Prints looking washed out with colour casts - a problem in my workflow?

I'm starting to get irritated with my digital workflow and figure I must be doing something wrong somewhere, otherwise digital would not be the success it has become.

Problem : Prints come back from printers looking, usually, slightly washed out but more commonly with unnatural and displeasing colour casts.

Workflow : Photograph using Nikon D70s, in RAW format (My RAWs are about 6Mp). Load RAW files into photo editing software (in my case, LightZone for Linux, by Lightcrafts Software), adjust 'curves', enhance sharpness etc, then export as 100% quality JPEGs which are about 10Mb using the 'sRGB_IEC61966-2-1_noBPC.icc' colour profile (as recommended at this site HERE). I then upload to my printers (for non-pro, family snaps type work, this is www.photobox.co.uk), and wait.

My prints come back, and I have a look. Now, don't get me wrong - they're not terrible. In fact, none of my family or friends ever notice any problem, but I do. They just don't compare to my film exposures.

Now, I know I can and I often do send my prints to my pro lab (in my case, The Darkroom, here in the UK), and they do a much better job, but they cost 2 a print compared to Photobox that charge like 0.15 a print - for family snaps etc there's no comparison.

Now, if the problem lies firmly with the printers, I'll stop using them, but I wanted to check first whether anyone could see a glaring hole in my workflow that might be adding to the problem?

As an example, the print below was taken using my D70s with my SB800 flash. It looks fine on screen but if you zoom in, you can see a slight red tinge in the corner of her eyes. In the finished print, this is magnified hugely and it looks like her eyes are bleeding!!

http://www.tedsmithphotography.com/temp/DSC_8185.jpg

Can you see a problem with the photo linked to above and give any reason as to why the printed version (which obviously you cant see) looks far worse than the screen version?

Any advice warmly received.

Thanks

Ted

g'day Ted

your image looks quite red (magenta?) to me, overall but especially the baby's face

maybe your printer prints slightly too red, your print is already too red, so ...

do you really think RAW is worth the extra effort?

i tried colour balancing your image by eye, does it look any different on your monitor?

Hi Ted

TED_SMITH said:

I'm starting to get irritated with my digital workflow and figure I must be doing something wrong somewhere,

Click to expand...

I think we all do ...

Problem : Prints come back from printers looking, usually, slightly washed out but more commonly with unnatural and displeasing colour casts.

Click to expand...

sounds like you have a problem with your calibration of your monitor. Firstly next time you walk past a shop with lots of TV's take a more careful look and I think you'll see that there is quite a variation.

sRGB is a "standard" but without calibration Your monitor could well be randomly situated within that norm.

Workflow : Photograph using Nikon D70s, in RAW format (My RAWs are about 6Mp). Load RAW files into photo editing software (in my case, LightZone for Linux, by Lightcrafts Software),

Click to expand...

does it support calibration? If not then forget even trying to tweak anything as you could just as well be tweaking good into bad.

without a tool to put out "white" then measure what comes off your screen you are not likely to get it right.

Colour is not 'rocket science' but it does take some understanding of the issues.

Firstly if you can't calibrate your monitor with a hardware / software system such as the Spyder its all down to guess work.

Leaving the guesswork method alone for now you need to

1. convert your RAW into a digital image in some (you didn't mention which) colour space
2. edit as you please (with the above issues still unsolved)
3. convert your file with the proper 'intent' to either sRGB or if the printer has supplied a profile that one
4. save as 8 bit JPG and send them the file

I don't know if you've read this page, but it is a good introduction into colour space conversions and rendering intents (think of how you squeze something big into something small and what has to give).

As a suggestion on calibrating your monitor you could try photographing something and printing it straight from the JPG in the camera. Then loading that JPG in your software and tweaking the monitor (in its control pannel) to match that print. Its dirty but if you have a good eye it'll work

see how that goes

alternatively, switch to software which works in colour managed ways (like photoshop or Picture Window Pro both of which I think are not Linux options). I think this is limited on Linux but I think that the latest version of Gimp will support it.

Ray

Ray Heath said:

do you really think RAW is worth the extra effort?

Click to expand...

dunno about Ted but I sure do.

I put up some examples on how I get much better images with a single raw file and careful application of tone mapping here and here.

Thanks guys.

I have been meaning to buy a Spyder Calibration util for sometime, but kept putting it off, but this has been the final straw, so I've just ordered Spyder3Pro for 140(ish) from http://www.datacolor.eu/en/

If necessary, I will just have to do my photo editing using a Virtual Machine, or even reboot into Win XP temporarily just to prepare the images. I have read that monitor calibration in Linux is just a nightmare, and frankly, I can't be bothered - time is money, and all that.

It annoys me a bit that it's so hard to use film commercially these days (I've posted many threads about it here and at APUG so lets not bark on about it again) and I'd not bother with digital at all, given the choice, for exactly the reasons posted. With film, you know what your gonna get! But the market seems to demand it most of the time. I was at a charity show last year, shooting digitally but not preparing them there and then, and was asked twice "Can we see the pictures today on your laptop?" - it's just what people expect now unfortunately.

Ray - As for the photo itself - the babies face is, in reality at the time the photo was shot, quite red, so this is not particularly inaccurate in tyerms of skin tones. She was crying and getting rather annoyed! My concern here is that the redness has 'overspilt' into areas that are not supposed to be so red. I like your tweaked version to a degree, but I feel it is now a bit too pale and green.

As for shooting RAW - oh yes. I certainly think it's worth it. There's so much additional detail to be had. Not using the RAW is like using copies of a print rather than the negative, in my view, but hey - that's another thread entirely!

Ray Heath said:

g'day Ted

your image looks quite red (magenta?) to me, overall but especially the baby's face

maybe your printer prints slightly too red, your print is already too red, so ...

do you really think RAW is worth the extra effort?

i tried colour balancing your image by eye, does it look any different on your monitor?

Click to expand...

This "corrected" image is too green...

1. Calibrate monitor
2. Ask printer if they have a printer profile for you to use
3. Go to Dry Creek Photo site and read everything that is there about sending your files to an outside printer...invaluable.

You problem is not likely with color calibration, RAW, etc. It's with the printer. They have someone printing who doesn't know what you want. They bang out something and don't even look at it. Sure, it's a good thing to calibrate one's monitor but all it gets you is a clean gray. Monitors and prints are two very different mediums and they rarely meet unless you limit the color space to very little.

One place I would disagree with pellicle is that I think that color management is a black art, not a science at all. (And yes, I'm quite experienced, have way too much invested in hardware, software, etc., make my own profiles.) Regardless, to be in control things have to match on either end...

PVia said to get a profile from the printer. This is great advice. Make them tell you what they want, how their system works. Make them do that print again and they will likely be cooperative...

I would also vote against sRGB of any kind. In the beginning of icc, Adobe RGB 1998 was based on the color space that a Sony Trinitron monitor could reproduce. It's ok - not great, but its a standard. sRGB was based on the color space of NTSC video. All one has to do is look at the difference between video shows on the tv and movie, especially one done with film. sRGB is a much smaller space. It makes it sort of idiot proof for beginners and that's why its suggested. I also wuoldn't use a profile that suggested removing black point compensation without checking in with the printer. That's probably a primary issue.

Get the printer's profile....


Lenny
EigerStudios

Lenny

pardon me, I'm quite un-occupied right now ...

lenny said:

One place I would disagree with pellicle is that I think that color management is a black art, not a science at all.

Click to expand...

I actually think your bang on the money there (and I didn't call it a science).

It's dressed up as 'science' but it has many pitfalls and I have a number of problems with the profiling systems too (speaking as an Electronics Engineer with a Software and Science background).

I didn't want to get into the issues of the printers partly because I didn't want to disappoint the poster and partly because I'd still be bloody typing. For example in Finland I just can't get the printers I use here to make anything which looks like close to what I get on my monitor, yet in Australia I never had this problem. Heck the dopes here can't even print the same bloody file (which I have also got a hard copy here with me) when sent to them irrespective of it being converted to their profile or converted as sRGB.

One of the things is that (or so it seems to me) it is unreliable as to weather they take the files with their profile embedded in it and print it as if it was sRGB or the other way round.

If I was in a business for this I'd be pulling my hair out (or theirs).

(sorry to put the OP off by any of the above)

pellicle said:

For example in Finland I just can't get the printers I use here to make anything which looks like close to what I get on my monitor, yet in Australia I never had this problem. Heck the dopes here can't even print the same bloody file (which I have also got a hard copy here with me) when sent to them irrespective of it being converted to their profile or converted as sRGB.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there really is no consistency at all... from one printer to the next. In one case you may find a veteran expert and in another some kid they hired for minimum wage. The state of color management at most shops is quite poor.

The only sure bet is to pay for the expert printers to do your work. They work with you over time to make sure you get exactly what you want. But its a very different kind of expense - and not for everyone.

Lenny
EigerStudios

Hi

lenny said:

The only sure bet is to pay for the expert printers to do your work. They work with you over time to make sure you get exactly what you want

Click to expand...

exactly ... either that or become an expert yourself ... but then that's a different (and perhaps higher) expence. I'm still waiting to find time to get into Gum Bichromate, but then thats for me not for money ;-)

Hi peeps

Thanks for the replies.

I have put the boat out and bought, for 140, the Spyder3 Pro. I hooked it up to my CRT monitor, followed the guidelines, and to be honest, it's hardy made any difference! I must have had my monitor pretty well tuned anyway. So that eliminates my screen as being the problem.

I have searched the Photobox website and, with regards to ICC Profiles, they say this :

We don't publish profiles ourselves however we are working with the manufacturers of our printers in the hope that we can provide ICC profiles in the future.

It is important to note that the Fuji Frontier printers currently strip out any embedded profiles in your images, so you should ensure that your images are submitted in sRGB. You can also use our calibration print to adjust your screen to match our output as closely as possible. Information regarding this can be found by clicking on the Quality Advice link on the left had side of the page.

There is also a method of soft proofing your images to our Polieletronica Laserlab, which prints the following sizes; 10"x7", A4, 12"x10", 15"x10", 12"x12", 14"x11", 20"x8", A3, 16"x12", 18"x12", 20"x16", A2 and 30"x20". This should help to give you accurate results on the Polieletronica using the Fuji Crystal Archive paper profiles that are attached to this answer.