Suppose I take a photo of an "average" scene (yes, I know there isn't such a thing, but you know what I mean) with my camera set on Program mode. Then I process it in Lightroom or whatever and just again click the auto levels buttons without regard to what I see on the screen.I often get dark tones when using auto levels. I used to click it just for the black/white point expansion. Now it's quite different, but the darkening behaviour is there.
I was just considering the case when someone says "My prints are too dark - is my printer broken?", and people respond by saying that the photo must be underexposed, screen not calibrated, etc etc etc. It seems that my "lazy workflow", while not yielding the perfect print, should deliver something that is "OK-ish". If it doesn't, then is it legitimate for the puzzled user to wonder if his printer is malfunctioning, or mal-adjusted in some way?Jeremy
I was just considering the case when someone says "My prints are too dark - is my printer broken?", and people respond by saying that the photo must be underexposed, screen not calibrated, etc etc etc.
In my experience, one of the most useful (and simple) things one can do to avoid dark prints is to calibrate your monitor with your target luminance set at 100 cd/m2 (candela per meter-squared). It gets you very close.
Suppose I take a photo of an "average" scene (yes, I know there isn't such a thing, but you know what I mean) with my camera set on Program mode. Then I process it in Lightroom or whatever and just again click the auto levels buttons without regard to what I see on the screen.There's some contradiction in this line of thinking. First, I don't think you can ever take subjective judgements out of the process ... cameras don't see the world like a human.
...
I am just thinking that this workflow (if you want to dignify it with the name) eliminates subjective judgements and screen calibration issues ...
... Would I then expect to see a "reasonable" print, by which I mean one that doesn't look "dark", or with bizarre colour casts?...
I think everyone is going way too far answering the OP. he is asking a very basic simple question.well, that's all fine and good, but then he threw in the last statement. Thus the answer isn't that simple.
He's asking is will you get a reasonable print, and I say yes he will.
Not a museum quality masterpiece, not a gallery worthy saleable print... a print that he could appreciate and enjoy...quite possibly!.
All depends on his definition of "acceptable" ;-)
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
David
However, the best solution would be to us a known good image such as those available on the following page http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/test_images.html (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/test_images.html), which also discusses what should be looked for in the prints.You're right - that's a better idea :-) Thanks.
I think everyone is going way too far answering the OP. he is asking a very basic simple question.Yes, thanks for spotting that. And to clarify - I am not proposing this "workflow" as something to do for preference, just something to do if I suspect that my printer is out of whack, or my viewing conditions inadequate, or whatever. A lot of the discussion in THAT OTHER THREAD ended up being about how the OP had taken his photos, calibrated his monitor etc. I was just wondering what might be a good way to eliminate those sources of uncertainty. Now I see that using a standard test file is a better idea ...
He's asking is will you get a reasonable print, and I say yes he will.
Not a museum quality masterpiece, not a gallery worthy saleable print... a print that he could appreciate and enjoy...quite possibly!.
All depends on his definition of "acceptable" ;-)
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder"
David