Got back two more 16x20's from the lab yesterday- and came crashing back down to reality. One is
way too dark and contrasty (the scan perfectly exposed with proper highlights and midtones), the other is also darker than the scan but perhaps not that bad in print (a slightly lighter scan played nicely on screen). Interestingly, they mistakenly reprinted
the first scan I gave them (which they kept)- and again, it was spot on!
|
Goldilocks Scan. |
|
Way Darkened Inkjet Print |
Now I've read enough about the trials and tribulations of people trying to get their prints to match their scans, I just wish that would have happened my first go around. That first print proved that inkjets were, in fact, a viable, quality alternative to silver gelatin. Still, I had my suspicions as to the absolute ease of how that print came about- nothing in my life ever came about that freakin' easy! These two additional prints (even though they may raise as many questions as they answer) were to further test the ease and reliability of that quality.
|
Darkened Print. |
|
Goldilocks Scan. |
Now, it's more or less back to being the crap shoot I initially imagined- though still not as bad as the analogue days, when each and every print could be slightly different in each and every crucial area of concern. I guess a calibrated monitor wouldn't hurt, although I can already
hear myself screaming- "It shouldn't be this dark. It shouldn't be this
anything- I Have A Calibrated Monitor, Godamnit!"
Nevertheless,
lesson learned- order small 8x10 test prints before going bust into big boy territory. And if I was ever to have the capital to make a large order- consult with the printer him or herself. My initial over the top, "beginner's luck" enthusiasm has now been officially tempered by reality, and that's a good thing. And though I won't be spending any more money I don't have on prints anytime soon, now I have a considerably better accounting of the quality that can be achieved, and the extended effort necessary to successfully guarantee that that quality is reproduced on a continued and reliable basis.
Update: After some cursory correspondence it seems that sometimes the printers at this particular establishment make "judgement" calls as to "corrections" they think should be imposed! I'm uhhhh... speechless- I thought the whole point of post editing was to get it down to your own exact specification, your own style of seeing and presentation, so that if it doesn't, in fact, come out right and the printer stayed faithful to what was presented- it's no one's fault but the person who made the scan in the first place!
Fortunately, seems they are willing to make this right- to be continued...
4 comments:
well there is an obvious difference in how an image appears on screen and on well „paper“, luminance, the range of high tones and dark tones… difficult to overcome. A science in itself!
Keep at it with them. Once you get "them" dialed in and they get to know how you like your prints done it will be a marriage made in heaven.
rlfsoso- Yes, one can naturally expect a slight shift in contrast or exposure in print, but this went well beyond that. The fact that they altered the files explains it.
Eric- Yes, as exhibited in the first print, they are indeed capable of very high quality work. And fortunately, it seems they are willing to work things through and make this right. I only wish I had a lot more money to throw their way once things are set right...
I feel your pain... but, get your monitor calibrated. I took a file to my local print lab for a 16x20 and when they ran it on their calibrated monitor I was pretty shocked to see the difference from mine at home. And yes adjusting for transmissive (monitor) versus reflective (paper) lighting can be maddening. I've burned through a ton of paper trying to do it on my epson at home.
That said, I really like the top shot. Nice work.
Post a Comment