Tactics for judging if a printed image will be bright enough? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy do my photos look bad only when they are printed?How to choose the kind of paper for an inkjet print?How does software raise exposure in post-processing?Calibrating monitor (CRT) to match third vendor printerAnyone use a MacBook Pro to edit/print digital photos?Color spaces for large prints / and or webCanon printer not printting .tiff files at the correct sizeHow can I adjust white balance for many photos by the same amount in Lightroom?Frustration from printing in home inkjet printerChanging the brightness of a calibrated monitor for other uses?
Is it ever safe to open a suspicious HTML file (e.g. email attachment)?
Why isn't the Mueller report being released completely and unredacted?
Where do students learn to solve polynomial equations these days?
Rotate a column
Is micro rebar a better way to reinforce concrete than rebar?
0-rank tensor vs vector in 1D
How many extra stops do monopods offer for tele photographs?
How did people program for Consoles with multiple CPUs?
Yu-Gi-Oh cards in Python 3
Proper way to express "He disappeared them"
What was the first Unix version to run on a microcomputer?
Why, when going from special to general relativity, do we just replace partial derivatives with covariant derivatives?
Bartok - Syncopation (1): Meaning of notes in between Grand Staff
Would a completely good Muggle be able to use a wand?
Running a General Election and the European Elections together
Make solar eclipses exceedingly rare, but still have new moons
Is it possible to replace duplicates of a character with one character using tr
Why the difference in type-inference over the as-pattern in two similar function definitions?
Can this equation be simplified further?
Method for adding error messages to a dictionary given a key
Legal workarounds for testamentary trust perceived as unfair
Can Plant Growth be repeatedly cast on the same area to exponentially increase the yield of harvests there (more than twice)?
How to edit “Name” property in GCI output?
Is there a difference between "Fahrstuhl" and "Aufzug"
Tactics for judging if a printed image will be bright enough?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowWhy do my photos look bad only when they are printed?How to choose the kind of paper for an inkjet print?How does software raise exposure in post-processing?Calibrating monitor (CRT) to match third vendor printerAnyone use a MacBook Pro to edit/print digital photos?Color spaces for large prints / and or webCanon printer not printting .tiff files at the correct sizeHow can I adjust white balance for many photos by the same amount in Lightroom?Frustration from printing in home inkjet printerChanging the brightness of a calibrated monitor for other uses?
I'm struggling a bit with how to judge if a photo will be bright enough when printed, while I'm working on it on my monitor. "Bright enough" of course changes with the ambient or targeted lighting where it will be displayed, this, that and the other thing, yes, but I'd like to set that aside as much as possible here.
I do not print at home; I send my pictures to labs (e.g., Whitewall).
My monitor is calibrated and characterized. The candela is currently at 120 cd/m2. That's too bright... at least, well, let me explain.
Of course, one of the things I've tried is to lower my screen brightness quite low, 80 cd/m2, maybe even less. That helps, but comes at the price of reducing colors and contrast--at least my perception of them. Also, the 120 cd/m2 mark has the advantage of being bright enough for normal computer use with the window shade up.
Another thing I try to do is consider the histogram. If the image has a nice bell shaped histogram, I try to make sure that the majority of it is to the right. This tactic helps, but only if the image lends itself to it. When the photo's histogram is all over the place, I have a harder time using it for decision making.
I've also noticed recently that setting the image window (the window where the photo appears in Photoshop and co.) to a white background totally changes how you see the picture: doing so instantly makes me want to crank up the brightness and often the saturation too. However, I have not yet tried this tactic for printing, and fear over-correcting the other way.
My goal of course is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures; I'd like to be able to know that the photo will give a good print right off the bat.
So, my first question would be, has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
And more largely, those of you who manage to "get brightness right the first time", how do you do it? What's your trick?
Thanks in advance for your ideas and advice and I hope that others will find the info helpful as well.
post-processing printing brightness
add a comment |
I'm struggling a bit with how to judge if a photo will be bright enough when printed, while I'm working on it on my monitor. "Bright enough" of course changes with the ambient or targeted lighting where it will be displayed, this, that and the other thing, yes, but I'd like to set that aside as much as possible here.
I do not print at home; I send my pictures to labs (e.g., Whitewall).
My monitor is calibrated and characterized. The candela is currently at 120 cd/m2. That's too bright... at least, well, let me explain.
Of course, one of the things I've tried is to lower my screen brightness quite low, 80 cd/m2, maybe even less. That helps, but comes at the price of reducing colors and contrast--at least my perception of them. Also, the 120 cd/m2 mark has the advantage of being bright enough for normal computer use with the window shade up.
Another thing I try to do is consider the histogram. If the image has a nice bell shaped histogram, I try to make sure that the majority of it is to the right. This tactic helps, but only if the image lends itself to it. When the photo's histogram is all over the place, I have a harder time using it for decision making.
I've also noticed recently that setting the image window (the window where the photo appears in Photoshop and co.) to a white background totally changes how you see the picture: doing so instantly makes me want to crank up the brightness and often the saturation too. However, I have not yet tried this tactic for printing, and fear over-correcting the other way.
My goal of course is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures; I'd like to be able to know that the photo will give a good print right off the bat.
So, my first question would be, has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
And more largely, those of you who manage to "get brightness right the first time", how do you do it? What's your trick?
Thanks in advance for your ideas and advice and I hope that others will find the info helpful as well.
post-processing printing brightness
add a comment |
I'm struggling a bit with how to judge if a photo will be bright enough when printed, while I'm working on it on my monitor. "Bright enough" of course changes with the ambient or targeted lighting where it will be displayed, this, that and the other thing, yes, but I'd like to set that aside as much as possible here.
I do not print at home; I send my pictures to labs (e.g., Whitewall).
My monitor is calibrated and characterized. The candela is currently at 120 cd/m2. That's too bright... at least, well, let me explain.
Of course, one of the things I've tried is to lower my screen brightness quite low, 80 cd/m2, maybe even less. That helps, but comes at the price of reducing colors and contrast--at least my perception of them. Also, the 120 cd/m2 mark has the advantage of being bright enough for normal computer use with the window shade up.
Another thing I try to do is consider the histogram. If the image has a nice bell shaped histogram, I try to make sure that the majority of it is to the right. This tactic helps, but only if the image lends itself to it. When the photo's histogram is all over the place, I have a harder time using it for decision making.
I've also noticed recently that setting the image window (the window where the photo appears in Photoshop and co.) to a white background totally changes how you see the picture: doing so instantly makes me want to crank up the brightness and often the saturation too. However, I have not yet tried this tactic for printing, and fear over-correcting the other way.
My goal of course is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures; I'd like to be able to know that the photo will give a good print right off the bat.
So, my first question would be, has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
And more largely, those of you who manage to "get brightness right the first time", how do you do it? What's your trick?
Thanks in advance for your ideas and advice and I hope that others will find the info helpful as well.
post-processing printing brightness
I'm struggling a bit with how to judge if a photo will be bright enough when printed, while I'm working on it on my monitor. "Bright enough" of course changes with the ambient or targeted lighting where it will be displayed, this, that and the other thing, yes, but I'd like to set that aside as much as possible here.
I do not print at home; I send my pictures to labs (e.g., Whitewall).
My monitor is calibrated and characterized. The candela is currently at 120 cd/m2. That's too bright... at least, well, let me explain.
Of course, one of the things I've tried is to lower my screen brightness quite low, 80 cd/m2, maybe even less. That helps, but comes at the price of reducing colors and contrast--at least my perception of them. Also, the 120 cd/m2 mark has the advantage of being bright enough for normal computer use with the window shade up.
Another thing I try to do is consider the histogram. If the image has a nice bell shaped histogram, I try to make sure that the majority of it is to the right. This tactic helps, but only if the image lends itself to it. When the photo's histogram is all over the place, I have a harder time using it for decision making.
I've also noticed recently that setting the image window (the window where the photo appears in Photoshop and co.) to a white background totally changes how you see the picture: doing so instantly makes me want to crank up the brightness and often the saturation too. However, I have not yet tried this tactic for printing, and fear over-correcting the other way.
My goal of course is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures; I'd like to be able to know that the photo will give a good print right off the bat.
So, my first question would be, has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
And more largely, those of you who manage to "get brightness right the first time", how do you do it? What's your trick?
Thanks in advance for your ideas and advice and I hope that others will find the info helpful as well.
post-processing printing brightness
post-processing printing brightness
asked 12 hours ago
KLE-FranceKLE-France
413
413
add a comment |
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
Has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
No. That is a bad idea.
You need to see the relationship between the elements of your image, not the relationship with the surroundings, which you can not control.
That line of reasoning is the same as put some reflectors behind your monitor, or put the monitor in front of the sunniest of the windows in your home.
My goal, of course, is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures
Ok. Do not order a zillion test images. Just send some. But you need to. You are assuming the provider has their equipment also calibrated.
Send for example a good black and white portrait (or whatever theme you are working with)
Define what is the middle tone of that image, for example, the cheek. Depending on your profiles, let's assume it is 128,128,128.
Make some variations of your image and put some watermark indicating the adjustment, for example, a gamma adjustment of increments of 0.1. Your original image would be Gamma 1.
Gamma 1.1, Gamma 1.2...
Gamma 0.9, Gamma 0.8...
You can make a gradient of some clear steps, for example, 5 steps from Black to white, or make them 10 or whatever. And make similar variations.
You can do that also with a color image. With a portrait, or with different color gradients.
Then you can decide which variation you can apply methodically to the images you send to that specific provider.
Back when I still made prints, I sent off a single set of test images to a lab that produced consistent results. After that, I used the same gamma settings, along with the latest color profiles, to export for print at the same lab. Nowadays, everything is online, so I just spot check a few phones. Last time I made prints from images edited this way, they came out pretty well, so it seems printers know people want pictures to look like what they see on their phones.
– xiota
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "61"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106278%2ftactics-for-judging-if-a-printed-image-will-be-bright-enough%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
No. That is a bad idea.
You need to see the relationship between the elements of your image, not the relationship with the surroundings, which you can not control.
That line of reasoning is the same as put some reflectors behind your monitor, or put the monitor in front of the sunniest of the windows in your home.
My goal, of course, is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures
Ok. Do not order a zillion test images. Just send some. But you need to. You are assuming the provider has their equipment also calibrated.
Send for example a good black and white portrait (or whatever theme you are working with)
Define what is the middle tone of that image, for example, the cheek. Depending on your profiles, let's assume it is 128,128,128.
Make some variations of your image and put some watermark indicating the adjustment, for example, a gamma adjustment of increments of 0.1. Your original image would be Gamma 1.
Gamma 1.1, Gamma 1.2...
Gamma 0.9, Gamma 0.8...
You can make a gradient of some clear steps, for example, 5 steps from Black to white, or make them 10 or whatever. And make similar variations.
You can do that also with a color image. With a portrait, or with different color gradients.
Then you can decide which variation you can apply methodically to the images you send to that specific provider.
Back when I still made prints, I sent off a single set of test images to a lab that produced consistent results. After that, I used the same gamma settings, along with the latest color profiles, to export for print at the same lab. Nowadays, everything is online, so I just spot check a few phones. Last time I made prints from images edited this way, they came out pretty well, so it seems printers know people want pictures to look like what they see on their phones.
– xiota
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
No. That is a bad idea.
You need to see the relationship between the elements of your image, not the relationship with the surroundings, which you can not control.
That line of reasoning is the same as put some reflectors behind your monitor, or put the monitor in front of the sunniest of the windows in your home.
My goal, of course, is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures
Ok. Do not order a zillion test images. Just send some. But you need to. You are assuming the provider has their equipment also calibrated.
Send for example a good black and white portrait (or whatever theme you are working with)
Define what is the middle tone of that image, for example, the cheek. Depending on your profiles, let's assume it is 128,128,128.
Make some variations of your image and put some watermark indicating the adjustment, for example, a gamma adjustment of increments of 0.1. Your original image would be Gamma 1.
Gamma 1.1, Gamma 1.2...
Gamma 0.9, Gamma 0.8...
You can make a gradient of some clear steps, for example, 5 steps from Black to white, or make them 10 or whatever. And make similar variations.
You can do that also with a color image. With a portrait, or with different color gradients.
Then you can decide which variation you can apply methodically to the images you send to that specific provider.
Back when I still made prints, I sent off a single set of test images to a lab that produced consistent results. After that, I used the same gamma settings, along with the latest color profiles, to export for print at the same lab. Nowadays, everything is online, so I just spot check a few phones. Last time I made prints from images edited this way, they came out pretty well, so it seems printers know people want pictures to look like what they see on their phones.
– xiota
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
No. That is a bad idea.
You need to see the relationship between the elements of your image, not the relationship with the surroundings, which you can not control.
That line of reasoning is the same as put some reflectors behind your monitor, or put the monitor in front of the sunniest of the windows in your home.
My goal, of course, is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures
Ok. Do not order a zillion test images. Just send some. But you need to. You are assuming the provider has their equipment also calibrated.
Send for example a good black and white portrait (or whatever theme you are working with)
Define what is the middle tone of that image, for example, the cheek. Depending on your profiles, let's assume it is 128,128,128.
Make some variations of your image and put some watermark indicating the adjustment, for example, a gamma adjustment of increments of 0.1. Your original image would be Gamma 1.
Gamma 1.1, Gamma 1.2...
Gamma 0.9, Gamma 0.8...
You can make a gradient of some clear steps, for example, 5 steps from Black to white, or make them 10 or whatever. And make similar variations.
You can do that also with a color image. With a portrait, or with different color gradients.
Then you can decide which variation you can apply methodically to the images you send to that specific provider.
Has anyone else found that using a white background in their photo editing software is a good way to judge the brightness of the print to come?
No. That is a bad idea.
You need to see the relationship between the elements of your image, not the relationship with the surroundings, which you can not control.
That line of reasoning is the same as put some reflectors behind your monitor, or put the monitor in front of the sunniest of the windows in your home.
My goal, of course, is to stop ordering a gazillion test pictures
Ok. Do not order a zillion test images. Just send some. But you need to. You are assuming the provider has their equipment also calibrated.
Send for example a good black and white portrait (or whatever theme you are working with)
Define what is the middle tone of that image, for example, the cheek. Depending on your profiles, let's assume it is 128,128,128.
Make some variations of your image and put some watermark indicating the adjustment, for example, a gamma adjustment of increments of 0.1. Your original image would be Gamma 1.
Gamma 1.1, Gamma 1.2...
Gamma 0.9, Gamma 0.8...
You can make a gradient of some clear steps, for example, 5 steps from Black to white, or make them 10 or whatever. And make similar variations.
You can do that also with a color image. With a portrait, or with different color gradients.
Then you can decide which variation you can apply methodically to the images you send to that specific provider.
edited 10 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
RafaelRafael
14.2k12244
14.2k12244
Back when I still made prints, I sent off a single set of test images to a lab that produced consistent results. After that, I used the same gamma settings, along with the latest color profiles, to export for print at the same lab. Nowadays, everything is online, so I just spot check a few phones. Last time I made prints from images edited this way, they came out pretty well, so it seems printers know people want pictures to look like what they see on their phones.
– xiota
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Back when I still made prints, I sent off a single set of test images to a lab that produced consistent results. After that, I used the same gamma settings, along with the latest color profiles, to export for print at the same lab. Nowadays, everything is online, so I just spot check a few phones. Last time I made prints from images edited this way, they came out pretty well, so it seems printers know people want pictures to look like what they see on their phones.
– xiota
1 hour ago
Back when I still made prints, I sent off a single set of test images to a lab that produced consistent results. After that, I used the same gamma settings, along with the latest color profiles, to export for print at the same lab. Nowadays, everything is online, so I just spot check a few phones. Last time I made prints from images edited this way, they came out pretty well, so it seems printers know people want pictures to look like what they see on their phones.
– xiota
1 hour ago
Back when I still made prints, I sent off a single set of test images to a lab that produced consistent results. After that, I used the same gamma settings, along with the latest color profiles, to export for print at the same lab. Nowadays, everything is online, so I just spot check a few phones. Last time I made prints from images edited this way, they came out pretty well, so it seems printers know people want pictures to look like what they see on their phones.
– xiota
1 hour ago
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Photography Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphoto.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f106278%2ftactics-for-judging-if-a-printed-image-will-be-bright-enough%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown