adjust it as seems necessary (checking gamma, contrast, and gamut as you will, so that it will look right on the target device / medium that the profile represents). Then you save the adjusted file as srgb. But you don't convert to the print profile, or embed it. The purpose of soft-proofing is to warn you of what the result will be, not to prescribe it.

(As a footnote, we're talking here about sending files to photo-print, and not to press.)
 
Last edited:
droj said:
I get confused. Let's go back to square one. You have a picture file, your original - a tif, you say? It must have a colour space - but what? What's your starting point? And what apps are you using during the transition?

Or if I may gallop ahead - their print profile for a specific medium is for soft-proofing purposes only. You perform soft-proofing on your original file, and adjust it as seems necessary (checking gamma, contrast, and gamut as you will, so that it will look right on the target device that the profile represents). Then you save the adjusted file as srgb. But you don't convert to the print profile, or embed it. The purpose of soft-proofing is to warn you of what the result will be, not to prescribe it.

(As a footnote, we're talking here about sending files to photo-print, and not to press.)
Click to expand...

I start with a RAW file, process in LR, export to Nik Dfine, save back to LR as a Tif and then export to Jpeg importing the DSCL profile.

Hope this helps.
 
Archie747 said:
Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
No, it doesn't. What do you mean by 'importing' the DSCL profile? Do you mean that you're embedding it? Read my post above. This is starting to sound like a re-run of recent posts on here about sending to print ...
 
Last edited:
Funnily enough, I've had a couple of prints back recently from them printed on Permajet Fine Art Paper that I haven't been at all happy with. One in particular they had printed for me in the past perfectly, but I needed another copy and what they have produced this time is totally different from the same file and not in a good way. I had been thinking about dipping a toe into home printing (particularly given the price of their fine art prints), and this might just push me enough to do it.
 
droj said:
Or if I may gallop ahead - their print profile for a specific medium is for soft-proofing purposes only. You perform soft-proofing on your original file, and adjust it as seems necessary (checking gamma, contrast, and gamut as you will, so that it will look right on the target device / medium that the profile represents). Then you save the adjusted file as srgb. But you don't convert to the print profile, or embed it. The purpose of soft-proofing is to warn you of what the result will be, not to prescribe it.
Click to expand...
Rog has explained the workflow exactly (and better than I could I think)... You soft proof with the supplied profile, it is not intended to be embedded/converted or applied to your image in any other way!

If you send the lab a file that is converted to their profile you will end up with a print that is double profiled...

Also within the calibration process you need to set your monitor luminance correctly, this will vary according to conditions where you work and where you view the print.

It is important to note that even home printing should be carried out using the correct workflow.
 
srhmoto said:
Funnily enough, I've had a couple of prints back recently from them printed on Permajet Fine Art Paper that I haven't been at all happy with.
Click to expand...
There are other labs printing on what gets called 'fine art' media - ie inkjet papers. Look at Printspace or Point101, for instance, but everybody seems to be at it these days.
srhmoto said:
I needed another copy and what they have produced this time is totally different from the same file
Click to expand...
Did you prepare the file for print in the same way as before?
 
droj said:
There are other labs printing on what gets called 'fine art' media - ie inkjet papers. Look at Printspace or Point101, for instance, but everybody seems to be at it these days.

Did you prepare the file for print in the same way as before?
Click to expand...

I'll check those other sites out.

It was the exact same file that I had previously sent them, so yes it was identical in every way.

Simon.
 
I wouldn't touch them with a barge pole..when my minilab went down I used them for some 16x12's I needed in a hurry..never again..:mad:..glad I got my minilab fixed..:D
 
I used them twice and nothing bad to report. Errmm, are we supposed to say anything good :runaway:
 
I discussed the issue with DSCL today. I use the same screen calibration tool as they do and the last part of my workflow is what they recommend.

As noted above I start with a RAW file, process in LR, export to Nik Dfine, save back to LR as a Tif and then export to Jpeg importing the DSCL profile. Importing the profile is the wrong term from what has been said above. When I export to Jpeg from LR, under file settings, there is a Colour space drop down menu, where I select the DSCL profile.

They have asked me to recalibrate my screen, reprocess the image from the original raw file and send it to them for test printing.
 
To qualify what I said earlier a little - I’ve used DSCL regularly for years. I have had problems infrequently before (both caused by my mistakes in image preparation, and printing / handling errors by them), but they have always been put right immediately and with no quibble. I think this time I’m just surprised at the difference between two prints produced by them from the identical file. Note that as it was a fine art print, the only requirement is to send it as an sRGB file, and they sort the profile and any adjustments out prior to printing. I guess that’s what makes these prints so expensive. I’ve just ordered 6 standard lustre prints from them that should be here by Saturday. I’ll see how they turn out, and perhaps update this thread again then.

Simon.
 
srhmoto said:
To qualify what I said earlier a little - I’ve used DSCL regularly for years. I have had problems infrequently before (both caused by my mistakes in image preparation, and printing / handling errors by them), but they have always been put right immediately and with no quibble. I think this time I’m just surprised at the difference between two prints produced by them from the identical file. Note that as it was a fine art print, the only requirement is to send it as an sRGB file, and they sort the profile and any adjustments out prior to printing. I guess that’s what makes these prints so expensive. I’ve just ordered 6 standard lustre prints from them that should be here by Saturday. I’ll see how they turn out, and perhaps update this thread again then.

Simon.
Click to expand...

Please let us know. Did you use their profile for the lustre prints?
 
Archie747 said:
Please let us know. Did you use their profile for the lustre prints?
Click to expand...

Yes I did. I did exactly the same as what I’ve always done. Process the image as normal, then soft proof in LR adding some additional exposure (+0.25), contrast (+10) and vibrancy (+5) before exporting via the print module with DSCL’s lustre profile embedded into the image.

I’ll let you know they’re like when they arrive.

Simon.
 
So that's two of you embedding the print profile, which as I understand it (see above) is for soft-proofing. Simon, in my estimation you got it right up to the point of export - you soft-proofed, made the compensating adjustments, but then rather than exporting as srgb you embedded the print profile. I feel that dscl's web advice is garbled and should be re-written, but note that they contradict themselves by asking for file submission as srgb, which I believe to be the correct method.

Maybe in this case, the effect is minimal, so you got away with it.
 
Their website describes the workflow for using their print file, which the OP has followed. From my interaction with them, as alluded to above, using their profile made the results I was sent less bad, but still not good enough, and their comment regarding the colour paper they use returning warm prints was entirely unsatisfactory. I won't use them in the future because for whatever reason I get better prints elsewhere.
 
ancient_mariner said:
Their website describes the workflow for using their print file
Click to expand...
Which as I just pointed out and if you read it, is garbled (contradictory).

However - I suspect that the operative part is that if you soft-proof on a well set-up display, adjust accordingly, and save, it might not matter what profile's embedded, since the dscl printer will assume srgb anyway? They have told me (though the guy didn't sound 100% sure!) that they print (C-types at least) without adjustments. I've known other labs have a different workflow, and some would auto-adjust sent image files unless instructed not to.

I'm about to put them to the test - they've printed fine for me before - and send them 20 files for 16" x 12" Fuji lustre prints. So in a few days we'll see what gives ...
 
Last edited:
Now - labs may vary - so if in doubt I recommend a dialogue - but here is Loxley's advice for C-types:

"
Soft proofing In Photoshop

It's important that the profile is used for proofing only and not saved to your files.

To soft proof:

  • View > Proof Setup > Custom...
  • Device to Simulate: Your downloaded Loxley profile
  • Rendering Intent: Perceptual
  • Black Point Compensation should be checked
  • Click OK
"

Note that print prices from such as Loxley or Peak might be four times the dscl prices!
 
When I spoke to DSCL they recommended not to use soft proofing. Hopefully we will get to the bottom of this.

I produced two jpegs today from the same raw file. One sRGB and one with their profile. There was little noticeable difference between the two, other than the one with their profile lifted the shadows slightly.
 
Archie747 said:
recommended not to use soft proofing
Click to expand...
This to me sounds crazy. Soft-proofing gives an invaluable preview of how a file's going to print. In the case of Fuji C-types the paper is quite bright, so from a well-managed display, I find that images need darkening and a bit of a contrast curve adding. I made a preset for this (a PS action) that I can batch apply to the contents of a print folder. And the prints that come back resemble how the images appeared originally on my screen, before that adjustment. Which is what is wanted.
 
droj said:
So that's two of you embedding the print profile, which as I understand it (see above) is for soft-proofing. Simon, in my estimation you got it right up to the point of export - you soft-proofed, made the compensating adjustments, but then rather than exporting as srgb you embedded the print profile. I feel that dscl's web advice is garbled and should be re-written, but note that they contradict themselves by asking for file submission as srgb, which I believe to be the correct method.

Maybe in this case, the effect is minimal, so you got away with it.
Click to expand...

I’ve always embedded their profile when ordering standard prints, and in the main have always been delighted with the results. I’ll find out on Saturday if that is still the case. AFAIK, they only want the sRGB profile when ordering fine art prints.

Simon.
 
droj said:
Which as I just pointed out and if you read it, is garbled (contradictory).

However - I suspect that the operative part is that if you soft-proof on a well set-up display, adjust accordingly, and save, it might not matter what profile's embedded, since the dscl printer will assume srgb anyway? They have told me (though the guy didn't sound 100% sure!) that they print (C-types at least) without adjustments. I've known other labs have a different workflow, and some would auto-adjust sent image files unless instructed not to.

I'm about to put them to the test - they've printed fine for me before - and send them 20 files for 16" x 12" Fuji lustre prints. So in a few days we'll see what gives ...
Click to expand...

Sorry - I missed that bit.

I tried soft proofing using their profile, but the results were nonsense - the image looked like the contrast slider had been reduced a long way.

Hope your prints look good.
 
I've just uploaded 40 image files for 16" x 12" prints on Fuji lustre. So in a few days we ought to see what gives. I'll report any issues here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top