Thanks,

Thanks for starting this link. I was just starting to deal with calibration. In the meantime I have a question: Does CS3 work okay in the leopard environment? I'm in OS 10.4.11 (another cat- I forget which one) and I cannot decide if I should upgrade- I would hate for CS3 to fail in the leopard environment.

thanks,

Even though I'm not the one asking the questions, I always find your answers very useful and informative. I just wanted to thank you for them!

Thanks for responding. The problem was that the prints were coming back too dark and flat from the lab. Since then, I adjusted my brightness and contrast because they suggested that the screen may be too bright. Then I recalibrated and edited a few photos in CS3 and soft proofed (although hardly any change happened between my soft proof image and my orginial). I then posted them on my website (for my clients) and looking on an uncalibrated monitor (which I am sure they have!), is when the images were blown out in brightness.

I would lve to take a class, just right now the funds are not there. Maybe I can in September!

Rich, please correct if any of this is wrong...

I read (somewhere) that when calibrating a CRT, you should first
a) set contrast to max and
b) set brightness as follows:
- set your desktop background to pure black and close all windows & turn off wall paper
- resize image area smaller so you get some border (turn up brightness if needed so you can see this)
- now adjust brightness down until the background just turns the same shade of black as the border area
- resize your image area back up (you'll need to maximize a window or turn back on wall paper to see this.)

also, when adjusting your display area, you may want to display an image of a perfect square (you can easily make one in any graphic editor) so you can measure it with a ruler to insure your ratio is exact.

Then, calibrate normally.

When in doubt, read the manual!

The method you describe here for brightness adjustment may give you pure blacks, but it may not be the best for the entire range of the monitor -- depends on the monitor, its response, etc. The targets can help you balance more than just the shadows. While I see the point of the method you describe, I am not sure it will always be the best.

Funny thing about monitors -- few people ever consider the 'correct' resolution, where the ruler around an image in Photoshop will actually display inches as an inch -- both horizontally and vertically. A lot is generally taken for granted, starting with the idea that the monitor will automatically display the right color.

It is often more complicated to get it right than just working out of the box. Follow manufacturer instructions for setup PRE-calibration. Regretfully all services won't always give you the best information (often staffed by well-meaning people who tell what has worked for them). Monitor manufacturers may have their own suggestions as well, and sometimes the monitor and calibration device will have contradictory instructions...

Practice and effort learning about color and calibrations will usually help. But you've got to handle the whole process correctly, not just one part.

I'll have to see if I can find such instructions for my monitor... it's a really old 17" Dell Trinitron.

...which I really need to replace soon... :)

I'm hoping to take your course in Sept, btw.

I don't have a specific answer for you.

That being said, here are my comments on color management.

At one time I chased this elusive spectre. My opinion now is that given all the variables, color management for the photographer with any real degree of accuracy remains elusive as well as next to impossible.

Why? Look at all the variables. Some are controllable, some are not.

To mention a few: Color LCD screens have a "viewing angle." Move your head this way or that way, and it changes.
LCD screens also physically change in color, contrast and brightness over time.

A color calibrator such as the "Spyder" look at the screen at zero degrees; we as humans do not.
CRT screens remain the best for accuracy and rendition, though they too suffer from age degradation.

Gamma and luminance: I find gamma, while interesting, useless to the photographer; just ask Ansel Adams on this. LOL. Luminance or brightness. This is a rather subjective term not to be confused or used with terminology like "blown Hi-lites."

Next; color and intensity of color are are represented by the RGB system in monitors... 000,000,000 and 255,255,255 being black and white. The combinations of these values will render a wide array of color with many gradations we can't even see!

Now factor in the many ICC profiles we as photogs must come to grips with. The screen SHOULD match what is output to the printer; be it OUR printer or a commercial printer. So now we need a standard for not only our screen but our printer as well.

Then we need to wonder if the printer will even lay down the color as it should be. I don't care if it's ink or dye sublimation, we ultimately have to believe THEIR equip is properly calibrated and working properly.
Usually; it's "good enough."
This is exasperating!

Ok, so what else? Oh ya; how I see RED may not be the way YOU see red. This is a variation how humans see and interpret light, be it color or brightness.

So what do I do?
I take it on faith that Red, Green and Blue are represented numerically.
As long as I have my black set to black, my white (255...255...255) set to white and my primary RGB values set accordingly, I am happy.

In my opinion, while total visual accuracy and measurement is necessary in pure science, it is not needed in photography. I know that is a pretty bold statement and likely open to disagreement, but nonetheless, it is what I believe.

I no longer agonize over "perfect" color calibration. I find it a futile effort. For me and my photography, close enough is good enough.

When I use a commercial pro printer, I enclose a guide print when it's important. The commercial printer people I use have a ICC profile on what (I) want; not what the Spyder says.

The guide print and ICC profile they have on record for me does NOT indicate perfect calibration, it indicates how I want the final print to look and has little to do with someone elses ICC profiles and color accuracy.

It remains purely MY opinion, we as photographers have been sold a bill of goods with color calibrators and the assortment of books written on color management.

While a good solid GENERAL understanding is good concerning color management, I feel some of us get way too carried away with it.

all the best,

---
The question of getting prints to match is a heady one ... one that I answer all the time in my From Monitor to Print: Photoshop Color Workflow course ... Books are written on the subject of color management spanning 500 pages. That is, a short response here won't do it all for you. However, the important things:

- Calibrate your monitor (I use Spyder Pro)
- Create a custom ICC profile (usually part of #1)
- Decide on a sensible workflow (handling of color and color spaces from camera to print)
- Make the most of your corrections (correct your images to look their best)
- Embed your working space profile (some suggest specific printer profiles or other things, but generally these would only be helpful in situations where you have converted to CMYK)
- TEST. Don't go right for that 28x20 print ... get the service to print 3x5 or 5x7s as a test on the SAME MACHINE.

Each service will be a bit different, as will each paper and each machine they use. This will lead some to want to use custom profiles for output. That can really become a headache ... and another step where people can ruin their chances of getting the right results by assigning profiles incorrectly. I print with a service even though I have pre-press experience as I will not buy a $60,000 printer for my home, but can print on one cheaply at a service.

There are inherent differences in CMYK and RGB, and you see on screen in one and generally (with variations) print in the other. You will not get them to be identical, but you can get them pretty close with "normal" images. I like the idea and results I get with Laser Light printers (also sometimes called LED or CRT), which project light to expose paper which is then run through a photographic process ... no ink. The printers themselves are really expensive and you wouldn't likely own one, but services often do and can make your inkless prints for a bargain.

A lot of what you hear about working spaces and profiles is junk. Your workflow needs to make sense more than conform to sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProRGB, or whatever. It is often the "making sense" part that people leave behind as it is the biggest pain. I calibrate with a hardware device on any machine I correct images on ... I use a ColorVision Spyder. You can get away with the Express model. Hardware calibration is superior to software calibration.
---

If your monitor is an issue and images are important to you, get a better monitor. I use a 30" Apple Cinema Display and a Mac Pro laptop - and as good as the latter is, I do not correct images on it. I have worked with other monitors that are suggested as excellent, and, honestly, they have ranged from crummy to OK. I only switched from CRTs this past December because of the flaws in flat screens.

RGB and CMYK settings are totally different. Try it yourself in Photoshop. Convert one of your normal pics from RGB to CMYK and see how the colours change (especially some blues). This is normal.

If you print your images at a Lab where they use an LED printer (ie: Light Emitting Diodes) this uses RGB settings because it is "light" not "ink". In this case you should get a result more closely matching your file on screen.... RGB to RGB.

Remember... ink and light are totally different. You can edit your pic on-screen to show colours that are physically impossible to print on a CMYK printer.

You face a rather difficult problem when dealing with the "quickie" develop houses.

You COULD simply raise the overall brightness of your images to compensate; but at the risk of blowing out some hi-lites. It really depends how much darker they are printing what you are submitting. Half stop darker?..Full stop?

What they are referring to is really not that difficult. It is essentially (their) program for a WYSIWYG.

For photos you desire enlarged and that you feel have a lot of aesthetic value, I suggest using one of the many pro internet digital photo developers. They are NOT that much more than the 1 hr places, and you will find their work to be far superior, not only in color accuracy, but also you will have a far greater selection of paper styles.

Most post processing editors such as Adobe, have the ability to load a (ICC Profile) " International Color Consortium" This is nothing more than a standard that various printing machines use to assure consistancy in both color and exposure. Different equip uses different ICC Profiles.

I'm sure if you dig deep enough, Costco also uses some particular ICC Profile. You might have to ask the photo operator to ask the equip rep what it is and how to down load it. Once downloaded, it is a simple matter to tell Adobe or whatever you use to "Load ICC Profile."
Once that is done you will see exactly how your image will look once printed, assuming you have calibrated your monitor. This is the preferred method for total control.

Assuming you DON'T want to do that, why not make a "guide print" yourself and then ask the operator to come as close as they can to what you have. The one hr operators DO have the ability to play with exposure some, they're just lazy and don't want to. LOL

Finally, if you decide to use ICC Profiles; remember, not all commercial printing use the same ICC Profiles, so what may look great from company A, will look horrible from company B.

all the best,

All imaging editing software, worth its salt, includes routines to adjust your monitor. One of the best commercial sites is found at http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

Let me add that photo prints on paper are composed of dye or pigment on a white substratum, usually clay. When we view, light enters the structure of the paper, transverses the dye, strikes the substratum, reflects back and transverses the dye for a second time. The dye is Cyan (blue-green) – magenta (red-blue) – yellow (red-green). Whereas, light from a monitor emanates from glowing phosphors (CRT) or red-green-filters blocking florescent generated light (LCD). No one has yet to make the two technologies match. You can get close if you apply due vigilance. It’s a containing battle, not just a one time affair.

The real test is the prints themselves. Do you like their color and density? If you cultivate a rapport with the photo lab, they can customize a color and density profile just for you. That’s a real advantage.

- Calibrate your monitor
- Create a custom ICC profile (usually part of #1)
- Decide on a sensible workflow (handling of color and color spaces from camera to print)
- Make the most of your corrections (correct your images to look their best)
- Embed your working space profile (some suggest specific printer profiles or other things, but generally these would only be helpful in situations where you have converted to CMYK)
- TEST. Don't go right for that 28x20 print ... get the service to print 3x5 or 5x7s as a test on the SAME MACHINE.

Each service will be a bit different, as will each paper and each machine they use.
As Alan says, there are inherent differences in CMYK and RGB, and you see in one and generally (with variations) print in the other. You will not get them to be identical, but you can get them pretty close with "normal" images. I like the idea and results I get with Laser Light printers (also sometimes called LED or CRT), which project light to expose paper which is then run through a photographic process ... no ink. The printers themselves are really expensive and you wouldn't likely own one, but services often do and can make your inkless prints for a bargain.
A lot of what you hear about working spaces and profiles is junk. Your workflow needs to make sense more than conform to sRGB, AdobeRGB, ProRGB, or whatever. It is often the "making sense"' part that people leave behind as it is the biggest pain.
I calibrate with a hardware device on any machine I correct images on ... I use a ColorVision Spyder. You can get away with the Express model.
About changing images to get better results in print independent of the way they look on the monitor ... I suggest trying to avoid that, and using it only as a last resort. There are lots of services and some will be better than others - regretfully better on certain days (depending on the technicians).
Hope that helps.
Richard Lynch

I learned how to use printer profiles from the Dry Creek site, this page in particular: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm

Use this page to find the profile to use for your Costco: http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/

If you use Windows this will work, if not, use whatever file folder that you would use if you have an Apple system. Download the ICC profiles that Debra C showed you to your desktop. Then if you have windows, copy it to windows\system32\spool\drivers\color. When you get to the color directory, you will see many icc codes that are already on your computer. You will just add these to the list. This will allow you to see and select them when you click on the edit column in Photoshop while working on your photos. Notice how your open photo changes, when you select the Costco profile that you want to use. If you have a version of Photoshop that allows you to assign a profile to the file you are editing, you just assign that photo to that the Costco profile you want to use, the Lustre or Glossy. It will go dark, just like they turned out when Costco printed them before. Then edit the photo to your liking and it is going to be extremely close to what you expect, if not right on. I used this method now and I am very happy with my photos I send to Costco. I hope this is of value.

FYI, Keep a favorite on the page that has your profile, because it gets updated periodically and you should replace it when needed.

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/index.html
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/profiles.htm
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/using_printer_profiles.htm
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/icc/Profiles/California_profiles.htm#alah

As photography evolved it moved away from the silver plated copper sheets of Daguerre to glass plates. Again a flourishing industry was already in place making tiny window glass for cabinets. Most large camera formats were born due to convenience and price of cabinet size glass.

At first photo paper and glass plate sizes were matching. The Dutch dominated in paper making. They had perfected a machine that made a singe paper sheet that measured about the distance between the outstretched hands of the machine operator. This sheet was cut into smaller sheets, the idea was reduced waste. The English consumed large quantities of 8x10 drawing paper.

Thomas Edison invented motion pictures. For the film, he turned to Kodak, madding a deal with George Eastman. Kodak was making 70mm wide film for their “you push the button we do the rest” box camera. Edison’s engineers, for economical reasons, slit the 70mm thus making the finished film 35mm wide. Further they punched sprocket holes on both sides to facilitate smoothly transporting the moving film. The space between the sprocket holes allowed for an image 24mm wide. They set the height at 18mm thus for many years motion picture projected a rectangle with a ratio of 1.33.

The 35mm still camera: The German camera maker E. Leitz marketed the Lieca camera. Their chief engineer, Oskar Barnack designed this camera around surplus motion picture film stock, it was plentiful. The Lieca camera retained the 35mm film width and the 24mm frame width however since the camera was to be held mostly horizontal, Mr. Barnack doubled the 18mm height making it 36mm. This the current full frame 35mm remains 24mm height 36mm length a ratio of 1.5.

Taking pictures and then viewing them is what photography is all about. As you progress in this hobby, you will need to procure editing software. Once you load imaging editing software, a whole new world awaits. You will be able to enhance your images as to color and contrast and crop to an exact size. In essence, such software will give you the control you want.

Why not download free trial software?
I suggest Paint Shop Pro
www.corel.com

Others will also suggest. I find Paint Shop Pro and its cousin Corel Photo Album, very nice for what you want.

Best regards,

Sherry

In the end, whether you please the eye of some technician you talk to on the phone or your own eye is a matter of taste that will not be easily resolved in a phone call. Understanding the process, knowing what you need, what the limitations you have are, testing the output, and judging the results on your own are likely far better meters of success and future results than seeing through a technicians eye on the phone.

In the end I consider my eye the one that needs to be pleased when my work is printed. I would assume most who are serious about their work feel the same way.

When a business can make money by offering such a service, it may be possible for them to have another motive...however, if they believe this works, they are not technically logical. In either case, I would not expect better results from this than simply adding resolution to the current image.

When I say 'blur' I mean that interpolation adds content by effectively blurring the different between adjacent pixels to create a new pixel -- and their 'method' dos about the same.

Your original capture can never gain detail. Images can be adjusted, but that stuff you see on TV where the images get sharper and a blurry license plate suddenly has numbers and letters is reverse engineered. You need to capture the details.

If someone is actually going through the trouble, it seems like, well, trouble to me. Far easier to just resize. That is not to say there aren't better and worse ways to resize your images.

It may be simple to ask, but I don't think relying on someone else's idea of what looks good is very much like being a photographer. Likewise I don't rely on Photoshop's AUTO tools to make corrections, mostly because Photoshop can't see.

Do you often let people look through your viewfinder to approve of the framing before you trip the shutter? To me this issue is a similar thing.

Sherri, my guess is you will not be satisfied with blowing something up that large from your originals, regardless of the process, as the source is not made to create such large prints. My math, earlier, was an attempt to help you see why. epingo may have a different opinion, and you may pay for it.

Richard Lynch

and question about a print is self what DPI?