User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  25
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 43

Thread: Extremely Dark Photos

  1. #1
    Member Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Extremely Dark Photos

    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

  2. #2
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    15,947
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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"

    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?
    CC, Image editing OK.

  3. #3
    Ausphotography Regular John King's Avatar
    Join Date
    17 Jan 2016
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    675
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Regards, john

    Galleries: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/v/main-page/


    My galleries contain all sorts of stuff, not just some pretty pictures.

    ILCs: E-M1 MkII; E-M1; E-30; E-510; E-1
    Digital lenses: 14-42 EZ; 12-50 macro; f/4 12-100 Pro; 40-150R; f/2.8 25 pancake; f/2 50 macro; f/4 7~14; 11~22; 14~42; 14~45; 14~54 MkII; 40~150 MkI; 40~150 MkII; 50~200 MkI; EX-25; EC-14


  4. #4
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    lizzard print.jpg
    Top photo is the scanned print


    Lizzard.jpg
    Bottom is the image sent to print


    can hardly see the tail in the photos

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Veteran tandeejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    22 Feb 2015
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    2,784
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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?
    John Blackburn

    "Life is like a camera! Focus on what is important, capture the good times, develop from the negatives, and if things don't work out take another shot."


  6. #6
    Ausphotography Addict Lplates's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2011
    Location
    Gladstone
    Posts
    9,514
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Glenda


  7. #7
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,930
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Lplates View Post
    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.
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  8. #8
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    15,947
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I agree, AK. At this stage it's their fault. Answers are needed.

  9. #9
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  10. #10
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,930
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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!

  11. #11
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  12. #12
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    15,947
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.
    Last edited by ameerat42; 21-09-2016 at 6:11pm.

  13. #13
    Member raysul's Avatar
    Join Date
    11 May 2013
    Location
    Seven Hills
    Posts
    122
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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
    Sony A7ii,
    Sony 50mm f/2.8 Macro, Sony 28-70 f/3.5-5.6
    Canon 60D,
    canon 17-55MM f2.8, canon 50mm,Sigma 8-16mm F4.5-5.6
    https://www.flickr.com/photos/96985007@N05/


  14. #14
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

  15. #15
    Ausphotography Addict Lplates's Avatar
    Join Date
    09 Sep 2011
    Location
    Gladstone
    Posts
    9,514
    Mentioned
    19 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    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/prese...g-good-prints/
    and https://support.blurb.com/hc/en-us/a...n-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.

  16. #16
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

  17. #17
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    17,868
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Sargee225 View Post
    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.

  18. #18
    I like my computer more than my camera farmmax's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Mar 2010
    Location
    Central West
    Posts
    1,931
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  19. #19
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,930
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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.

  20. #20
    Member
    Threadstarter
    Sargee225's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2015
    Location
    Adelaide
    Posts
    66
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    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

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •