Improve your photo editing with suitable free test images. Fixing prints which look too dark.
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 жов 2024
- Using test images to improve the consistency and quality of your photo editing. Reasons prints look too dark and how to fix your photos, whether your screen is calibrated or not. Fix flat or low contrast images more consistently.
One of many techniques I use to improve the quality of my photo editing for my professional photography work.
Works in addition to calibrating your screen - can help even if you don't.
All my free test images are available via:
www.northlight...
#PhotoEditing #DarkPrints #PhotographyTips #EditPhotosEasily #PhotographyTutorials
For a full categorised index of all my videos, see:
www.northlight...
-----------------
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page:
"Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keit...
-----------------
My articles and videos are always free to access.
Any help with running this channel is gratefully received.
-----------------
I also have some affiliate links which earn me a commission if used.
US Amazon photo/print gear: amzn.to/3l9vJC6
B&H Photo: www.bhphotovid...
Adorama: www.adorama.co...
![I Replaced ALL my ADOBE APPS with these [free or cheaper] Alternatives!](/img/n.gif)
All my free test images are available via: www.northlight-images.co.uk/printer-test-images/
If you'd like to make a small donation, I have a Kofi page: "Buy me a coffee" ko-fi.com/keithcooper
Good one Keith.
Thanks
Another good video Kieth
Thanks
Thank's Keith! Very good idea to open the test image as a reference. Will do!
Another thing. As I'm a video editor I'm used to work in RGB in Photoshop, even if I'm going to print my photographs. Should I work in CMYK instead when printing?
Right now I am producing a photobook that I hope to sell. I want to make a test print but companies that make digital prints need a CMYK-original. How can I safely convert my RGB to CMYK? What't the difference? I have made a mistake before but never understood what happened. I think you're the man to help me. Thank's again Keith!
Thanks
Ah, CMYK - Good conversion is a skilled job. This type of book is one of the few times where cmyk has any place in photo printing [see my video 'CMYK- Just say no!]
ua-cam.com/video/wX3ZcAiLg-4/v-deo.html
At very least you will need a press profile to convert to - there is no such thing as a 'standard cmyk'.
My first suggestion is to get a copy of 'Real World Color Management' by Fraser et al.
Unless you understand the process and why it works, results are unpredictable.
@@KeithCooper That video tells me all I want to know. I will not go there. Thank's!
Brilliant! Thanks!!
Thanks
So if my prints are a bit dark on a calibrated monitor meaning it's too bright does that mean when I turn the brightness down I have to change the images to look correct?
Oh I see you are recommending a comparison with the test image, that makes sense, thanks....
Yes - hopefully it looks better with that comparison.
Keith, I believe you retain your test prints as a record. I am curious if you make any notations on the backs. If so, what sort of writing instrument do you use please? Curious what would work well for matte, glossy, semigloss etc.
Test prints - just felt tip pen or soft pencil depending on the paper type.
I am generally pretty happy with my printing on Lustre paper, but when I try matt papers I always find them looking a bit too flat. I boost the contrast and vibrance a touch but to me they lose some of the wow factor. Am I being unrealistic in my expectations or are there any techniques to help when printing on matt papers?
Unrealistic - not really - you need to appreciate the lower dynamic range of matt papers, which means some images work better on them, some on gloss/lustre
I have some videos directly looking at just this topic - see the main index I created, not YT which is useless for organising stuff]
www.northlight-images.co.uk/keith-cooper-photography-videos-index/
I find matte papers uninspiring as well
Yes - I find them very image specific, but when they work well...
@@KeithCooper Wow, that's a very comprehensive list. Thanks I'll have a look through them.
Hi Keith, I have used the Datacolor test image on Hahnemuhle and Fotospeed test packs and, to me, the prints look a little dark. I'm using a Mac Pro with Eizo monitor (calibrated), no adjustments to the image file, the correct ICC profiles for the paper/ink combination ands letting Photoshop manage the colours. Could you supply a printed test image that could be used as a reference?
There is no such thing as a reference print for this.
There are a number of approaches to problems here.
The print needs to be viewed in good light on its own and not compared to the screen.
My first is to try one of the other test images on the download page.
It could be that something is subtly wrong in your print setup, you need brighter print viewing lighting, or just your perception of 'too dark' is wrong in this instance for these papers ;-)
It's a tricky one but there are no standards - I could produce 'good' versions on a few papers, but that would need quite a bit of work. Not sure if there would be a market for this at all.
I do look at this occasionally
www.northlight-images.co.uk/kodak-pro-color-management-check-up-kit/
Of course the prints in the box were made nearly 20 years ago, so who knows how they have drifted ;-)
Hi Keith, not sure if this has been asked or perhaps should be... when profiling a print, how does it measure the colour of the paper, so when you soft proof (if you do) it shows the image as it would look on that paper, so maybe warmer or colder? Does it see the white square as the paper colour? Hope that makes sense?
Paper white is one of the measurements in the profiling patches. This is used in building the profile. Some software packages allow for this to be an adjustable part of the profiling settings.
However, with i1Profiler, there is no explanation for just what the sliders do... I believe I first raised this as a complaint, during testing about 15 years ago - still waiting :-( In other words I generally just ignore it...
As to soft proofing, hoping for paper whiteness to be of much relevance is another area where I feel that "Soft Proofing" has been much oversold by the "Lightroom training industry"
To me it's simply not a tool I consider using very often... I don't include it in any of my teaching until people have real experience of properly looking at prints, and even then with specific examples, such as dealing with colours out of gamut for your monitor but not for the printer.
@@KeithCooper Thank you for the in depth reply, to be honest I never use it as I agree printing is the only way to see the outcome. The only thing I thought it maybe a bit useful for would be to get an indication of how the paper colour effects the image. I printed a black and white portrait (from an old glass negative) and had a test pack (your advice) of some Hahnemuhle paper and all I had left was a Matt Duo sheet. So tried it and loved the colour it gave the photo as it warmed it up due to the paper colour. So would be handy to at least see if it can give a reasonable representation of the paper colour effect on the image. I am tempted to scan a sheet or it when it arrives and seeing if I can overlay the photo on it again to replicate the effect, as I will get the texture as well. I do like to get myself down a rabbit hole :-) Thanks again Keith!!
Another very informative video, thank you and thanks for the test images. I do have a question though. You mention that dark printed images are sometimes a result of a too bright monitor and I agree. I calibrate my monitor with a Spyder X and that does take room light into consideration when advising me of the "suggested" brightness setting for my monitor. Since my editing area is a bit on the brighter side, the Spyder always wants me to have a bright monitor. Since I adjust the monitor to the Spyder suggestion my prints always seem to need more exposure. Should I just ignore the recommendation of the calibrator and keep the monitor at a lower brightness?
Ah - I never use any of those 'auto setting' features at all.
They are as much there for product marketing 'features' as anything else ;-)
Thanks. This will help since my images look fine in Darktable on a calibrated monitor but print dark and a little flat. Will give it a go.
I am in the market for a new 24 - 30 inch monitor. Any suggestions, reliable reviews, or thoughts?
Thanks
Can't say much about monitors, since I've not tested a wide enough range to observe significant differences. The one you see in my videos are from BenQ, and I've had no issues with them, but as I say - limited range of testing...
I have a question about calibration.
I own an Epson ET-8550, which has a scanner (this question could easily apply to other printer/scanner combos).
Would it be possible to print out a 'calibration page' and then use the built-in bed scanner on that print to compare/adjust/create profiles?
And... Is there software that can already do this?
Good question - Yes, there is such software out there...
Unfortunately it's not very good for most papers.
The scanner [no scanner] has suitably precise enough colorimetry to do this job well
Any recommended image test print set with multiple colors to calibrate monitor?
No... Test images are no good for calibrating monitors - you need a colorimeter or spectrophotometer for that.
Thanks for another great video Keith. Im surprised you dont talk about the histogram, isnt it a good indicator of print brightness (supposing you dont have the screen cranked up to 150% brighteness!!)? Also isnt soft proofing to be trusted? As i felt the urge (which is slowly going away) to buy a printer i was between the canon pro 200 and epson ET 8550 ( leaning towards the epson given the running costs) and i downloaded 2 profiles for the same paper, 1 for the canon 1 for the epson...the canon had a bit deeper blacks when softproofing in photoshop, is this not to be trusted?
Thanks
Ah - histograms - that's another topic all together... this ones about purely a visual technique.
I may well do some more specific editing stuff when I've the PRO-1100 here to test. That said, I don't use LR at all ;-) Soft proofing is a good tool if used properly - not as a crutch to avoid properly 'looking' at prints... It is vastly over used IMHO.
I'd not evaluate printers in any meaningful way from profiles... It's not about 'trust' but a need to appreciate all the various things profiles do and don't tell you.
You can't use a colorimeter on the screen and the print can you? I know there is always a difference in a device colorspace and color composition but would there be any reasonable way to map it (thumb in the wind style) or get clues about what looks wrong?
A colorimeter [with profiling/calibration software] gets you a profile which you can compare with a printer profile.
However, doing this in a meaningful way is much more difficult than many think ;-)
My first advice to anyone trying this is to get a copy of 'Real World Color Management' by Fraser et al. So as to understand just what you are comparing and it if means anything ;-)
Or you could investigate the work of Dan Margulis and his 'color by the numbers' approach...
@@KeithCooper I did take your advice and I bought a used copy - it hasn't arrived yet. :o I'll be quiet about colorimeters until I read it. :) I'm kind of curious how to get a real color into the world from desktop to printer - I've worked at several companies that used specific pantone colors and I design the occasional business cards (albeit not for anybody that needs pantone color matching) or other advert.
Yes - quite a tricky area. One though, that has a lot of related work in industrial design.
Your good content gets watered down by continuously repeating it in yet another video.
This is slightly different [editing], but unfortunately, the only place there is no repetition is the proper written reviews... where things can be properly cross referenced.
One more reason I still dislike UA-cam in many respects :-(
As the channel grows I try and link old stuff, but it performs very poorly on YT.
Most people it seems don't remember much about a video a few months after publishing.
I disagree, Keith also focused on editing on screen and comparing a test image to your image as a datum point I suppose. So I actually learnt something new today! Thanks Keith.