Problems with prints being too dark

I recently calibrated my LCD monitor(used x-rite i1display 2) and sent out some test prints to WHCC. The prints all came back at least one stop too dark. It was suggested that I lower the brightness of my monitor to get it as dark as the test prints, and then recalibrate. I lowered the brightness to 0, but it's still nowhere near as dark as the test prints. Does anyone know how to handle this? I've spent many frustrating hours trying to figure this out.

Thanks.

I've got the same problem. My x-rite calibrated monitor is turned as dark as it will go. Print's from WHCC are too dark. The same prints from other printers, e.g. EZPrints, are not so dark, but still darker than what I see on the monitor.

I think is is not an uncommon problem. Images almost always appear brighter on a monitor than on a print. You need to process the prints so they are as bright as possible without blowing the highlights, and perhaps instruct the printer to print them brighter.

What is the luminance (or brightness/intensity) value you have set (should read something like 115 cd/m2) in the calibration?

I have not used WHCC for printing, but is it possible to obtain thier profile for soft proofing?

My MultiSync 221 is calibrated for 110Cd/m^2 luminance with a contrast ratio of 400:1. Using soft proofing and making needed adjustments, my prints on Premium Luster are mighty close to what I see on the screen.

--P

Sometimes things can look ok to you on screen, and the print can come out darker than you think it should, even when everything is working perfectly the way it's supposed to. How? Well.. your eyes adapt. Could you post the image and histogram of the file you sent to the printer? The histogram never lies, and Buck is right, it should be as far to the right as possible (without making the image look bad).. you'd be surprised sometimes at what you can do!

If your print is too dark, it could mean that your LCD is too bright. I had this problem before. With the Display2 I calibrated my LCD using the following settings : 6500K, 120 cd/m², gamma 2.2. I also ste each color individualy. My LCD is much darker than before but it matches the print.

As said by Floris, you could use your histogram.

seb

I recall the luminance was not at the recommended setting of 120 cd/m2, but the calibration software didn't tell me how to adjust this. How would I do this?

I'll post a photo with a histogram when I get home tonight.

I'm not sure, but one of the i1Match software claims is "Unlimited gamma white point and luminance settings, including native gamma and measure luminance as target".
You may want to call tech. support or check your software manual for details.

I've attached the photo with the histogram. I'm curious as to how I can adjust this so that it prints better but without coming out too bright.

I also noticed that if I view the photos next to a window in bright daylight that they do appear a lot lighter, though still a bit too dark.

Looking at your histogram, Scott, see how it's bunched up on the left? You need to push that a little further to the right.. but in order to not blow out the whites of the eagles head you'll need to use a mask, like Tony Kuyper's luminosity masks. Even many of my 'night' photos have their histograms further to the right than that when I print them.

Prints are 'supposed' to be viewed in bright light, as in, next to an open window (or using a bright 5,000K bulb). That's how the system (monitor->printer->paper) is calibrated. If you intend to the display the print in a dark room, you'll need to entirely change the processing and disregard any soft proofing or calibrations you have done.

A simpler way might be to make a selection of the eagle's white head and then invert the selection. That way everything except the bright head will be affected by your edits.

I for one am ticked at the calibration industry and the monitor industry and the software industry. Come on people, this is something that could be standardized to a SINGLE standard whereby everyone uses the same guideline. I am so sick of each group saying it is the other groups fault. WE are too far into the 21st century to put up with this junk. Hardware and software standards are non-existant. This is proven time and time again by all the hassles written on the internet about this.

If this same kind of issue was applied to telephones, none of us would be able to talk to each other or text across different phone systems. No one can tell me this is not easily solved. Period and I will not listen to other opinions!!!

Troup

Hey, Troup why don't you tell us how you really feel?

I honestly have to say that I agree with you. What it comes down to is who can make the most money from their mousetrap. The funny thing is, it would be more efficient, from a manufacturing point of view, if there was a set of standards that where adhered to. As a result, prices could be lower and profit margins would be higher. Sadly, that's not the case.

If you can walk into a MacDonald's in New York and the burger tastes exactly the same as one in LA, why is it so hard for other industries to not standardize?

--P

Coming at it from an educational point of view, I find that it's not that simple. One of the main problems is that we forget the principle of adaptation. Our eyes are always changing their calibration depending on the ambient lighting and what we expect to see. Think about the optical illusions you've seen. Think about the fact that we "fool our eyes" into thinking something is a picture, when it's really just a bunch of tiny colored dots on a page. To take Preston's analogy a little further, the real state of things is like this: What if, in every McDonalds you walked into, something in the environment caused everyone's taste buds to change the way they taste - but nobody was aware of it. Then everyone would be complaining why the food didn't taste consistently from one store to the next.

Here's one of our favorite optical illusions just for fun. If you follow the process, in the end the only thing you will see is a green dot - and there is no green dot in the image.
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Image:Pink_green_dots.gif

On the other hand, here's an optical illusion that is a little more close to home. This has to do with our perception of relative lightness and darkness:
http://web.mit.edu/persci/people/adelson/checkershadow_illusion.html

But for Scott, the OP - I would really recommend reading our newsletter article:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/My_Printer_Is_Too_Dark

This business of getting a screen to match a print really does work, but you have to get your whites to match first. If the white of your display does not match the white of your printer paper, then you can't hope to match the prints themselves. If the display will not go any lower (darker) then you can get different calibration software that will use the video card to bring the brightness down more - or you can get brighter illumination lights.

Patrick Herold
Tech Support
www.chromix.com

I have the same problem with prints being much darker than shown on my monitor. I have bought and tried 3 different callibrating methods.

The thing is that these prints were processed a couple of years ago with custom profiles were right on before new monitor and CS4, now on CS5, so it can't just be the monitor!

I have resorted to using the Shadow/Highlight tool and leaving it at the auto adjustment. I have my monitor at about 85. If I had it at 110 0r 120 the prints would be even worse!

Just a couple of thoughts...

For those of you whose prints are too dark, or the monitor is too bright, have you updated your video card driver? Have you turned off any other sources of color management, such as Adobe Gamma? Is your operating system using the correct monitor profile?

--P