Challenges getting good prints with OMD-EM1 II

Discussion in 'Olympus' started by jonathan_bernheimer, Mar 3, 2017.

  1. Hi,

    I am a new Olympus and mircro-four thirds user having recently purchased the OMD EM1 Mark II. I really like shooting with the camera. However I am having difficulty getting prints with high contrast and "pop" to them. I have been using Lightroom. While the images look very good on the computer screen, when I print them on my Canon Pro 100, they look somewhat washed out with low contrast and a lack of "depth' to the photos.
    I realize there are many possibilities that could cause this problem. I'm just wondering if this is an issue with micro-four thirds in general (I've heard it takes more "work" to get good prints), or maybe I should try another raw converter? Do micro-four thirds cameras produce photos with less contrast and sense of depth (if that is understandable) per se than images with larger sensors? It's a bit difficult to describe - I just used to have a Fuji x100 and the photos from the Olympus just look different - more washed out and with less "bite".......Any suggestions how to make the prints look more like they do on the screen? thnaks for any advice.
  2. Is the profile being used in Photoshop/Lightroom the final profile? The profile could be just preliminary support and not the final profile. With the recent Olympus bodies, such as the E-M1 and E-M5 Mark II, Adobe's final profiles include various options, such as Natural, vivid, portrait, etc. Is there just one "embedded" option at the moment, or do you have multiple options to choose from?

    I have to say, DXO Optics Pro 11 is an outstanding processor for Olympus bodies. Prior to Optics Pro 10, Adobe Camera raw was superior and in some ways, still is with localized edits and tools like the gradient filter, but DXO just gets the profiles right with great color and their lens profiles do Olympus lenses better than the built-in profiles used by Adobe and most everyone else.
  3. Hi, Thanks for the reply. I only see one option. So maybe that is the problem. Will see if I can get the other options. Will definitely look into DXO Optics pro. Thanks.
  4. Hi, this suggests that the problem is really in your printing method. I don't know how knowledgeable you are about this sort of thing, but when the monitor image and the print don't roughly match, this means that at least one of them is not set up right. <br><br>
    The ideal case is that you have made your own ICC profile for the monitor (using an instrument to measure the actual screen colors), and that you are using an ICC profile for the printer/paper (usually supplied by one of the manufacturers). Note that the printer profile must be used once, and only once; a common problem is that the user lets both the editing software AND the printer driver use the profile. Results of double profiling are not easily predictable.
    <br><br> I haven't specifically used your camera, but it's safe to say that there is no inherent issue with a four-thirds sensor in general. I can suggest ways to troubleshoot if you'd like, but would need more info.
  5. Have you tried making real prints at a lab with the same images? The problem is likely with the settings for your printer. While I don't have the printer you are using, I am a Canon printer user and have always had to 'tweak' the printer settings regardless of the body I used.
  6. Did you notice the update to Adobe Camera raw just released that includes the E-M1 Mark II, most likely the final profile. Could fix your problems.
  7. "Do micro-four thirds cameras produce photos with less contrast and sense of depth..."

    Not to my knowledge. That said, I generally hit "Auto Contrast" or tinker with "Levels" in Photoshop to improve the contrast of images shot with any camera - Nikon or Olympus E-M1 or E-M1 II. Sometimes nothing is needed - depending on what I am looking for. The printout looks pretty much the way it looks on my monitor. Based on your description, I think either your monitor or printer is at fault. <br> <br>Suggested test: Print something from the Internet such as a page with an award winner from the National Geographic that you know the image quality should be good. If the printout looks awful, then it's your printer problem. If it looks better than what you see on the monitor, then it's probably your monitor problem. What do you think?<br><br> if it is neither, then maybe it's the camera. I'd try resetting to factory defaults and shoot a few under good lighting condition and try again.
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2017
  8. Make sure you're printing to the resolution of the printer at 100% size. Most printers don't go above 350ppi. The Oly OMD E cameras can produce very high res files and what the printer will do is clip out any information that's beyond it's capability. Also, set the output so that the printer controls the file. Unless you have a tried and true profile that you can select instead.
  9. While the images look very good on the computer screen. . .
    Before I went back and read this, I assumed that the problem was in post-processing pure and simple--levels, etc. in Photoshop. The problem might yet be the printer profiles and other things that I imperfectly understand.

    Could it be the monitor? Is it calibrated? Yet, yet, since you have not had the problem with other brands, perhaps it is post processing options after all. Photoshop really is the best if you are willing to spring for it, and the basics are not that hard to learn.

    How about the printer or your printing process? Have you considered sending some of the files off to be printed by people who really do understand printing?


Share This Page