 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 25
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.
...Err...!!!
...And they will do what, exactly...???
Are you saying that Harry Potter is dead???
CC, Image editing OK.
Originally Posted by sanger
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
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.
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon}; -> 50/1.2 : 500/8 : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8 ais : 105mm f/1.8 ais : 24mm/2 ais
{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
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
Threadstarter
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
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by ameerat42; 22-09-2016 at 6:10pm.
Threadstarter
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
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-tip...b-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.
Andrew
Threadstarter
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?
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.
Threadstarter
But save for web shouldn't make the image lose brightness and appear almost black in the darker parts though, should it?
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.
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.
Glenda
Threadstarter
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.
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.
Last edited by ameerat42; 23-09-2016 at 11:45am.
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 offYes, 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.
Threadstarter
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
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
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.
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!
Threadstarter
Other prints arrived Monday, still dark but not quite as dark as the original ones I sent away
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
