# Why Are My Prints Always Too Dark?



## jackjohn777 (Sep 26, 2014)

Could there be a simple explanation for why my images always print too dark IF I don't boost the exposure manually in the Develop module? This problem has occurred across cameras and lenses. Is this a common problem for some reason?

This started when a friend of mine sent me some image files of my wedding and I got them printed using Photobox and they were all too dark. I have also tried to use Photobox to print images I took with an old Sony SLR with the standard kit lens and they also came out too dark. This pattern continued when I bought an A57 and paired it with both a Sony G series 4.5/5.6 70-300 lens and a Sony DT 2.8 16-50 lens. The only way my DNG images print as expected is if I boost the exposure on every photo by between 0.5 and 1.0 in Lightroom. 

Although Photobox is the obvious culprit given it's the only thing that is consistent across the scenarios I can't believe they have such a fundamental flaw otherwise they'd go out of business. I've also asked them to investigate the problem in the past when I originally complained about the prints, and they did several more print runs on different machines and assured me there was no issue their end. When I boost exposure on every print then there's no issue, but why do I need to do this all the time?

On a related point how do you calibrate your screens to ensure your prints come out exactly as you see on screen both colour wise and in terms of lightness/darkness. Is there a tool you'd recommend? I tend to use an Apple Macbook Pro or Apple Desktop.

Thanks


----------



## Tony Jay (Sep 26, 2014)

Hi!

The reason for dark prints is usually (very commonly, in fact) simply that monitor luminance is set too high.
As a consequence images that look good on screen are way too dark when printed.

Calibrating your monitor is a good way to go - it ensures a much better colour match.
Look for products made by Spyder and XRite.

As part of calibrating your monitor it is important to set an appropriate luminance (brightness).
Most factory-set monitors are way way too bright for decent image or video editing.
My suggestion is too aim for a luminance around 100 cd/m2 as a starting point.
That will make all your images look dull and dim.
Naturally you will want to adjust  develop settings.
The exact luminance needed is dependent on how bright or dim the environment is in which you work.
(I am not talking about a software package here but rather about a room and its lighting.)
Generally, the dimmer the working environment the lower the monitor luminance needs to be set, and vica versa.

Some consumer-grade monitors cannot be set to appropriate luminance's for photo editing.
Other limitations of consumer-grade monitors include inconsistent luminance across the panel with edges and corners being particular problems.
Depending on your budget you may want to look at monitors made by Eizo or NEC that are specifically designed with image and video editing in mind.

Occasionally dark prints are a result of inadvertent double colour management. Dark prints associated with this issue will nearly always also suffer from strange colour shifts rather than just look dark.

Tony Jay


----------



## jackjohn777 (Sep 27, 2014)

Thanks Tony. I did consider the monitor brightness, but it didn't explain the fact that files that hadn't been near my monitors or PCs (they were straight from the camera in the case of the wedding shots) printed out dark, and even the ones I've processed myself from raw files still ALL required a significant boost in exposure i.e. you'd think irrespective of my personal taste or monitor brightness during development that some of the images would be correctly exposed to start with rather than every single one printing out darkly unless I boost the exposure. However I totally take your general pt about the dangers of a bright screen, and will check out those products you mentioned, and the settings, because aside from the query re all the images needing an exposure boost to the original raw file, I do want to see as close a representation of what will be printed as possible on screen. 

Thanks again


----------



## Tony Jay (Sep 27, 2014)

While it is possible that more than one issue is in play in producing the results that you have observed it is absolutely crucial to get your monitor calibrated correctly.
Otherwise it will be impossible to do any useful troubleshooting.
Ultimately, getting good prints requires attention to detail on all points of workflow from setting up a camera to exposure settings all the way through to every aspect of post-processing and soft-proofing.
A good working knowledge of colour management as it applies to the tools that you use is important as well otherwise, in reality, the results you achieve, good or bad, will be random and unpredictable.
A key part of a workflow where printing is the end-point is getting a predictable result.
Once you can achieve that it will be possible to build on that to produce truly spectacular results.

Tony Jay


----------



## clee01l (Sep 27, 2014)

In addition to the response from Tony. You should consider the characteristics between transmissive media and print media.  The same image printed or viewed  on a screen will appear darkest in the pront.  This sounds a lot like what you are experiencing.   Just  as there is a color profile applied to the monitor, there is also a color profile to be applied to the printer *and* paper being used to produce the print.  Consider that matte paper will soak up more ink than a glossy paper.  There is a concept called "soft proofing" that can mimic the printer and paper characteristics on the screen.  You can find this feature in the Develop module and apply develop adjustments to achieve a more acceptable print.  Also in the Print Job section of the print module there are brightness and contrase controls that can be used to tweak the output.


----------



## jackjohn777 (Sep 27, 2014)

clee01l said:


> In addition to the response from Tony. You should consider the characteristics between transmissive media and print media.  The same image printed or viewed  on a screen will appear darkest in the pront.  This sounds a lot like what you are experiencing.   Just  as there is a color profile applied to the monitor, there is also a color profile to be applied to the printer *and* paper being used to produce the print.  Consider that matte paper will soak up more ink than a glossy paper.  There is a concept called "soft proofing" that can mimic the printer and paper characteristics on the screen.  You can find this feature in the Develop module and apply develop adjustments to achieve a more acceptable print.  Also in the Print Job section of the print module there are brightness and contrase controls that can be used to tweak the output.



Thanks guys, and I can't believe I haven't investigated what Soft proofing was before, as I've always noticed it but never knew what it did. 

I also noted that Tony mentioned setting up the camera. Are you just talking about per shot, or are you talking about doing some sort of set up process / applying some settings when you first get the camera as I never did anything like?

Anyway I'll follow all the advice, I just found it weird that irrespective of anything else (even if the file went straight from the camera to the printers without any adjustments or viewing on screen etc) EVERY single image will be under exposed / dark without a boost of exposure by 0.5-1. It's almost like cameras are set up to deliberately err on the side of under exposure when in any of the AUTO modes Perhaps people often take shots that are over exposed so the manufacturer compensates slightly for this. I couldn't really come up with any other reason.


----------



## Tony Jay (Sep 27, 2014)

If you shoot RAW then there are several issues to consider.
The histogram on the back of the camera does not do a good job of telling about the exposure of the RAW image.
However changing the picture style (or whatever they are called with a Sony camera) to Faithful or Neutral makes the JPEG from which the histogram is calculated a closer match to the reality of the RAW image.
(Changing the Picture Style will not alter the RAW image in the slightest.)
Why is this important?
As you have already indicated most manufacturers make their camera underexpose.
Even with current Sony sensors underexposing is not a good idea.
In fact a lot of people shooting RAW will use a technique called Expose To The Right (ETTR) where the exposure is pushed as far to the right as possible without clipping.
It is usual for the RAW file to have at least a stop of exposure latitiude (and maybe more) beyond what the JPEG histogram indicates as clipped.
Shooting in this way potentially gives the highest quality RAW for processing in Lightroom, or any other RAW converter for that matter.

There are many other easy to implement techniques for optimising RAW file quality that we can address if required, but suffice to say, the better the RAW file the better the potential print.
In essence one cannot shoot as if one is shooting slide film and expect good results with late model digital cameras.

Truth is... there is a lot to learn but this is where all the fun is!
Printing, depsite the easy availability of various digital display options, is still the logical end point of the photographic process.
One of the best ways to imporove your photography is to examine the results as a large print.
Any deficiencies in your technique quickly make themselves apparent when viewing the print.
In addition, no monitor can resolve the detail that digital cameras are capable of capturing but a large print gives a much better idea of a camera's capabilities.

For starters research the terms ETTR and soft-proofing - the first is only one of a raft of potential camera setups to improve image quality, and the second is the hub around which colour management revolves.

Tony Jay


----------



## jackjohn777 (Sep 28, 2014)

Tony Jay said:


> If you shoot RAW then there are several issues to consider.
> The histogram on the back of the camera does not do a good job of telling about the exposure of the RAW image.
> However changing the picture style (or whatever they are called with a Sony camera) to Faithful or Neutral makes the JPEG from which the histogram is calculated a closer match to the reality of the RAW image.
> (Changing the Picture Style will not alter the RAW image in the slightest.)
> ...



Thanks Tony, that's a great answer and explains exactly why it's happening in my view. Just one final clarification...

Is ETTR (I will research further) something I set on my A57 somehow as it's not something I've ever noticed on the menu system, or do I just manually adjust the exposure until just before clipping occurs in Lightroom for each image? I shoot using the Auto+ mode most often just in case ETTR is a setting within the more manual shooting modes if you want it done when shooting for each photo.

Thanks again for the comprehensive reply.


----------



## Tony Jay (Sep 29, 2014)

ETTR requires manual exposure settings and may well vary shot-to-shot.
Also when shooting RAW no image is ready for printing straight out of the camera and especially when using ETTR.
You do need a good file out of the camera and then good post-processing and attention to the principles of colour management will apply before a good print can be made.

Tony Jay


----------



## Duncanh (Sep 29, 2014)

Photobox do a "calibration print" - http://www.photobox.co.uk/content/quality-advice/calibration. From that link click on image to enlarge then right click to download file, then import into lightroom. Apparently they send you a physical print of it on your first order or as per webpage you can email them to send you one. It's hand as a quick reference to compare your screen to their standard output but doesn't replace any of the good advice you have already been given above (I'm a novice and they know far more about it than me). I use the Spyder 4 to calibrate, depending on model it will also measure ambient light in the room.


----------



## jackjohn777 (Sep 29, 2014)

Duncanh said:


> Photobox do a "calibration print" - http://www.photobox.co.uk/content/quality-advice/calibration. From that link click on image to enlarge then right click to download file, then import into lightroom. Apparently they send you a physical print of it on your first order or as per webpage you can email them to send you one. It's hand as a quick reference to compare your screen to their standard output but doesn't replace any of the good advice you have already been given above (I'm a novice and they know far more about it than me). I use the Spyder 4 to calibrate, depending on model it will also measure ambient light in the room.



Thanks Duncan. Did you find Spyder 4 good and value for money? I've heard such varied things about it and other similar tools. 

I have already received the Photobox card you mention, and imported the online one, but then I suddenly realised I didn't know how to adjust my Mac to ensure the image on screen matches the card in my hand, since the only tool I'm aware of on the Mac is to go to System Preferences then select 'Color' and use the calibration tool which takes you through Apple's built in process of steps. I haven't seen anything that allows you to alter various elements manually as you look at your own image. Do you?


----------



## Duncanh (Sep 30, 2014)

I find the Spyder 4 (I have the elite version, forgotten why I choose that one) easy to use,  I use the wizard option and does the job, I had the spyder 3 before. As far as value for money they all seem about the same price when matching functionality, if you read comparison reviews some like one and some like another think it's just personal preference.
As mentioned I'm only a novice, have an iMac and and not tried to manually change colour calibration (don't know if you can). I think the photobox calibration print comparison is helpful to adjust brightness purely as rough guide if haven't a calibrator but not sure that I would try to use it for colour considering a backlit screen compared to a reflective print is such a different media. Again must point out I really don't know much about the subject so you should get advice from the many experts on this forum.


----------

