Prints darker than reality / what my eyes are seeing?

[digitaldog]

Considering that almost nobody is willing to think this logically through and quite a few are insisting on random assumptions (I guess I never knew metering across all of my cameras over the years has been consistently severely underexposing) who can point me in direction of "correctly exposed" files I can use for test?

IF you actually throughly read the Why are my prints too dark article you seemed to dismiss on page one of these threads, you’d see the part about using reference images we know do not print too dark to test the process. IF they print too dark, it is not the data. If they don’t print too dark, then it is likely your files are the culprit. The process is spelled out, you simply need to go through the process to determine what is the cause of the darkness (too bright a display, a file who’s RGB values are incorrect, an issue with the print driver or application etc).

[stormyboy]

Jeepers, this OP sure knows how to generate forum activity.  There are 40 responses on Dpreview and 122 here for the same initial post. 

[ZoranC]

IF you actually throughly read the Why are my prints too dark article you seemed to dismiss on page one of these threads, you’d see the part about using reference images we know do not print too dark to test the process. IF they print too dark, it is not the data. If they don’t print too dark, then it is likely your files are the culprit. The process is spelled out, you simply need to go through the process to determine what is the cause of the darkness (too bright a display, a file who’s RGB values are incorrect, an issue with the print driver or application etc).

If you have taken a look at my posts in this thread you would see that I _did_ ask for and use reference images so obviously I _am_ reading through and following something and yes, printing one test file does indicate it is _something_ about printing of my own files but question is what. Continuing to pound on assumption they are _all_ underexposed makes no sense when a) if they display fine just like test one did they should print fine just like test one did, and b) how many stops I would have to underexpose in broad daylight to end up with print that seems as if it was taken at night? Nobody beside Johnny_Boy paying attention to that?

[digitaldog]

If you have taken a look at my posts in this thread you would see that I _did_ ask for and use reference images so obviously I _am_ reading through and following something

And if you had taken a harder look at the article, you’d have seen where to get one...

[digitaldog]

Continuing to pound on assumption they are _all_ underexposed makes no sense when a) if they display fine just like test one did they should print fine just like test one did, and b) how many stops I would have to underexpose in broad daylight to end up with print that seems as if it was taken at night?

No, it makes prefect sense in light of the reference prints not printing too dark. The display has nothing to do here at this point, you have two sets of documents. One that is known to contain good RGB values and prints fine and a pile of others of questionable RGB values that don’t. You could be doing this test on a Grayscale display and the facts would remain the same in terms of the image data, the driver and printer and why one group prints like s*&t and the others don’t.

[AFairley]

Zoran, I am appalled at the behavior you are exhibiting here.  You have asked a group of friendly, helpful, and EXTREMELY knowledgeable people here for help, and instead of giving them the additional information they have asked for in order to be able to help you, you have rewarded their generous donation of time to you by being insulting and belligerent without provocation.  Not to mention talking down to and belittling people (I will not name names) who have forgotten more about color digital printing than you will ever learn in your lifetime.  How on earth do you expect to get help if all you do is insult and berate the the people who are trying to help you?  Maybe it's time for you to move on; I can't imaging anyone will have any interest in lifting a finger to help you after the churlish display we've seen in this thread.

[ZoranC]

And if you had taken a harder look at the article, you’d have seen where to get one...

... and if all you are looking to do is to find something to pick and be rude about solely for the sake of rudeness why don't you join some politician's campaign instead of directing it at me?

[ZoranC]

No, it makes prefect sense in light of the reference prints not printing too dark. The display has nothing to do here at this point, you have two sets of documents. One that is known to contain good RGB values and prints fine and a pile of others of questionable RGB values that don’t.

Every single one of my files I tried has questionable RGB values? If it was one or two I would say OK, maybe. But every single one of them? Yeah, that makes absolute "sense".

[digitaldog]

Every single one of my files I tried has questionable RGB values?

Based on your understanding of these issues, absolutely possible. But I suspect that most here have decided to stop trying to help you, you simply don’t get it. You’re on your own kid.

[ZoranC]

Problem with ZoranC is that he asks a question and then complains -- insultingly -- how all the answers he's getting are wrong.  Killfile.

Problem with me is that I have low tolerance for people that treat me with chip on their shoulder. Just like every other human I am more open to listening when person that is telling me something is not coming off arrogantly and actually took a second to listen and comprehend what I said instead of cleanly showing he/she did not do it even with my very first post before rattling off one of pre-canned responses ("Your monitor is not calibrated", "Your file is underexposed", etc).

If you find my response to being talked to in such manner (saying back what I exactly think of it instead of turning the other cheek and saying "Thank you Sir, may I have another, Sir") insulting don't look in my direction, start with a mirror, answer what happened is there.

[ZoranC]

Based on your understanding of these issues, absolutely possible.

Statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that every single file I tried has bad RGB values and that that is related to me.

But I suspect that most here have decided to stop trying to help you, you simply don’t get it. You’re on your own kid.

I have always believed that it is better to be on one's own than to be taking abuse of those that are "so helpful".


Let me put it this way: Person can be technical genius but if they are talking down toward those that they are trying to tech something they are absolute failure as a help/teacher and find themselves being walked away from by "students".

[digitaldog]

Statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that every single file I tried has bad RGB values and that that is related to me.

OK, then explain how the reference image is fine, your images are crap? You are so confident in your abilities that it is not possible you’ve hosed all your images? The more you write, the more I find it likely.

I have always believed that it is better to be on one's own than to be taking abuse of those that are "so helpful".

Great, you can then support yourself since it appears most here who tried are frustrated and have given up. You can (you are) your own worst enemy. Enjoy.

[AFairley]

Let me put it this way: Person can be technical genius but if they are talking down toward those that they are trying to tech something they are absolute failure as a help/teacher and find themselves being walked away from by "students".

Let me put it this way: someone can be ignorant on a subject but if he is talking down to those who obviously know much more about the subject instead of listening to what they say, he's simply an ass, and finds himself being walked away from by the very people who could actually help him.

[ZoranC]

OK, then explain how the reference image is fine, your images are crap? You are so confident in your abilities that it is not possible you’ve hosed all your images? The more you write, the more I find it likely.

If I knew what is causing the difference I wouldn't be here asking a question that you are using as an opportunity to strut the arrogance. And to believe that I have somehow "hosed" all of my images? Please. What _exactly_ would "hose" them? Just simple act of transferring them from memory card to disk? Please.

Great, you can then support yourself since it appears most here who tried are frustrated and have given up. You can (you are) your own worst enemy. Enjoy.

Thank you, have a nice day.

[ZoranC]

You all can't figure out yet that this guy is nothing less than a TROLL, and you've taken his bait, and swallowed his hook,line ,and sinker!

Now this is very intelligent post. Not.

[ZoranC]

Let me put it this way: someone can be ignorant on a subject but if he is talking down to those who obviously know much more about the subject instead of listening to what they say, he's simply an ass, and finds himself being walked away from by the very people who could actually help him.

Yup, person is an ass for not turning the other cheek when being approached in such manner. "Excuse" under pretense of "we are trying to help you" is just as valid as somebody beating up a child excusing it under pretense of "doing it for their own good".

[Schewe]

Now this is very intelligent post. Not.

Not for nothing but...aside from joining LuLa to, as far as I can see, make a bunch of posts in the For Sale subforum in 2009, and a few in early 2012 regarding your newly purchased printer, I don't think you've spent much time posting here, huh?

This thread contains the majority of your posts here and it hasn't gone well for you, huh?. Maybe you need to step back and think about how you are behaving...

Once you post a topic, you really can't expect to control the flow of the answers...demanding answers adhere to some sort of self imposed criteria just doesn't fly here...you ask a question you get answers. You may like some and not like others–that's the way it is...You simply can't control how people do or don't answer you. If you get bent out of shape because you take umbrage with answers as some perceived slight to you, I think you need to grow a much thicker skin bud. I don't think you'll be long for these forums...

Really if you thought Wayne was being "aggressive", you really don't have a friggin' clue. You want aggressive? I can give you aggressive–believe me when I say I've already bent over backwards trying to help you out of your pitiful mess. You are foundering and flailing around in your morass...you don't know what you don't know and you have no understanding on how to learn what you need to learn. Your attitude is getting in your own way. Kinda like cutting off your nose to spite your face. Long term, this is worse for you than anybody else.

I know how to print...I spend a fair amount of time trying to help people (and sometimes sell my knowledge in books or videos). If you want to learn how to print, cool. Get off your high horse and join the forum and get the friggin' chip off your shoulder.

Your move dooode...think before replying.

At a certain point the moderators have the power to ban you. Consider that...if you want to hang around here. This is not your playground, you are a guest here. Those privileges can be taken away...

Have a nice day!

:~)

[pfigen]

"Statistically speaking it is highly unlikely that every single file I tried has bad RGB values and that that is related to me."

Statistically and otherwise. Since, so far, you've been relying on your in camera meter to properly expose your images, this could be a problem. Many digital camera light meters purposefully underexpose the image in an attempt to retain as much highlight detail as possible. They do this because it's generally a lot easier to extract shadow detail than pull in highlights that are blown. Sort of a safety factor, if you will. So, yes, it's very possible that many or most of your shots look underexposed directly out of the camera.

In addition, every profile for every paper incorporates an assumed light viewing condition for the resulting prints. That viewing condition is usually some sort of standardized, color corrected and luminance corrected specification. You can look them up if you want, but I don't have them off the top of my head. A lot of us use lights like the Solux tungsten 4700Kelvin lights or the equivalent. When you're viewing your prints under random room light, that viewing light is very likely not anywhere near the spec for viewing that the paper profiles were made under. This could make your prints appear lighter than normal, darker than normal, or, if you're lucky, approximately right.

But judging the situation after slogging through all these posts, it does seem like an overall exposure problem is at the root of your printer woes, particularly when you are saying that the test files are printing more or less right and your own files are not.

I may be mistaken, but I thought I saw in one of your posts that you were in Southern California. If that's true, I invite you to drop by my studio and we'll make a couple of test prints on my Epson 9900 which has been custom profile and view them on a reference calibrated monitor. Really, the only way to properly judge digital camera exposure is on a hardware calibrated screen in a color managed application. I could tell you a lot in a very few short minutes after seeing your files and making a couple of prints. The west side of L.A. awaits.

Peter

[Schewe]

I could tell you a lot in a very few short minutes after seeing your files and making a couple of prints. The west side of L.A. awaits.

Peter knows his stuff (we don't always agree 100% but I respect his knowledge and experience) you would be a fool to ignore is offer...your response will be very telling...(just so you know).

[enduser]

A good offer, Pfigen.  This guy doesn't need behavior lectures, and unfortunately most here are experts in their field but are not necessarily good teachers.  A vist to someone's studio might just be the answer for him.