problems getting good lab prints

Status
Not open for further replies.

emt

New Member
Joined
Sep 18, 2009
Messages
5
Location
PORTLAND, OREGON
Help! I've recently changed professional photo labs from K&K in Portland, OR (they went out of business after 5' years!) to Pounds labs in Texas. As if that wasn't enough, this past summer I began shooting in RAW and using Lightroom 2 to process my images. Prior to that I was shooting JPEGS and processing with Photoshop CS. And even then, I've only been using digital for 2 years, so I'm new to the whole game and having trouble pinning down the reason or reasons for my recent dissatisfaction with my prints. I'm hoping someone can help.
To be blunt, the prints I am getting just don't "pop" the way they used to. The colors are flat and dull compared to those I was getting prior to these changes. They seem accurate enough, but not what I would expect from a top lab. They are good everyday prints, but not what I want to give to my clients as examples of my best work presented in the best final form.
As the first "less than what I was used to" prints came from my first RAW+Lightroom images via K&K, I feel certain that the problem is on my end. Of course, I've read the relevant sections of the manual, and visited several forums searching for an answer to my dilemma. I found lots of threads that seem to suggest that other people have had dull prints out of Lightroom. Most of the posts, however, deal with similar issues but are focused on problems printing with inkjet printers directly from the print module in Lightroom. Doesn't anybody like to use outside Photo Labs anymore?
As I said, the colors seem accurate enough, but lack vibrancy. If I need to over-saturate or add contrast to the files prior to exporting them as JPEGS and sending them out in sRGB, Lightroom certainly makes that easy enough to do, but I was hoping for some guidance on specific controls, amounts, sharpening, etc. I can't be the first one to have had these types of problems, so I am going to the source looking for solutions.
Any suggestions would be very appreciated.
Thank you.
 
Welcome aboard, I'm sure you will get some useful advice from folk on here.
Have you calibrated your monitor ?
Have you contacted the lab and asked them what format / colour space they would prefer ?
 
Welcome. Maybe you already know this, and there are a lot of other things that could be happening (or not) also, but here's one thing that I found that helps my prints "pop". In develop, adjust the blacks and exposure sliders so that the histogram is expanded as much as you can get it and still have the image look good. I find that by moving the blacks til the left side touches, and then increasing exposure til the image looks good will give it much more "oomph". I equate this to what levels does in PS. I often increase contrast just a smidge too. Not every image will need both sides of the histogram to touch the sides, especially the exp. side.
Even though an image looks good on screen, it may not have that "oomph" it needs for printing.
Of course all the color management things have to be right. There's a lot more qualified people than me here to help with that.
I have found that this helped my prints, and I figure a print is a print. What difference does it make who prints it. ---I know, another can of worms.....
 
Thanks for the responses.
No, I haven't calibrated my monitor yet. Another piece of equipment I have to buy.
Still, its not really the color as much as the range of contrast - at least that's what it seems. The color is adequate, just not vibrant.
I have a nearly word-for-word copy of this post sent in to the lab, but have not yet heard back from them. I do know that they want files in sRGB, which is what I've been sending them, and was sending to the previous lab as well. Though all but the last order I sent to the previous lab were shot as jpegs and processed through Photoshop. And that last order was unsatisfactory as well. Which is why, if I had to guess - and that is what I'm doing - I'd say it was the switch to Lightroom that was the source of most of my problem. Posts on this forum (at least I think it was here - I've kinda been doing a lot of searching) have indicated that others have had better results printing from Photoshop as opposed to from Lightroom.
Since I'm not actually printing from Lightroom - just using it to process images that I then convert to jpegs and send out for printing -, I'm not sure if it is the same issue or related, but I thought it might be.

Thanks again.
 
Have you considered sending a series of test images to the lab with varying amounts of contrast and/or saturation? Also, what type of paper are they printing on? Unfortunately, you have a lot of variables in your workflow to rule out, but I believe a series of test prints might be useful, especially if you also include an image that you previously processed in CS and had good results from your former lab.

--Ken
 
[quote author=emt link=topic=7871.msg53816#msg53816 date=12534''624]
No, I haven't calibrated my monitor yet. Another piece of equipment I have to buy. Still, its not really the color as much as the range of contrast - at least that's what it seems. The color is adequate, just not vibrant. [/quote]
Trying to make colour adjustments without calibrating your monitor is like throwing darts at a dartboard blindfolded whilst spinning around. Until you buy your calibration gear, you may get a bit closer by taking a fairly average print from that lab, viewing the same image on screen (the file that you sent to the lab) and adjusting the monitor to get as close as possible. It's far from ideal, but it may help a little in the meantime.

[quote author=emt link=topic=7871.msg53816#msg53816 date=12534''624]
I'd say it was the switch to Lightroom that was the source of most of my problem. Posts on this forum (at least I think it was here - I've kinda been doing a lot of searching) have indicated that others have had better results printing from Photoshop as opposed to from Lightroom.Since I'm not actually printing from Lightroom - just using it to process images that I then convert to jpegs and send out for printing -, I'm not sure if it is the same issue or related, but I thought it might be.
[/quote]

Printing from LR to jpeg outputs an sRGB file, which is just the same as using PS to do the same, so you can ignore the printer problems threads. Those generally come down to a mishmash of printer drivers and inks and papers. That said, technically it could be your switch to LR - although not LR's fault. If you're not calibrating your monitor, you may be using a canned manufacturer's profile, which are often corrupted, and that corruption usually only shows up in LR and not in other programs, due to the way that LR uses the profile. You could rule that out by opening the same file in LR and PS and checking they match, and temporarily changing the monitor profile to sRGB at OS level, and seeing if LR then matches PS.

One other thing to bear in mind, as you're coming from a jpeg workflow - jpegs have a lot of processing applied in the camera, which isn't applied to the raw files. You can probably get closer to the same starting point by selecting the appropriate profile in the Calibration panel, and tweaking from there, if you liked the jpeg colours and saturation. Having decided on the basic settings that you like, you can save those as the defaults.

I guess my point is that you have a lot of variables running at the moment, so you might like to start at the beginning and work through methodically to find out where the problem is occurring. I'm guessing it's one of a few places:
1. Monitor profile corruption (files may be different between PS and LR)
2. Monitor simply needs profile (did your previous jpegs match your screen?)
3. Raw files look different to jpegs (that's down to processing)
 
Sorry to have been away. I'm just checking back after a few days away from my computer and I want to thank you all for your suggestions. They have given me a lot to work on. I have a call coming today from a consultant from the Lab and these posts will be a good starting point for our conversation. I'll let you know what the outcome is.
One thing I'm wondering in looking back over the posts: what effect will checking the "reduce imbedded metadata" box have? Is this something I want to do as a rule to improve prints, or is this something that the poster thinks that I may have inadvertently done that may be adversely affecting my prints?
 
The reduce embedded metadata would have been an accident, but one that shouldn't affect this situation really. As a general rule, you might want to reduce the metadata if you were posting the images on the web or giving them to a customer (i.e. you don't want them to see your shooting data), but it's best to leave metadata embedded for most other situations.
 
[quote author=emt link=topic=7871.msg54158#msg54158 date=1253892743]
One thing I'm wondering in looking back over the posts: what effect will checking the "reduce imbedded metadata" box have? Is this something I want to do as a rule to improve prints, or is this something that the poster thinks that I may have inadvertently done that may be adversely affecting my prints?
[/quote]
This should not affect the print BUT... A similar problem made me join this forum in its infancy at the end of october 2''7... So look at Mark Sirota answers to my first post at Lightroom Forums to see why I suggest this to try.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Since that time I did some extensive testing of tagging and embedded profiles at a variety of local mini-labs around my home, and found that it doesn't really matter that Lightroom doesn't tag its exports, at least not for my sample.

Whether you check the minimize box or not, Lightroom always embeds a profile. I couldn't find a lab that would see the untagged file as sRGB when I embedded something different.

I still think Lightroom should tag for completeness, but haven't found that it actually matters in practice.
 
I had a very long discussion with the consultant from the lab. (Wow, what a helpful service! They really take care of their customers.)
The talk ranged over a variety of areas, but the upshot is that I bit the bullet and have ordered and will soon receive an X-Rite Eye-One and will let you all know what happens when I get my monitor seeing what the lab sees.
After going over the images that I was most disappointed in from the lab it seems that they are also the ones that I most played with, particularly with the "wow, look how much I can rescue a bad exposure" controls such as Fill Light. That, and some also were shot on an overcast day - not much "punch" there, duh. A more realistic and thorough scrutiny of the other images that I've had printed has made me realize that they weren't ALL bad. I guess I let a few screw-ups on my part cloud my objectivity. That, and the anxiety of many changes all at once had me frantic and thinking that I was out on a limb. Here's to a brighter, and more saturated, future.
 
That's really good to hear emt, and it sounds like you've found yourself a great lab.
 
Just some hints from Germany on this.

1. Most labs (here) do not read the ICC profile data of the JPG's sent to them. They assume sRGB and thats it. I normally export as sRGB. If you send them AdobeRGB you get also some de-saturated results if the lab assumes sRGB.

2. Make sure that the lab does not try to "optimize" your pictures. A normal out of camera holliday shot may need some optimization, but not your work. I have seen strange results when they try to be clever.

3. A calibrated monitor is a great benefit. I have found that the following settings fit verry well for my rage of labs.
- D65, 2.2, 12' to 124 cd.
Which means, color temperature 65'' Kelvin, Gamma 2.2 and 12' to 124 candela (Leuchtdichte, sorry I do not remember the English name)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top