Jump to content

Ink Density vs Lightness vs Print Resolution


Recommended Posts

<p>I seek comments on what is optimum printer resolution setting: Lightroom suggests 240 DPI but I wonder if better results would be achieved at other values. <br>

Note that my question here is not about the <strong>resolution</strong> of the printed image but rather about its <strong>darkness.</strong><br>

In particular I question if a lower DPI setting would result in a more “translucent” ink layer that would in turn yield an overall lighter tone (ie by allowing more of the paper white to show through).<br>

Other than DPI setting is there any other setting that regulates the “density” of the ink laid down such that the finished image contains more (or less) of the paper whiteness?<br>

I am printing colour images from Lightroom to an Epson 3800. Original image files is RAW from Canon 5D converted in DxO and imported into LR. Monitor and printer are calibrated. ICC files specific to the paper and printer are used.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>In particular I question if a lower DPI setting would result in a more “translucent” ink layer that would in turn yield an overall lighter tone (ie by allowing more of the paper white to show through).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Shouldn’t. <br>

Are the prints too dark? Just darker than the display? <br>

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml</p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Here's another side of the coin to Andrew's "Prints Are Too Dark" link I raised over at Luminous Landscape that you might consider...</p>

<p>http://www.luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?topic=89689.0</p>

<p>My problem had nothing to do with screen luminance to print viewing light parity but more to do with how a combination of viewing and editing on a brightly lit transmissive display of brightly lit/wide dynamic scenes affected my visual judgement on how bright or dark the scene should look.</p>

<p>No one had brought this issue up in the past so I decided it needed to be addressed to the point I came up with a Lab readout number for minimum viewable shadow density for viewing prints in the lowest level of light that still conveyed the overall image. That number was 24 L*. From there I could push downward toward black to provide shadow definition and upward for the rest of the viewable detail that could be seen in a print lit by dim living room light.</p>

<p>This may not be your problem but at least it's something to do as a reality check on your edits.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>David, the paper type is what your printer driver uses to know how much ink is needed to get the blackest blacks and the most intense colors. Your color profile is for a particular paper type, (or the paper type and driver settings used when you created the profile).</p>

<p>Prints that are "too dark" is a common complaint, and are the result of the difference between "reflected" light from your print and "transmitted" light from that bright monitor of yours. Print density generally needs to be adjusted for the illumination where it will be displayed. I ususally adjust the final gamma of my images (using an extra Levels layer in Photoshop), to match the expected conditions. Good luck. </p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>I ususally adjust the final gamma of my images (using an extra Levels layer in Photoshop), to match the expected conditions.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>OR one can <em>attempt</em> to calibrate the display so it matches the print. </p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Andrew,<br /> Yes, my monitor is in fact calibrated. And it will match a print set up in an appropriate viewing station very well. But I don't want to keep fiddling with the calibration on my monitor just to compensate for the widely varying conditions that I expect to display my prints. (The illumination used in contests and venues can vary by orders of magnitude!)</p>

<p>I also don't need to print 20 images a day, and I'm just fussy enough that I want the final prints look EXACTLY the way I want when they're printed, sprayed and displayed. So after an image looks the way I want (on my calibrated monitor), I make test prints at 3-4 small variations of gamma settings using a Levels layer. Sometimes I repeat this on more than one paper.</p>

<p>Then I judge the sprayed test prints by adjusting the lighting in the viewing station to the expected conditions. (Or I actually take the test prints to the venue.) Then I make the full-sized print.</p>

<p>But then if I still don't think it's the best I can do, I'm not too proud to go back and make another one lighter/darker if I don't think it's delivering the impact that I want. (I've even gone back after my prints have won significant contests, and redone them because I still felt they were not the best I could do.)</p>

<p>Bottom line -- they need to please ME and not some mathematically calculated result for monitor, graphics card, ink, paper, printer, spray coating, and viewing conditions. In my opinion, the calibration stuff is just a starting point.</p>

<p>This is just what works for me.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>But I don't want to keep fiddling with the calibration on my monitor just to compensate for the widely varying conditions that I expect to display my prints. (The illumination used in contests and venues can vary by orders of magnitude!)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You don' have to. Only the print to display match using both, meaning viewing booth <strong>next</strong> to the display count. Once you move the print away from the display under a different illuminate, you'll adapt to the new conditions (assuming it's not awful, a 5 watt night light or a 500 watt metal halide blub). The idea is WYSIWYG and you need that display in the mix to evaluate if that's happening. If the viewing booth is using a well behaved illuminant and you take the print into another environment with well behaved (but different) illuminate, you'll adapt and the print will look fine.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>In my opinion, the calibration stuff is just a starting point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To some degree it is. Even with the most expensive viewing booth and reference display system, an emissive display and reflective print will never match 100%. The idea is to reduce difference enough such there are no surprises and you don't have to make so many hard proofs. IF you're OK making print after print and adjusting, you don't need a calibrated display, you could do this on a grayscale unit. Soft proofing is about reducing the differences as much as possible, and learning to correlate the two items and not get a surprise later when you view the print. <br /> You ever shoot Polaroid’s in the old film days, I did? The Polaroid didn't look like the transparency but after enough experience, one could view it and have a pretty good idea what to expect from the film. Soft proofing is far closer than that but the mental adjustments are still needed.</p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>Hi Andrew,</p>

<p>I appreciate your comments, (and am aware of your expertise and have read and followed many of your past discussions).</p>

<p>The only further comment that I would have is that in my experience, a single print will be ACCEPTABLE if the two display conditions are somewhat close together (ie. normal room lighting) However, I've found that the "print boxes" used in photographic competitions are VERY bright and require darker prints. On the other hand some galleries don't even have what I would consider normal room lighting. (They are trying to protect the longevity of the prints.) So to get OPTIMAL prints, I've found that I have to match them to the expected illumination levels. I don't make "print after print". I just try to make one slightly lighter, (a normal one), and one slightly darker. That way my final decision is made based on real prints, and I'm confirming that the final print cannot be improved upon. Regards.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<blockquote>

<p>However, I've found that the "print boxes" used in photographic competitions are VERY bright and require darker prints.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That's too bad. Do they have no ability to lower them? Are the Fluorescents? What is their justification for making them this bright? A print can be too light due to the opposite of what we usually see (display lighter than print). <br /> color management or not, digital imaging or not, art should be viewed in 'decent' (term is up to debate) illumination.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>On the other hand some galleries don't even have what I would consider normal room lighting.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is true but I place the blame on them! Case in point, I was just at an amazing Ansel Adam show in Santa Fe at a local well know gallery. The biggest group of his work I've even seen, some from a private collection. This gallery is in a very old building and multi-story. Now we know Adams could print! Some of his work was small and hung in stairways, tiny poorly lit rooms and they looked incredibly dark. Not quite my 5 watt night light analogy but close. A damn shame.</p>

Author “Color Management for Photographers" & "Photoshop CC Color Management" (pluralsight.com)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<p>The brightness of the print boxes is intentional I'm sure, to allow a higher DR. (And they are not adjustable.) They are the standard Photographic Society of America boxes. (I was going to provide a link to the PDF they use to have online for building them, but it looks like they've moved it offline.) The older boxes have a combination of incandescent bulbs and deluxe cool white fluorescent bulbs. The newer ones use "Full Spectrum" 5500 K CFL bulbs. I doubt anyone knows the CRI of either box, though. <br /> <br /> Yes, folks contributing prints to be judged are cautioned about the brightness of the boxes. These competitions are kind of a unique area of print making -- but VERY competitive. The resulting prints are normally darker that what the makers will want to display at home. But learning to handle challenges of this sort thing helps with other forms of print making as well.</p>

<p>It's a shame that Ansel's stuff was not displayed well. Seeing one of his prints, back in the late 70's before I ever knew his name or reputation, is what really activated my interest in photography. Then immediately researching him, and reading his works, I realized that the reason for his success was in his dedicated mastery of the technical issues. That technical mastery is what allowed him to achieve the vision he had for his prints.</p>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...