Extremely Dark Photos

[Sargee225]

Tried out a printing mob in QLD that I heard about on the forum and got about $75 worth of photos, they arrived today and they are all very dark.
dark compared to the same file that has been printed at Kmart and dark compared to what i see on my monitor which is a Dell U2715H, about 2 weeks old and has been factory calibrated

any suggestions, apart from perhaps not spending so much without knowing what its going to turn out like

Thanks

[ameerat42]

Get straight back to them and - based on your own observations - ask them Y!!!
Get some answer back from them. - I'm surprised they didn't furnish you one, like
"Hey, mate. Geez yer pictures are DARK:eek:"

If you're absolutely certain there's 0-thing wrong with the original files, then...
(Leave for others at this point.)

Any chance of posting one up here as you treated it?

[John King]

Disappointing!

And I second what Am said. Be an active consumer!

BTW, this sort of thing is exactly why I jumped for an Epson R3880 printer - if things go wrong, I only have myself to blame.

[Sargee225]

127952
Top photo is the scanned print


127953
Bottom is the image sent to print


can hardly see the tail in the photos

[tandeejay]

I've seen comments elsewhere that when using a printer you've never used before, you should always get a test print done to check their ability to reproduce your images.

What colour space is the print company is using?

[Glenda]

Monitor brightness can play a part also. I've seen where people recommend upping the brightness on digital files about 20% before getting them printed. I'd definitely be contacting the company and asking them as well.

[arthurking83]

Monitor brightness can play a part also. I've seen where people recommend upping the brightness on digital files about 20% before getting them printed. I'd definitely be contacting the company and asking them as well.

Shouldn't be required!
The point of calibrating the monitor is so that what you see is what you get on any other calibrated monitor.
This should then coincide with any print made too.

Of course, if you want 100% exact replicas of the file in a print, then it's best to calibrate the printer and paper type too, but for a 99% accurate rendering on print this isn't needed.

I've printed some sample/test images on my crappy laser printer and they come out looking acceptable. Not perfect of course, but usable and definitely not dark in any way.

Judging by the image rendered of the file to be printed against the scan of the print, I think the printing mob have stuffed up monumentally!
All my prints I've made, of any value or worth(ie. not test prints on my crappy home printers) have never needed any pre print editing.

[ameerat42]

I agree, AK. At this stage it's their fault. Answers are needed.:nod:

[Sargee225]

Sent an email to the company trying to find out what the reason was behind it and how to set my monitor the same as it will print and this was the reply

Dear Steven

Thanks for your email. We try and keep colour management issues relatively simple, however in order to address such issues we need to explain quite a few things which can make it appear quite complex. Because of this complexity it is therefore not a suitable topic to be discussing over email. If you could call us at a suitable time to discuss this, it would be much appreciated.


Colour space is sRGB
colour mode is RGB 8bit

[arthurking83]

The issue isn't colour space related.

if it were, then the blue/cyan colour on the underside of the lizard wouldn't render 'roughly similar' at all.

There are thousands or millions of reasons why the difference, but colour space isn't, and I'm assuming that you've used a sRGB file for them to print from too?

ps. FYI, I've seen your thread on both my aRGB screen, and on my sRGB(barely) only screen. They look similar enough that you could safely say that it's not an issue.
Strangely tho(and just a passing comment), but the image file(ie. the second image for printing) looks just a tad nicer on the sRGB screen. Mainly in terms of tone(s) and overall rendering.
It is a subjective thing too tho, as the image also looks (relatively) larger compared to the settings on my aRGB screen.
The scan looks dastardly on both! :D

[Sargee225]

Just tried printing the same file on my b&w laser and the tail is still visible

files are all being converted to sRGB when saved, unless I'm doing something wrong in this process

[ameerat42]

Sargee. That sounds like a fob - watch them, and that's not just a "fob-watch".

Make sure you get answers. Do not hesitate to ask for your money back - yes, return the "&^%^%#(*)*-prints".

- - - Updated - - -

Basically, you need to find out why they gave you such unacceptably dark pictures.

They should have advised you of a problem. It is UN-professional (if not, sadly, unusual)>> these days.<< edited.

[raysul]

hello sargee225

Ok i'm bit confused on monitor calibration, your monitor is only 2 weeks old and has been factory calibrated, what does factory calibrated actually mean?
Are not all monitors calibrated at first at factory settings.

I may be wrong here, I would of thought a re-calibration would be needed with your own device's for correct printing needs

Ray

[Sargee225]

127980

[Glenda]

Shouldn't be required!
The point of calibrating the monitor is so that what you see is what you get on any other calibrated monitor.
This should then coincide with any print made too.

Of course, if you want 100% exact replicas of the file in a print, then it's best to calibrate the printer and paper type too, but for a 99% accurate rendering on print this isn't needed.

I've printed some sample/test images on my crappy laser printer and they come out looking acceptable. Not perfect of course, but usable and definitely not dark in any way.

Judging by the image rendered of the file to be printed against the scan of the print, I think the printing mob have stuffed up monumentally!
All my prints I've made, of any value or worth(ie. not test prints on my crappy home printers) have never needed any pre print editing.

A lot of pros recommend it though. Horizon just mentioned the same thing in another thread about printing and there are heaps of items about it on the net eg http://lightroomkillertips.com/presets-the-trick-to-getting-good-prints/
and https://support.blurb.com/hc/en-us/articles/207794956-Avoid-printing-images-darker-than-you-expected. I once had a book printed by Blurb and it came back with all the images too dark - nowhere near as dark as the example in this thread - and Blurb re-printed the book without further cost.

I do think looking at the examples Sargee posted the printed version is way darker than would be caused by monitor brightness so I do hope he gets to the bottom of it and either gets all prints redone or a full refund.

[Sargee225]

Trying another online printing mob here in Adelaide so I can compare the same files, except this time I won't be spending so much

[Mark L]

127980

So what does that mean for photos on your screen?? And then the factory isn't using the computer that you have plugged into the screen.

[farmmax]

It is not that the print is darker overall, but as if the black point has been shifted. Any professional printer should immediately recognise there is a problem with the prints, if they all look like the scanned one you posted here. They should then have gone back to the source files to see if your files were responsible, or something went wrong in the printing process. Have they been in business very long? I can't imagine the people I use for printing letting prints like this go through.

Don't let them fob you off. I think you are owed some sort of explanation as to what has happened. I would have thought they would try and sort the problem out, then send reprints of the photos at no charge. There is always Fair Trading .

It will be interesting to see what the Adelaide printers prints look like.

[arthurking83]

The factory calibration will usually only be done to monitors that have their own internal lookup table.
That is, that monitor will look the same irrespective of the host device(ie. PC, laptop, Mac, or tablet or whatever! .. ) that runs it.

So .. assuming that Sarge has turned off any host device calibration software/colour profile settings on the computer driving the monitor, then the screen should render pretty well.
If Sarge has any other calibration stuff running on the PC, then it may conflict with what the factory has set and cause troubles.

But!.. in saying that: The image rendered of the file of the lizard displays well on my screen *
So we can assume that it renders well on Sarge's computer too.
The print is obviously overly dark .. so calibration isn't the problem here.

I reckon farmax is on the money. Printer's blackpoint setting on the file was somehow wrong.

Note to Sarge too:
I just had a quick peek at the monitor review on TFTCentral, and the factory calibration isn't actually ideal.
DeltaE values are all over the shop.
Note tho, that this still doesn't explain the print issue tho.
All those Delta E values mean is that the colour of your image on your PC may not be 100% accurate, so it may not render as vibrant in print as it looks on your screen.
This isn't the same as darkness levels tho. According to TFT's review the brightness from the factory is set to 122 cd/m2 .. which is fine.

I mentioned in my other reply tho, that the file image looks nicer on my sRGB screen, and a wee bit over saturated on my aRGB screen, and this is the real effect you may get from having a high and inconsistent set of DeltaE values.

Note too: that screen calibrates really well. So it's probably best to calibrate it if you have the ability.

I purchased my Samsung screen for a few reasons, and one of them was that the factory calibration was close to ideal, so when I first hooked it up, it was set pretty well.
Even knowing that, I still eventually took the time to calibrate it too.

[Sargee225]

Just got off the phone with them, they were happy to spend 20 mins on the phone explaining the importance of calibrating my monitor. Factory calibrations are no good
differences between Kmart prints are apparently Kmart apply an auto correction to your photos when you print them.


Upgraded computers a few weeks ago so didn't really want to have to spend more $$ on a calibration device right away

any recommendations on a calibration devices. Printing company recommends the i1 display pro

[sanger]

I know nothing about calibration etc but this whole thing sounds suss. If what they are saying is true then this issue would always be coming up.
Should they not be asking the customer if their computer is correctly calibrated, I doubt it.
Good luck with it.

[ameerat42]

...Err...!!!
...And they will do what, exactly...???

Are you saying that Harry Potter is dead???

[arthurking83]

..... If what they are saying is true then this issue would always be coming up.
.....

:th3:

The issue is, if you display the image here(where no auto correction is applied) and we all see it looking fine, then they should be seeing it fine too.
Brightness levels on the image looks fine, and I assume many other members see the image fine too.
My screen is calibrated, so the end result is that the image you sent them is fine in terms of brightness. That image should therefore print fine.
I have two screens(both calibrated) and the image shows up fine.

If your screen is so far out of whack in terms of calibration, then the file of the image you posted wouldn't look right on our calibrated monitors too!

Something you could try as an intermediate step is to download the TFTCentral icc profile from HERE (http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/articles/icc_profiles.htm#the_database)
On that database you scroll down to your monitors entry(ie. under D for Dell) and then click the link for your monitor model.
This will pop up the download box for the .icc profile. Save it and then follow the install steps lower down the page.

The install steps are pretty easy, just scroll down to the bottom of that database and follow the Win7 install procedure for Win7, 8 and 10.
Xp is lower down again, but as you have a new PC, I doubt you want/need that.

Note the series of values along the row for your monitor's model. They refer to the settings available on your monitors OSD settings. Write them down and change them in your OSD menu system on the screen too.

Note that it won't be an exact replication of the results they get as you almost certainly have a different graphics card to what hey used .. but it will be a closer match to ideal than the factory calibration.
So note that there are caveats when using foreign calibration results.

While I'm not a big fan of the Datacolor(Spyder) software, I don't really have any issues with their calibrators .. Spyder5 should be OK too. Hopefully their software has been improved.

[Sargee225]

Had a play around with the monitor and adjusted the colour to one of the preset modes > paper
it darkens the screen alot but still not as dark as the print
adjusted the brightness of the image and went down to Kmart to do a test print with no Auto enhance on the photo


The print looks pretty similar to the original image sent to print when my screen was set on standard
unfortunately, it looks like it could just be a case of inexperience and lack of knowledge.


Does monitor calibration adjust the brightness of your screen too?
colours are very similar, its only the brightness that's an issue




Not sure why they didn't question it but I wish they did, guy I spoke too seems pretty certain that its the calibration and nothing else, no plans on refunding the $75 or re-printing, although he was pretty keen on selling me a calibration device

[arthurking83]

.....


Does monitor calibration adjust the brightness of your screen too?
colours are very similar, its only the brightness that's an issue

Good software will ask you to input either a value for brightness(around 120-ish cd/m2) or maybe just set up the calibration point for a purpose(ie. photography/video editing/whatever) where it presets the brightness level.
Even better software will give you an option to pre set colour levels and brightness levels via the OSD system, where you adjust/tweak those things to a specific point for the software, and then the calibration point becomes more accurate or finely tuned.

That is; Imagine if a monitor is set to 100% brightness by the factory, which corresponds to a wild over brightening of the screen. The calibration software then needs to tweak the video card settings by a wild amount to compensate.
If the software had access to the screens internal hardware parts(ie. the OSD system) then it would/could do all the adjustments(both the OSD coarse adjustments, and the fine tuning graphics card type adjustments for you).

So, if your screen doesn't have the ability to allow the calibration software access to it's workings, then it's best to adjust brightness and individual colour levels to a point where the software is happy with.


..... Not sure why they didn't question it but I wish they did, guy I spoke too seems pretty certain that its the calibration and nothing else, no plans on refunding the $75 or re-printing, although he was pretty keen on selling me a calibration device

Of course he's gong to push this line! It's in his financial interest to do so, otherwise it'd cost him/them the cost of another print plus the postage fees!

I think the best way forward from this point is to send them a email/notice/call to highlight the point that you will not ever be doing business with ever again!
You would also point out that the issue is most definitely not a calibration issue, otherwise the colours would also be out of whack .. and probably worse than the brightness level alone!
You've sent the image to a few of your friends that use calibrated monitors and they all say the chroma and luminance levels are fine for that file, and that you've also had the image printed at another place and it's fine.

basically, if they're going to BS you, you BS them back! ;)
But make it a very clear understanding that you will never use their services again, and that you will advise others of their total lack of professionalism in handling this matter.
... whether you do or not isn't important .. letting them know all this is! They will take it to heart and concern themselves of any loss of potential business. I've been in business for myself a few times now and one thing I hated more than anything else is letting customers down! If they are in this game for the long haul, or they really love what they do(and people have been known for this!) .. then I think they may come back with an offer.
If not, then almost certainly they are fly-by-nighters and only interested in the one thing .. maximum profit!

I'd advise to download the icc profile I linked too in my above post.
Set the monitors brightness contrast and colour levels as per their settings load the icc as per their instructions and forget about it, until you do get a calibration device .. and not from that printing mob!

I had a quick peek at i1 Display Pro on ebay, and for about $300-ish it doesn't sound too badly priced.


One last thing(I just thought of).
Is there any chance that you send them another file that you may have edited for printing purposes.
I do this myself.
What I tend to do is to always use sRGB mode for the entire workflow(even still, after I acquired my aRGB monitor). It's just simpler with less risk for an issue somewhere.
But, what I have done(and will probably still do if I print anything else), is to also convert the raw file to aRGB and edit that file to a point where I save it an another copy of that image just for the purpose of printing it.

Did you do something like that?
Did you tweak the file in any way prior to getting it to the printer? if you emailed it or uploaded it to their site, can you retrieve it to see if it has been edited in some way.

[ameerat42]

This is as I see the story so far:

1. You sent files away to be printed, AND these files displayed reasonably well here.

2. You got back results that were unacceptable by any standards AND WITHOUT any
explanation given. NOTE: I do not count the discussion you had with the people as any
explanations at all. In fact, I fail to see why it took so long to say essentially NOTHING.

3. (A point on its own.) The strong implication you have got from them is that it is entirely
your fault and NOT ANY of theirs at all.

4. You have received plenty of considered advice here in this thread, which has examined
the likely reasons for the results you got back AND what ought to be done about them.

My conclusions are:
1. It is not your fault that the prints have come out dark.
2. You need to get them to recompense you in some way.
Two possible such ways are: a set of properly printed photos, OR,
your money back.
3. They have not been professional in their dealings with you.

I now withdraw from further discussion UNLESS it can be shown that I am
quite wrong.

[Sargee225]

One last thing(I just thought of).
Is there any chance that you send them another file that you may have edited for printing purposes.
I do this myself.
What I tend to do is to always use sRGB mode for the entire workflow(even still, after I acquired my aRGB monitor). It's just simpler with less risk for an issue somewhere.
But, what I have done(and will probably still do if I print anything else), is to also convert the raw file to aRGB and edit that file to a point where I save it an another copy of that image just for the purpose of printing it.

Did you do something like that?
Did you tweak the file in any way prior to getting it to the printer? if you emailed it or uploaded it to their site, can you retrieve it to see if it has been edited in some way.

No chances of that, photos are edited >save for web > Convert to sRGB and resized to print size > then saved into a new folder for printing

Have downloaded icc profile and adjusted brightness to suit, but will wait to compare the other prints before I start getting shitty at them

[Hawthy]

No expert in printing but I am pretty sure that Save for Web is not the best way to prepare photos for printing. It is great for displaying photos on your screen or downloading to a website though. A quick Google search suggests simply Save As > TIFF might be a better option.

According to one source, Save for Web reduces the colour information in the photo by 40%, because Apple and Windows computers display those colours differently and this provides a more consistent result. It is over my head but here is the article: http://www.lensdiaries.com/photo-tips/jpeg-save-for-web-save-as-jpg/

I recently ordered a print onto aluminium and when I got it back it was a bit darker than the original. I probably would have Saved for Web with that one because that is my standard process.

Maybe websites selling online photo printing should give a short tutorial on the best way to save photos.

[Sargee225]

No expert in printing but I am pretty sure that Save for Web is not the best way to prepare photos for printing. It is great for displaying photos on your screen or downloading to a website though. A quick Google search suggests simply Save As > TIFF might be a better option.

According to one source, Save for Web reduces the colour information in the photo by 40%, because Apple and Windows computers display those colours differently and this provides a more consistent result. It is over my head but here is the article: http://www.lensdiaries.com/photo-tips/jpeg-save-for-web-save-as-jpg/

I recently ordered a print onto aluminium and when I got it back it was a bit darker than the original. I probably would have Saved for Web with that one because that is my standard process.

Maybe websites selling online photo printing should give a short tutorial on the best way to save photos.

Company I used required .jpg
have also used Export As and haven't noticed any difference between the two

are Save For Web and Export As the same thing?

[Hawthy]

I think that File>Export>Save for Web is what you have used. It is what I also use when saving files to display on the internet.

When saving files for printing try File>Save As

In the "Save as Type" box you will have a multitude of choices. The recommended choices, as I understand them, are: TIFF, PSD JPEG and PDF. I understand that TIFF retains the most detail.

Printing from Photoshop is something that I think is more difficult than it first appears.

[Sargee225]

But save for web shouldn't make the image lose brightness and appear almost black in the darker parts though, should it?

[John King]

Printing is an arcane art, Sarge.

Safest is to use whatever your printer asks you to use. This is usually sRGB, JPEG and saved at the largest file size you can.

For output to my Epson R3880, I use up-sized, 16 bit, ProPhotoRGB (very wide colour gamut) PSD or TIFF files. For an A2 size print, the file size is usually about 205+ MB ...

"Save for the Web" does such horrible things to the resulting files that I do no even use this option for files that I will upload to the web. I would never use such a file for any kind of printing, not even on our A4 Canon Pixma 7500 series dye based ink jet all-in-one.

[Glenda]

Surely under our consumer laws you'd be entitled to get a refund or reprint from the initial company. If you have a reprint of just 1 from another company - without changing anything from the one you submitted to the original company - and it turned out much better, I think that would be all you would need to prove that they have made an error and delivered and inferior product which isn't fit for purpose, and therefore entitled to a refund or replacement. If it was just a $10 print I'd probably just find another printer and tell everyone (us included) who the original printer was and what a lousy job they did. However, having invested $75 I'd be inclined to take it as far as I could.

[Sargee225]

Surely under our consumer laws you'd be entitled to get a refund or reprint from the initial company. If you have a reprint of just 1 from another company - without changing anything from the one you submitted to the original company - and it turned out much better, I think that would be all you would need to prove that they have made an error and delivered and inferior product which isn't fit for purpose, and therefore entitled to a refund or replacement. If it was just a $10 print I'd probably just find another printer and tell everyone (us included) who the original printer was and what a lousy job they did. However, having invested $75 I'd be inclined to take it as far as I could.


waiting for another print to come (should arrive today) before I name them, I would hate to wrongly accuse them if it turns out to be an error on my behalf. After all, he did spend 20 minutes over the phone explaining a lot of info to do with colours and calibration. Which to me seems like something a good printer would do.

[ameerat42]

Actually, Sargee, you can't name them as you are still technically a "new user".
Ie, you have gone past your 30 days membership, but you still do not have 50 posts.

Aww-whh! And I said I was not going to comment further, but I must say that a "good printer"
would not make such dark prints in the 1st place, and would not hesitate to compensate you
for such a bad result. The rest is carp, and I don't mean the fish.

[farmmax]

I wouldn't use Save for Web for printing. It is designed to shrink the file size down as small as possible and information has to be discarded to do this.

My workflow for printing is


Tweak the file in Photoshop to where I like it and save as a PSD (native photoshop file)
I then resize the image into the dimensions needed for printing. Normally I print 18" X 12" at 300dpi. If my image is not in a 3:2 ratio, I add padding to the image so the result is in the 3:2 ratio.
Then I go to File/Save As and choose jpg. My printer wants jpegs. When the jpg dialogue box comes up you may choose the quality you want to save it at. The better the quality, the larger the file. The maximum file size my printer allows is 10mb, so I move the slider in the jpg box down to the best quality I can get, but keeping the file size under 10mb.
My whole workflow is set up in sRGB so the resulting jpg is also sRGB.

I have a calibrated monitor. My calibrator also has an attachment to monitor and adjust brightness with changing light conditions in my room. The brightness adjuster checks regularly on the brightness, but it causes my screen to give a brief flick as it does so, and that is annoying so I've turned it off :) Yes, I do manually adjust the brightness of my jpeg up slightly for printing.

Many people here have commented your file looks fine on their calibrated screen, as it also does on mine. This means if we took that file and sent it off to print we would expect the end results to match what we are now seeing on our screens. I strongly suggest the problem is at the printers end, not yours, provided the file you have put in this thread is identical to the one you sent away.

A professional printer will cast their eye over every single photo they print and anything odd looking should be noticed immediately. I'd call you scanned photo "odd looking".

I sent some very large files away to a printer to print some A0 size cloth banners. He was charging the princely sum of about $17 delivered each to print them. He emailed back to say there were some artefacts in two of the files which he didn't feel should be there. I checked, and they took a lot of finding. I hadn't cleaned up in my photoshopping properly. They were so small they would never have shown up in the large banners. I was amazed anyone picked them up, but also was so concerned about printing them, they emailed me to see if I wanted to correct the files.

[Sargee225]

I wouldn't use Save for Web for printing. It is designed to shrink the file size down as small as possible and information has to be discarded to do this.

My workflow for printing is


Tweak the file in Photoshop to where I like it and save as a PSD (native photoshop file)
I then resize the image into the dimensions needed for printing. Normally I print 18" X 12" at 300dpi. If my image is not in a 3:2 ratio, I add padding to the image so the result is in the 3:2 ratio.
Then I go to File/Save As and choose jpg. My printer wants jpegs. When the jpg dialogue box comes up you may choose the quality you want to save it at. The better the quality, the larger the file. The maximum file size my printer allows is 10mb, so I move the slider in the jpg box down to the best quality I can get, but keeping the file size under 10mb.
My whole workflow is set up in sRGB so the resulting jpg is also sRGB.

I have a calibrated monitor. My calibrator also has an attachment to monitor and adjust brightness with changing light conditions in my room. The brightness adjuster checks regularly on the brightness, but it causes my screen to give a brief flick as it does so, and that is annoying so I've turned it off :) Yes, I do manually adjust the brightness of my jpeg up slightly for printing.


Thanks, does Export As do the same things to files as save for web?

A lot of people on this forum have recommended this printer in other threads, so I would assume they would know what to do and what to look for.

Still waiting on my other prints to compare them

[farmmax]

Thanks, does Export As do the same things to files as save for web?



No, the normal "Save As" on it's default setting does not normally compress the files as aggressively as Save for web and devices. Using the highest quality (12) in the jpg settings in Save As, it does not compress the file at all, but when using the lowest settings it does compress the file a lot. Save for web can compress files even lower. In the days of dial up internet, Save for web was an essential part of Photoshop :)

Export is different again in my version of Photoshop, and the only time I've ever used it was to convert images to a PDF. That is what one printer wanted.

It will be interesting to see what your other prints turn out like.

[arthurking83]

......

Aww-whh! And I said I was not going to comment further, but I must say that a "good printer"
would not make such dark prints in the 1st place, and would not hesitate to compensate you
for such a bad result. The rest is carp, and I don't mean the fish.

A "good printer" would have opened the file, to get it ready for printing.
They would have noticed that the image was a bit dark on their calibrated monitors!
(this part is very important)
They would have notified you of any issue, either by phone/email/snail-mail/physical contact/etc ..

I doubt very much that a "good printer" would have been happy to release a print in this state, without first referring it back to the customer!

[Sargee225]

Other prints arrived Monday, still dark but not quite as dark as the original ones I sent away

[ameerat42]

Well, I guess you can wash your hands just through there:p
Chalk the rest up, I'd say.

[Glenda]

That's a pity. I still wouldn't use that company again as I think they should have contacted you and said the image looked very dark. I don't print that often but did send some away once and the printer emailed me to check on the size of one. I had ordered 12x8 and forgotten I'd sized one of them to 10x8. That, to me, is how a pro should behave. Perhaps in future just get a cheap 6x4 print done locally to check it looks okay before sending away for a larger more expensive print.

[tandeejay]

Wouldn't you need to do the test print with the same company that you were going to get the larger print done?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk