Nikon Z - your experiences with the viewfinder?

[Ed_Ingold]

BTW, the "reality" of the image on either the EVF is actually cancelled when I order prints at the shop. I find really hard to get the right results, it doesn't matter how much calibrated the system is... at the end, I find printers are not calibrated to the same standards, or, as the operator told me the last time, the printer have somewhat automatic contrast detection, framing, resizing, etc. which looks to actually override everything. I am rarely getting the results I'm looking for since the digital era.

So true, but there is something you can do. Submit the image with sRGB color space, and request that they print it without corrections. If cropping must be precise, create a 1/4" border (or more) and submit the image with that border in place, to fit a standard aspect ratio. Otherwise the lab may trim up to 4 mm from each side. If it doesn't fit the paper, the lab may crop even further to eliminate wide borders.

 

It is important to have a calibrated monitor and color-managed software for editing. Otherwise, it may be best to trust your camera for color balance, and do only resizing and cropping in your software.

[Andrew Garrard]

Even then, bear in mind that prints are highly dependent on the source of illumination, including the interaction between the printing inks and the lighting spectrum. I once tried to discuss the absolute colorimetric rendering intent with some colour science people, on the basis that I asserted that it should be possible to edit on a computer screen and view a high-resolution print under a controlled light source and guarantee the colours matched - but they seemed to think I was mad, so I gave up.

 

My local print shops and online services have made prints with wildly varying colours from the same source (and indeed with the same company and same source on different media - some with enough of a green shift that I would have argued with them if I'd been less time-constrained). I've not gone to a specialist, although the number of professional photo specialist services who can print onto coasters and mouse mats might be limited. My historical preference is just to use my own printer, so I can see how it turns out; the problem is I so rarely print anything that ink jets dry up and are ridiculously expensive to replace the cartridge on (I'm happier with a laser, which at least doesn't dry out, and use that for printing a club magazine). In the end, I just don't print much any more. I don't really have anywhere to put things anyway, although I have a collage of photos from my ex-kitties to mount on the wall sometime soon.

 

I assume high street print services expect such badly-corrected content that they feel the need to apply corrections automatically. I should try, but I think they'll look at me funny if I talk about profiles to them (I've had mixed results even with bulk printers). It took me an alarming number of tries to try to get some negatives scanned (it generally took ten minutes after asking whether they could do anything other than a JPEG file, while they talked about scan dpi - usually including "there's no point in more than 300dpi" - before they'd admit the results were a JPEG), and once I got someone to promise to do it, the results were JPEGs. I just bought a cheap slide scanner and did it myself. Even specialist shops don't seem to be very specialist these days. It probably doesn't help that there are defaults like the "perceptual rendering intent" which means "do what you like" (it really doesn't have anything like a definition).

[ilkka_nissila]

I have never gotten satisfactory prints from labs in a way that I would call consistent, but I don't have problems getting the results I want with my own printer and display. I do have the problem that the lighting in my apartment is fairly dim but I have some areas which I light with halogen spots and in those areas the prints show well. I should definitely set up a room for viewing prints but I haven't gotten around to setting up the lighting for that purpose (apart from the walls which I have spots to light).

 

Calibration of some random monitor may or may not be enough; I find that my Eizo Coloredge monitor is really good for matching the displayed image to print; it has a relatively low maximum brightness in order to mimic what a print can reflect in typical lighting conditions, but the shadows are rendered really well in the monitor (and prints). Different calibration tools may produce different results; I prefer xrite display pro. Some other brands of calibration tools are known for shifting dyes over several years of time, so those would be no good. The Eizo monitor also measures its own brightness and adjusts accordingly. Newer models do self-calibration, this one does not. I would say that if you care about prints, or want good prints, it's probably worth doing your own printing if you are willing to put in the time to get the setup working correctly. I personally really like to do prints and view them.