# photos look different when printed



## Louise71 (Jan 12, 2015)

When I edit my photos in light room 5.6 I am happy with how they look but once printed they look flat, people look pastie and the warmth has gone. In General they look different. I have tried calibrating my screen with a spder 4 pro and there is not much difference.  I have turned my brightness down a lot and have tried different printing companies. Another problem I am having is when I have renumbered my photos in light room I backup my catalogue then when I go back into light room the photos are missing? I have a Asus ET2321I all in one desktop computer brought in mid 2014. Please help!!


----------



## Rusty0404 (Jan 12, 2015)

Louise71 said:


> When I edit my photos in light room 5.6 I am happy with how they look but once printed they look flat, people look pastie and the warmth has gone. In General they look different. I have tried calibrating my screen with a spder 4 pro and there is not much difference.  I have turned my brightness down a lot and have tried different printing companies. Another problem I am having is when I have renumbered my photos in light room I backup my catalogue then when I go back into light room the photos are missing? I have a Asus ET2321I all in one desktop computer brought in mid 2014. Please help!!



Getting the brightness right on prints is a challenging area - many others have the same challenge.  I appreciate that you are not using Blurb, but you may find my previous post helpful in terms of background and process.  Good luck.

http://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/showpost.php?p=151322


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 12, 2015)

Louise71 said:


> When I edit my photos in light room 5.6 I am happy with how they look but once printed they look flat, people look pastie and the warmth has gone. In General they look different. I have tried calibrating my screen with a spder 4 pro and there is not much difference.  I have turned my brightness down a lot and have tried different printing companies. Another problem I am having is when I have renumbered my photos in light room I backup my catalogue then when I go back into light room the photos are missing? I have a Asus ET2321I all in one desktop computer brought in mid 2014. Please help!!



Welcome to the forum!  Are you exporting your images in sRGB or Adobe RGB color space?  And, have you tried a soft proofing of your images to see if you get any out of gamut warnings (print or screen)?

--Ken


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 12, 2015)

Replytoken said:


> Welcome to the forum!  Are you exporting your images in sRGB or Adobe RGB color space?  And, have you tried a soft proofing of your images to see if you get any out of gamut warnings (print or screen)?
> 
> --Ken



Yes I am doing all this Thanks Ken


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 12, 2015)

Thanks Rusty, I have worked a lot with the brightness which I feel is ok its just mainly the colours aren't right and the skin tones look pastie not fresh like I am seeing in lightroom. Sometimes its like the warmth is lowered. I have tried uping the orange tones in white balance but when printed they are cool looking? Thanks for your help, it is frustrating isn't it as I have been through getting the brightness right like you. :(


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 12, 2015)

Sorry That makes no sense!! I export in sRGB and in soft proofing the photos look good. Can I get a bug in lightroom as the numbering problem is wrong as well and I can't see why I am having so much trouble?? :(


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 13, 2015)

Louise71 said:


> Sorry That makes no sense!! I export in sRGB and in soft proofing the photos look good. Can I get a bug in lightroom as the numbering problem is wrong as well and I can't see why I am having so much trouble?? :(


Is it possible that the lab are expecting files tagged as AdobeRGB - that could cause the washed out colours that you are seeing?

Tony Jay


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 13, 2015)

Thank you I will double check that. 



Tony Jay said:


> Is it possible that the lab are expecting files tagged as AdobeRGB - that could cause the washed out colours that you are seeing?
> 
> Tony Jay


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 13, 2015)

I have recalibrated my monitor in a darker room and it seems better. still looking warmer on computer then when printed though?? The difference between Matt and Gloss photos is amazing and challenging too.


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 14, 2015)

Are you getting a consistent result from different companies when printing the same image from the same file on the same type of paper?  True, labs can vary, but what would be best is to try to hold as many variables as constant as possible.  Also, how do the images look when they are viewed outside of LR?  Do they look the same?

--Ken


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 14, 2015)

I have tried our 2 main companies where I live  and they have printed identical photos and I have printed both Matt and Gloss paper. Yes they look the same when viewed outside lightroom so I am about to talk to the people we brought the computer off as I am wondering if its to do with the computer colours and saturation. Its a ASUS all-in-one and only brought part way through last year. Thank you so much for your time as I am finding this so frustrating, I thought buying a new computer with all the latest technology was a good thing but I'm not so sure now Thanks again


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 15, 2015)

So I have talked to a computer tech and he reckons it is to do with the fact that my monitor is IPS. And to talk to the printing people about what to do. How can something so simple be so confusing. All I want to do is print what I am seeing and to be able to give people USB's with photos on...grrr. Just sooo frustrating as I am only a enthusiast wanting to do the best I can...rant over!!


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 15, 2015)

Louise; lets take a step back here.
The problem is almost certainly NOT an issue with any individual but of hardware, either on your system or the printers that the are being used to produce your images.

In order to get consistent colour between your prints and the printed output all the principles of *colour management *need to be in play. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept and perhaps not.

Using a printing service can complicate things a bit but the problem is not insurmountable. The key issue is pick a printing service that has a *colour-managed workflow*.
They need to make available the *ICC profiles* that match the printer/paper combinations that they use for you to download. Once the ICC profiles are on your system then it will be possible to *softproof *your images.

Softproofing images requires two related but different interventions.
First off  you will need to calibrate your monitor appropriately. This is a non-negotiable. (Your first post mentions *monitor calibration* so I think you are with this issue.)
The second intervention has already been part of the conversation and this setting the *luminance* of your monitor appropriately for the editing environment (i.e. the room where you work).

It does not matter how good your master images look like on your monitor (when well calibrated and luminance appropriately set) if you cannot softproof the images. 
How a non-softproofed image may look when printed is anyone's guess - literally - as you are discovering!

I have highlighted key terms to allow you to research them as needed.
There are plenty of posts from me that deal with colour management in a lot of detail.
The bottom line is that colour management needs to be implemented from beginning to end - missing steps just results in strange and inconsistent results.

Tony Jay


----------



## Replytoken (Jan 15, 2015)

Louise71 said:


> So I have talked to a computer tech and he reckons it is to do with the fact that my monitor is IPS. And to talk to the printing people about what to do. How can something so simple be so confusing. All I want to do is print what I am seeing and to be able to give people USB's with photos on...grrr. Just sooo frustrating as I am only a enthusiast wanting to do the best I can...rant over!!



Do understand that IPS panels are generally preferred for editing, but it is best to calibrate them, as you have done.  Is it a glossy panel?  They do tend to make things look a bit more saturated, but that is not an excuse for having a large disconnect between things.  Color management is not an easy thing to manage for the first time, so do be kind to your self.  You will get things worked out, but it will take a bit of time and effort.

Good luck,

--Ken


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 15, 2015)

Thank you Ken and Tony Jay  I will talk to the printing company about their ICC Profiles. At a guess I would say my monitor is a glossy panel by looking at it. Thank you for helping me


----------



## davidedric (Jan 15, 2015)

Hi Louise,

You have some excellent advice above, which I won't try to add to.

There is one obvious (so obvious I apologise for mentioning it), non-technical difference between monitor and print: one works by transmitted light, the other by reflected.  So, crudely, the darker the room in which you view your monitor, the brighter things will appear, but pretty obviously if you view your prints in a dark room you won't see much.  So, there has rightly been a lot of focus on how you calibrate your monitor, but also think about how you view the prints.

Dave


----------



## Tony Jay (Jan 16, 2015)

davidedric said:


> Hi Louise,
> 
> You have some excellent advice above, which I won't try to add to.
> 
> ...


True!
Nonetheless with appropriate colour management a scarily close comparison between screen and print is possible.

Tony Jay


----------



## CloudyBright (Feb 25, 2015)

The lab I use has an "auto-correct" feature set to default.  It is buried and needs to be unchecked so that the image prints as it was developed.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 25, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> True!
> Nonetheless with appropriate colour management a scarily close comparison between screen and print is possible.
> 
> Tony Jay


Indeed, it takes some testing with different calibration parameters but it is possible.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 25, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> The second intervention has already been part of the conversation and this setting the *luminance* of your monitor appropriately for the editing environment (i.e. the room where you work).


This is the 2nd time I read this from you. What luminance setting do you use?

The reason for the question is that my prints started to look scarily close to my screen as soon as I chose 150 cd/m2, instead of 120 cd/m2 as my target luminance. I quite do not understand why, but it works most of the time.


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 25, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> This is the 2nd time I read this from you. What luminance setting do you use?
> 
> The reason for the question is that my prints started to look scarily close to my screen as soon as I chose 150 cd/m2, instead of 120 cd/m2 as my target luminance. I quite do not understand why, but it works most of the time.


One of the commonest errors is to have a monitor luminance set too high for the ambient lighting where one works.
This results in prints that are too dark with muddy horrid colours.
Exactly what luminance is appropriate can only be determined by trial-and-error - just as you have discovered!

Tony Jay


----------



## Nogo (Feb 25, 2015)

I have not seen the other side of this equation.  What light are you viewing the prints in?  Your monitor may be set correctly and the prints are being printed for viewing in near sunlight conditions.  If you view these prints in an incandescent or florescent lit room they are not going to look right.  The easiest way to see if this is the problem is look at the prints under different light conditions.  Go outside in the sunlight and look at them in a lightly shaded area.  If they look right under those conditions but that is not the condition you plan to view them in, that will give you a good starting point to use to figure this out.

You may just need to set the temperature to the right light for the conditions they are going to be viewed under when they are displayed.


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 26, 2015)

Nogo said:


> I have not seen the other side of this equation.  What light are you viewing the prints in?  Your monitor may be set correctly and the prints are being printed for viewing in near sunlight conditions.  If you view these prints in an incandescent or florescent lit room they are not going to look right.  The easiest way to see if this is the problem is look at the prints under different light conditions.  Go outside in the sunlight and look at them in a lightly shaded area.  If they look right under those conditions but that is not the condition you plan to view them in, that will give you a good starting point to use to figure this out.
> 
> You may just need to set the temperature to the right light for the conditions they are going to be viewed under when they are displayed.


To simplify, although it is not that simple, by prints are typically seen under incandescent light and/or natural light. Under both light conditions, the switch from 120 cd/m2 to 150 cd/m2 results on prints which are very close to what I see on the screen. The reason why this surprises me is that to get by Samsung S27B970 to produced a luminance of 148 cd/m2 I have to run it at 58% brightness. To sum it up, a higher screen luminance produces more luminous prints. I will love to understand why.

By the way iProfiler tells me that it was looking for a White Point of CIE Illuminant D65 (x:0.313, y:0.329) and it achieved CCT: 6472K (same coordinates), whatever that means.


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 26, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> ...To sum it up, a higher screen luminance produces more luminous prints. I will love to understand why...


I will challenge this.
The higher the monitor luminance the darker a print will be.

Tony Jay


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 26, 2015)

Tony Jay said:


> I will challenge this.
> The higher the monitor luminance the darker a print will be.
> 
> Tony Jay


Why do you think I am asking the question? It does not make sense, it's not logical, I don't understand it. But to get this https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15509501337/ printed very close as it is displayed on my screen I need to work at 150cd/m2 instead of 120cd/m2, it looks a little flatter in Flickr. I don't quite get it but it works, so maybe I am not supposed to get it.


----------



## Louise71 (Jan 12, 2015)

When I edit my photos in light room 5.6 I am happy with how they look but once printed they look flat, people look pastie and the warmth has gone. In General they look different. I have tried calibrating my screen with a spder 4 pro and there is not much difference.  I have turned my brightness down a lot and have tried different printing companies. Another problem I am having is when I have renumbered my photos in light room I backup my catalogue then when I go back into light room the photos are missing? I have a Asus ET2321I all in one desktop computer brought in mid 2014. Please help!!


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 26, 2015)

Modesto Vega said:


> Why do you think I am asking the question? It does not make sense, it's not logical, I don't understand it. But to get this https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/15509501337/ printed very close as it is displayed on my screen I need to work at 150cd/m2 instead of 120cd/m2, it looks a little flatter in Flickr. I don't quite get it but it works, so maybe I am not supposed to get it.


Modesto it all depends on the lighting of the environment in which you  work.

Do this experiment: keep the lighting the same, then edit virtual copies of the same image at different monitor luminances, say 100 cd/m2 and 150 cd/m2, in turn. Send them both for printing. 

The image edited at 150 cd/m2 will be darker than the other.

Tony Jay


----------



## Modesto Vega (Feb 27, 2015)

Thanks Tony, I will give it a try this weekend.

Just a couple of questions to verify my assumptions:

- Does monitor luminance affect the histogram of a RAW file? I am assuming not. Depending on the answer I might take this further.

- Does the same apply to JPEG or TIFF exports? I am assuming yes.


----------



## Tony Jay (Feb 27, 2015)

The unedited histogram is not affected.
As one makes edits the histogram changes.
JPEG and TIFF derivatives reflect the state of the edited file at the time that they are made.

Tony Jay


----------



## Modesto Vega (Mar 22, 2015)

You are right the photographs edited at 100 cd/m2 or 120 cd/m2 are brighter than those edited at 150 cd/m2, by a small margin. Studying what I have done, the adjustments to the photos edited at 100 cd/m2 or 120 cdm/m2 are more aggressive than those of the photos edited at 150 cd/m2, with the former I am trying to take the histogram further to right than with the latter and I am also trying to get a slightly wider histogram.

To be honest I am not sure what to conclude out of this exercise.


----------

