WYSIWYG ! Perhaps, Depends

[ajz]

I use a lot of Ilford GFS, usually as my go to paper, but also Canson Plantine & Bartya as well as a lot of Epson Luster - which has OBA's of course which causes that paper to be brighter than the others. I do take a look at Quick Proofing of the image but the differences between papers seem slight on the monitor until the print comes out. I calibrate the monitor monthly with a Spyder 5. Still, I cannot seem to find a way to eliminate the "dullness" that occurs when using the GFS or the Canson papers on some images - not all but enough of them.

Any suggestions as to my approach being wrong somewhere. The image profiles/exposures are good.

thanks for your thoughts.

aj

[I.T. Supplies]

What settings/profile are you using.  Calibrating the monitor is helpful, but if you're not selecting proper settings, that can throw off colors (not all the time, but a good amount).

Also, are you using Mac or Windows?

[digitaldog]

Why are my prints too dark?
A video update to a written piece on subject from 2013
In this 24 minute video, I'll cover:

Are your prints really too dark?
Display calibration and WYSIWYG
Proper print viewing conditions
Trouble shooting to get a match
Avoiding kludges that don't solve the problem

High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4
Low resolution: https://youtu.be/iS6sjZmxjY4

[ajz]

Andy, thanks. I am aware of Digital Dog site - lots of terrific helpful information.
I use the papers ICC profile when printing. When I soft proff in LR I use the paper profile. and L L Out to view the print against a white background.
I am familiar with the LAB values and use them. I do not use the Print Adjustment in LR.
Unfortunately, I no longer have my NEC PA 272, am now using a recent iMac w/retina display. Values are set to cd/m^2.

Light source is a problem when viewing prints as you mentioned. I will dig into the issue some more. Interestingly, this problem ocurrs on my older, 2009 images as opposed to more recent shots. Different camera now - and - these images were processed in Aperture!

thanks for your thoughts.
aj