Printing Vivid Reds, Oranges, Yellows & Pinks?

[CarolynC]

I love playing up beautiful vidid color in my pics in Photoshop.  My goal is to start selling some prints online and I want to be able to sell prints with vivid reds, oranges, pinks & yellows.  Problem of course is they look terrible when I softproof my final edit with my labs profile.  (by the way, I love my lab proDPI and don't want to change).  Is there any kind of trick that some of you use to get your vivid reds, oranges, yellows and pinks to print better?  This is driving me crazy.  I've heard online when researching this before that it's just something that photographers have to deal with.  For real?  I'm feeling like this is compromising my style since I love vivid color.

Thanks,
Carolyn

[MichaelWorley]

Have you tried to further enhance the colors after the soft-proofing? Soft- proofing is descriptive, not prescriptive. It’s okay to try to go further. And even out of gamut colors can still look good.

Since you are wed to your lab, why not ask them what they can do for you? If they assure you that they are as good as any lab, and their equipment can’t give you what you want, your only resort is to the techniques that painters have used for hundreds of years. Long ago, painters discovered how to make things look brighter or more vivid than they really are.
A bright area in the middle of a dark area will appear comparatively brighter than it “really” is. Look at the old masters. Rembrandt, for one. Same with colors. Something drab next to something colorful makes the colorful thing more vibrant. Same with people. A pretty girl next to a . . . well, that may be beyond the scope of this post.

Colors also complement each other. Put the right color next to a yellow, for instance, and the yellow will look more vivid and brighter. I don’t have the links at hand, but articles on the web deal with this issue and provide some guidance.

I hope this has been some help.

Mike

[ronkruger]

If you want more vivid colors for printing, start with more vivid colors when you press the shutter. There are a number of ways you can do this, but if all you want to do is play with things on the computer and printer after the fact, I won't bother to type them.

[CarolynC]

Have you tried to further enhance the colors after the soft-proofing?

Yep, I've tried several times and I can only get them so far but never like they usually still have that dull look.

Since you are wed to your lab, why not ask them what they can do for you?

I'm on it!   

If they assure you that they are as good as any lab, and their equipment can’t give you what you want, your only resort is to the techniques that painters have used for hundreds of years. Long ago, painters discovered how to make things look brighter or more vivid than they really are.
A bright area in the middle of a dark area will appear comparatively brighter than it “really” is. Look at the old masters. Rembrandt, for one. Same with colors. Something drab next to something colorful makes the colorful thing more vibrant. Same with people. A pretty girl next to a . . . well, that may be beyond the scope of this post.

Colors also complement each other. Put the right color next to a yellow, for instance, and the yellow will look more vivid and brighter. I don’t have the links at hand, but articles on the web deal with this issue and provide some guidance.

Great advice, I'll give it a whirl.  I guess for those images that have say red berries against a creamy-white background, that's where I get into trouble.

If you want more vivid colors for printing, start with more vivid colors when you press the shutter. There are a number of ways you can do this, but if all you want to do is play with things on the computer and printer after the fact, I won't bother to type them.

Hmmm....  I am always boosting colors a lot in post-processing.  So if I get more vivid saturated colors in-camera, I won't see such a "dulling" down of color at the time of softproofing??

[MichaelWorley]

Hmmm....  I am always boosting colors a lot in post-processing.  So if I get more vivid saturated colors in-camera, I won't see such a "dulling" down of color at the time of softproofing??

However the color is captured or produced, if it exceeds the capabilities of the output device it won't reproduce the way it looks on screen.

I can see where red berries against a white background might appear a bit tepid. But maybe the background in your image doesn't need to be white. If you're familiar with Adobe Kuler [Window > Extensions > Kuler], you can experiment and learn a lot about color relationships. With it, you can click on a color in an image and generate complements to that color, triads, analogs, etc. By clicking on your red, it will tell you which colors will complement, enhance or harmonize with it. White will not be in there.

Another way is to use the color swatches. Create a new file about 900px square, fill it with a color of your choice. Yellow for example. Go to color swatches and click on a yellow, making it your foreground color. Then Edit > Fill > Foreground Color will fill the square with yellow. Then expand the canvas size by an inch or two. Select this new area with the magic wand, select a blue. Fill this new area with the blue you just selected. The yellow will look very different. Undo and redo what you just did with repeated Ctrl/Cmd z to see the effect. Experiment with different blues and yellows. Move on to red and fill the center square with that color. And so on.

Now that you have a canvas to work with, pick still other colors and do the same exercise. Enable Kuler and find the colors to use with your center color. Experiment and look at the results. This should help with selecting the right subjects in the field, as well as the backgrounds that work with them.

Mike

[MichaelWorley]

If you want more vivid colors for printing, start with more vivid colors when you press the shutter. There are a number of ways you can do this, but if all you want to do is play with things on the computer and printer after the fact, I won't bother to type them.

That's helpful. Join the discussion to say only that you have information you won't share.

Vivid capture is easy. There are some apparently hybrid bougainvilleas down the street that defy photographic capture or printing. Even the "standard" bougainvilleas on the back wall of the Carmel Mission stumped three of us when it came to output. And we were using top-of-the line capture and output devices [cameras and printers, that is]. The OP is asking how to print the colors she sees. There are limits to our output devices, notwithstanding what Outdoor Photographer is able to do with its covers. 

[Tim Lookingbill]

If your lab can't deliver a better match of vibrant colors I get on a $70 Epson NX400 Copier/Scanner/Printer I've demonstrated below, then either switch to glossy paper and/or inkjet and/or find another lab.

[CarolynC]

However the color is captured or produced, if it exceeds the capabilities of the output device it won't reproduce the way it looks on screen.

I can see where red berries against a white background might appear a bit tepid. But maybe the background in your image doesn't need to be white. If you're familiar with Adobe Kuler [Window > Extensions > Kuler], you can experiment and learn a lot about color relationships. With it, you can click on a color in an image and generate complements to that color, triads, analogs, etc. By clicking on your red, it will tell you which colors will complement, enhance or harmonize with it. White will not be in there.

Another way is to use the color swatches. Create a new file about 900px square, fill it with a color of your choice. Yellow for example. Go to color swatches and click on a yellow, making it your foreground color. Then Edit > Fill > Foreground Color will fill the square with yellow. Then expand the canvas size by an inch or two. Select this new area with the magic wand, select a blue. Fill this new area with the blue you just selected. The yellow will look very different. Undo and redo what you just did with repeated Ctrl/Cmd z to see the effect. Experiment with different blues and yellows. Move on to red and fill the center square with that color. And so on.

Now that you have a canvas to work with, pick still other colors and do the same exercise. Enable Kuler and find the colors to use with your center color. Experiment and look at the results. This should help with selecting the right subjects in the field, as well as the backgrounds that work with them.

Mike

Thanks again for the help.  I've never heard of Kuler but it sounds very helpful, I'll look into it.  Thank you!

[CarolynC]

If your lab can't deliver a better match of vibrant colors I get on a $70 Epson NX400 Copier/Scanner/Printer I've demonstrated below, then either switch to glossy paper and/or inkjet and/or find another lab.

Interesting comparison.  Hmm... I've never printed at home, I do like my lab.  Maybe I should try some different papers from my lab to experiment.  Thanks.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Many labs use different setups. My lab mostly uses Durst Lambda. The Lambda prints look great but cannot reproduce all colors my Epson SP 3800 has.

I'd say that testing different surfaces and output options is a very good idea.

Whatever you do, optimizing printing is both costly and time intensive.

Have you calibrated your screen and adjusted brightness to a reasonable value? When you SoftProof have you enabled "Simulate paper color", that option reduces contrast to match print.

Best regards
Erik

If your lab can't deliver a better match of vibrant colors I get on a $70 Epson NX400 Copier/Scanner/Printer I've demonstrated below, then either switch to glossy paper and/or inkjet and/or find another lab.

[ronkruger]

Hi Carolyn,
As someone else mentioned, it is very important to have your monitor calibrated.
PP software programs are so powerful, and auto functions so sophisticted, that I suspect most photographers put far too much faith and emphisis upon "fixing it in Photoshop," and not enough upon geting it as close as possible at time of capture.
The problem with doing things in PP, is it not only changes your intended target, but lots of other things across the range. This is especially true with color adjustments. When you change the red color channels, for example, it not only changes red, it changes the hue of every color in the spectrum. Push it too far, and you get what is referred to as "blooming."
The reds, oranges, yellows and pinks you mention are various hues of the primary color of red, but any color besides pure red is a combination of the other primary colors as well, especially yellow. Almost every color you see in an image is not just red, green or blue, but a combination of all these primary colors. It's complicated.
I'm reluctant to even post about all this, because most don't want to hear it and think they can do at the computer what they don't know how to do in the field. The field approach is more like work. The computer approach is more like play.
While the saying that "garbage in--garbage out, is an exaggeration, there is some truth in it. Just as how I could always improve film images to some degree in the dark room, I can always improve digital to some degree in PP. But in general, I'm convinced that the less you do in PP the better. That's what respected design artists tell me as well.
So in additional posts I will share some of the things I've learned about getting it right in the field. You all can take it for what you think its worth. I don't consider myself an expert at either photography or PP, but I do speak from almost four decades of experience, including as the editor of a high-quality magazine (slide era), where I also had to function as the photo editor and learned some things about the four-color process.

[ronkruger]

The first consideration for color is the equipment you use. I'm not a devoted fan of any manufacturer. I started with Contax and Zeiss lenses, shot Nikons for decades and switched to Pentax a few years ago. While most of my reasons for switching were based upon the bottom line (value for the money), one of the deciding reasons was the "Pentax look," which appeals to me.
Much of this is based upon individual tastes, and I'm not trying to imply that Pentax is better. All the top cameras are very good, and all the top lines feature in-camera adjustments you can make to boost color saturation, contrast and adjust the hue. Play around with these until you get the look you want. Even though my Pentax gives me the closest to the look I want right out of the box, I adjusted the sat. and contrast +1 to further enhance it.
Everything you do between the in-camera settings to the final adjustment of the printer effects the color, but my approach is to make the most minor adjustment along the way, building upon each, and I've found that adjusting in-camera applies a more even and holistic approach than doing it in PP. Every image is a bit different, and while I often bump contrast in PP, seldom do I change any of the color channels.
Even though I shoot RAW only, I convert to JPEG using the software that comes with the camera, so it automatically applies these setting to the JPEG, according to the Pentax idea of color. I suspect this is a good practice, regardless the make of your equipment, because the software they package with the camera is designed specifically for that model. Others may be easier to use and give you far more options, but they are designed for a broad range of makes and models.
All digital cameras are escentually computer controlled, hand-held processors in the first place, so it makes sense to me to start my control over processing within the camera and keep PP to the minimum.
Also play around with the various modes on your camera. Landscape mode, for example, is designed to enhance greens and contrast. That's the one I settled upon for landscapes, but you may like something else better in yours.
Modern cameras are actually very powerful processors, with a great number of options, and all of them can be adjusted to get the look you want (or something very close) at time of capture, so get to know yours well by conducting a lot of test with various modes and adjustments
But there is a great deal more you can do at time of capture.

[ronkruger]

You choice in lenses is very influencial upon color. The design of the lens and the coatings cause lenses to "render" images in a certain way. Zeiss is the most consistent in the way they render colors and contrasts than any of my experience. Within the four or five most popular DSLR manufacturers, there is a wide variance in the way their lenses produce colors and contrasts. I find this true even within the Pentax line, which probably puts more emphisis into quality glass than some others. It is ture even among the Limiteds. Among my current lenses, I have two that render images as if they have built in polorizers, especially the DA 15 Limited, which produces images that remind me of Kodachrome 64, and occasionally even Kodachrome 25.
My point is, to increase the richness of colors at the time of capture, examine the line of lenses compatable with your system. Look at a broad range of images produced by them, and you'll start to see patterns of color and contrast.
It took me a long time to realize the importance of glass, and my advice now is to spend more on a lens than on a body. The body gets you there, but it is the eye (lens) that sees. Most any Zeiss is good. Among the various camera makers, and Sigma, one needs to shop with a critical eye, but within each of them are lenses that rival, and occasionally even surpass, Zeiss.
Before buying a more powerful PP software, invest in a high-quality lens. Bodies and software packages are upgraded every year, but lenses last a lifetime.

[ronkruger]

The general advice with digital is to shoot to the right. I think this comes from product photographers and people who concentrate on making a few pennies from stock photography, both of which want more shadow detail than the human eye notices, or even wants to notice. I think landscape photography is the opposite. Shadows add greatly to the mood and richness of the image, and shooting and/or processing to the left greatly enhances color richness. Shooting to the right, or overexposing, and then bringing it back in PP starts with dull colors. Shooting to the left, or underexposing, starts with rich colors. Just -1/3 stop makes a considerable difference with some cameras, while more is needed on other models. On the same scene with a tripod, mirror-up function, try bracketing exposure in AV, then without any color manipulation in PP compare them full screen on your computer to see the difference in color depth and richness.
While it is true that exposing to the right allows you to manipulate an image more in PP without introducing a lot of noise, while at the same time retaining more detail in the shadow areas, as long as you shoot at the lowest ISO possible, noise is not a problem. Besides, if you get it as close as possible at time of capture, you don't need to manipulate it as much in PP and risk introducing noise and artifacts. It is not just noise, but everything, that is better at lower ISOs, including color.
When you combine the richer color of lower ISOs with a slight underexposure to further enhance those colors, you begin with a rich image. Your shadows, of course, will be darker and lack detail, but I think that for landscapes, this is a good thing. Check out the way Ansel Adams and other masters utilized shadows. Doing this is even more important with color than with b/w, because color lacks contrast in comparison.
Various cameras expose differently. Those designed for higher ISO capabilities tend to overexpose a bit to begin. If your camera tends to overexpose in a plastic, product photography sort of way, you may need to underexpose a full stop to get what you want, so it is important to do some controlled tests and get to know your camera's exposure values well. At any rate, if you need to adjust exposure more than -1/3 stop in PP, you're not getting it right at time of capture.
Underexposing at time of capture also lets you capture a scene with a wide DR without blowing highlights. The image here was a very tricky exposure, and the DR range of my camera is not notably wide, but by underexposing it, I'm pleased with the look and colors. The first image is how it was shot. The second had the exposure adjusted down .18 in PP and the gama reduced one point.

[elliot_n]

Carolyn, the vivid colours you wish to reproduce cannot be rendered on the papers your lab uses (kodak/fuji c-types).

To print these intense colours you will need to find a lab that offers inkjet printing.

[Rhossydd]

There's a lot more to this, but judging by the lack of response, I'll just keep it to myself.

Probably a good idea, nothing you've written has any relevance to the original question.
Carolyn asked a specific question about improving colour saturation when printing to a lab service, luckily that has been answered by some earlier respondents.

Fundamentally she's pretty much stuck if here lab's output lacks the necessary gamut, so finding another lab or DIY inkjet printing is the only choice.
However making some tests to see how accurate the lab's profile may will be worthwhile, but Carolyn may already have enough experience of her lab to realise the limits of their capabilities.

Paul

[Rob C]

Red is a problem for me, too. I use an HP Photosmart Pro B9180 and print on Hahne. matt paper. However, though I can get nice reds on the calibrated monitor, the printer simply won't do them. It does lovely b/whites, but I have largely given up trying to print in colour anymore just because of the red deficiencies.

Glossy papers would probaby help, but they don't do so nicely with pigment inks, as repeated tests show me, even in b/white. Not that the tones are not beautiful, but that damned gold flavouring pops up here and there...

;-(

Rob C

[sojournerphoto]

"Red is a problem for me, too. I use an HP Photosmart Pro B9180 and print on Hahne. matt paper. However, though I can get nice reds on the calibrated monitor, the printer simply won't do them. It does lovely b/whites, but I have largely given up trying to print in colour anymore just because of the red deficiencies.

Glossy papers would probaby help, but they don't do so nicely with pigment inks, as repeated tests show me, even in b/white. Not that the tones are not beautiful, but that damned gold flavouring pops up here and there...

;-(

Rob C"


Rob

I don't know whether the 9180 uses the gloss enhancer that the Z3x00 series do. This helps with gloss surfaces. You might try Ilford Gold Fibre Silk as that seems to hold up pretty well. Also, you could try the Hahne Photo Rag bright whte, though not sure it will help the reds much?

MIke

[Tim Lookingbill]

It helps to watch very carefully for blooming in objects similar to the flower I posted.

The reason I say this is because my eyes kept constantly adjusting/adapting then accepting the saturation levels in certain areas of the flower editing the Raw image. Soft Proofing may show how the printer will reduce the saturation level but I've found it doesn't show exactly how it will smoothly render the detail.

I've found Adobe Camera Raw/LR's Luminance slider in the HSL panel is a great reality check on saturation and can reveal even more detail than expected without reducing vibrancy due to the eye's adapting afterward to the new saturation level. That orange Pomegranate flower wasn't an easy edit to get a decent print. I didn't even Soft Proof because I had no profile to use.

Since Carolyn hasn't posted a sample image to show us her idea of acceptable saturation and levels of blooming if it exists, it makes it difficult to know just exactly why her lab is having trouble rendering such colors.

[Czornyj]

I want to be able to sell prints with vivid reds, oranges, pinks & yellows

Sounds like you need to try an Epson Stylus Pro x900 or a Canon iPFx300. I'm sure you're gonna love it!