Resolution and Color with Digital Enlargements

[billydodson]

I recently enlarged the cheetah photo in my portfolio to 20X30 (taken

with D70). Resolution was fine, great in fact, but the color seemed

to wash out quite a bit. Is this just something I'll have to live

with or is there a way to jazz the colors so that I don't get such a

faded look? File was a TIF/17.2 MP.

[marshall]

There are plenty of ways to jazz colors and a wide range of enlargement methods that have different looks to them. How did you enlarge it? Was anything done to the file to prepare it for enlargement? How does it compare to smaller enlargements you have done of the same file?

 

The short form is that there are a number of digital options (enlargers, printers, papers) that have different characteristics, but they should all be capable of intense saturation. In fact, it may not take anything more than a subtle kick with a hue/sat layer to prep a file like that one to have good color.

 

That said, it's also best to pursue those enlargements with a calibrated monitor and some understanding of profiles and soft-proofing, so that you can better predict what you'll see on output. [Though perhaps you do have these; I don't know.]

[Tim_Lookingbill]

You may have to zoom in on your enlarged 20x30 file to where

the resolution and sharpness looks the same as the print and

then step back from your monitor to see any changes in color

saturation. Viewing color through transmissive light as apposed

to reflective light off prints can trick the eye when judging

saturation.

 

You may be seeing the affects that zoom levels in Photoshop

have on color perception. You can see these color changes by

zooming down to 25% or making a subject such as your cheetah

fill the screen and then reducing it down to 4 inches tall without

PS's zoom antialiasing kicking in. The color will appear more

saturated at smaller sizes.

 

I just had a 4x6 and a 8x12 printed of the same file on a Noritsu

at my local lab and they appeared identical and matched

perfectly to screen soft proofed with black ink turned on. This is

important to have on when trying to match color because your

black point on your monitor is far more richer (if calibrated

properly) than a print's. A print can resemble you applying a

linear adjust in curves by just moving the 0 point up to the 10 to

20 position. Notice what linear light does to saturation from this

end. YUK!

 

Step far back from the print and the perceived densities will

seem to appear richer. You might be seeing an optical affect. Not

sure.

[don_cooper]

I've had several 20X30's made with D70 files and I could see no color/saturation difference between the 20X enlargements or an 8X enlargement. Maybe you just got a bad print.

[brad_hinkel]

This may also be a color management problem. You need to ensure that your monitor is properly calibrated and profiled in order to trust what you see on the screen.

 

Also, a very common issue that generated washed out prints is that your image may be using the AdobeRGB color space, but the printer where you had the print made expected sRGB. Almost all online printers and most printing labs expect images to be using sRGB. An AdobeRGB to sRGB mis-conversion results in an image that appears washed out and somewhat cyan/green.

 

Check the color space of the original image (this may be set on your camera). In Photoshop CS2, you can select Edit > Convert to Profile. The Source Space will be the color space of your image. If it is not in sRGB, you may need to convert it to sRGB for your printer.

 

Color Management problems often result in this washed out look.

 

Brad

[billydodson]

Thanks for the input from all who've responded. I've done the same photo in 8x12 and it really is fine colorwise ... much as you see it on the screen here. Am open for more suggestions if anyone has any.

 

thx/BD

[scott_eaton]

I took a look at the images in his Africa folder, and while I liked the composition of the images and subject matter, they are a poster child for dull and murky default dSLR capture. This is why I have both the contrast and saturation slider in my 10D *always* shoved up when shooting wildelife or scenics. Or, I shoot RAW and fix it later in Photoshop.

 

Not to be rude, but a 20x30 digital print is likely going to be made off a LightJet type printer, and LightJets are clearly dictated by the law of "garbage in - garbage out". An 8x12 will likely be made by a Frontier printer, and often the operator will fiddle with the settings and add contrast/saturation to jazz up an image because it's easy to do on a mini-lab. That's why there's a discrepency in the images. The 20x30 is more likely the correct one.

 

I hope B Dodson doesn't mind, but I grabbed one of his Cheetah images, and used it as an example. Here's the shot directly from his folder. To my eyes, even on my hyped up LCD, it's dull and murky.

[scott_eaton]

This treatment is what I would do if it were *my* image and I wanted a 20x30 or my wall, with some basic levels adjustment and a quick dodge and burn in Photoshop. I never touched saturation.

 

Again, I'm not working on a calibrated monitor at the moment so it might be rough, but you should get the idea as to how badly available light dSLR shots of this kind of subject matter need to be level adjusted.

[scott_eaton]

Same shot, but with just hitting the auto-contrast switch in Photoshop and nothing else.

 

Still an improvement.

[billydodson]

I think the answer here is that I'm just going to have to experiment with the color levels and learn as I go. This was a test print, which was really very acceptable despite my "garbage in," as you phrase it. The JPEG and GIF files as shown in my pn portfolio were not what went to the printer ... as I mentioned in my opening question they were 17.2mp TIF files which had already been adjusted (that I didn't mention) almost exactly as you recommend. I think I'm going do it again with what appears to be exaggerated color on the LCD and just see how it comes out. I was looking for as much info as I could get in advance of the next attempt because each one of these 20x30 prints costs about $25.

[scott_eaton]

My LightJet labs also have Frontiers, and both the machines are calibrated to the same standard. Anytime I have a big print made on the LightJet I get an 8x10 or 4x6 made for a couple bucks off the Frontier to see how it looks first.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

"I think I'm going do it again with what appears to be exaggerated

color on the LCD and just see how it comes out."

 

That might be an indication of the gamut differences between the

large format as apposed to the 8x12 small format printer.

 

I've noticed this on my Noritsu when printing test charts of

255RGBCMY patches between my local Frontier and Noritsu. I

use year old profiles I downloaded off DryCreekPhoto.com and

when I SoftProof with PCN=(Preserve Color Numbers) the new

prints have more intense Cyan, Blue and Yellow from what the

old profiles indicate. They keep improving the papers on these

machines while still maintaining the sRGB space.

 

The larger format printer may be using older paper.

 

Can you post your original edited version and the unedited

version to rule out a possible calibration issue on your end,

though I doubt that's your problem?

[billydodson]

Tom ... I've posted lower resolution JPEGs of the original in my portfolio (single photos) and a modified version which is much like what went to the printer ... you'll have no trouble discerning which is which. As an 8x12, the modified version was too color rich ... almost to the point of distraction. The 20x30 was great resolution-wise and I wouldn't be ashamed to display it, but it seemed to me that too much color had evaporated from it. Exactly the same file was used for both prints. Any help or advice would be appreciated.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Which one is the unedited version straight out of the camera, no

edits but converted to the sRGB space for web viewing? Not the

printed version nor a print simulation.

 

I see a vibrant version and a murky version but your post cross

describes between print preview, LCD preview and edited

version preview and it's confusing.

 

The thing is the vibrant version looks correct but you've said you

edited it to get it that way. I may be misunderstanding you.

 

Sorry for my confusion, I need to see the unedited version

converted to sRGB as a reference point as to where the problem

lies.

[billydodson]

The murky version is the unedited straight from the flash card. The vibrant one went to the

printer with the saturation and contrast adjusted as you see.

[Tim_Lookingbill]

OK, now it's clear.

 

I'm now assuming you converted to sRGB before printing to the

8x12 size and 20x30. And if the 20x30 print looks like the murky

version, then the printer/paper needs to be brought into sRGB

specs.

 

However you did mention ( I might be mistaken) that the vibrant

version looks grossly over saturated on your LCD and if so it may

be your monitor profile is corrupt or inaccurate and your edits

could be off. The vibrant version on my monitor looks pleasantly

balanced and not over saturated.

 

If the vibrant version looks as intended on your LCD then you'll

just have to edit for that particular large format printer. Or fish

around a bunch of profiles that can make the vibrant version look

murky by soft proofing with PCN on and once you find it convert to

it for the large format printer. I tried it on my end with no luck.

 

I took your murky version, applied 35% saturation on a dupe

layer set to Saturation blending mode to hold luminance, and it's

now identical to your vibrant version.

 

I wish I could help you more.

[billydodson]

Thanks, Tim. I'll work on this over the coming weekend. Appreciate your time and efforts. Billy