Prints come back looking washed out

Craigus

Craigus

Messages
1,559
Name
Craig
Edit My Images
Yes
I've recently had a few prints done with DS Colour Labs who have provided a great service and I will definitely be using them again. However, the prints have come back with the colours looking a bit washed out. I'm not having a moan in any way as I'm sure it's something I can control at my end, and would like to know what I could try to improve the next batch.

I have calibrated my monitor with a Colour Munki that I borrowed from work and uploaded the files at the correct sizes as TIFF's. There is one picture that looked a bit over-cooked in terms of the colours on the monitor following PP, but this came back as the best looking print.

If it is a case of processing them to this degree for printing then I guess that is do-able, just wondering if anyone else has a similar experience?
 
I feel your pain, I had the same image done in 2 sizes a 24x16 and a 10x8. The 24x16 came back as it was displayed on the computer (27" Mac) the 10x8 was dull & washed out. After speaking wth DS colour lab they have explained to me that the printer that prints the 24x16 image is a different printer to the one that does the smaller sizes i:e the 10x8 but the paper is the same. They have explained that I need to down load from there website the paper colour profile software & load the profile software into PP. I'm not exactly sure how it works but I have done this tonight, they tell me that when you upload images the printer knows the format that is is meant to print the image at. As I haven't yet sent any smaller images to be printed I can't tell you if the above works. When I contacted them & explained my predicament they were extremely helpful. Printing images is something that I haven't done much of, going forward hopefully the above will give me good results. I must add I have calibrated my monitor using the Mac's internal method but haven't used any external devices yet.
 
Are you sure you've used the right colourspace for the printer - the only time that's happened to me was when LR was set for the wrong colourspace & all the images came back looking washed out & slightly yellow.
 
When you uploaded the images to The lab, did you convert them to SRgb colour space?
 
Thanks for the responses guys, I didn't download the profile thingy from the website so will do that for the next batch and see if it is any better.
 
Most of the time this happens when sending them as adobe RGB.

If you don't get a specific profile, then send as sRGB
 
Never heard this happen from Dscl. I use them and after reading numerous threads the normal problem is they are darker than the screen when printed so I just brighten them up a bit before sending. I got the profiles but don't use them as I had the darker image problem.

Gaz
 
I have all my club competition prints printed by DSCL, and I know several other club members use them and are happy with the results.
I normally have them printed around A3 or similar, depending on the aspect ratio.

I calibrate my Dell 2412 monitor with a colormunki "Display" calibrator.
The images are exported from Lightroom as sRGB jpg at an appropriate size and with the DSCL colour profile, which is usually for Fuji Lustre finish paper.
Did you use the DSCL profile for the paper you wanted?
Although I find very little difference between sRGB and the Fuji Profile it's probably worth converting to the DSCL profile.
For help on profiles the information is here: http://dscolourlabs.co.uk/about/Technical_Support

I find the DSCL prints are an exact match for what I see on my screen, and I'm very happy with the results.
 
Hi guys, thanks for all the replies. Interestingly I have calibrated my screen with the colourmunki as mentioned above, but when I view the images that I had printed on a screen that hasn't been calibrated or with the profile disabled, they look much more like the actual prints.

The colourmunki profile has a strong warm orange/yellow feel to it, I've gone through the calibration process a couple of times now and it is the same each time.
 
Craigus said:
Hi guys, thanks for all the replies. Interestingly I have calibrated my screen with the colourmunki as mentioned above, but when I view the images that I had printed on a screen that hasn't been calibrated or with the profile disabled, they look much more like the actual prints.

The colourmunki profile has a strong warm orange/yellow feel to it, I've gone through the calibration process a couple of times now and it is the same each time.
Click to expand...
When I view the Corrected/Uncorrected comparison at the end of the Colormunki calibration process, the "Calibrated" image appears very slightly darker (maybe 1/3 stop) and shifts towards a slightly redish brown overall tint, but there's certainly not a major shift in either brightness or colour balance.
One thing NOT to use is the automatic ambient light correction in the calibration profile - make sure that is not enabled.
What screen brightness and gamma settings are you using for your calibration?
 
Last edited:
My personal experience dictates to only print on fine art papers (baryta / semi gloss where poss) - colours are always a lot closer to screen and there is no darkening. Also you get a nice thick 300+ gsm paper.
 
Just thought I would update this thread in case anybody is doing a search and reads this.

I have been reading a fair bit recently to try to get a handle on printing and colour management. I found a usb stick that had the original tiff files that I uploaded to DSCL which were exported from lightroom with ProphotoRGB colour space.

Also, when printing on my home printer I have been incorrectly using "assign profile" in PS to view on screen - making the photos completely lose vibrancy and look muddy, whereas I now realise I should be using "convert to profile" which does a much better job of keeping the vibrancy and range of colours you see in Lightroom.

I assume the above is the reason for my initial prints looking muddy, do the printers in the lab essentially do what PS does when you use "assign profile"?
 
Craigus said:
Just thought I would update this thread in case anybody is doing a search and reads this.

I have been reading a fair bit recently to try to get a handle on printing and colour management. I found a usb stick that had the original tiff files that I uploaded to DSCL which were exported from lightroom with ProphotoRGB colour space.

Also, when printing on my home printer I have been incorrectly using "assign profile" in PS to view on screen - making the photos completely lose vibrancy and look muddy, whereas I now realise I should be using "convert to profile" which does a much better job of keeping the vibrancy and range of colours you see in Lightroom.

I assume the above is the reason for my initial prints looking muddy, do the printers in the lab essentially do what PS does when you use "assign profile"?
Click to expand...
Yes. As you have found "assign profile" is a temporary conversion that does not alter the original image file, whereas "convert to profile" is a permanent change.
If you sent images to DSCL in "ProPhoto" colour space then it's not surprising they came out looking muddy and lacking dynamics.
DSCL clearly state that images should be submitted in sRGB colour space and profiled to match the paper they are to be printed on.
ProPhoto is a very wide gamut space which contains ALL of the colour information from the original raw file.
I believe that some printing companies will accept images in sRGB and then profile them to match their printing process.
The reason DSCL are cheap is because they want the customer to do ALL of the image preparation, thus saving them the time and trouble of doing it for you.
 
Thanks for the response. That makes sense that that is the reason they are cheaper.

I'm going to order a couple more prints soon, my plan this time is to export TIFF's from Lightroom into sRGB, and then go to Photoshop and convert them to their ICC profile. Is that the correct way to do it?

Their website seems to indicate that we should convert to their profiles in the FAQ section for best results:

What profile should I assign?
Click to expand...
Ideally you should assign our own profiles but if not then sRGB is very close. For more information click here.
Click to expand...
http://dscolourlabs.co.uk/about/Technical_Support#ColourProfile

As far as I know you can't do that in Lightroom, only convert to sRGB?
 
Craigus said:
Thanks for the response. That makes sense that that is the reason they are cheaper.

I'm going to order a couple more prints soon, my plan this time is to export TIFF's from Lightroom into sRGB, and then go to Photoshop and convert them to their ICC profile. Is that the correct way to do it?

Their website seems to indicate that we should convert to their profiles in the FAQ section for best results:



As far as I know you can't do that in Lightroom, only convert to sRGB?
Click to expand...
No - You can apply the profile in Lightroom.
Click the normal "Export" dialog.
Under "File Settings" select JPEG for your "Image Format" and the DSCL print profile should appear in the drop down "Color Space" box - if it's not there you may need to browse for it under "Other..."
Once you have selected Image Format and Color Space you can export from Lightroom in the normal way.
 
Brian G said:
When I view the Corrected/Uncorrected comparison at the end of the Colormunki calibration process, the "Calibrated" image appears very slightly darker (maybe 1/3 stop) and shifts towards a slightly redish brown overall tint, but there's certainly not a major shift in either brightness or colour balance.
One thing NOT to use is the automatic ambient light correction in the calibration profile - make sure that is not enabled.
What screen brightness and gamma settings are you using for your calibration?
Click to expand...
If you've calibrated the screen to sRGB, how close is the room to the correct sRGB viewing condition.

A true sRGB screen isn't very bright (80nits I believe, whereas my TV and Laptop can easily hit 300nits) so the viewing illumination is low.
 
st599 said:
If you've calibrated the screen to sRGB, how close is the room to the correct sRGB viewing condition.

A true sRGB screen isn't very bright (80nits I believe, whereas my TV and Laptop can easily hit 300nits) so the viewing illumination is low.
Click to expand...
The SI unit of luminous emitance is the Lux, which is what the X-Rite calibrator measures.
Before running the colour calibration software, one of the earliest steps (after measuring the room ambient light level) is to adjust the screen brightness to a recommended level of between 100 and 120 lux.

Most computer monitors are way too bright "out of the box" which is what, if not adjusted, gives rise to the "my prints are too dark" syndrome.
I have no idea about TV brightness since most people seem to run them at maximum brightness, but I understand that an iPhone 4 can achieve a screen brightness of around 540 lux.
I don't edit photos on either a TV or an iPhone.
 
Brian G said:
The SI unit of luminous emitance is the Lux, which is what the X-Rite calibrator measures.
Before running the colour calibration software, one of the earliest steps (after measuring the room ambient light level) is to adjust the screen brightness to a recommended level of between 100 and 120 lux.

Most computer monitors are way too bright "out of the box" which is what, if not adjusted, gives rise to the "my prints are too dark" syndrome.
I have no idea about TV brightness since most people seem to run them at maximum brightness, but I understand that an iPhone 4 can achieve a screen brightness of around 540 lux.
I don't edit photos on either a TV or an iPhone.
Click to expand...
Lux is a measure of illuminance (light falling on to a surface), nits (or more correctly, candela per square metre) is a measure of luminance (light emitted from a source).

IEC 61966-2-1:1999 (the sRGB specification) specifies the screen white point luminance of 80 cd/m^2.

Calibrators measure screen luminance. Some attempt to monitor illuminance (ambient light levels) and adjust accordingly, but that is inexact and, as sRGB is display-referred, incorrect.

http://sensing.konicaminolta.us/2015/08/luminance-vs-illuminance/
 
FWIW my screen is set at <100cd/m^2, not at PC now so cannot recall exact figure.

Edit ~ just checked the calibration data and it is 95.5cd/m^2
 
Last edited:
st599 said:
Lux is a measure of illuminance (light falling on to a surface), nits (or more correctly, candela per square metre) is a measure of luminance (light emitted from a source).

IEC 61966-2-1:1999 (the sRGB specification) specifies the screen white point luminance of 80 cd/m^2.

Calibrators measure screen luminance. Some attempt to monitor illuminance (ambient light levels) and adjust accordingly, but that is inexact and, as sRGB is display-referred, incorrect.

http://sensing.konicaminolta.us/2015/08/luminance-vs-illuminance/
Click to expand...
At the risk of "nit picking" (pun intended) the SI units of light measurement are the Lumen, the Candela and the Lux.
Nit is a non-SI name.
The term nit is believed to come from the Latin word nitere, to shine..
The X-Rite software measures in lux and that's what I refer to.
 
Brian G said:
At the risk of "nit picking" (pun intended) the SI units of light measurement are the Lumen, the Candela and the Lux.
Nit is a non-SI name.
The term nit is believed to come from the Latin word nitere, to shine..
The X-Rite software measures in lux and that's what I refer to.
Click to expand...
Not according to their spec sheet or user guide:

https://xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/L7-518_i1PRO-i1PRO2_en.pdf

https://xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/L11-070_Monitor_Opt_en.pdf
 
You have sent a file to be printed to two different sizes. The prints are printed on separate machines. Surely the machines should be calibrated to the same profile. You got one correct print and one bad one off the same file. Too my mind the variable being different printers then my logic says one of the printers not calibrated correctly.
 
st599 said:
Not according to their spec sheet or user guide:

https://xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/L7-518_i1PRO-i1PRO2_en.pdf

https://xritephoto.com/documents/literature/en/L11-070_Monitor_Opt_en.pdf
Click to expand...
Hmm. A bit puzzled by those links.
I don't use either of those products.
Since the "nit" is a non-SI unit, it's use is about as relevant as feet and inches or pounds and ounces in the modern world.
I mentioned previously that I'm using the ColorMunki "Display" calibrator, which uses cd/m2 and lux as it's measurement units, so that's what I'm used to seeing.
The units are obviously irrelevant, it's the results that matter and, as I have said, my prints come back from DSCL matching what I see on my calibrated screen, so I am happy.
 
Last edited:
Brian G said:
Hmm. A bit puzzled by those links.
I don't use either of those products.
Since the "nit" is a non-SI unit, it's use is about as relevant as feet and inches or pounds and ounces in the modern world.
I mentioned previously that I'm using the ColorMunki "Display" calibrator, which uses cd/m2 and lux as it's measurement units, so that's what I'm used to seeing.
The units are obviously irrelevant, it's the results that matter and, as I have said, my prints come back from DSCL matching what I see on my calibrated screen, so I am happy.
Click to expand...

Nit is an American term and is equal to the SI Unit cd/m^2.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top