Prints are too dark and now my head hurts...

[bwcolegrove]

Alrighty -

Turning to you folks to see if somebody can straighten out my thinking. For the past few hours I've searched this forum and the internet in general to try to find an answer to my question, and either I can't find it or I don't know what I'm looking for.

Here's the situation -

I'm working on a 27" iMac (uncalibrated). I use Aperture for my post-processing up to the point of skin-retouching, cloning, etc. where PS is more handy.

For the past few years I have used both Mpix and Millers for prints, and I have used their color-correction services for 98% of what I have printed (proof sets being the primary exception). I have always been satisfied with the prints I get back, and even the uncorrected proofs for the most part.

Yesterday I set up an account with Mpixpro.com. As they do not offer color-correction, I ordered five test prints as they require, and I received them today.

Regarding the color of the photos, they are quite accurate. They exhibit no signs of color-shifting, tinting, etc. However, they all look about 2/3 of a stop underexposed.

This is clearly a problem with the iMac's display brightness. I like it bright, so I normally operate three "clicks" down from the brightest setting on the iMac. So what looks fine on the display is too dark in print.

So, I went through the Apple -> System Preferences -> Displays -> Color -> Calibrate tool. I know, it's not third-party, hardware-based color-calibration, but my problem isn't color, it's brightness.

I adjusted the brightness of my display to the point where only about five blocks light up on the display's brightness meter (around 1/3 of the meter is lit). Needless to say, my display is a LOT darker than it normally is. I don't like it.

BUT - when I compare the test prints from Mpixpro to my display, the results are now VERY similar.

THEREFORE - Logic tells me that to make brighter prints, I will need to use some sort of exposure/levels/brightness adjustment in Aperture to make the photo brighter on the screen.

I think I understand up to this point, but just after this is where this system breaks down for me.

If I start tinkering with my photo settings, I start blowing out highlights, losing mid-tone contrast, etc and end up with some really bad-looking images. According to the histogram, my images contain a proper amount of shadow and highlight detail before I start trying to "brighten them up."

I took some test shots today, and the camera(Nikon D300) is exposing the shots properly according to the LCD preview and the histogram. I tried pushing the exposure in-camera by 2/3 up to a full stop brighter, but all that does is blow out highlights (duh).

Okay, this is really long, so if you made it this far, thanks for sticking with me.

Am I missing something, or is there some other way to make the prints brighter without going in and manipulating the exposure?

Thanks for your help.

- Billy

[srwatters]

I understand what you want to do, but to be honest with you, I don't think you'll ever achieve consistent results that way. You really need to set your monitor to the proper brightness and gamma settings if you want quality output. Trying to compensate by messing around with exposure on the camera will make your images bad (as you've figured out already). If you're really convinced that having the display too bright is the 'right' way for you, then you'll need to edit your images so they look way too bright on the iMac. You can use the RGB values as a guide. Your highlights will look blown out on the display, but if the RGB values aren't near 255 (225+), then the image will probably look fine.

Have you considered using a second correctly calibrated display for editing and leaving your iMac display at an overly bright setting? It still isn't the correct way to work, but I think it's your only option if you insist on cranking up the brightness on the iMac.

[d2creative]

Or at least buy a proper calibration tool because it will adjust brightness and gamma as well as color and get you into the right ballpark.

[billbunton]

Unfortunately, most iMac screens can't have the brightness turned down enough. I don't think my wife's will go below about 180 cd/m2. I keep my calibrated monitors on the high side, at about 140, though the soft-proofing profile on my NEC is set to 100.

You really do need a properly calibrated (second, for an iMac) monitor.

[picman]

The brightness portion of calibration is the most subjective - The brightness that's right for your situation might not be right for someone's. Some calibration units don't have the ability to handle changing monitor brightness - instead going for a fixed brightness number that might not be appropriate for viewing conditions.

Here's a few bits that might help:
Why Are My Prints Too Dark

Shutterbug: Are Your Prints Too Dark?

Why are my prints too dark

[venchka]

On the advice of another member of this forum, I recently reduced the brightness & contrast of my monitor from right up near the top, or right end of the scale on my monitor, to just barely above the bottom, or left hand end of the scale. Then I calibrated the monitor. Then I printed. And printed & printed & printed. Until this past weekend. All the stars aligned. My brain cleared. I was happy with my prints. Most of the problems were operator error. However, once my eyeballs got familiar with the new monitor settings, my print quality went up.
PS: There is a certain amount of myth associated with what you see on the screen matching what you see in a print. The two will be close. They will not match 100%. It's the nature of dissimilar materials. Lighted monitor vs. reflective print and all that.

Sorry for the ramble. I hope you get this sorted out. I have my eye on the 27" iMac.

[bwcolegrove]

Thanks to you all for taking the time to respond.

@Scott ("srwatters") - After having slept on it a while, I think I can get used to looking at a dimmer monitor, with the brightness cranked way down. Better for color-matching, better for the monitor, and I'm sure it's easier on my eyeballs.

@Brian ("picman") - Thanks for the articles. I thought the Shutterbug article was quite informative. Especially since the example used in the article is my exact problem - the images are too dark on my screen and too dark in print, but according to the histogram are properly exposed.

As you all mentioned, I'm sure a proper calibration is the only thing that will fix this for me.

That being said, I still don't understand how I can make my images look brighter on my (darker) screen, or what the lab is doing to make the print brighter.

I thought of a new way to ask the question -

If I send my uncalibrated images to Mpixpro and they don't correct them, then they come back too dark. If I send the same images to Millers (or regular Mpix) and they color-correct them, they come back brighter and closer to my expectations.

Here is the new question:

What adjustments is the lab tech making to the images to give them more brightness on the printed page? (i.e. My images are too dark, so he/she adjusts some "magical" sliders to achieve the proper amount of brightness on the print.) Can I do that before I send the images to the lab without them being blown out (i.e. histogram levels at or above 225)?

Do they have some tool at their level to which I do not have access?

Geez. Sorry for this. I'm sure I'm overcomplicating things here.

[venchka]

A suggestion:
Buy a printer.
Make the proofs yourself.
When you get the proofs the way you want them, send the file to the printers.
Compare results.

For what it's worth, I have only used Mpix once for one 16x20. I liked it. Most importantly, my client liked it and wrote a check. I'm batting 1.000 with Mpix and proofing on my printer.

[J Eddington]

Why are you messing with Mpix if you can use Millers corrected and they come out fine? That is why you pay a little more. Sure helps with the headaches :)

[venchka]

Thanks Janice. I didn't know that was the difference. If I need outside printing, I will look to Millers first.
Isn't Mpix a branch of Millers?

[J Eddington]

Originally Posted by venchka

Thanks Janice. I didn't know that was the difference. If I need outside printing, I will look to Millers first.
Isn't Mpix a branch of Millers?

It is, but Millers offers more levels of "correcting".

[adamsheehy]

If it were me, I'd just dim my monitor down even more and ignore any histogram data for the moment. Theoretically, there should be an inverse relation there - the darker the monitor, the brighter the prints (this is assuming you're making desireable edits to the pic via looking at the monitor). You obviously don't want a totally black monitor with blown out pics, so just bump it down in brightness by small increments. You'll be amazed at how dim things really are when looking at a properly calibrated monitor (relatively speaking of course).