on screen quality of a digital photo vs. actual developed photo

[michelle_sallee]

Does anyone have an explanation for the on screen quality of a (digital) photo

looking so much better than the actual developed photo? In some indoor photos,

I have been excited about how a picture I have taken looks on my computer, only

to have it enlarged (or not) and be disappointed at the quality, ie: clarity,

also colors not nearly as sharp and bright as the one viewed on screen.

[john_shriver]

Printing is always an art. Less brightness range available than on a well adjusted screen. Many aesthetic choices to make. Cheap places don't make any, just let some software make a guess.

 

Probably a matter of lack of calibration between the screen and the printer. Look in the digital darkroom forum for many discussions of monitor calibration.

[michael_huizenga]

Where are you having the photo developed? If it's at a drug store or similar, that may be your problem. Good luck.-Mike

[sumo_kun]

I think the same can be said somewhat for slides too. On a light table, good slides look amazing but print them, even at a pro lab, and you get a duller representation. Slides and monitors have light coming from behind/through the picture so everything looks bright and nice, but prints reflect light so they won't have the same brilliance. Of course, decent printing can go a long way to make the print match the slide/monitor but its a tough job. As for not being as sharp, I think you might need to go to a better lab. As for colours, you need to make sure the monitor and printer are calibrated properly. This is one of the reasons I don't want to mess with digital.

[robert himmelright]

in terms of clarity. this one has obvious examples of motion blur even viewed at a reduced size. Of course it wont look good as a print.

[Ed_Ingold]

The image on a screen is closer to a transparency than a print, since it is lighted actively from the "rear". With screen calibration and a good print profile, the colors and details can be made to match reasonably closely.

[bill_tuthill]

I agree with all comments above. However, I'm usually very happy

with digital photos, after color correction, printed on a Frontier.

Here is your image after Autolevels (Photoshop or GIMP). I guarantee

it will look better in a print from digital minilab or home inkjet.

Some friendly photo.netter might be able to solve your motion-blur

problem with FocusMagic, but I don't have that software. It would be

easier to reshoot this scene with more light, anyway.<div></div>

[bill_tuthill]

Just for comparison, here is your pic downsampled without Autolevels.

If working on a photo that didn't have so much motion blur, I would

reduce red saturation in the baby's hand and add yellow (reduce blue)

in the adult's hand.<div></div>

[ted_marcus1]

In general, a print rarely has the brightness, color saturation, and "impact" of an image viewed on a properly calibrated monitor in a darkened room. It's just the difference between an illuminated image with a wide dynamic range (a rendering of many tones from dark to bright) and a print with a narrower dynamic range viewed by reflected light. You'll always lose something in printing, although color management can help you get the most out of your prints.

 

<p>As for this specific image, it's one of those heartbreaking situations where the best course of action is to hit the delete button and try again. There's too much motion blur and poor focus to get a usable print. Bill mentioned <i>Focus Magic</i>, which is advertised to fix problems like this. I use that software myself, but the reality is less "magical" than the advertising would have you believe. It works very well for "capture sharpening" of scanned film and raw camera files, and it can be a real life-saver for many images that are <i>slightly</i> unsharp. But using it on something like this, with a combination of variable motion and lens blur, will require a lot of effort with masking and multiple settings and almost certainly yield disappointing results.

 

<p>It will take some work to capture this precious tender moment. Close-ups in low light are always challenging. On-camera flash will look to harsh. Unless you have a studio with softboxes, position the baby and the mother's finger near a window on a cloudy but bright day. You need more light so you can use a smaller aperture to maximize depth of field— you don't have much room for error with a close-up like this. Bracket the exposure and the focus. That's a lot of work, but it's what makes the difference between a heartbreaking blur and a cherished memory.

[jacob_brown]

Bill, instead of using Auto Levels, try Auto Color, which uses a more sophisticated algorithm to present natural colors. Below I used Auto Color and a little global desaturation. Took about five seconds.<div></div>