Some Questions About Colors and Printing From Print Labs

[SCoombs]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

The long story short is that I have over the last few years begun to take on occasional paying clients with the plan of slowly working towards doing it professionally in some (part time) capacity and it has reached the point where I am getting somewhat regular inquiries including for volume shooting scenarios (i.e., team pictures, class photos, etc.) and because of this I recently had some test prints done at a lab which will be able to handle the batch type stuff more easily.

I was relatively pleased with what I got back in terms of how well my photos appeared with their color calibration and so forth. In addition to some regular prints, I ordered 4 color test prints which record the color adjustments that the lab would make if I had requested color correction services. For instance, here is one photo I sent as it was:



They report that they would have applied an adjustment on the Cyan/Red, Magenta/Green, Yellow/Blue scale of -3 Red, -3 Green, +6 Blue, which results in this:



Or for instance



To which they would do +2 Red, -4 Green, +2 Blue:



My monitor appears relatively well calibrated to their colors as the unmodified prints match closely enough that I can't tell a significant difference. However, playing with their adjustments and then looking at a series of other photos after the fact has made me realize that many of my photos are definitely too green. I don't think this is a monitor calibration issue because as I said it matches the prints pretty well.

However, this does mean that I didn't see the colors as being too green without having their versions to juxtapose. When I look at other photos I've done in the past and make a slight drop in the greens, I think they look better. This raises for me a series of questions:

1) Is there a way to train myself to see this better? The fact is that if anything my tendency when editing is often to see things as too magenta, but even so I often reduce the greens a bit already - not far enough, it seems?

2) On a whole other level of consideration here, this drop in the greens looks correct even in photos which I haven't done any color work on. In other words, my camera appears to be giving me greens that are a bit too strong. Is this something people might recommend that I attempt to calibrate in camera? Or only as an import preset for post processing work? Or not at all?

3) In general, would you suggest that the use of a lab color service is advisable? A bad idea? A matter of personal choice and fine if one wants to go that route?

4) When comparing the prints to my monitor for color it is a bit challenging because the prints are darker. I understand that this is normal and expected as the monitor has a backlight while the prints don't. What's a good method for evaluating proper brightness of a print with respect to how bright a monitor is... i.e., for making sure that editing of lightness made on a backlit monitor is appropriate for printing?

In other words, I'm in general trying to refine my workflow here to address this stuff and am trying to figure out the best way.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

IMO, you'd get more and better responses in the Printers and Printing forum.

I have over the last few years begun to take on occasional paying clients ....

I was relatively pleased with what I got back in terms of how well my photos appeared with their color calibration and so forth....

My monitor appears relatively well calibrated to their colors as the unmodified prints match closely enough that I can't tell a significant difference. However, playing with their adjustments and then looking at a series of other photos after the fact has made me realize that many of my photos are definitely too green. I don't think this is a monitor calibration issue because as I said it matches the prints pretty well....

3) In general, would you suggest that the use of a lab color service is advisable? A bad idea? A matter of personal choice and fine if one wants to go that route?

4) When comparing the prints to my monitor for color it is a bit challenging because the prints are darker. I understand that this is normal and expected as the monitor has a backlight while the prints don't. What's a good method for evaluating proper brightness of a print with respect to how bright a monitor is... i.e., for making sure that editing of lightness made on a backlit monitor is appropriate for printing?

In other words, I'm in general trying to refine my workflow here to address this stuff and am trying to figure out the best way.

Do you use a good colorimeter (hardware) like an X-Rite or Calibrite, with the corresponding software, to periodically calibrate and profile your monitor? If not, then all the rest are mere opinions, suppositions, and guesses. IMO the uncalibrated approach is not a good idea for paid work (or even a serious amateur). IME performing occasional proper calibration and profiling saves considerable time and frustration.

And if you do / once you do hardware calibrate and profile your monitor, are you doing it to a brightness appropriate for editing photos for printing, probably around 100 cd/m^2? Getting prints that look visibly too dark relative to what you anticipated based on what the monitor showed is very common, but not correct. Yes, there will always be differences, but they can be greatly reduced.

If you don't want to go the route of hardware calibrating-and-profiling your monitor, then IMO the better approach is to find a lab that will color-correct for you, whose color corrections you find subjectively pleasing, and just let them do so.

 

[SCoombs]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

IMO, you'd get more and better responses in the Printers and Printing forum.

I considered this, but every post I saw there was about literal home photo printers so I assumed that it was not the right place for the post.

I have over the last few years begun to take on occasional paying clients ....

I was relatively pleased with what I got back in terms of how well my photos appeared with their color calibration and so forth....

My monitor appears relatively well calibrated to their colors as the unmodified prints match closely enough that I can't tell a significant difference. However, playing with their adjustments and then looking at a series of other photos after the fact has made me realize that many of my photos are definitely too green. I don't think this is a monitor calibration issue because as I said it matches the prints pretty well....

3) In general, would you suggest that the use of a lab color service is advisable? A bad idea? A matter of personal choice and fine if one wants to go that route?

4) When comparing the prints to my monitor for color it is a bit challenging because the prints are darker. I understand that this is normal and expected as the monitor has a backlight while the prints don't. What's a good method for evaluating proper brightness of a print with respect to how bright a monitor is... i.e., for making sure that editing of lightness made on a backlit monitor is appropriate for printing?

In other words, I'm in general trying to refine my workflow here to address this stuff and am trying to figure out the best way.

Do you use a good colorimeter (hardware) like an X-Rite or Calibrite, with the corresponding software, to periodically calibrate and profile your monitor? If not, then all the rest are mere opinions, suppositions, and guesses. IMO the uncalibrated approach is not a good idea for paid work (or even a serious amateur). IME performing occasional proper calibration and profiling saves considerable time and frustration.

And if you do / once you do hardware calibrate and profile your monitor, are you doing it to a brightness appropriate for editing photos for printing, probably around 100 cd/m^2? Getting prints that look visibly too dark relative to what you anticipated based on what the monitor showed is very common, but not correct. Yes, there will always be differences, but they can be greatly reduced.

If you don't want to go the route of hardware calibrating-and-profiling your monitor, then IMO the better approach is to find a lab that will color-correct for you, whose color corrections you find subjectively pleasing, and just let them do so.

Monitor calibration is something that I will be doing but haven't been able to do yet. However, as I noted the prints that I received match my monitor's colors extremely well - so well, in fact, that one of my first thoughts was to second guess whether I will want to calibrate it because it matches the prints, and the purpose of the color test prints from the lab is after all to try to make sure that the monitor is calibrated to the lab. As they print on the test print, "The goal is to have this image match your monitor."

And to go further, I can see the benefit of the corrections the lab has said their corrections would have made on my monitor as it is, so again everything does indicate that the monitor is actually displaying things very well right now for this lab. Based on the test prints I am quite confident that what I see on my monitor is what I will see in an ordered print. My bigger issue is my own eye and the current default output of the camera. This is another reason why I posted here rather than in the printers forum.

I do think that the brightness of the monitor is an important question. In fact getting that set to some well defined value is likely the main thing I want to see from a calibration tool. However, for what it is worth the print lab noted on its test prints that while it would have made color corrections, it deems to levels to be correct and would make no adjustment to brightness.

 

[Box Brownie]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

IMO, you'd get more and better responses in the Printers and Printing forum.

I considered this, but every post I saw there was about literal home photo printers so I assumed that it was not the right place for the post.

I have over the last few years begun to take on occasional paying clients ....

I was relatively pleased with what I got back in terms of how well my photos appeared with their color calibration and so forth....

My monitor appears relatively well calibrated to their colors as the unmodified prints match closely enough that I can't tell a significant difference. However, playing with their adjustments and then looking at a series of other photos after the fact has made me realize that many of my photos are definitely too green. I don't think this is a monitor calibration issue because as I said it matches the prints pretty well....

3) In general, would you suggest that the use of a lab color service is advisable? A bad idea? A matter of personal choice and fine if one wants to go that route?

4) When comparing the prints to my monitor for color it is a bit challenging because the prints are darker. I understand that this is normal and expected as the monitor has a backlight while the prints don't. What's a good method for evaluating proper brightness of a print with respect to how bright a monitor is... i.e., for making sure that editing of lightness made on a backlit monitor is appropriate for printing?

In other words, I'm in general trying to refine my workflow here to address this stuff and am trying to figure out the best way.

Do you use a good colorimeter (hardware) like an X-Rite or Calibrite, with the corresponding software, to periodically calibrate and profile your monitor? If not, then all the rest are mere opinions, suppositions, and guesses. IMO the uncalibrated approach is not a good idea for paid work (or even a serious amateur). IME performing occasional proper calibration and profiling saves considerable time and frustration.

And if you do / once you do hardware calibrate and profile your monitor, are you doing it to a brightness appropriate for editing photos for printing, probably around 100 cd/m^2? Getting prints that look visibly too dark relative to what you anticipated based on what the monitor showed is very common, but not correct. Yes, there will always be differences, but they can be greatly reduced.

If you don't want to go the route of hardware calibrating-and-profiling your monitor, then IMO the better approach is to find a lab that will color-correct for you, whose color corrections you find subjectively pleasing, and just let them do so.

Monitor calibration is something that I will be doing but haven't been able to do yet. However, as I noted the prints that I received match my monitor's colors extremely well - so well, in fact, that one of my first thoughts was to second guess whether I will want to calibrate it because it matches the prints, and the purpose of the color test prints from the lab is after all to try to make sure that the monitor is calibrated to the lab. As they print on the test print, "The goal is to have this image match your monitor."

And to go further, I can see the benefit of the corrections the lab has said their corrections would have made on my monitor as it is, so again everything does indicate that the monitor is actually displaying things very well right now for this lab. Based on the test prints I am quite confident that what I see on my monitor is what I will see in an ordered print. My bigger issue is my own eye and the current default output of the camera. This is another reason why I posted here rather than in the printers forum.

I do think that the brightness of the monitor is an important question. In fact getting that set to some well defined value is likely the main thing I want to see from a calibration tool. However, for what it is worth the print lab noted on its test prints that while it would have made color corrections, it deems to levels to be correct and would make no adjustment to brightness.

This is FWIW and YMMV

I do and have calibrated my monitor for some years.

I use an xRite i1 display Pro with my BenQ SW270C and the brightness level is 90cd/M2 my test prints (at home) match well to my monitor and to the ones I get printed commercially.

Please bear in mind that (stating the obvious?) the monitor is transmitted light and the prints are reflected light. Though I post process in subdued lighting when I compare my prints the room lights up and I have another task light on (NB both these lights are 6000k and my monitor is at 6500k)

The results as mentioned look very good.

I have always finalised my images files for print my way and the only time I remember a lab telling me they have made corrections was back in film days with my colour prints :lol:

If your lab is having to make corrections then in their (and my?) opinion they are seeing that it needs colour corrections. This, in my understanding , should not be necessary if the edits/post processing is done on a calibrated monitor in consistent lighting conditions.

I can only suggest that you get yourself a calibrator sooner rather than later and see the difference it could make for yourself.

Could you tell us the make and model number of your monitor?

 

[SCoombs]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

IMO, you'd get more and better responses in the Printers and Printing forum.

I considered this, but every post I saw there was about literal home photo printers so I assumed that it was not the right place for the post.

I have over the last few years begun to take on occasional paying clients ....

I was relatively pleased with what I got back in terms of how well my photos appeared with their color calibration and so forth....

My monitor appears relatively well calibrated to their colors as the unmodified prints match closely enough that I can't tell a significant difference. However, playing with their adjustments and then looking at a series of other photos after the fact has made me realize that many of my photos are definitely too green. I don't think this is a monitor calibration issue because as I said it matches the prints pretty well....

3) In general, would you suggest that the use of a lab color service is advisable? A bad idea? A matter of personal choice and fine if one wants to go that route?

4) When comparing the prints to my monitor for color it is a bit challenging because the prints are darker. I understand that this is normal and expected as the monitor has a backlight while the prints don't. What's a good method for evaluating proper brightness of a print with respect to how bright a monitor is... i.e., for making sure that editing of lightness made on a backlit monitor is appropriate for printing?

In other words, I'm in general trying to refine my workflow here to address this stuff and am trying to figure out the best way.

Do you use a good colorimeter (hardware) like an X-Rite or Calibrite, with the corresponding software, to periodically calibrate and profile your monitor? If not, then all the rest are mere opinions, suppositions, and guesses. IMO the uncalibrated approach is not a good idea for paid work (or even a serious amateur). IME performing occasional proper calibration and profiling saves considerable time and frustration.

And if you do / once you do hardware calibrate and profile your monitor, are you doing it to a brightness appropriate for editing photos for printing, probably around 100 cd/m^2? Getting prints that look visibly too dark relative to what you anticipated based on what the monitor showed is very common, but not correct. Yes, there will always be differences, but they can be greatly reduced.

If you don't want to go the route of hardware calibrating-and-profiling your monitor, then IMO the better approach is to find a lab that will color-correct for you, whose color corrections you find subjectively pleasing, and just let them do so.

Monitor calibration is something that I will be doing but haven't been able to do yet. However, as I noted the prints that I received match my monitor's colors extremely well - so well, in fact, that one of my first thoughts was to second guess whether I will want to calibrate it because it matches the prints, and the purpose of the color test prints from the lab is after all to try to make sure that the monitor is calibrated to the lab. As they print on the test print, "The goal is to have this image match your monitor."

And to go further, I can see the benefit of the corrections the lab has said their corrections would have made on my monitor as it is, so again everything does indicate that the monitor is actually displaying things very well right now for this lab. Based on the test prints I am quite confident that what I see on my monitor is what I will see in an ordered print. My bigger issue is my own eye and the current default output of the camera. This is another reason why I posted here rather than in the printers forum.

I do think that the brightness of the monitor is an important question. In fact getting that set to some well defined value is likely the main thing I want to see from a calibration tool. However, for what it is worth the print lab noted on its test prints that while it would have made color corrections, it deems to levels to be correct and would make no adjustment to brightness.

This is FWIW and YMMV

I do and have calibrated my monitor for some years.

I use an xRite i1 display Pro with my BenQ SW270C and the brightness level is 90cd/M2 my test prints (at home) match well to my monitor and to the ones I get printed commercially.

Please bear in mind that (stating the obvious?) the monitor is transmitted light and the prints are reflected light. Though I post process in subdued lighting when I compare my prints the room lights up and I have another task light on (NB both these lights are 6000k and my monitor is at 6500k)

The results as mentioned look very good.

I have always finalised my images files for print my way and the only time I remember a lab telling me they have made corrections was back in film days with my colour prints :lol:

If your lab is having to make corrections then in their (and my?) opinion they are seeing that it needs colour corrections. This, in my understanding , should not be necessary if the edits/post processing is done on a calibrated monitor in consistent lighting conditions.

I can only suggest that you get yourself a calibrator sooner rather than later and see the difference it could make for yourself.

Could you tell us the make and model number of your monitor?

Again, part of my question is that I can see the need for color corrections on my own monitor once I apply the lab's suggestions. The problem isn't that my the lab suggests corrections because my monitor looks different from what they are printing. My monitor looks the same as what they are printing. The problem is in part ME and that the original colors looked right to me but as soon as I sit down and on my own monitor apply the corrections and I sit there and turn the adjustment layer on and off I can see with that I should have seen the need for the correction originally.

In other words, if most of the experienced people here with stronger senses for color had looked at the photos on my own monitor they would have seen the photos were a bit too green because my monitor absolutely does show this: I just didn't notice without the lab's "more experienced eye" pointing it out. Someone could have brought me a $10,000 pre-calibrated monitor and I still would have edited them the same way because the problem has been me and the files I'm starting with, not the monitor.

That's why my questions are:

1) How do I train my self to see this somewhat subtle color balance better?

2) Since it seems like all or most of the photos I get out of camera, even those I don't edit (e.g., my throwaways) need a similar correction, should I investigate whether I can apply some kind of adjustment in camera to the way it is recording color?

3) Is lab color correction a viable and reliable option to help with this, or are there significant downsides that I am not aware of?

 

[ajscullard]

Have you done any soft proofing using the printer-supplied paper/ink profile? Like you, I regularly calibrate my monitor, but I used to have a problem with prints being too dark. I previously simply lightened the images before I submitted them to the printer. It worked but it wasn't that great for color accuracy.

I recently wanted to print some high quality 30x20cm prints from a professional printer (Whitewall) and used their print profiles to carry out soft proofing before I sent the images for printing. The results were excellent.

Assuming you have Photoshop or a similar software, you load the print profiles that you need, open the image and then open a duplicate so you can compare the before/after images. You then work on the copy by using View>Proof Setup>Custom and selecting the profile for the print medium you are printing on. You will see that the image will now look dull, desaturated and maybe a bit darker by comparison with the original image. You can use curves and hue/saturation layers to make the soft-proof version look the same as (or very close to) the original image.

There are several very good tutorials on YouTube that demonstrate the process in detail.

During the ordering process, Whitewall offer to "optimize" the image before printing. I turned this off for one batch of prints and left it at the default for another batch and I couldn't see much difference.

Give it a try.

 

[Victor Engel]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

IMO, you'd get more and better responses in the Printers and Printing forum.

I considered this, but every post I saw there was about literal home photo printers so I assumed that it was not the right place for the post.

I have over the last few years begun to take on occasional paying clients ....

I was relatively pleased with what I got back in terms of how well my photos appeared with their color calibration and so forth....

My monitor appears relatively well calibrated to their colors as the unmodified prints match closely enough that I can't tell a significant difference. However, playing with their adjustments and then looking at a series of other photos after the fact has made me realize that many of my photos are definitely too green. I don't think this is a monitor calibration issue because as I said it matches the prints pretty well....

3) In general, would you suggest that the use of a lab color service is advisable? A bad idea? A matter of personal choice and fine if one wants to go that route?

4) When comparing the prints to my monitor for color it is a bit challenging because the prints are darker. I understand that this is normal and expected as the monitor has a backlight while the prints don't. What's a good method for evaluating proper brightness of a print with respect to how bright a monitor is... i.e., for making sure that editing of lightness made on a backlit monitor is appropriate for printing?

In other words, I'm in general trying to refine my workflow here to address this stuff and am trying to figure out the best way.

Do you use a good colorimeter (hardware) like an X-Rite or Calibrite, with the corresponding software, to periodically calibrate and profile your monitor? If not, then all the rest are mere opinions, suppositions, and guesses. IMO the uncalibrated approach is not a good idea for paid work (or even a serious amateur). IME performing occasional proper calibration and profiling saves considerable time and frustration.

And if you do / once you do hardware calibrate and profile your monitor, are you doing it to a brightness appropriate for editing photos for printing, probably around 100 cd/m^2? Getting prints that look visibly too dark relative to what you anticipated based on what the monitor showed is very common, but not correct. Yes, there will always be differences, but they can be greatly reduced.

If you don't want to go the route of hardware calibrating-and-profiling your monitor, then IMO the better approach is to find a lab that will color-correct for you, whose color corrections you find subjectively pleasing, and just let them do so.

Monitor calibration is something that I will be doing but haven't been able to do yet. However, as I noted the prints that I received match my monitor's colors extremely well - so well, in fact, that one of my first thoughts was to second guess whether I will want to calibrate it because it matches the prints, and the purpose of the color test prints from the lab is after all to try to make sure that the monitor is calibrated to the lab. As they print on the test print, "The goal is to have this image match your monitor."

And to go further, I can see the benefit of the corrections the lab has said their corrections would have made on my monitor as it is, so again everything does indicate that the monitor is actually displaying things very well right now for this lab. Based on the test prints I am quite confident that what I see on my monitor is what I will see in an ordered print. My bigger issue is my own eye and the current default output of the camera. This is another reason why I posted here rather than in the printers forum.

I do think that the brightness of the monitor is an important question. In fact getting that set to some well defined value is likely the main thing I want to see from a calibration tool. However, for what it is worth the print lab noted on its test prints that while it would have made color corrections, it deems to levels to be correct and would make no adjustment to brightness.

Human vision includes accommodation of a number of things, including color. If you do a lot of editing where there is a predominance of some hue or other, over time your vision will accommodate than and subtract it. To counteract this, it's a good idea to have a neutral work area and frequently look away from your work, allowing your vision to reset. When you go back to your work fresh, you're more likely to see biases in your color you would not have seen because your eyes got used to the color bias.

 

[D Saul]

Again, part of my question is that I can see the need for color corrections on my own monitor once I apply the lab's suggestions.

2) Since it seems like all or most of the photos I get out of camera, even those I don't edit (e.g., my throwaways) need a similar correction, should I investigate whether I can apply some kind of adjustment in camera to the way it is recording color?

What kind of camera are you shooting with? I would suggest re-setting the camera back to factory defaults or at least checking the WB setting to see if it's been inadvertently altered adding green (or subtracting magenta).

 

[SCoombs]

Again, part of my question is that I can see the need for color corrections on my own monitor once I apply the lab's suggestions.

2) Since it seems like all or most of the photos I get out of camera, even those I don't edit (e.g., my throwaways) need a similar correction, should I investigate whether I can apply some kind of adjustment in camera to the way it is recording color?

What kind of camera are you shooting with? I would suggest re-setting the camera back to factory defaults or at least checking the WB setting to see if it's been inadvertently altered adding green (or subtracting magenta).

It is a Z8, which has been reset fairly recently and I can say with certainty doesn't have any alterations to its color defaults. In fact, there was a firmware bug which was just recently updated to fix which was causing a green cast on some, but not all, Z8 cameras. Mine never had this problem that I noticed (although I am saying things are too green, the bug was creating extremely noticeable green casts) but even so it now has the fix intended to address this particular thing.

 

[NAwlins Contrarian]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

IMO, you'd get more and better responses in the Printers and Printing forum.

I considered this, but every post I saw there was about literal home photo printers so I assumed that it was not the right place for the post.

FWIW there are more than a few threads there about professional photo printers intended for commercial / volume production (e.g. Canon Pro-2600, Pro-4600, and Pro-6600, Epson P7570 and P9570, and HP Z9+).

And there are more than a few threads about preparing photos for printing, which doesn't really differ much depending on the process used.

Do you use a good colorimeter (hardware) like an X-Rite or Calibrite, with the corresponding software, to periodically calibrate and profile your monitor? If not, then all the rest are mere opinions, suppositions, and guesses. IMO the uncalibrated approach is not a good idea for paid work (or even a serious amateur). IME performing occasional proper calibration and profiling saves considerable time and frustration.

And if you do / once you do hardware calibrate and profile your monitor, are you doing it to a brightness appropriate for editing photos for printing, probably around 100 cd/m^2? Getting prints that look visibly too dark relative to what you anticipated based on what the monitor showed is very common, but not correct. Yes, there will always be differences, but they can be greatly reduced.

If you don't want to go the route of hardware calibrating-and-profiling your monitor, then IMO the better approach is to find a lab that will color-correct for you, whose color corrections you find subjectively pleasing, and just let them do so.

Monitor calibration is something that I will be doing but haven't been able to do yet. However, as I noted the prints that I received match my monitor's colors extremely well - so well, in fact, that one of my first thoughts was to second guess whether I will want to calibrate it because it matches the prints, and the purpose of the color test prints from the lab is after all to try to make sure that the monitor is calibrated to the lab. As they print on the test print, "The goal is to have this image match your monitor."

And to go further, I can see the benefit of the corrections the lab has said their corrections would have made on my monitor as it is, so again everything does indicate that the monitor is actually displaying things very well right now for this lab. Based on the test prints I am quite confident that what I see on my monitor is what I will see in an ordered print. My bigger issue is my own eye and the current default output of the camera. This is another reason why I posted here rather than in the printers forum.

I do think that the brightness of the monitor is an important question. In fact getting that set to some well defined value is likely the main thing I want to see from a calibration tool. However, for what it is worth the print lab noted on its test prints that while it would have made color corrections, it deems to levels to be correct and would make no adjustment to brightness.

I hear you, but I don't quite share your perspective. A monitor that's a little off, or off only in certain colors, can be a frustrating device to try to edit on. I'm skeptical how well anyone other than the rarest and most experienced individuals can do a good job evaluating that by eye.

Nevertheless, one other thought for you: I find that over time I'm much happier with the lightness, color, and contrast of my photos if I do an initial, 'heavy lifting' processing of the raw file; and then go back a day or two later and tweak it. Starting from a version that's quite close makes it easier to perceive things that might benefit from more subtle changes.

 

[Box Brownie]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

IMO, you'd get more and better responses in the Printers and Printing forum.

I considered this, but every post I saw there was about literal home photo printers so I assumed that it was not the right place for the post.

I have over the last few years begun to take on occasional paying clients ....

I was relatively pleased with what I got back in terms of how well my photos appeared with their color calibration and so forth....

My monitor appears relatively well calibrated to their colors as the unmodified prints match closely enough that I can't tell a significant difference. However, playing with their adjustments and then looking at a series of other photos after the fact has made me realize that many of my photos are definitely too green. I don't think this is a monitor calibration issue because as I said it matches the prints pretty well....

3) In general, would you suggest that the use of a lab color service is advisable? A bad idea? A matter of personal choice and fine if one wants to go that route?

4) When comparing the prints to my monitor for color it is a bit challenging because the prints are darker. I understand that this is normal and expected as the monitor has a backlight while the prints don't. What's a good method for evaluating proper brightness of a print with respect to how bright a monitor is... i.e., for making sure that editing of lightness made on a backlit monitor is appropriate for printing?

In other words, I'm in general trying to refine my workflow here to address this stuff and am trying to figure out the best way.

Do you use a good colorimeter (hardware) like an X-Rite or Calibrite, with the corresponding software, to periodically calibrate and profile your monitor? If not, then all the rest are mere opinions, suppositions, and guesses. IMO the uncalibrated approach is not a good idea for paid work (or even a serious amateur). IME performing occasional proper calibration and profiling saves considerable time and frustration.

And if you do / once you do hardware calibrate and profile your monitor, are you doing it to a brightness appropriate for editing photos for printing, probably around 100 cd/m^2? Getting prints that look visibly too dark relative to what you anticipated based on what the monitor showed is very common, but not correct. Yes, there will always be differences, but they can be greatly reduced.

If you don't want to go the route of hardware calibrating-and-profiling your monitor, then IMO the better approach is to find a lab that will color-correct for you, whose color corrections you find subjectively pleasing, and just let them do so.

Monitor calibration is something that I will be doing but haven't been able to do yet. However, as I noted the prints that I received match my monitor's colors extremely well - so well, in fact, that one of my first thoughts was to second guess whether I will want to calibrate it because it matches the prints, and the purpose of the color test prints from the lab is after all to try to make sure that the monitor is calibrated to the lab. As they print on the test print, "The goal is to have this image match your monitor."

And to go further, I can see the benefit of the corrections the lab has said their corrections would have made on my monitor as it is, so again everything does indicate that the monitor is actually displaying things very well right now for this lab. Based on the test prints I am quite confident that what I see on my monitor is what I will see in an ordered print. My bigger issue is my own eye and the current default output of the camera. This is another reason why I posted here rather than in the printers forum.

I do think that the brightness of the monitor is an important question. In fact getting that set to some well defined value is likely the main thing I want to see from a calibration tool. However, for what it is worth the print lab noted on its test prints that while it would have made color corrections, it deems to levels to be correct and would make no adjustment to brightness.

This is FWIW and YMMV

I do and have calibrated my monitor for some years.

I use an xRite i1 display Pro with my BenQ SW270C and the brightness level is 90cd/M2 my test prints (at home) match well to my monitor and to the ones I get printed commercially.

Please bear in mind that (stating the obvious?) the monitor is transmitted light and the prints are reflected light. Though I post process in subdued lighting when I compare my prints the room lights up and I have another task light on (NB both these lights are 6000k and my monitor is at 6500k)

The results as mentioned look very good.

I have always finalised my images files for print my way and the only time I remember a lab telling me they have made corrections was back in film days with my colour prints :lol:

If your lab is having to make corrections then in their (and my?) opinion they are seeing that it needs colour corrections. This, in my understanding , should not be necessary if the edits/post processing is done on a calibrated monitor in consistent lighting conditions.

I can only suggest that you get yourself a calibrator sooner rather than later and see the difference it could make for yourself.

Could you tell us the make and model number of your monitor?

Again, part of my question is that I can see the need for color corrections on my own monitor once I apply the lab's suggestions. The problem isn't that my the lab suggests corrections because my monitor looks different from what they are printing. My monitor looks the same as what they are printing. The problem is in part ME and that the original colors looked right to me but as soon as I sit down and on my own monitor apply the corrections and I sit there and turn the adjustment layer on and off I can see with that I should have seen the need for the correction originally.

Lots of amateurs and likely every pro photographer who prepares their own images for printing by including monitor calibration in the workflow preparations.

By calibrating your monitor you take human bias out of the equation.

That is why I advised/suggested that you buy a calibrator and see what difference it could make for you?

As you say the problem is with you..........have had your colour perception clinically tested?

In other words, if most of the experienced people here with stronger senses for color had looked at the photos on my own monitor they would have seen the photos were a bit too green because my monitor absolutely does show this: I just didn't notice without the lab's "more experienced eye" pointing it out. Someone could have brought me a $10,000 pre-calibrated monitor and I still would have edited them the same way because the problem has been me and the files I'm starting with, not the monitor.

Again I ask, what make & model is the monitor and sorry if I missed it if stated how old is the monitor?

That's why my questions are:

1) How do I train my self to see this somewhat subtle color balance better?

Have you shown others your monitor and discussed what you & they see?

2) Since it seems like all or most of the photos I get out of camera, even those I don't edit (e.g., my throwaways) need a similar correction, should I investigate whether I can apply some kind of adjustment in camera to the way it is recording color?

3) Is lab color correction a viable and reliable option to help with this, or are there significant downsides that I am not aware of?

 

[SCoombs]

I'm not quite sure if this is the right forum but don't see another that quite covers the full range of things I'm asking about here.

IMO, you'd get more and better responses in the Printers and Printing forum.

I considered this, but every post I saw there was about literal home photo printers so I assumed that it was not the right place for the post.

I have over the last few years begun to take on occasional paying clients ....

I was relatively pleased with what I got back in terms of how well my photos appeared with their color calibration and so forth....

My monitor appears relatively well calibrated to their colors as the unmodified prints match closely enough that I can't tell a significant difference. However, playing with their adjustments and then looking at a series of other photos after the fact has made me realize that many of my photos are definitely too green. I don't think this is a monitor calibration issue because as I said it matches the prints pretty well....

3) In general, would you suggest that the use of a lab color service is advisable? A bad idea? A matter of personal choice and fine if one wants to go that route?

4) When comparing the prints to my monitor for color it is a bit challenging because the prints are darker. I understand that this is normal and expected as the monitor has a backlight while the prints don't. What's a good method for evaluating proper brightness of a print with respect to how bright a monitor is... i.e., for making sure that editing of lightness made on a backlit monitor is appropriate for printing?

In other words, I'm in general trying to refine my workflow here to address this stuff and am trying to figure out the best way.

Do you use a good colorimeter (hardware) like an X-Rite or Calibrite, with the corresponding software, to periodically calibrate and profile your monitor? If not, then all the rest are mere opinions, suppositions, and guesses. IMO the uncalibrated approach is not a good idea for paid work (or even a serious amateur). IME performing occasional proper calibration and profiling saves considerable time and frustration.

And if you do / once you do hardware calibrate and profile your monitor, are you doing it to a brightness appropriate for editing photos for printing, probably around 100 cd/m^2? Getting prints that look visibly too dark relative to what you anticipated based on what the monitor showed is very common, but not correct. Yes, there will always be differences, but they can be greatly reduced.

If you don't want to go the route of hardware calibrating-and-profiling your monitor, then IMO the better approach is to find a lab that will color-correct for you, whose color corrections you find subjectively pleasing, and just let them do so.

Monitor calibration is something that I will be doing but haven't been able to do yet. However, as I noted the prints that I received match my monitor's colors extremely well - so well, in fact, that one of my first thoughts was to second guess whether I will want to calibrate it because it matches the prints, and the purpose of the color test prints from the lab is after all to try to make sure that the monitor is calibrated to the lab. As they print on the test print, "The goal is to have this image match your monitor."

And to go further, I can see the benefit of the corrections the lab has said their corrections would have made on my monitor as it is, so again everything does indicate that the monitor is actually displaying things very well right now for this lab. Based on the test prints I am quite confident that what I see on my monitor is what I will see in an ordered print. My bigger issue is my own eye and the current default output of the camera. This is another reason why I posted here rather than in the printers forum.

I do think that the brightness of the monitor is an important question. In fact getting that set to some well defined value is likely the main thing I want to see from a calibration tool. However, for what it is worth the print lab noted on its test prints that while it would have made color corrections, it deems to levels to be correct and would make no adjustment to brightness.

This is FWIW and YMMV

I do and have calibrated my monitor for some years.

I use an xRite i1 display Pro with my BenQ SW270C and the brightness level is 90cd/M2 my test prints (at home) match well to my monitor and to the ones I get printed commercially.

Please bear in mind that (stating the obvious?) the monitor is transmitted light and the prints are reflected light. Though I post process in subdued lighting when I compare my prints the room lights up and I have another task light on (NB both these lights are 6000k and my monitor is at 6500k)

The results as mentioned look very good.

I have always finalised my images files for print my way and the only time I remember a lab telling me they have made corrections was back in film days with my colour prints :lol:

If your lab is having to make corrections then in their (and my?) opinion they are seeing that it needs colour corrections. This, in my understanding , should not be necessary if the edits/post processing is done on a calibrated monitor in consistent lighting conditions.

I can only suggest that you get yourself a calibrator sooner rather than later and see the difference it could make for yourself.

Could you tell us the make and model number of your monitor?

Again, part of my question is that I can see the need for color corrections on my own monitor once I apply the lab's suggestions. The problem isn't that my the lab suggests corrections because my monitor looks different from what they are printing. My monitor looks the same as what they are printing. The problem is in part ME and that the original colors looked right to me but as soon as I sit down and on my own monitor apply the corrections and I sit there and turn the adjustment layer on and off I can see with that I should have seen the need for the correction originally.

Lots of amateurs and likely every pro photographer who prepares their own images for printing by including monitor calibration in the workflow preparations.

By calibrating your monitor you take human bias out of the equation.

That is why I advised/suggested that you buy a calibrator and see what difference it could make for you?

To reiterate, the colors on my monitor match the prints I received almost exactly, and this is based on not only my judgment but also others who have looked. They match the color test prints from the lab almost exactly - color test prints which are provided by the lab for the specific purpose of helping to calibrate monitors to the lab. While I will calibrate the monitor to Calibrite's standard at some point to see what the difference is, their standard for calibration is by no means certain to be the same standard according to which the lab is calibrated, which is why they specifically recommend using test prints to calibrate your monitor to their printing rather than to rely on a separate standard.

As you say the problem is with you..........have had your colour perception clinically tested?

My color perception is normal. I am not talking here about something so extreme that it would constitute a clinical diagnosis or anything of the sort. I am for example not color blind in any way. What I'm talking about is having not noticed a slight green cast which is extremely obvious after viewing the corrections. I provided a couple of different samples above, and I'll provide another here. I will post my original edit first and then the version corrected by the lab to match the lab's standard. In other words, when you look at the difference between the two photos which follow you will be seeing, on whatever calibration your monitor has, exactly the difference between my edit and what the lab thinks is correct.





Again, the second photo is the correction done by the lab. It does not represent a massive change to totally different colors, but the removal of a slight green cast. It's a difference I can very easily see now that someone has put it before me, but which I wouldn't have noticed without the comparison to juxtapose.

In other words, if most of the experienced people here with stronger senses for color had looked at the photos on my own monitor they would have seen the photos were a bit too green because my monitor absolutely does show this: I just didn't notice without the lab's "more experienced eye" pointing it out. Someone could have brought me a $10,000 pre-calibrated monitor and I still would have edited them the same way because the problem has been me and the files I'm starting with, not the monitor.

Again I ask, what make & model is the monitor and sorry if I missed it if stated how old is the monitor?

The monitor we are talking about is made by LG, the model number I do not have immediately. It is new within the past year. Regardless, based on the opinion of more than one person its current calibration matches the color of the lab prints about as exactly as I think we'd expect human beings to be able to identify.

Let me try to make clear what I am trying to ask about here in a different way by saying this: usually whenever I have seen discussions about printing and monitors, it's people posting who say that they had photos printed and the photos looked substantially different from what they saw on their monitor and are confused. That is not the case here. The photos I had printed look exactly the same as what I saw and see on my monitor. This is rather a question about the lab evaluating the color of my photos to according to their standards and saying that they are a bit too green, and my looking at the corrections they have made on my own monitor and agreeing with their judgment but knowing that because my original edits were very close to what the camera had recorded that I would not have recognized the slight excess of green without seeing the better edits to compare to.

 

[D Saul]

Again, the second photo is the correction done by the lab.

my looking at the corrections they have made on my own monitor and agreeing with their judgment

To me, on my calibrated Eizo, the lab's version is too magenta while your original is just a tad green. As has been suggested, get a calibration kit and run a proper calibration to set as a baseline. Then you can create another version of that baseline except this time you can manually add some magenta through the calibration program. Rename that adjusted version to something different than the base line.

Now you can toggle between these two calibrations when you do your processing to see if processing under one of them gets you spot on with the lab vs. the other one.

 

[SCoombs]

Again, the second photo is the correction done by the lab.

my looking at the corrections they have made on my own monitor and agreeing with their judgment

To me, on my calibrated Eizo, the lab's version is too magenta while your original is just a tad green. As has been suggested, get a calibration kit and run a proper calibration to set as a baseline. Then you can create another version of that baseline except this time you can manually add some magenta through the calibration program. Rename that adjusted version to something different than the base line.

Now you can toggle between these two calibrations when you do your processing to see if processing under one of them gets you spot on with the lab vs. the other one.

It is probable that I will create a few slightly different versions and have them printed, along with getting lab calibration suggestions for each, to try to hone in on a baseline sort of what you're talking about.

I agree that on my monitor their version of this particular photo is a bit too magenta. After having seen their version, I'd probably go for something like this:






I do think some of the others they sent back with color correction data are what I'd "agree with," as I said.

 

[Michael Fryd]

If the colors in your file are correct, then it is not critical that your monitor be correct. A calibrated monitor is only really necessary when you are adjusting colors/brightness by eye. Ideally, you should be able to get the colors correct without having to eyeball them.

My first advice would be to get a quality neutral gray target, and use it for your white balance adjustments.

You should take a photo of the target as your first shot, each time your lighting changes. If you are shooting JPEG, use that photo to set a custom white balance for your camera.

If you are shooting raw, you can still set a custom white balance, or you can take a white balance reading off that frame, and apply it to the other shots with the same lighting. If you are shooting raw, the neutral target doesn't need to be your first shot, but that's a reasonable habit to have.

When selecting your card, be aware that there is a difference between a 18% grey target, and a neutral gray card.

The 18% target is supposed to reflect 18% of the light hitting it. However an 18% target is allowed to have a color cast (it is intended for exposure issues, not color issues).

A neutral target is supposed to equally reflect all colors of visible light. It may reflect more or less than 18%.

Some targets are both. They reflect 18% of all colors.

There are lots of good choices out there for neutral targets. I have had good luck with WhiBal® targets.

Once you have a correct white balance, you shouldn't have any color casts.

If you do want to add a warming or cooling cast to your images, you can manually adjust the white balance when processing the raw files, or get a warming/cooling target. For instance, the ColorChecker Passport Photo 2. In addition to 18% grey targets, and neutral targets, it has some warming and cooling grey target patches. If you use one of these targets for your white balance, you can get a consistent warm or cool tone across all your lighting situations.

There is software that allows you to use the ColorChecker to profile your camera/lens/lighting combination. This can improve the accuracy of your colors. Unless you are doing product work, this probably isn't necessary. Most clients prefer "pleasing color" over accurate color. Often a proper white balance will yield the results you need to make your clients happy.

.

Another thing you might try is to use your photo editors "Auto Adjust" function, to see if that gives you a result that matches the corrected photos from your printer.

 

[SCoombs]

If the colors in your file are correct, then it is not critical that your monitor be correct. A calibrated monitor is only really necessary when you are adjusting colors/brightness by eye. Ideally, you should be able to get the colors correct without having to eyeball them.

My first advice would be to get a quality neutral gray target, and use it for your white balance adjustments.

You should take a photo of the target as your first shot, each time your lighting changes. If you are shooting JPEG, use that photo to set a custom white balance for your camera.

If you are shooting raw, you can still set a custom white balance, or you can take a white balance reading off that frame, and apply it to the other shots with the same lighting. If you are shooting raw, the neutral target doesn't need to be your first shot, but that's a reasonable habit to have.

When selecting your card, be aware that there is a difference between a 18% grey target, and a neutral gray card.

The 18% target is supposed to reflect 18% of the light hitting it. However an 18% target is allowed to have a color cast (it is intended for exposure issues, not color issues).

A neutral target is supposed to equally reflect all colors of visible light. It may reflect more or less than 18%.

Some targets are both. They reflect 18% of all colors.

There are lots of good choices out there for neutral targets. I have had good luck with WhiBal® targets.

Once you have a correct white balance, you shouldn't have any color casts.

If you do want to add a warming or cooling cast to your images, you can manually adjust the white balance when processing the raw files, or get a warming/cooling target. For instance, the ColorChecker Passport Photo 2. In addition to 18% grey targets, and neutral targets, it has some warming and cooling grey target patches. If you use one of these targets for your white balance, you can get a consistent warm or cool tone across all your lighting situations.

There is software that allows you to use the ColorChecker to profile your camera/lens/lighting combination. This can improve the accuracy of your colors. Unless you are doing product work, this probably isn't necessary. Most clients prefer "pleasing color" over accurate color. Often a proper white balance will yield the results you need to make your clients happy.

.

Another thing you might try is to use your photo editors "Auto Adjust" function, to see if that gives you a result that matches the corrected photos from your printer.

I've used a white balance target to set a manual white balance in camera and found that even on the camera screen it produced a much, much warmer tone than was true to the scene - and I emphasize the much warmer, so on that day I just set auto white balance and it was much closer to what I saw with my eyes.

For instance, here is my edit on a photo:





Here is about what the manual preset white balance set based on the white balance target was:





I don't have the files I actually took using the manual preset white balance because I deleted them, but I've approximated it using the grey sweater here as a white balance target in LR (to be clear, my white balance target is an actual white balance target... I know that this sweater is not! - but this is pretty close to what the target was giving me). I can assure you having been there that day that this is not even remotely close to what it actually looked like.

I also have a Colorchecker and have used it for every instance since I got it, including using the white balance targets on it to set the white balance in editing. I've found it to be something which I stick at times but other times I haven't liked the results and found it a lot more pleasing to use the camera's default color profile.