My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?
--

Mike

On 18/12/2019 14:28, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?


The final photoprint is also an inkjet printer. Only specialist
printers might use a dye-sublimation printer, but the self-print
consoles in Boots and Jessops (are they still going ?) are
inkjet.

If your photos appear differently on your computer monitor
compared to a printer then turning up the physical brightness
on your monitor is pointless. You might just as well turn
up the volume on your tv, it still won't alter the actual
digital attributes of the photos. Only something like
photoshop or adobe photoshop elements can do that by altering
the digital photograph itself and updateing its metadata.

Getting a photo to print exactly as it appears on screen is
a dark art. There are many factors at work, and the pros rely
on some seriously expensive computer monitors and printers.

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?
--

Mike

This is commonly refered to as a workflow, adjusting your monitor is probably
the worst thing you can do.

I'd set my monitor to a fixed brightness for viewing the photos and leave it there.

I'd take one or two typical photos and with a few copies of each.
Then adjust the brightness and perhaps contrast using whatever
photo editor you have/use say move it up a notch and on another move it down a notch or percent or mark on the sliders.
I'd do two adjustments at least, then save the image and send off for printing.

When you get them back see which one looks the correct brightness and associate
that printed picture with how much you increased or decreaed the original
image from the camera.

So you might find that you have to increase brightness by 20% or two marks
before printing then setting it back to 'normal' after sending it for printing if needed.


There might be other ways, you could ask on rec.photo.digital too.

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:39:16 +0000, Andrew wrote:

If your photos appear differently on your computer monitor compared to a
printer then turning up the physical brightness on your monitor is
pointless. You might just as well turn up the volume on your tv, it
still won't alter the actual digital attributes of the photos.

Yep. What may work is print a photo then make the screen match the
print via the screens brightness and contrast controls to "calibrate"
the screen. Then when you load another photo and make it look right
on screen it ought to print right as well.

Not that'd I'd put any money on it, too many variables that simple
brightness/contrast don't have any influence over.

--
Cheers
Dave.

Andrew wrote:

Getting a photo to print exactly as it appears on screen is
a dark art.

might help if you knew what make/model of printer they use and can get
an sRGB profile for it

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Not usually, commercial printers invariably have a greater range of
colours they can reproduce than a domestic inkjet printer. As a
result the images produced are more vibrant and better able to
reproduce detail in areas of shade and brightness.

As has been suggested altering your monitor brightness and colour
profile (sRGB or Adobe should be available) so it looks close to a
commercially printed picture your are happy with is the simplest way
to go.

If the camera can be set to sRGB or Adobe you might find it closer to
the commercial printer.

"Mike Halmarack" wrote in message
...
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?
Mike

I take it you are having them printed by a commercial firm ?
If so it will be trial and error until what you see on your PC matches..
best free photo editing software for Windoz
FastStone Image Viewer
https://www.faststone.org/

On 18/12/2019 14:28, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.

Sounds like you haven't got gamma matched on the monitor and printer.

I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.

There should be a setting in the photo application that shows a mid tone
and a corresponding chequerboard of full on pixels and black. You adjust
that to match and then with any luck your images will be consistent
across all output media.

In Paintshop Pro it is under File Colour Management/Calibrate Monitor

I think the free evaluation copy will let you do this too.

Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Once you have a calibrated system then it should all just work. There
are always minor differences since CMYK print media cannot handle
anything like the contrast ratio that an RGB emitting display can.

The only time I had trouble was with a particular version of Jessops
digital print software which could not handle pure monochrome JPEGs at
all and colourised them in a most peculiar way in the final print even
though they previewed perfectly on the console application.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 18/12/2019 14:28, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

I have the (relatively cheap) Spyder5Pro and have found that useful in
setting up my monitor.

On 18/12/2019 14:28, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?


The paper you print on can make a big difference. Printing colour on
ordinary "photo copier" paper will look dull, lifeless and possibly much
too dark whereas printing on a glossy photo paper will give a different
colour rendering and be more representative of what a commercial
printing service may achieve.

Calibrate your monitor first
Google "calibrating monitor to match printer"
but use a decent print on quality photo paper.

Only then can you optimise the original photo with a representative
image shown on the screen. Once calibrated you would not necessarily
have to print again on expensive paper to check the result.

Also be aware that some photo printing services will also try to enhance
the image to give a better print unless you tell them otherwise. Their
image enhancement may undo or change any manipulation you have attempted.



--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Thanks for all the good advice. Gives me plenty to work on. I think
I'll take a look at the Spyder5Pro. My current main monitor is an
oldish 35" LG TV. I might get a new TV for the job, even though some
people think that doing so is a bit Philistine.
--

Mike

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 09:00:18 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Thanks for all the good advice. Gives me plenty to work on. I think
I'll take a look at the Spyder5Pro. My current main monitor is an
oldish 35" LG TV. I might get a new TV for the job, even though some
people think that doing so is a bit Philistine.

Well if your going to look at your prints on a TV then that is a good idea
otherwise it isn't.

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:54:33 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 09:00:18 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Thanks for all the good advice. Gives me plenty to work on. I think
I'll take a look at the Spyder5Pro. My current main monitor is an
oldish 35" LG TV. I might get a new TV for the job, even though some
people think that doing so is a bit Philistine.

Well if your going to look at your prints on a TV then that is a good idea
otherwise it isn't.

As an amateur in all things with a limited budget that has other,
more equall priorities, I do the best I can with the advise I get.
Thanks
--

Mike

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.
--

Mike

On 19/12/2019 12:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:54:33 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 09:00:18 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Thanks for all the good advice. Gives me plenty to work on. I think
I'll take a look at the Spyder5Pro. My current main monitor is an
oldish 35" LG TV. I might get a new TV for the job, even though some
people think that doing so is a bit Philistine.

Well if your going to look at your prints on a TV then that is a good idea
otherwise it isn't.

As an amateur in all things with a limited budget that has other,
more equall priorities, I do the best I can with the advise I get.
Thanks


You can get a really good 24 inch IPS monitor for under £100 at
Novatech in Portsmouth (see web site). IPS is best for
accurate colour reproduction.

Unless you spend oodles on an OLED tv, most tv's are never going
to be as good as a proper monitor. Some older panasonic tvs
used IPS panels. Finding out what type of panel is used by
a modern tv (TN, VA, MVA, IPS, PLS) requires a lot of
detective work. Only LG TVs are definate IPS users because they
are the largest manufacturer of IPS panels.

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 12:02:47 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:54:33 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 09:00:18 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Thanks for all the good advice. Gives me plenty to work on. I think
I'll take a look at the Spyder5Pro. My current main monitor is an
oldish 35" LG TV. I might get a new TV for the job, even though some
people think that doing so is a bit Philistine.

Well if your going to look at your prints on a TV then that is a good idea
otherwise it isn't.

As an amateur in all things with a limited budget

Me too.

that has other,
more equall priorities,

Married with kids sorry to hear that ;-)

I do the best I can with the advise I get.
Thanks

Perhaps I was confused by yuor terms such as prints and photos and files.

TVs unless the 4k higher end ones are pretty crap for photos.
and the resolution os pretty low compared to a decent monitor.

Overall I thought your aim was to get better exposed physical prints,
I doubt buying a new TV will achieve this.

--

Mike

On 19/12/2019 12:03, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Any easy sanity check is to take a look at the luminance histogram. That
will show any obvious faults in the raw image like under/over exposure.

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in the
supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 21:11:30 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/12/2019 12:03, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Any easy sanity check is to take a look at the luminance histogram. That
will show any obvious faults in the raw image like under/over exposure.

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in the
supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

But that isn't usually what you want. For general photos you want at least some of the bright area to overexpose & white out. How much is matter of judgement, but for general photos if you only have the brightest spot at white the rest is too dark. Brightest pixel at white is a good approach for diagrams, text etc, and some very carefully staged photos, but not for most real life photos.


NT

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:02:11 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 19/12/2019 12:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:54:33 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 09:00:18 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Thanks for all the good advice. Gives me plenty to work on. I think
I'll take a look at the Spyder5Pro. My current main monitor is an
oldish 35" LG TV. I might get a new TV for the job, even though some
people think that doing so is a bit Philistine.

Well if your going to look at your prints on a TV then that is a good idea
otherwise it isn't.

As an amateur in all things with a limited budget that has other,
more equall priorities, I do the best I can with the advise I get.
Thanks


You can get a really good 24 inch IPS monitor for under £100 at
Novatech in Portsmouth (see web site). IPS is best for
accurate colour reproduction.

Unless you spend oodles on an OLED tv, most tv's are never going
to be as good as a proper monitor. Some older panasonic tvs
used IPS panels. Finding out what type of panel is used by
a modern tv (TN, VA, MVA, IPS, PLS) requires a lot of
detective work. Only LG TVs are definate IPS users because they
are the largest manufacturer of IPS panels.

Great Stuff! I'm on it.
--

Mike

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 06:40:46 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 12:02:47 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:54:33 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 09:00:18 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Thanks for all the good advice. Gives me plenty to work on. I think
I'll take a look at the Spyder5Pro. My current main monitor is an
oldish 35" LG TV. I might get a new TV for the job, even though some
people think that doing so is a bit Philistine.

Well if your going to look at your prints on a TV then that is a good idea
otherwise it isn't.

As an amateur in all things with a limited budget

Me too.

that has other,
more equall priorities,

Married with kids sorry to hear that ;-)

I do the best I can with the advise I get.
Thanks

Perhaps I was confused by yuor terms such as prints and photos and files.

TVs unless the 4k higher end ones are pretty crap for photos.
and the resolution os pretty low compared to a decent monitor.

Overall I thought your aim was to get better exposed physical prints,
I doubt buying a new TV will achieve this.

Well, someone said it was a "Dark Art".
I'm not much of an artist but I'm certainly in the dark.
Mike
--

Mike

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 21:11:28 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 19/12/2019 12:03, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Any easy sanity check is to take a look at the luminance histogram. That
will show any obvious faults in the raw image like under/over exposure.
These are usually pictures sent from my daughter's phone as jpegs. I
don't thinks I can get to RAW image from there.

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in the
supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

I'll definitrely try to get that service.
--

Mike

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:56:58 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 21:11:30 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/12/2019 12:03, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Any easy sanity check is to take a look at the luminance histogram. That
will show any obvious faults in the raw image like under/over exposure.

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in the
supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

But that isn't usually what you want. For general photos you want at least some of the bright area to overexpose & white out. How much is matter of judgement, but for general photos if you only have the brightest spot at white the rest is too dark. Brightest pixel at white is a good approach for diagrams, text etc, and some very carefully staged photos, but not for most real life photos.

I just spent some time and money on getting back dark prints and
posters, so any helpful advice is appreciated.
One particular image is a perfectly composed family group to my mind
but the original is fuzzy and dark and after many hours of attempted
improvements it ain't much improved. I already invested in Photoshop
CC and am in the process of choosing a new monitor/TV. I live in hope.
--

Mike

On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:02:11 +0000, Andrew
wrote:


You can get a really good 24 inch IPS monitor for under £100 at
Novatech in Portsmouth (see web site). IPS is best for
accurate colour reproduction.

Unless you spend oodles on an OLED tv, most tv's are never going
to be as good as a proper monitor. Some older panasonic tvs
used IPS panels. Finding out what type of panel is used by
a modern tv (TN, VA, MVA, IPS, PLS) requires a lot of
detective work. Only LG TVs are definate IPS users because they
are the largest manufacturer of IPS panels.


What about this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-32MP58HQ...01AWG5RDG&th=1
--

Mike

On Friday, 20 December 2019 13:01:51 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:02:11 +0000, Andrew
wrote:


You can get a really good 24 inch IPS monitor for under £100 at
Novatech in Portsmouth (see web site). IPS is best for
accurate colour reproduction.

Unless you spend oodles on an OLED tv, most tv's are never going
to be as good as a proper monitor. Some older panasonic tvs
used IPS panels. Finding out what type of panel is used by
a modern tv (TN, VA, MVA, IPS, PLS) requires a lot of
detective work. Only LG TVs are definate IPS users because they
are the largest manufacturer of IPS panels.


What about this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-32MP58HQ...01AWG5RDG&th=1
--

Mike

It won't improve your print quality which is what I thought you wanted.
If I watch usain bolt on this monitor will I be able to win agaisnt him in he 100m ?
If I watch masterchef on it will I be a better cook ?

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:37:40 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 20 December 2019 13:01:51 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:02:11 +0000, Andrew
wrote:


You can get a really good 24 inch IPS monitor for under £100 at
Novatech in Portsmouth (see web site). IPS is best for
accurate colour reproduction.

Unless you spend oodles on an OLED tv, most tv's are never going
to be as good as a proper monitor. Some older panasonic tvs
used IPS panels. Finding out what type of panel is used by
a modern tv (TN, VA, MVA, IPS, PLS) requires a lot of
detective work. Only LG TVs are definate IPS users because they
are the largest manufacturer of IPS panels.


What about this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-32MP58HQ...01AWG5RDG&th=1
--

Mike

It won't improve your print quality which is what I thought you wanted.

Not directly for sure, but maybe with a monitor that's capable of
better colour settings and calibration, I might get the screen image
and the finished print closer in similarity.

If I watch usain bolt on this monitor will I be able to win agaisnt him in he 100m ?

Well yes, if he didn't turn up.

If I watch masterchef on it will I be a better cook ?

No need, I already do a superb beans on toast.
--

Mike

On Friday, 20 December 2019 12:11:34 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:56:58 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2019 21:11:30 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/12/2019 12:03, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Any easy sanity check is to take a look at the luminance histogram. That
will show any obvious faults in the raw image like under/over exposure..

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in the
supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

But that isn't usually what you want. For general photos you want at least some of the bright area to overexpose & white out. How much is matter of judgement, but for general photos if you only have the brightest spot at white the rest is too dark. Brightest pixel at white is a good approach for diagrams, text etc, and some very carefully staged photos, but not for most real life photos.

I just spent some time and money on getting back dark prints and
posters, so any helpful advice is appreciated.
One particular image is a perfectly composed family group to my mind
but the original is fuzzy and dark and after many hours of attempted
improvements it ain't much improved. I already invested in Photoshop
CC and am in the process of choosing a new monitor/TV. I live in hope.

Gimp is free and does more than you'll learn in years.
Dark: I assume you've set white levels, next look at gamma. Gimp: colour, levels, as graph, and pull a spot on the line left or right.
Fuzzy: if you mean out of focus, there are sharpening filters but what you can do is limited. If you mean noisy, there are noise filters too. Again they're limited, but can help noticeably. If you mean lost in darkness, tweaking gamma often resolves it.


NT

On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 22:53:30 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Friday, 20 December 2019 12:11:34 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:56:58 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2019 21:11:30 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/12/2019 12:03, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Any easy sanity check is to take a look at the luminance histogram. That
will show any obvious faults in the raw image like under/over exposure.

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in the
supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

But that isn't usually what you want. For general photos you want at least some of the bright area to overexpose & white out. How much is matter of judgement, but for general photos if you only have the brightest spot at white the rest is too dark. Brightest pixel at white is a good approach for diagrams, text etc, and some very carefully staged photos, but not for most real life photos.

I just spent some time and money on getting back dark prints and
posters, so any helpful advice is appreciated.
One particular image is a perfectly composed family group to my mind
but the original is fuzzy and dark and after many hours of attempted
improvements it ain't much improved. I already invested in Photoshop
CC and am in the process of choosing a new monitor/TV. I live in hope.

Gimp is free and does more than you'll learn in years.
Dark: I assume you've set white levels, next look at gamma. Gimp: colour, levels, as graph, and pull a spot on the line left or right.
Fuzzy: if you mean out of focus, there are sharpening filters but what you can do is limited. If you mean noisy, there are noise filters too. Again they're limited, but can help noticeably. If you mean lost in darkness, tweaking gamma often resolves it.


NT
Thanks for the detailed and encouraging explanation, I'm going to keep
at it until I achieve an improvement.

I found that giving up smoking was much easier once I'd actually paid
for anti-smoking treatment. I just had to succeed then.
Looks like like photo processing is going to be affected similarly.
--

Mike

On Saturday, 21 December 2019 08:33:14 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 22:53:30 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Friday, 20 December 2019 12:11:34 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 16:56:58 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2019 21:11:30 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/12/2019 12:03, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Any easy sanity check is to take a look at the luminance histogram. That
will show any obvious faults in the raw image like under/over exposure.

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in the
supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

But that isn't usually what you want. For general photos you want at least some of the bright area to overexpose & white out. How much is matter of judgement, but for general photos if you only have the brightest spot at white the rest is too dark. Brightest pixel at white is a good approach for diagrams, text etc, and some very carefully staged photos, but not for most real life photos.

I just spent some time and money on getting back dark prints and
posters, so any helpful advice is appreciated.
One particular image is a perfectly composed family group to my mind
but the original is fuzzy and dark and after many hours of attempted
improvements it ain't much improved. I already invested in Photoshop
CC and am in the process of choosing a new monitor/TV. I live in hope.

Gimp is free and does more than you'll learn in years.
Dark: I assume you've set white levels, next look at gamma. Gimp: colour, levels, as graph, and pull a spot on the line left or right.
Fuzzy: if you mean out of focus, there are sharpening filters but what you can do is limited. If you mean noisy, there are noise filters too. Again they're limited, but can help noticeably. If you mean lost in darkness, tweaking gamma often resolves it.


NT
Thanks for the detailed and encouraging explanation, I'm going to keep
at it until I achieve an improvement.

I found that giving up smoking was much easier once I'd actually paid
for anti-smoking treatment. I just had to succeed then.
Looks like like photo processing is going to be affected similarly.

Once you're familiar wit those operations, plus moving bits (select, copy, paste), filling areas of similar colour (shift b) and using the pen/brush to remove backgrounds (n or p) then you've got 99% of all photo editing covered, and it's a pretty quick process.


NT

On 20/12/2019 15:35, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Fri, 20 Dec 2019 06:37:40 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Friday, 20 December 2019 13:01:51 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 14:02:11 +0000, Andrew
wrote:


You can get a really good 24 inch IPS monitor for under £100
at Novatech in Portsmouth (see web site). IPS is best for
accurate colour reproduction.

Unless you spend oodles on an OLED tv, most tv's are never
going to be as good as a proper monitor. Some older panasonic
tvs used IPS panels. Finding out what type of panel is used by
a modern tv (TN, VA, MVA, IPS, PLS) requires a lot of detective
work. Only LG TVs are definate IPS users because they are the
largest manufacturer of IPS panels.


What about this:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/LG-32MP58HQ...01AWG5RDG&th=1


--

Mike

It won't improve your print quality which is what I thought you
wanted.

Not directly for sure, but maybe with a monitor that's capable of
better colour settings and calibration, I might get the screen image
and the finished print closer in similarity.

That is down to calibrating the monitor you happen to have against the
output of your particular printer. Going from RGB additive colour space
on a monitor to CMYK subtractive colour space on a print medium
invariably means some level of compromise. Print media cannot cover the
same dynamic range as a monitor can so you have to set things up right.

First get it so that a neutral grey scale looks OK on both and then do
the same for the primary RGB and CMY colours and you are home and dry.

It is usually enough to sort out the gamma correction on the monitor as
has already been described to you multiple times.

If I watch usain bolt on this monitor will I be able to win agaisnt
him in he 100m ?

Well yes, if he didn't turn up.

If I watch masterchef on it will I be a better cook ?

No need, I already do a superb beans on toast.



--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 20/12/2019 00:56, wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2019 21:11:30 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 19/12/2019 12:03, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:48:19 -0800 (PST), tabbypurr wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 December 2019 14:28:38 UTC, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to
optimise them for photoprinting. I often find that the final
photos end up too dark, even when I tweak my computer monitor
brightness. I know I can buy additional equipment to help
with this, though I'm not keen to. Would printing the files
on an inkjet printer provide adequate examples of how the
photoprint will ultimately come out?

If there's one adjustment I use more than any other, it's to
move the brightness levels of the file up so the white areas
come out white. In Gimp it's Colour, Levels.


NT

Thanks, I'll have a look at that.

Any easy sanity check is to take a look at the luminance histogram.
That will show any obvious faults in the raw image like under/over
exposure.

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in
the supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

But that isn't usually what you want. For general photos you want at
least some of the bright area to overexpose & white out. How much is
matter of judgement, but for general photos if you only have the
brightest spot at white the rest is too dark. Brightest pixel at
white is a good approach for diagrams, text etc, and some very
carefully staged photos, but not for most real life photos.

It is a lot better than having the brightest pixel at mid grey.

They do come in two sorts one scales to cover map darkest onto black to
lightest onto white and the other does something more like a classical
enlarger of exposing to get an average mid grey density of some sort.


It is very much horses for courses. If you are getting them to print
astrophotographs where most of the sky really is *black* you have to
override the automatic adjustments and tell the machine to print it
exactly as is. That said the brightest stars usually are 255 but some of
the automatic enhance printable image defaults can be destructive.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wednesday, 1 January 2020 17:16:53 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:
On 20/12/2019 00:56, tabbypurr wrote:
On Thursday, 19 December 2019 21:11:30 UTC, Martin Brown wrote:

Most print shops will automatically scale maximum brightness in
the supplied image to 255 if you feed them something underexposed.

But that isn't usually what you want. For general photos you want at
least some of the bright area to overexpose & white out. How much is
matter of judgement, but for general photos if you only have the
brightest spot at white the rest is too dark. Brightest pixel at
white is a good approach for diagrams, text etc, and some very
carefully staged photos, but not for most real life photos.

It is a lot better than having the brightest pixel at mid grey.

looks like a silly comment, was there a real point?

They do come in two sorts one scales to cover map darkest onto black to
lightest onto white and the other does something more like a classical
enlarger of exposing to get an average mid grey density of some sort.


It is very much horses for courses. If you are getting them to print
astrophotographs where most of the sky really is *black* you have to
override the automatic adjustments and tell the machine to print it
exactly as is. That said the brightest stars usually are 255 but some of
the automatic enhance printable image defaults can be destructive.

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 14:02:26 UTC, Andrew wrote:
On 19/12/2019 12:02, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Thu, 19 Dec 2019 02:54:33 -0800 (PST), whisky-dave
wrote:

On Thursday, 19 December 2019 09:00:18 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 18 Dec 2019 14:28:34 +0000, Mike Halmarack
wrote:

My daughter sends me photos from her camera and I try to optimise them
for photoprinting. I often find that the final photos end up too dark,
even when I tweak my computer monitor brightness.
I know I can buy additional equipment to help with this, though I'm
not keen to.
Would printing the files on an inkjet printer provide adequate
examples of how the photoprint will ultimately come out?

Thanks for all the good advice. Gives me plenty to work on. I think
I'll take a look at the Spyder5Pro. My current main monitor is an
oldish 35" LG TV. I might get a new TV for the job, even though some
people think that doing so is a bit Philistine.

Well if your going to look at your prints on a TV then that is a good idea
otherwise it isn't.

As an amateur in all things with a limited budget that has other,
more equall priorities, I do the best I can with the advise I get.
Thanks


You can get a really good 24 inch IPS monitor for under £100 at
Novatech in Portsmouth (see web site). IPS is best for
accurate colour reproduction.

Unless you spend oodles on an OLED tv, most tv's are never going
to be as good as a proper monitor. Some older panasonic tvs
used IPS panels. Finding out what type of panel is used by
a modern tv (TN, VA, MVA, IPS, PLS) requires a lot of
detective work. Only LG TVs are definate IPS users because they
are the largest manufacturer of IPS panels.

LG might (or might not - I have not checked) be the largest IPS panel maker in the world. But they certainly ARE the largest OLED panel maker. And have recently increased production massively. Out of 38 55-inch+ TVs they currently flog in the UK, 11 are OLED and 11 are nanocell.

On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 14:12:32 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

...

That is down to calibrating the monitor you happen to have against the
output of your particular printer. Going from RGB additive colour space
on a monitor to CMYK subtractive colour space on a print medium
invariably means some level of compromise. Print media cannot cover the
same dynamic range as a monitor can so you have to set things up right.

First get it so that a neutral grey scale looks OK on both and then do
the same for the primary RGB and CMY colours and you are home and dry.

It is usually enough to sort out the gamma correction on the monitor as
has already been described to you multiple times.

I really apreciate the suggestions that have been made and am applying
them as best I can.
At the moment I have an old LG TV as a main monitor and I can't help
thinking this is not a great place to be starting from.
--

Mike

On 07/01/2020 12:19, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 14:12:32 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

...

That is down to calibrating the monitor you happen to have against the
output of your particular printer. Going from RGB additive colour space
on a monitor to CMYK subtractive colour space on a print medium
invariably means some level of compromise. Print media cannot cover the
same dynamic range as a monitor can so you have to set things up right.

First get it so that a neutral grey scale looks OK on both and then do
the same for the primary RGB and CMY colours and you are home and dry.

It is usually enough to sort out the gamma correction on the monitor as
has already been described to you multiple times.

I really apreciate the suggestions that have been made and am applying
them as best I can.
At the moment I have an old LG TV as a main monitor and I can't help
thinking this is not a great place to be starting from.


A fairly good place is your nearest JoHn Lewis. Mine has a
collection of clearance items including a decent 22 inch IPS
HP monitor.

On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 12:19:25 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 14:12:32 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

...

That is down to calibrating the monitor you happen to have against the
output of your particular printer. Going from RGB additive colour space
on a monitor to CMYK subtractive colour space on a print medium
invariably means some level of compromise. Print media cannot cover the
same dynamic range as a monitor can so you have to set things up right.

First get it so that a neutral grey scale looks OK on both and then do
the same for the primary RGB and CMY colours and you are home and dry.

It is usually enough to sort out the gamma correction on the monitor as
has already been described to you multiple times.

I really apreciate the suggestions that have been made and am applying
them as best I can.
At the moment I have an old LG TV as a main monitor and I can't help
thinking this is not a great place to be starting from.

It should be sufficient colour-wise, though resolution isn't great on old big tvs. Use a testcard to set the monitor up correctly first. That solves most problems.


NT

On 07/01/2020 12:19, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 14:12:32 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

...

That is down to calibrating the monitor you happen to have against the
output of your particular printer. Going from RGB additive colour space
on a monitor to CMYK subtractive colour space on a print medium
invariably means some level of compromise. Print media cannot cover the
same dynamic range as a monitor can so you have to set things up right.

First get it so that a neutral grey scale looks OK on both and then do
the same for the primary RGB and CMY colours and you are home and dry.

It is usually enough to sort out the gamma correction on the monitor as
has already been described to you multiple times.

I really apreciate the suggestions that have been made and am applying
them as best I can.
At the moment I have an old LG TV as a main monitor and I can't help
thinking this is not a great place to be starting from.

It should be perfectly capable of working provided that you calibrate
the thing to display to a specific gamma correction to match the screen.

An IPS screen will always have more accurate colour but it isn't a show
stopper if you haven't got one. Just be sure to look at it square on.

PSPro evaluation version should let you do it with a helpful wizard.

http://help.corel.com/paintshop-pro/...r_monitor.html

You might have to note down the settings and transplant them into
whatever software you are using at present or buy a copy of PSP.


--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Tue, 7 Jan 2020 12:34:14 +0000, Andrew
wrote:

On 07/01/2020 12:19, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 14:12:32 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

...

That is down to calibrating the monitor you happen to have against the
output of your particular printer. Going from RGB additive colour space
on a monitor to CMYK subtractive colour space on a print medium
invariably means some level of compromise. Print media cannot cover the
same dynamic range as a monitor can so you have to set things up right.

First get it so that a neutral grey scale looks OK on both and then do
the same for the primary RGB and CMY colours and you are home and dry.

It is usually enough to sort out the gamma correction on the monitor as
has already been described to you multiple times.

I really apreciate the suggestions that have been made and am applying
them as best I can.
At the moment I have an old LG TV as a main monitor and I can't help
thinking this is not a great place to be starting from.


A fairly good place is your nearest JoHn Lewis. Mine has a
collection of clearance items including a decent 22 inch IPS
HP monitor.

Your suggestion is one of several that help me to justify such a
purchase, for which I thank you.
--

Mike

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 11:44:22 -0800 (PST), wrote:

On Tuesday, 7 January 2020 12:19:25 UTC, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 14:12:32 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

...

That is down to calibrating the monitor you happen to have against the
output of your particular printer. Going from RGB additive colour space
on a monitor to CMYK subtractive colour space on a print medium
invariably means some level of compromise. Print media cannot cover the
same dynamic range as a monitor can so you have to set things up right.

First get it so that a neutral grey scale looks OK on both and then do
the same for the primary RGB and CMY colours and you are home and dry.

It is usually enough to sort out the gamma correction on the monitor as
has already been described to you multiple times.

I really apreciate the suggestions that have been made and am applying
them as best I can.
At the moment I have an old LG TV as a main monitor and I can't help
thinking this is not a great place to be starting from.

It should be sufficient colour-wise, though resolution isn't great on old big tvs. Use a testcard to set the monitor up correctly first. That solves most problems.

Sounds like good advice. Unless it's for someone who needs an excuse
to spend money.
--

Mike

On Wed, 8 Jan 2020 22:54:12 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

On 07/01/2020 12:19, Mike Halmarack wrote:
On Wed, 1 Jan 2020 14:12:32 +0000, Martin Brown
wrote:

...

That is down to calibrating the monitor you happen to have against the
output of your particular printer. Going from RGB additive colour space
on a monitor to CMYK subtractive colour space on a print medium
invariably means some level of compromise. Print media cannot cover the
same dynamic range as a monitor can so you have to set things up right.

First get it so that a neutral grey scale looks OK on both and then do
the same for the primary RGB and CMY colours and you are home and dry.

It is usually enough to sort out the gamma correction on the monitor as
has already been described to you multiple times.

I really apreciate the suggestions that have been made and am applying
them as best I can.
At the moment I have an old LG TV as a main monitor and I can't help
thinking this is not a great place to be starting from.

It should be perfectly capable of working provided that you calibrate
the thing to display to a specific gamma correction to match the screen.

An IPS screen will always have more accurate colour but it isn't a show
stopper if you haven't got one. Just be sure to look at it square on.

PSPro evaluation version should let you do it with a helpful wizard.

http://help.corel.com/paintshop-pro/...r_monitor.html

You might have to note down the settings and transplant them into
whatever software you are using at present or buy a copy of PSP.

Sounds like an interesting method, fun too. I'll do it.
--

Mike