Printing Question (#2)...

[Newt1914]

Thanks again to all who responded to my first question about printing and m4/3.

My next question is, what printing services have you found to be the best? I'm not likely to be printing a lot, maybe the occasional photo or two from a trip so I'm not going to be getting any photo quality printers any time soon. I'm curious about services, online likely, where you upload a photo and they do the rest.

Who are the best ones?

 

[cba_melbourne]

I sent one image (JPEG) off to three different printers (online). The first one, Amazon (of all people) has come back and I can say that the color fidelity when compared to viewing the jpeg on my computer is very accurate. However, when viewing on the computer screen the brightness can of course be adjusted. At the brightness I tend to have my screen the colors really pop. Greens in particular are quite vibrant.

Now, do you think, and I doubt it would be possible with Amazon, that with some printers that they can adjust the print brightness? When I sent these off to the three printers I don't recall seeing any option to request a brighter image. So I'm guessing the answer is no.

First question is, is your monitor calibrated. Do you use a device to regularly calibrate your monitor, like every 3-4 months or so? And do you use a graphic arts monitor, which is designed to be calibrated from scratch, or do you just use an office or gaming monitor which are designed for different purposes, and can't be fully calibrated even if you own a calibration device?

I started using years ago a Benq "photographer monitor" (model SW321C) and a video card that can fully exploit it (RTX3090). That monitor came with a nifty software called "Paper Color Sync". That software tweaks the monitor calibration for a selected number of specific paper types and printers. The screen really tries to show the picture, as it will look when printed (under the lighting conditions of the room you are doing the printing). And I found that that look is very different, from the standard calibration setting. Usually darker and less contrasty and it may even have color cast. The difference is because monitors are actively back-lit, whereas paper prints just reflect ambient light. Also photo printer ink sets use a much larger set of different colors, whereas monitors just know 3 colors. It helps me to print at home, and I usually take the print outside into sunlight to decide on final fine color corrections, because I do not have a calibrated lighting system for my printing and editing room.

Print kiosks use similar technology to make their screens looks similar to the print output. Print shops use even more advanced tools. But the problems remain, the monitors that the customers use at home are very different and usually uncalibrated. And a print looks totally different both in colors and is density and in contrast, if viewed under direct sunlight or under overcast sky or indoors under artificial light. In an extreme low light case on a dark wall, a color print will look black and white as your eye can't see colors at night, whereas a monitor will look very bright at dusk because it has it's own backlighting (just an extreme example so you get the idea). It's just two very different ways to show you a picture, print and monitor are completely different display systems. It simply cannot under all conditions look the same. Depending on your ambient lighting there will always be differences, and sometime huge ones. So you need to give consideration where and under which conditions your print will be mostly displayed. A photo book will be viewed under different ambient light color and brightness, than a picture on a dark wall in your home, or a picture in a well lit museum.

OK. But I'm simply wondering whether it's possible for a printer to print an image "brighter" than their default.

Of course, just ask.

Professional printers live from printing exactly what the customer wants. Which takes extra time, and often also special skills that take time to learn and some artistic talent, for which they have to charge more. You would be surprised how microscopically tiny color and brightness corrections say a demanding wedding photographer asks for until happy.

Consumer printers can certainly do a second brighter print for you without extra charge beyond what it would cost standard. But when you get home, it may be too bright, or still too dark. Consumer printers rarely are themselves "artists", they are more about selling a commodity. That is where printing at home has it's huge advantage.

Sure I can dim down all my monitors, iPads, phones, and TVs so all my images look the same as the printed ones but I'd rather, if possible, be able to have a print that is closer in brightness to the other mediums that I can view my images on or through.

Not on paper, there are too many differences in the medium itself, and variables in lighting and presentation. But you can print a transparent slide, like you see say on airports for advertising in backlit boxes. Or you can use a digital picture frame. Then your viewing is (much more) independent from ambient light. But lacks that character that only a print has.

And it's not about color fidelity as the colors look great on the prints I've received so far. They match what I see on my screens. What's different is that with the prints it as if it were less of a sunny day than it actually was.

People today are simply used to see pictures on digital screens. So paper prints may look very odd to them. Maybe visiting some painting exhibitions would help getting back that feel for appreciating a print.

Same with reading a real book vs reading a .pdf book. There is much more to it than just the words.

 

[Newt1914]

I sent one image (JPEG) off to three different printers (online). The first one, Amazon (of all people) has come back and I can say that the color fidelity when compared to viewing the jpeg on my computer is very accurate. However, when viewing on the computer screen the brightness can of course be adjusted. At the brightness I tend to have my screen the colors really pop. Greens in particular are quite vibrant.

Now, do you think, and I doubt it would be possible with Amazon, that with some printers that they can adjust the print brightness? When I sent these off to the three printers I don't recall seeing any option to request a brighter image. So I'm guessing the answer is no.

First question is, is your monitor calibrated. Do you use a device to regularly calibrate your monitor, like every 3-4 months or so? And do you use a graphic arts monitor, which is designed to be calibrated from scratch, or do you just use an office or gaming monitor which are designed for different purposes, and can't be fully calibrated even if you own a calibration device?

I started using years ago a Benq "photographer monitor" (model SW321C) and a video card that can fully exploit it (RTX3090). That monitor came with a nifty software called "Paper Color Sync". That software tweaks the monitor calibration for a selected number of specific paper types and printers. The screen really tries to show the picture, as it will look when printed (under the lighting conditions of the room you are doing the printing). And I found that that look is very different, from the standard calibration setting. Usually darker and less contrasty and it may even have color cast. The difference is because monitors are actively back-lit, whereas paper prints just reflect ambient light. Also photo printer ink sets use a much larger set of different colors, whereas monitors just know 3 colors. It helps me to print at home, and I usually take the print outside into sunlight to decide on final fine color corrections, because I do not have a calibrated lighting system for my printing and editing room.

Print kiosks use similar technology to make their screens looks similar to the print output. Print shops use even more advanced tools. But the problems remain, the monitors that the customers use at home are very different and usually uncalibrated. And a print looks totally different both in colors and is density and in contrast, if viewed under direct sunlight or under overcast sky or indoors under artificial light. In an extreme low light case on a dark wall, a color print will look black and white as your eye can't see colors at night, whereas a monitor will look very bright at dusk because it has it's own backlighting (just an extreme example so you get the idea). It's just two very different ways to show you a picture, print and monitor are completely different display systems. It simply cannot under all conditions look the same. Depending on your ambient lighting there will always be differences, and sometime huge ones. So you need to give consideration where and under which conditions your print will be mostly displayed. A photo book will be viewed under different ambient light color and brightness, than a picture on a dark wall in your home, or a picture in a well lit museum.

OK. But I'm simply wondering whether it's possible for a printer to print an image "brighter" than their default.

Of course, just ask.

Professional printers live from printing exactly what the customer wants. Which takes extra time, and often also special skills that take time to learn and some artistic talent, for which they have to charge more. You would be surprised how microscopically tiny color and brightness corrections say a demanding wedding photographer asks for until happy.

Consumer printers can certainly do a second brighter print for you without extra charge beyond what it would cost standard. But when you get home, it may be too bright, or still too dark. Consumer printers rarely are themselves "artists", they are more about selling a commodity. That is where printing at home has it's huge advantage.

Sure I can dim down all my monitors, iPads, phones, and TVs so all my images look the same as the printed ones but I'd rather, if possible, be able to have a print that is closer in brightness to the other mediums that I can view my images on or through.

Not on paper, there are too many differences and variables. But you can print a transparent slide, like you see say on airports for advertising in backlit boxes. Or you can use a digital picture frame. Then your viewing is (much more) independent from ambient light.

And it's not about color fidelity as the colors look great on the prints I've received so far. They match what I see on my screens. What's different is that with the prints it as if it were less of a sunny day than it actually was.

People today are simply used to see pictures on digital screens. So paper prints may look very odd to them.

Maybe visiting some painting exhibitions would help getting back that feel for appreciating a print.

I'm old enough to have seen far more printed images than images on screens.

When I take a photo today in my back yard, for instance, with the sun shining and then view that image on my computer screen, it looks darn near exactly how it does when I go and look out the window. It's not a case where the screens (mine at least) are doing something distorted by say, showing the image unnaturally bright.

What I want to be able to do is get prints that faithfully represent that same reality. You know, like back in the film days when this was not a problem. I remember that I used to obsess over this kind of then and was always looking for the best film to reproduce as faithfully as possible the reality of what I saw. And I did find it. Actually most films did fine but I was a bit obsessive as I said.

The test prints that I have received so far are too dark. I'm awaiting some more from printers that were recommended here so I'll see how they look. And yeah, I will contact the printers to ask about brightness.

 

[JosephScha]

LCD have a backlight. Your phone has a backlight (probably LEDs). A print does not have a backlight. It only has reflected light. You can make the print brighter, but making look like your screen is difficult.

 

[Newt1914]

I have been using Mpix. They print at 250 ppi, the same as my iPad, and I have obtained good results up to 30” wide with a 20 MP image. The quality of their products is excellent, shipping is often free, and prices aren’t too bad if you wait for one of their sales.

The only problem I have had is calibrating for brightness. Prints can look too dark under typical room lighting if you aren’t careful. I keep reference images that have given good print density and try to match those for new prints. Color fidelity has been good so far.

Chuck,

I sent a test image to them and a couple other places and I think I like the color rendition and sharpness best on the print from Mpix.

How are you doing that matching for brightness? That's the one issue I have is that I'd like the print to be brighter.

 

[Store2Print]

Great insights on monitor calibration! At the end of the day, prints will always look different from screens due to lighting and material differences. That’s why I prefer using Store2Print.com — their professional printing ensures consistent, high-quality results that closely match expectations, whether for photo books, wall art, or business prints.

 

[WilyKit]

Great insights on monitor calibration! At the end of the day, prints will always look different from screens due to lighting and material differences. That’s why I prefer using Store2Print.com — their professional printing ensures consistent, high-quality results that closely match expectations, whether for photo books, wall art, or business prints.

Good to know, Store2Print...

 

[plantdoc]

One factor to consider when using a printing service is the shipping costs vs the cost of the print. Various considerably depending on the size of order, etc

greg

 

[Guy Parsons]

One factor to consider when using a printing service is the shipping costs vs the cost of the print. Various considerably depending on the size of order, etc

greg

Even a walk-in printing service delivers a problem at times.

We had a big family tree printed for granddaughter's 21st birthday party and it was way too big for any available mailing tubes. So a trip to the hardware store and buy a length of 90mm PVC stormwater pipe and two push-on end caps and problem solved.

It was B0 size at 1m x 1.414m size. So needed a tube a bit longer than 1m. That's about 39 inches for those three primitive countries that don't use metric.

By the way it was StudioJet Tyvek Aqueous Paper and is great for big posters and graphic designs, not so sure about photos though as never tried it for that. It is tough and resists the creases and crinkles that always happen when (mis)handling huge prints.