Prtinted images are always dark

[David Milisock]

I returned your test image in 4 formats I hope you got them. I'm currently writing a book for Corel PaintShop Pro X3 color management which should be done in about a month. I can tell you that on properly calibrated systems X3 looks identical to PS CS anything and Corel Photo-PAINT any version.

Can you please describe you capture procdures? Are you using a RAW work flow?

[jparnold]

David,

I received your images and thanks for doing that. I will take them to my processing lab in the next few days and after receiving the prints will compare and let you know what I notice.

I capture to JPG format image files in my camera. My camera is a SONY DSC-H1 http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/H1/H1A.HTM and I use PSP X2 (haven't seen the need spend money to upgrade to X3).

The following is a FAQ on the processing lab's web page

I am doing my own colour correction. Which colour space profile should I use?

If you are performing your own colour correction using an external image editing software package, we recommend that you use an sRGB colour space profile.

I understand a little about profiles now but does that mean I should convert and save all my images with the sRGB colour space profile (I didn't check what my original images are sorry) before sending them to the photo lab?
Please note that the processing lab used to allow the consumer to 'apply' enhancement to every image uploaded when entering an order. When I did this the prints looked a lot brighter. Unfortunately the consumer can now only apply enhancement by individual image and as my orders are usually 200 or more I don't have the time (or inclination) to apply individually.

Thanks again

John

[ronzie]

Quoting David Milisock » Thu Feb 03, 2011 9:33 am

"The oblect of color management and calibration of your display is so that you do no thave to make any adjustments to files you send out. In the case where you need to make thes on a bulk scale I would suggest another Lab."

I would rephrase this to clarify.

"The object of color management is to give the user control of colors/appearance with either local or outsourced devices by proper edit display calibration, profile and color space choice, and entry of the same for the intended output device for presentation on the edit display of the final output appearance. In the case of outsourced output services the results should match your editing proofing without manipulation by the outsourced service so the user maintains full control in the edit process."

Also to clarify on the color space comment about aRGB images looking darker when converted to sRGB I think color saturation, not luminance, is being referred to here. I have attached my monitor calibrated gamut results displayed in gamut format. The monitor gamut (white outline) is capable of aRGB (yellow outline) within 98%. The sRGB limit (blue outline) is much more restricted but note the difference in maximum saturation performance balance of each of the primaries. In order to understand this look at the comparison of the additive color space of the edit display and the subtractive color space of the printed output in CMYK described here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMYK_color_model

Essentially If all three colors CMY were printed at maximum saturation the viewer would see black. This is difficult to achieve so the profile derives K for the black overlay to clean up the black areas for non-wet process printing (ink jet, offset press, laser, etc.). While in the attached image the sRGB model has proportional to each color less consistency, the profile should adjust for that in deriving the black layer for four layer printing, the wet process photo paper print with no K layer profile adjusts the sRGB space colors to produce black. I would think the wet process profile would within reason balance color accuracy against luminance accuracy including the reflectance property of the underlying paper surface.

Because of the difference between additive monitor technology and subtractive wet process print technology (no K layer) it is difficult to achieve a match between monitor and print luminosity and even with the back light reduction techniques mentioned both wet and ink process prints will always be somewhat darker than the monitor display even with some luminance correction in the print output profile used for soft proofing.

Last here are some color mapping images of my monitor gamut (profile) to my ink jet printer gamut (profile) attached.

[David Milisock]

If you are performing your own colour correction using an external image editing software package, we recommend that you use an sRGB colour space profile.[/i]

If this is their suggestion I would say stick with it I do no thave X2 so specific CM settings for that application are out of my sphere of knowledge however basic concepts still apply. The four test images I sent back in this case shoul have the Adobe RGB with and without embedded profile pritning darker, not more saturated. The two sRGB image sshould look identical and fine, if they use some auto correction this may screw them up. As I said the image was just a tad flat but I corrrected that in LAB color space and then converted to Adobe and sRGB to create the test images.
Just remember that equal RGB 125 values may be something like equal RGB 128 values in sRGB so an Adobe image will appear darker or even less saturated when processed in sRGB, the opposite will happen when an sRGB image is porcessed via Adobe RGB.

I'm betting that the lab is using some sort of auto correction process.

[ronzie]

For individual images in PSPPX3 it is in the Adjust/Contrast-Brightness/Histogram dialog for one. You can slide the middle arrow in the histogram or slide, type, or use the up-down arrows or slider in the gamma value box.

[jparnold]

HI everyone,

Not sure what I did to the color management within PSPX2 (I had been trying to set color management as per some of the replies here).

Now when I am in PSPX2 there is a light blue cast over displayed images. WHITE (255,255,255) is shown as a pale blue.

Whites in all other applications including Windows desktop are displayed as WHITE so it is something in PSPX2 color management which is screwing the colors up and I can't work out what it is. Any assistance would be appreciated.

[ronzie]

Let's start with just the monitor profile active in perceptual mode and not matched to the print profile. In CM what monitor profile is active? In addition what under CM color space do you have? You can also try unchecking enable CM to look at the raw colors in a gray scale to see what changes, if anything.

On your user profile here via the user control panel please add your monitor make/model or laptop make/model if you are using the integrated laptop screen.

Just to insure the problem is in PSPPX2 try bringing up up a gray scale test image directly through the Win viewer to see how it looks. Then try one of the color test images.

You can also right click on the desktop to get into your Win color management tab under settings/advanced/color-management, selecting the monitor device and seeing what profile is installed for Win just as a check.

Let us know how you make out.

[jparnold]

I have found what is causing whites to be displayed as a light blue.
It's in the COLOR MANAGEMENT - see next image



When I click on BASIC COLOR MANAGEMENT (instead of PROOFING) whites are displayed as whites.
But why did I change to Proofing in the first place? Beats me.
What is PROOFING used for?

[David Milisock]

I have found what is causing whites to be displayed as a light blue.
It's in the COLOR MANAGEMENT - see next image



When I click on BASIC COLOR MANAGEMENT (instead of PROOFING) whites are displayed as whites.
But why did I change to Proofing in the first place? Beats me.
What is PROOFING used for?

I would simly enable basic colormanagement NOT PROOFING and ues epicture fore renderinf as that is perceptual rendering. When opening images that are already sRGB nothign will happen vut if you open images with an embedded profile thai is from a larger color space it will be converted to your color space and perceptual will do a nicer job specifically if the source space is a much larger color space.

I would not use proofing, I am headed to Baltimore for an on site job and have littel time I will reply in detail later.

[jparnold]

David,

The four test images I sent back in this case shoul have the Adobe RGB with and without embedded profile pritning darker, not more saturated. The two sRGB image sshould look identical and fine, if they use some auto correction this may screw them up. As I said the image was just a tad flat but I corrrected that in LAB color space and then converted to Adobe and sRGB to create the test images.

I have had the 4 images printed and this is what I noticed.
The 2 'Adobe' images look darker than the 2 sRGB images with the AdobeEMB slightly darker than the AdobeNOICC
The 2 'sRGB' are slightly brighter/lighter with the sRGBNOICC slightly darker than the sRGBEMB.
PLEASE NOTE that it is in the 'shadows' that I notice the difference, the 'highlites'/lighter parts appear almost the same.


I also had the following image printed (image courtesy of http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/down ... _page.html

In the print of this image I see a gradual darkening from 0% through to about 80% and then the remaining 6 or 7 'gradations' all appear the same (BLACK). In fact each 'gradation' from 70% to 80% appear almost the same.
You will possibly notice on the image above that you can notice a difference from 0% up to about 90% .

It would appear that prints from my photo lab lack contrast (muddy?) at the darker end. Could this be my problem? IF so how can I (mass) modify my images to counteract this.
Regards
John

[ronzie]

In proof mode the printer profile is taken into consideration so the display presents colors approximately as would be printed taking into consideration the printer color space.

The sRGB entry for your monitor looks more like a color space entry , not a monitor profile. Place that in your CM/color space entry. I downloaded the driver and it installed SM940N.icm for your monitor profile in the spool/color folder so right click on that to install it if it is not available in the monitor profile dropdown. That needs to be corrected based on your screen shot.

In your printer profile the BJ2000 printer profile is a generic bubblejet Canon profile that supposed to service all Canon Paper types. The codes added to the printer name (if available) are:

MP = Matte Photo Paper
PR = Photo Paper Pro (I and II)
SP = Photo Paper Plus Glossy
SG = Photo Paper Semi Glossy
GL = Photo Paper Glossy (or Photo Paper Plus Glossy II)
PT = Photo Paper Pro Platinum

I made my own one each for glassy and one for matte. That's another story. See if your IPF driver installed printer profiles for each paper surface you intend to use.

The Emulated Device should be the BJ2000 profile or the same .icm name as above. I never got good results from the BJ2000 profile. I inspected it and it is set for perceptual (picture) rendering on glossy paper. (That is independent of the driver setting of paper type).

If you wish to work in printer color mode with proofing selected you would set match in the top and proof in the 2nd and third entries.

If you initially work in just basic management mode the pictures mode in the top would be correct. Corel does not use standard names like perceptual as least in PSPPX3. I think that one is the same as Picture and Match is Absolute Colormetric.

Your photo service should send you a profile to use as a printer so you can use proof mode to see approximately what their output will look like. Ask them the manufacturer and model of their printer and I can probably spot one close enough if they will not cooperate. See if it is a Fuji Frontier System using Crystal Archive paper. There will be a number for the model. Get that information and I'll try to to assist you. If you can use a in store lab like Walmart if they are around then see what Frontier model they are using.

Now for printing on your local printer you should know that PSPP does not drive the printer to adjust for color correction like Photoshop does. I use another utility for printing called QImage Pro ($50 from ddisoftware.com - trial download available). In my S820 driver I was told by Canon support that the use .icm checkbox setup does not work so I use QImage and turn all CM off in the printer driver. That soft proof matches the soft proof in PSPPX3 and the print on my Canon S820 matches within reason. It may be different with your driver setup. This is for printing now on your IPF. You would not use the BJ2000 profile for your wet process printing service.

[David Milisock]

David,

The four test images I sent back in this case shoul have the Adobe RGB with and without embedded profile pritning darker, not more saturated. The two sRGB image sshould look identical and fine, if they use some auto correction this may screw them up. As I said the image was just a tad flat but I corrrected that in LAB color space and then converted to Adobe and sRGB to create the test images.

I have had the 4 images printed and this is what I noticed.
The 2 'Adobe' images look darker than the 2 sRGB images with the AdobeEMB slightly darker than the AdobeNOICC
The 2 'sRGB' are slightly brighter/lighter with the sRGBNOICC slightly darker than the sRGBEMB.
PLEASE NOTE that it is in the 'shadows' that I notice the difference, the 'highlites'/lighter parts appear almost the same.


It would appear that prints from my photo lab lack contrast (muddy?) at the darker end. Could this be my problem? IF so how can I (mass) modify my images to counteract this.
Regards
John

Please understand that these images started with your image, they were converted to the LAB color space and color corrected to create a control image, then converted to either Adobe or sRGB, so when printed to the same equipment with the use of the embedded profile they should look identical. I.E. the Adobe and the sRGB should look identical.

Ok so it seems that the LAB you use has their units set to not use the embedded ICC profile, they are assuming sRGB. With that said there are four options with the sRGB image with an embedded ICC profile looking different to you One it's simply a matter of how you view them, light angle, source. Two their print equipment is of poor quality. Three you simply imagined it. Four when their equipment does not see any ICC profile it uses an auto correct mode. I cannot see the prints however if you think the prints with the ICC profile are of good quality then I would suspect the fourth option.

The answer to your last question seems to be routed in your concept of quality, ask your LAB about their maintainence schedule. If your serious about quality I would first gather a series of test sRGB images with prominante shadow tones print them. See how their equipment reacts to them. Create a curve to apply to your images, print hose image is your run at different times intheir schedule. You may find that you want to hold your files until right after they do their maintainence.

[David Milisock]

In proof mode the printer profile is taken into consideration so the display presents colors approximately as would be printed taking into consideration the printer color space.
I think that one is the same as Picture and Match is Absolute Colormetric.

Now for printing on your local printer you should know that PSPP does not drive the printer to adjust for color correction like Photoshop does. I use another utility for printing called QImage Pro ($50 from ddisoftware.com - trial download available). In my S820 driver I was told by Canon support that the use .icm checkbox setup does not work so I use QImage and turn all CM off in the printer driver. That soft proof matches the soft proof in PSPPX3 and the print on my Canon S820 matches within reason. It may be different with your driver setup. This is for printing now on your IPF. You would not use the BJ2000 profile for your wet process printing service.

Match in PSP is relative colorimetric rendering, picture is perceptual rendering.

As far as proof previewing in PSP let me suggest this. If your serious consider all the factors in color reproduction, first understand that service providers (LABS) are what they are based on manufactors capabilities, employees, corporate parameters ECT. so quality is not their thing. Look at the ambient condition of your work environment, lighting conditions, (I light to 5000 kelvin with all windows covered). Hopefully you've purchased a computer display system capable of being color calibrated, (forget laptops and low end LCD displays with the video card on the main board systems) make sure the display can manually adjust each channel seperately, then get a calibration system for your monitor and properly calibrate your display. Some LCD displays calibrate well from a digital input but poorly with the VGA input, I use high end CRT displays.

Now the rest of this may sound weird but it's based on good logic, with a controled environment and a calibated system one can work and view basic color management as sRGB and get results that one can build a relationship with. This is because photo LAB equipment in most cases is capable of reproducing the sRGB or in some cases even Adobe RGB. The better quality ink jets are with a proper media profile, ( that is the profile youpick for the paper) also capable of reproducing sRGB some Adobe RGB. So what you see on you monitor is already very close to what a calibrated printer can reproduce.

Low cost ink jets may or may not work for your output but for sure working with soft proofing them will create images that are only viable on the output device.

[jparnold]

Thanks

The answer to your last question seems to be routed in your concept of quality, ask your LAB about their maintainence schedule. If your serious about quality I would first gather a series of test sRGB images with prominante shadow tones print them. See how their equipment reacts to them. Create a curve to apply to your images, print hose image is your run at different times intheir schedule. You may find that you want to hold your files until right after they do their maintainence.

I guess that they could do their maintenance on the same day of the week as recently I usually submit a batch to be printed on the same day. I have been using this lab for some years and some time ago when I became tired of getting prints which I considered too dark I started to use their 'mass enhance' feature which was a 'button' to tap on the screen which said something like 'enhance all prints'. When I did that I was MUCH happier with the prints so always selected this 'feature' for subsequent orders (I wonder why the enhance features resulted in brighter prints?). A few months ago they removed this 'feature' (of applying enhance to every image in the order) and when I queried the staff all they could say was that if I wanted the 'enhance' features I would need to apply it to each and every image (too time consuming when entering a batch of 200)

Maybe I should enter a few images for printing without enhancement and then enter another order of the same images selecting 'enhance' on each and compare them. Not sure though what this will prove though.

Maybe also I should take the same images to the other 2 or 3 labs in my area and compare the results and go to the one which gives me the images I prefer even if this means paying a little more and/or having to travel a little further.

And maybe I need to 'bracket' one of two images by creating a series of copy images each with slightly more (applied) brightness and compare the difference and then choose the one I prefer and then always apply the same change to every image (using batch script) before printing.

I have in the past applied 'SMART PHOTO FIX' to images but still thought that the prints were too dark.

It doesn't really matter (to me) about all the differences and matching image type etc which you and others have pointed out if I can't do something EASILY which results in brighter looking prints which I like. It has been very interesting and a big learning experience to me but perhaps a lot of what I read would be more suited to a professional (I have yet to see any of my prints look anything like the quality of wedding photographs for example (in brightness/contrast) and yes I realise they would use high quality SLR cameras too but I have seen friends prints taken with similar and lower quality cameras than mine which look brighter than mine.

At least I have found (from you and others) that my images (straight from the camera) appear to be ok for brightness and contrast.

I have just read the review on the camera (now a few years old) and it states (I had forgotten) -
Sharpness can be adjusted in the menu, as can contrast and saturation, so the user has some control over how the camera renders its images.
The review also states
Exposure: Generally accurate exposure, but high contrast. The Sony DSC-H1 handled my test lighting quite well and generally did a good job holding onto both highlight and shadow detail, but the deliberately harsh lighting of my "Sunlit" Portrait test was a bit too much for it. It does have an effective contrast adjustment option that does a good job of taming the camera's high default contrast, but I found that the contrast control produced odd saturation breaks in skin tones when I tried it with the Sunlit Portrait setup. - I'd avoid the low contrast setting for shots of human subjects. In terms of exposure, the Sony H1 did well, requiring an average amount of exposure compensation on shots that normally require it. A good job overall, but I'd like to see a low-contrast adjustment that doesn't affect skin tones as adversely.

Also how would you set the METERING MODE for general 'snaps' (my wife takes all the photos and I use a vidcam)? Multi-Metering, Center-Weighted, or Spot modes?

Lastly would you suggest that I modify contrast and/or saturation on the camera or do this later with PSPX2?

[ronzie]

I don't know about the Sony camera. I can tell you that in my Canon 50D DSLR if I wanted to use them there are preprogrammed modes for adjusting exposure such as for back lighted subjects, portrait, landscape, 'beach' scenes, and so on. If you want to try those see what's available on the camera and consult your camera manual or get a third party book. If your camera review LCD offers a histogram option learn how to read it and use it to apply exposure compensation.

I do not trust these automatic modes too much. I learned to use the various exposure adjustments (compensation), spot metering techniques, center weighted, etc.. If you use multifocus points and have the exposure tied to those what guarantee do you have that the correct focus point is the best exposure focus point.

The point is is that you can't have a good print from a poor image. If a batch print operator is looking your image you might get adjustments based on the operator subjectivity and that person probably has a quota to meet. The operator will not probably spend a lot of time on each of your prints.

In PSPX3 there are 'wizards' for quick enhancement that you can try and then weak the result. Depending on image content some might work well and others give a ridiculous result. I never had X2 but X3 offers a fully automated wizard called One Step Photo Fix. A better tool is Smart Photo Fix. In the Full Editor these are under the Adjust menu. I use Ken McMahon's 'Paintshop Photo Pro X3 for Photographers'. (He also has an X2 version out.) He suggests some tools be used and others avoided. The manual will train you on interpreting histograms. On Smart Photo Fix you can save the adjustments and then apply the them to scenes of a similar nature shot at that time. If a result appears good on your calibrated monitor then you might have a keeper recipe for a starting point for images shot in that session and adjustments can be quick.

I do not know if David was referring to you or me but I do have now a calibrated LCD monitor with a type of panel called S-PVA intended for image editing. It is a NEC P221W described here:

http://www.necdisplay.com/Products/Prod ... 0367d76bfa

including the spectrophotometer and software bundled with it. It is a medium priced product for serious enthusiasts. Today I see it for $440 without the calibrator and $563 with the calibration hardware and software.

I also as David suggested view my prints with a daylight (5,000 K) bulb of high across the spectrum fidelity. Many suggest viewing under a 3,400 K lamp which approximates a typical artificial light gallery illumination.

Now, if you followed my suggestions regarding setting your monitor back light down to whatever percent gives you a near white chip illumination of 125 foot candles after applying that percent to the specified monitor maximum illumination and you have disabled all of the monitor automatic 'funny stuff' you'll get a constant standard to work from even if you don't wish to spend that much.

One PSPP tool I use a lot is the eye-dropper. I run the cursor around to check what I think should be black and what I think should be the lightest (not necessarily white) part of the image and read the RGB values in the lower right of the full editor. On the high side this helps to insure color is not clipped to white. Did the intended image have a white area or should the lightest area be less than 100%. Caucasian average flesh is at about 75% luminance reflection, the reflectance of a standard gray card reflectance target.

Play with the Smart Photo Fix wizard and then tweak the results with the histogram. There is also the method of saving interim copies and for really tragic results the Edit/Undo buttons (before saving an image). As for as your lab matching, any image area that measures 0,0,0 should come back as black. If you do not have black in the original image will adjusting an area down to black to increase contrast still present a faithful reproduction pleasant to view? You need to have a properly set monitor first to apply human judgment. No camera automation can always be relied on to provide a view acceptable to give a decent representation of the image. It is best to do your correction, and once learned, tonality corrections can be accomplished very quickly, in post processing on your pc with your camera providing images insuring that neither the low end or high end tonality is clipped so you have a range to work with. That's what the camera histogram and retaking with exposure compensation is for. In PSPP you can go back. In the camera you live with it.

Here's a link to some experimental shots I posted where in the dusk scenes you don't have high contrast:

https://picasaweb.google.com/ron.ginsbe ... oreMay2010#

In other words the lightest part of each image is not always white and the darkest part is very near black.

After you get the image editing down then you can evaluate the lab once your monitor in proof mode is calibrated to the lab so you can get an idea of your final results.

I am accenting the camera and image editing here since you were asking questions about taking the picture so I thought I'd expand a bit on exposure and post processing correction.