[tpg2]

Hope someone can help...I'm sure this ones easy!
Lately, I've been finally printing some of the photos I shot from my K-x, 8X10's and 4X6 prints. I noticed that the prints are a bit darker and the color cast is off but on my computer monitor the photos look just fine. I adjust the shots (where needed ) using Photoshop Elements 9 and all look great!
The monitor on my computer is a Dell and set to factory default, I double checked. I guess the first question is does anyone else have this problem and second, what to do to correct it? Maybe monitor calibration or a new (better) monitor?

[adpo]

if you want your prints to look the same way as they do on the monitor, you need to have both your printer and monitor calibrated. It also helps to have a monitor with a wide enough color gamut to accurately render the image, such as an IPS monitor. What I do when i print from a non calibrated monitor is that i print a test image to see what sort of color/contrast difference there is between the monitor and printer, create a secondary image file solely for printing, go into photoshop and make the needed adjustments in there to compensate for the mis-calibration of either the printer, monitor or both, and then print out that file.

[demp10]

Welcome to the world of color management

To get started, keep in mind that your prints will never match your monitor no matter what. You can get very close but they still will be different.

First you will have to calibrate your monitor using a colorimeter and software so you see the real (as close as it gets) colors. Then you must turn off any color management on your printer, use the proper profile for the paper you are using and let the application control color. I am not sure how far you can go with Elements on that.

Doing proper color management is very elaborate and can get very expensive. The new version of Lightroom (4 in beta) has a soft proof option, where you select the printer and paper you are using and display side by site your screen images and the one that will be printed. You can make changes to the printed one until it matches the scree as best as possible.

Unless you are using pro monitors that can display most of the colors and pro printers with accurate profiles your chances to match prints to screen are small. Your best approach is to print test strips with progressively lighter versions of the image until you get the look you like. Note the settings and adjust the images before printing. Alternatively you can use the printer driver to do the same. Experimentation may be your best option.

[Stone G.]

Also make sure that your camera, monitor and printer/software are set to the same colour space; (sRGB rather than Adobe RGB). I don't know the exact details of the K-x, but you will probably find the color space setting somewhere in the Record Mode Menu.

[demp10]

Also make sure that your camera, monitor and printer/software are set to the same colour space; (sRGB rather than Adobe RGB). I don't know the exact details of the K-x, but you will probably find the color space setting somewhere in the Record Mode Menu.

Actually sRGB will give you rather poor performance since it is a limited color space. If the camera allows, capture all images in AbobeRGB and RAW format and turn OFF any color management on your printer. Configure the printing software to use the color profile for the paper you are using to get a match as close as possible.

If you are using a consumer-level printer without color profiles for its papers then sRGB from camera to printer will give consistent prints but you will not like the results.

Which printer and paper are you using?

[Anvh]

There are several good articles here, read them is my advice if you want to know more.
Articles about digital photography and printing

This the one you're looking for right now.
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/match_prints_to_screen.html
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/colour_management/prints_too_dark.html

capture all images in AbobeRGB and RAW format

It's aRGB or RAW format.
RAW format with an aRGB colour profile don't exsist, they have all their own special colour profile.

[Stone G.]

Actually sRGB will give you rather poor performance since it is a limited color space. If the camera allows, capture all images in AbobeRGB and RAW format and turn OFF any color management on your printer. Configure the printing software to use the color profile for the paper you are using to get a match as close as possible.

If you are using a consumer-level printer without color profiles for its papers then sRGB from camera to printer will give consistent prints but you will not like the results.

Which printer and paper are you using?

I am not an expert - but I am not sure that I agree with you anyway: If you do on-screen editing on your monitor sRGB is the safest approach. I don't see how we happy amateurs could posibly ensure consitency along the path camera-screen-software-printer?

Anyway, my main message was: Make sure that your settings match. As Pentax writes in our manuals, pictures made in asobe RGB may appear lighter on sRGB compatible units (see f.ex. page 212 in the K-5 manual). Thus, if you edit such an image on an sRGB screen and print it on an sRGB compatible printer, things are bound to turn out different from what you see on screen???

And one final remark. On this topic I have some faith in Ken Rockwell (right or wrong - at least he know far more about this subject than I do:

sRGB vs. Adobe RGB

[demp10]

I am not an expert - but I am not sure that I agree with you anyway: If you do on-screen editing on your monitor sRGB is the safest approach. I don't see how we happy amateurs could possibly ensure consistency along the path camera-screen-software-printer?

Anyway, my main message was: Make sure that your settings match. As Pentax writes in our manuals, pictures made in asobe RGB may appear lighter on sRGB compatible units (see f.ex. page 212 in the K-5 manual). Thus, if you edit such an image on an sRGB screen and print it on an sRGB compatible printer, things are bound to turn out different from what you see on screen???

And one final remark. On this topic I have some faith in Ken Rockwell (right or wrong - at least he know far more about this subject than I do:

sRGB vs. Adobe RGB

Well, I am an expert, and yes sRGB is the easiest way to ensure a consistent path from a camera to screen to print. It was designed primarily for consistency on the web and it is the lowest common denominator in a simplified approach to color management.

If one is shooting JPG for fun and print small sizes on consumer level printers, then sRGB may be good enough. The color match will not be perfect but it will be close enough.

On the other hand, if one wants the best or works at a pro level, dealing with color management is absolutely mandatory. There is no way that sRGB will give you the best match between your monitor and printer. Calibrating the monitor and using an accurate profile for the paper/resolution used on the printer is the only way to ensure that you get the best from both. Again if a cheap flat screen and a consumer level printer are used, the results will be limited by the hardware and any potential improvements from an advance process will be minimal.

Bottom line is, if one is happy with the results he/she is getting, then they should keep using their current setup. If they feel that the monitor and printer don't match, then they should try a better color management approach and/or get a better monitor or printer. All it matters at the end is that the final print shows what the photographer wanted to show in the first place. The processes at that level are simply academic.

[Schraubstock]

Well, I am an expert, and yes sRGB is the easiest way to ensure a consistent path from a camera to screen to print. It was designed primarily for consistency on the web and it is the lowest common denominator in a simplified approach to color management.

If one is shooting JPG for fun and print small sizes on consumer level printers, then sRGB may be good enough. The color match will not be perfect but it will be close enough.

On the other hand, if one wants the best or works at a pro level, dealing with color management is absolutely mandatory. There is no way that sRGB will give you the best match between your monitor and printer. Calibrating the monitor and using an accurate profile for the paper/resolution used on the printer is the only way to ensure that you get the best from both. Again if a cheap flat screen and a consumer level printer are used, the results will be limited by the hardware and any potential improvements from an advance process will be minimal.

Bottom line is, if one is happy with the results he/she is getting, then they should keep using their current setup. If they feel that the monitor and printer don't match, then they should try a better color management approach and/or get a better monitor or printer. All it matters at the end is that the final print shows what the photographer wanted to show in the first place. The processes at that level are simply academic.

Hi

demp10 You are absolutely spot on!

I too consider myself an expert. (And I have always been modest)

Oh boy, you are now entering into one of the most difficult activities to master and possibly to understand. When it comes to colour printing, no matter what the input and output device is it is a hugely complex business.

However don't let me put you off trying but at the outset I must warn you; If you want to get it right (consistently) be prepared to spend more money then what your camera equipment is worth. I am not saying that you won't be able to get reasonable if not good results if you work with what you have available as standard gear but it will be mainly luck and "hit and miss" all the time. And you will waste a lot of paper and ink in the process.

I have been involved in fine art printing for many years and can offer some advice and there is something fundamentally you must understand.

Images you display on the computer screen are "additive colour", they are created by mixing coloured light (primary colours) which are emitted from an illuminant source. This allows for a much wider gamut. When you crank up colours on the monitor as a lot of people now do with HDR software and then want to print this image you will be mightily disappointed. Even if you not crank up colours on screen. Because your printer (any printer not even HiFi colour printing) won't be able reproduce this image as you see it on the monitor. The reason? printers work with inks or paints and colours are generated by mixing inks (paints) and this is called "subtractive colour" The subtractive colour gamut cannot be anywhere as wide as the additive gamut can. The gamut width of inkjet printer is a bit greater than in CMYK offset printing which is actually quite restricted.

The trick is to manage the two devices (Screen and printer) which generate colour in totally different ways to "speak to each other" in a way both understand so they can sing from the same "song book" so to speak. To achieve this you need special hardware and software. Such gear analyzes what you see on screen via the graphics card in your computer and what your printer's output is and generate, what is known as a profile. So when you print, this profile will take over all colour management, which explains why you have to turn off all printer inbuild colour management and let the profile take over.

But it does not end there. Whenever you change paper (like brands and type) and also inks you need to generate a new profile. Your screen colour values stay the same (if you have not fiddled with it) but the way ink behaves on different types of paper surfaces is different, like reflection and absorption.

So, to print colour pictures successfully you need good equipment, which unfortunately is not cheap. It starts off with a decent graphics card for the computer, a monitor that can make use of the high end graphics card's output and can be calibrated. And of course at least a half decent printer. Next you need the above mentioned calibration hard and software.

And now I can already see the posts coming in saying: "What the hell are you talking about, I can print nice picture without all this gear". I say, not likely. You print something you are happy with, that's all. (See above comment re luck and hit and miss)

So what looks nice and bright and very colourful on screen will always look different in print. But the printed picture nevertheless should look colourt accurate.

I see oftentimes posted images here on the forum that clearly have been enhanced (given the old HD turbo charge treatment) to look powerful on screen. I guess that's where most people view them but the disappointment will be great when any of those images ever make it to the printer. (Sunsets are a favorite for this)

Greetings

[demp10]

Thanks Schraubstock for taking the time to highlight the many issues of printing images correctly.

Indeed it takes a substantial investment to be able to print images correctly. On my free time I am a fine art photographer and do all the printing myself on two Epson printers a 7600 and a 4800. Just to feed them inks it costs almost $500 each several times a year. And 24" or 17" papers are not cheap either. Add to that a powerful PC, a RIP engine, Lightroom, Photoshop and a Professional 22" CRT monitor and the cost is much more than my K-7, K10D and the 40+ lenses I have. To me taking the picture is fun, but making the print is a work of art.

I read on your profile that your first camera was a Voightlander Bessa. Funny, my first real camera was a Bessa II, inherited from my grandfather and I used it quite a bit until I got my first Pentax ME Super

Best regards,

Demetri

[ecnal]

I only have experience calibrating apple monitors (imac, macbook pro, cinema display)- so cannot comment directly on your monitor.
Saying that, I've found the apple monitors (as most monitors) are way too bright for accurate luminance comparison to a printout.
If you have your display at it's default brightness and it is close to 100%, this is the first thing I would be changing. For me, about 60% brightness is about right.
Whenever I edit images, I make sure the screen does not go above this- and also make sure any 'auto brightness' features are turned off.

Colour as commented above is a p.i.t.a, but I am generally happy with my prints after basic softproofing and brightness adjustments.

[Schraubstock]

Thanks Schraubstock for taking the time to highlight the many issues of printing images correctly.

Indeed it takes a substantial investment to be able to print images correctly. On my free time I am a fine art photographer and do all the printing myself on two Epson printers a 7600 and a 4800. Just to feed them inks it costs almost $500 each several times a year. And 24" or 17" papers are not cheap either. Add to that a powerful PC, a RIP engine, Lightroom, Photoshop and a Professional 22" CRT monitor and the cost is much more than my K-7, K10D and the 40+ lenses I have. To me taking the picture is fun, but making the print is a work of art.

I read on your profile that your first camera was a Voightlander Bessa. Funny, my first real camera was a Bessa II, inherited from my grandfather and I used it quite a bit until I got my first Pentax ME Super

Best regards,

Demetri

Hi Demetri

I have just read my post again and realise that it sounds like I am lecturing you. I am not !

What I have written was for benefit of the OP.

Sorry for the confusion.

Greetings

P.S. I too do all my own printing and since I have retired mainly now do this on the Epson R2880.

[tpg2]

Thanks everyone for all of your input! I keep reading all of the posts and trying to digest all of your information...
Thanks again for all of your help! Tom

[ComputerControlled]

Funny i run into this, as just earlier this evening i took some images to Walgreens to see how they would look printed out. And sure enough, they turned out a bit darker than they appear on my laptop. Nothing horrendous, but i'll def need to lighten them a bit for printing.

[fmerges]

Even better than a colorimeter, if you have the $ you should get a spectrophotometer like the ColorMunki Photo.

There is an open source display colorimeter project, the device is way cheaper than the usual Spider devices and alike: Hughski - ColorHug

Cheers,