David,

I suspect that many people have their LCD's brightness set way too high so there is a significant mismatch between the brightness of the monitor and the brightness of the lighting used to view their prints. Things get even worse if people reduce the brightness of the image in their image editor to "compensate" for the bright LCD, resulting in an even darker print. If anything, the industry needs to educate people about matching the brightnesses of the monitor and digital darkroom lighting.

Frans,

You are quite correct that an LCD's brightness is the cause of prints too dark. But even if a user's LCD is set to the ideal brightness recommended for pro graphics and digital photography and is calibrated and profiled, that white point luminance of 120.0 CD/m2 recommended by NEC, X-Rite and many others in the industry is still 25% brighter than a CRT at 90.0 CD/m2 white point luminance. So LCD display calibration and profiling, although it helps, is not a solution by itself to "prints too dark", because a CR was an almost perfect "natural" match to get ideal print output density.

For most average people who don't do digital photography full-time when they replace their old CRT with an LCD display, often just get what "looks" good or what they can afford, or what is available with a new computer when they get one. Many of these displays have limited adjustment control, like brightness only. And using the brightness control is counter intuitive, because it does not adjust the white point luminance level, that requires using a Contrast adjustment, and not all LCD displays have a contrast adjustment control. Even some display sensor/software packages for display calibration and profiling recommend calibrating and profiling beginning with the display set at manufacturer's default values, and in the sensor/software there is not an indication of a white point luminance readout or aim point; so even many calibrated and profiled displays can actually be more than 25% brighter than their old CRT, and in a lot of reported complaints the print output as a result is not just a little too dark, but a lot.

As for your last and expected recommendation, you are only addressing a small minority of readers who actually can dedicate a room to digital photography computing. True anything that influences how the photo image file midpoint setting is placed will affect print lightness output,and a perception influenced by environmental light level is a factor. But there are many more housewives out there that have a digital photography hobby and edit there photos on a laptop on the kitchen table. And this problem has to have a solution for everyone.

So far the industry, and I have talked to some company presidents about it, are either unaware of the "prints too dark" problem or so far do not see doing anything about it is in the interest of their business as they see it.

Personally because of what I do, I have a digital darkroom, a controlled lighting environment, and computer systems that are rigorously color managed to ideal standards. But I still get prints now with LCD displays somewhat darker than I did with CRT's. For me the solution is editing my printer profiles, and added an output density correction. But it is not a solution for most because the color management package I use to edit my profiles is part of a color management package that sells for $1,400 at Adorama. That's not a solution for most who have the "prints too dark" problem, and if I suggested it they would assume I'm dreaming or crazy.

But I am still looking and being a gadfly to industry leaders in the field arguing that an affordable solution is needed in the marketplace.

David,

I finally scrolled down and found your request about printing. First I use an iMac with a 24"screen. I calibrate with a Spyder 3 system. I use PSE v6.

Here is my work flow. I do the usual editing,cropping etc. and save my photo. Elements is set to do the color managing and the color space is RGB(1998) and I have the printer profile that is developed by the Spyder system and finally rendering is perceptual. Printer is an Epson Photo R1800.

Just before printing I return to the adjust lighting and brightness/contrast and enter +60 (I settled on that value through trial and error). Then I select print and do the usual selections of paper size, type etc.

One then must remember to NOT save otherwise the +60 becomes part of the .jpg or whatever format is saved.

It is my understanding that Adobe has recognized that this is a problem with Elements and "they are working on it".

Bob Coder
Willcox,AZ

David,

Continuing with my earlier dialogue. I talked with the Datacolor (Spyder) people when I first was printing too dark and they suggested that I modify the profile. That really doesn't work and from the Adobe Elements forums it seems that something is going on in elements that continues to print too dark. Again Adobe's response from their forums is that it is being worked on.???

I hope this all is helpful.

Bob Coder

Bob,

Sorry, nothing going on in Elements, it really is not Adobe's fault or problem.
LCD displays are just too bright, so an image brightness adjustment that looks "correct" on screen will print very much darker depending on just how bright the LCD display is.

Right now I am working on "prevention" as I outlined in a recent blog. Some LCD displays made for professional graphics, like the Eizo ColorEdge CG series can be adjusted, calibrated and profiled at a level that eliminates the problem entirely. Another less pricey solution is ColorEyes Display Pro software that supports DDC adjustment of the display internally and calibrating and profiling at a white luminance that is comparable to what was the case with CRT monitors, which did not cause this "prints too dark" problem. I have adjusted and calibrated two different brand/model LCD displays with ColorEyes and eliminated the prints too dark problem at the source.

As soon as I finish this testing, I'll write an article report for Shutterbug.

David,

I am a little confused by what you say about Adobe. They are even quoted on the Adobe forums about a type of double management that is occurring in Elements.

I assumed that was most of the problem. Watch that word.

I will ferret out that thread when I return from Phoenix on Tues. or Wed.

To give some credibility to my remarks let me give you some of my background. I recently closed a small photo business here in Willcox after some 30yrs. I now prefer to photograph for myself and enjoy birdwatching. I also taught HS Biology for over 30yr.

Bob Coder

If you run a search with Google of the phrase, "prints too dark" you will get about 2 million responses, some of these are forums like Adobe's with hundreds of postings. Everything is blamed, especially color management in one way or another, but that is really because few understand it, and don't realize there is no image density information in a "profile" file and color management does not deal with anything but color, and has no substantial, direct effect on image brightness or print density.

The "prints too dark" has affected users with every kind of computer and operating system, every kind of different application, all makes and models of printers.

There is a solution to prevent this dark print problem, and hopefully a fix if a user cannot avoid the problem.

Quote:
There is a solution to prevent this dark print problem, and hopefully a fix if a user cannot avoid the problem.

The solution is called matching the brightness of your monitor with the brightness of the digital darkroom lighting. This has been known to even the half-initiated for years and years. Nothing needs to be reinvented here except that ideally every monitor needs to be capable of having its brightness adjusted to something in the neighborhood of 100cd/m^2 or nits without loosing too many levels, ideally through in-monitor LUT calibration. Don't portray this issue as being unsurmountable or needing a revolution in technology. The solutions are known but ignored or contradicted by many so-called gurus, analoguous to the issue of needing a close match between the monitor and lighting color temperature; similar issue, lots of ignorance and not-invented-here attitude.

Frans,

First of all there are almost no "monitors" left, most users today have an LCD DISPLAY. CRT monitors never caused a "prints too dark" problem because the range of values of a CRT monitor's brightness output was a close match to what can be reproduced by a print, which is limited to just under 100% reflectance by paper white. An LCD display's range of values can be two to four times greater, so adjusting and image file to look "correct" on a bright LCD display when translated to a print causes a displacement of print brightness, unless the printer driver is managing color instead of application that is sent in the image file for printing, then maybe the driver will correct the mistaken file information and adjust to make a correct print density.

As to darkroom lighting and judging print results based on darkroom lighting to me is absurd. That's not where or the conditions under which a print will be exhibited. I judge my print's appearance by taking it to my living room to see how it will look on the wall where I would exhibit it, I have no prints hanging in my lab. Lighting for judging digital photo print output should match that of where the print will be viewed or exhibited.

I agree, ideally an LCD display should be adjusted, calibrated and profiled through a direct interface between the display's firmware and the software running on the computer doing the calibration and profiling, but DVI DDC was never written into international standards, so few LCD display brands and models support that method, and for that matter only a small portion of PC video cards support the DDC function. So the best LCD display for professional graphics, Eizo ColorEdge makes that connection direct by a broadband standard interface, a USB connection between the display and the computer, bypassing the video card and DVI. But I grant few photo enthusiast can or want to afford an Eizo ColorEdge display which start at just under $1,500 list and go up from there.

Digital darkroom lighting should not affect the performance of a display by ambient light falling on the screen surface of a display. Otherwise ambient light where the computer is used is not a significant factor affecting perceptual color correction and editing adjustment of images. This is because contemporary relatively large LCD displays fill about 75-80% of a user's field of vision, only leaving peripheral vision affected by room ambient light, and peripheral vision, the human eye, has almost no color sensors and a low distribution of light (vision) sensors in the area of peripheral vision.

You have a right to your opinion, as I have said before on this matter, but you do not determine what the objective facts are, they are what they are independent of either of us.

David,

You wrote: "First of all there are almost no "monitors" left, most users today have an LCD DISPLAY."
LCD's are called both displays and monitors, just as CRT's.

You wrote: "CRT monitors never caused a "prints too dark" problem because the range of values of a CRT monitor's brightness output was a close match to what can be reproduced by a print, which is limited to just under 100% reflectance by paper white."
There is an important component missing from your rationale here. Reflectance of paper doesn't by itself cause the viewer to see the print; it's the combination of reflectance and incident light that causes the viewer to see the print. Low light intensity results in a dark print, high light intensity results in a bright print. If the brightness of the monitor is not matched to the brightness of the digital darkroom lighting than there will be a mismatch between the monitor brightness and the area around it, causing image editing errors; if the area aroung the monitor is too dim, the user will tend to edit the image on the screen too dim and if the area around the monitor is too bright, the user will tend to edit the image on the screen to be too bright and both situations will cause a print that's either too dark or too light. If by chance the editing is done correctly in spite of the mismatch between monitor brightness and the area around it then the mismatch will show up when viewing the print in the digital darkroom (hold your fire about where to view the print a bit, will you); if the lighting is too dim as compared to the monitor brightness then the print will look too dim and the user will have the tendency to go back and edit the image for it to look brighter on the monitor and vice-versa if the lighting is too bright.

You wrote: "...then maybe the driver will correct the mistaken file information and adjust to make a correct print density."
Why in heaven's name should the driver correct for editing "errors" and how? After all the driver doesn't know if the user intends for the print to come out darker or lighter then some kind of "brightness standard" that the driver would use to evaluate the image file.

You wrote: "As to darkroom lighting and judging print results based on darkroom lighting to me is absurd. That's not where or the conditions under which a print will be exhibited. I judge my print's appearance by taking it to my living room to see how it will look on the wall where I would exhibit it, I have no prints hanging in my lab."
As I have explained, matching the brightness of the monitor and digital darkroom lighting encourages good editing habits AND allows for reliable print evaluation within the digital darkroom, without the need to go somewhere else. Color constancy means that a print that looks good and correct in the digital darkroom will look good and correct in almost any viewing conditions and certainly in the overwhelming majority of real life viewing conditions.

You wrote: "..few LCD display brands and models support that method...only a small portion of PC video cards support the DDC function...few photo enthusiast can or want to afford an Eizo ColorEdge display..."

There are at least the Eizo and the much more affordable NEC monitors and there are plenty of video cards that support this approach.

Frans,

You have not included any facts, just quoted me and said you have a different opinion. When You get some facts that are objectively corroborated by evidence, we can maybe discuss this further.

David,

My whole post is chockful of verifiable information and facts supported by both theory and practice of color science. When you can't win an argument you revert to your old ways of trying to BS your way out of it instead of debating the issues that are brought up. And you are a Shutterbug contributor?

Frans,

You are making the claims, so provide the sources of verification for what you claim, or they remain as I suspect just your opinion. I know this subject well and recently have had arguments on it with a couple of the "top color management experts", very well known names that also happen to be sponsored by NEC and probably also Solux as well, as they are frequently promoting Solux as well even though there are far better products available to be found at both Adorama and B&H and other pro dealers.

Why should I take your word for it when you contradict yourself as in this statement "Color constancy means that a print that looks good and correct in the digital darkroom will look good and correct in almost any viewing conditions and certainly in the overwhelming majority of real life viewing conditions." So if the adaptabulity of human perception to difference in color temperature makes a print look "correct" in different exhibition environments, then why is it essential to have D50 lighting in the darkroom. Obviously, and logically it is not. And if anyone noticed you avoid the real facts, and here I will provide a reference from 30 years ago , Richard D. Zakia at RIT in Perception for Photographers, regarding the fact that peripheral vision cannot SUBSTANTIALLy influence working on a screen that's taking up 3/4 of a user's field of vision, as peripheral vision has little or no color receptors.

Frans, you are welcome to your opinion and working with and however you like, but even nationally known experts in color management who agree with you are in a loosing battle, largely because they are mostly not photographers but pre-press people who are in a shrinking field.. The entire industry has adopted the D65 gamma 2.2 standard, not to be arbitrary, but based on research of user preferences, research that Apple, Microsoft and Adobe have spent millions to establish what works best for the most people.

You wrote: "...sponsored by NEC and probably also Solux as well, as they are frequently promoting Solux as well even though there are far better products available..."
So, would you care to share your wisdom and tell us what far better products you are talking about and why they are far better?

You wrote: "So if the adaptability of human perception to difference in color temperature makes a print look "correct" in different exhibition environments, then why is it essential to have D50 lighting in the darkroom."
It is essential to have the same color temperature for the monitor and digital darkroom lighting for the obvious two reasons I mentioned before: matching of the screen vis-a-vis the area around the monitor during image editing and matching of the screen vis-a-vis the print as illuminated by the digital darkroom lighting during print evaluation. Now you could use either D50 or D65 for both your monitor and digital darkroom lighting but there are two reasons why D50 is a far better choice: 1) D50 is far closer to the average real life environment than D65 and high-quality D50 lighting is readily available at relatively low cost while high-quality D65 lighting is not readily available and can only be had at extremely high cost.
So why is D50 closer to real life than D65, you ask? Here are some numbers:
average daylight: 5500K
incandescent lamps: 2500-2900K
photoflood lamps: 3000-3400K
tungsten low-voltage tungsten-halogen lamps: 3000-5000K
cool fluorescent lamps: 4000-5000K

You wrote: "and here I will provide a reference from 30 years ago , Richard D. Zakia at RIT in Perception for Photographers, regarding the fact that peripheral vision cannot SUBSTANTIALLy influence working on a screen that's taking up 3/4 of a user's field of vision, as peripheral vision has little or no color receptors."
First, people are not always focussing right in the center of the monitor; anytime they look away from that point, they see a lot more of the enviromnent around the monitor. Second, when evaluating prints people do look at the monitor and the print and will see color mismatches caused by differences in color temperature between the monitor and lighting.

See, it wouldn't be so bad if the big poobahs like Apple, Mircosoft or Adobe preached the D65 gospel IF high-quality D65 lighting were available at a reasonable cost for the majority of people, but that just isn't so. Even then, D50 is closer to reality than D65. Now you could argue that many people think that D65 looks better, but it's a distortion from reality and the general public should be better educated by people like yourself.

1. Light sources for viewing prints (after at least 12 hours drying), the best is Just Normlich, the least costly are the CCFL (cold cathode fluorescent lamps the same as the backlight source in LCD displays) daylight bulbs for studio lighting available at all pro shops like Samy's, Adorama and B&H. Much evener and less glare and no special lamp fixture required like Solux.

2. Prints should never be "viewed" critically until they have dried down thoroughly. And many I am sure also have a printer, especially larger ones at a distance from their display. Regardless "matching" a print side by side with a display is pointless because a print is seen via reflected light and a display via transmitted light, and they are fundamentally distinct, so any real match is not a physical possibility. Finally as long as time and distance are involved between what is seen on screen to color correct and adjust an image relative to a print output, any difference in light color temperature is accommodated by human perception's color adaptation, or the smartass term color constancy, which because unlike adaptation to different levels of light, color temperature adaptation is perceptual, occurs in the brain and is instantaneous. Most normal people who shift there vision from 6500K to a 5000K light area adapt instantly and never see any difference. Screen to print matching is not about looking at a print in a viewing booth right next to a display at a distance great enough to see both in the field of vision, and for photographers it serves no purpose as it does in pre-press preparing files to go on an offset press. Screen to print matching for most photographers is about color correcting and edit adjusting an image on-screen with an expectation the prints will look the same, with the print seen at another time and in another place.

3. "anytime they look away from that point, they see a lot more of the enviromnent around the monitor. Second, when evaluating prints people do look at the monitor and the print and will see color mismatches caused by differences in color temperature between the monitor and lighting." That argument is almost word for word the "thinking" expressed to me by two different color management consultants who are sponsored by NEC, it is not something that is established by research and resulting data.

4. Apple, Microsoft and Adobe do not, as I said before arbitrarily, to adapt standards as if it were religious dogma. In fact Apple originally 15-20 years ago used D50 and gamma 1.8 when Macs were all there was that could do desktop publishing. But that era is over and all there is left of it is a small niche market of pre-press and pro graphics users. All of the majors as I said before do a huge amount of user studies with there scientists measuring what actually works best for the majority of users, and that is why the D65 gamma 2.2 has become the default of all three today, Apple,Microsoft and Adobe. And BTW the LCD display that is the high-end choice, Eizo ColorEdge displays when you begin adjustment, calibration and profiling provides two preset aim point options, one for pro-graphics and pre-press and the other for photographers specifically described as such, the white luminance aim point for both is 80.0 CD/m2, and pro-graphics is D50 gamma 1.8 and photography is D65 and gamma 2.2; and Oh! yes the current Eizo ColorEdge models are based on NEC display screens and stands with different firmware and software designed for professionals by Eizo.

As for D65 work area lighting, it is available as an option with several companies who specialize in those professional products like viewing booths, light tables, etc., and anyone can go to Adorama or B&H and find those products, but don't bother unless you have a very fat wallet.

Finally: I am sure this dying horse has been beaten enough and everyone is tired of it, so don't bother to reply, you won't get an answer except by private e-mail.

1. Let's take a look at Just Normlight: all 5000K; all spiky fluorescent tubes, known to cause color judgement errors; pretty pricy at about $800 to $2100. Not exactly high-quality lighting at a price affordable for most people. Now compare that to SoLux lighting: the closest to D50 of any light source; smooth spectrum without any nasty spikes; pretty affordable for most people for less than $200 for a 2-fixture track system.

The other lights you mention are all fluorescents with the aforementioned spiky spectra and needing special fixtures.

And in case you didn't realize it, "daylight" is not defined in any way, shape or form and as such is a meaningless term.

2. I would think that the "remote" large printer scenario as you describe it is the exception, rather than the rule, particularly for Shutterbug readers. When using the right lights and calibration prints can be very successfully compared side-by-side with a monitor. I do it all the time and the monitor-to-print match is nearly perfect. If as you say color constancy (apparently I'm a smartass for using the scientifically correct term) is instantaneous and most normal people can shift their vision from 6500K to 5000K light area and never see any difference, then nobody should object to a 5000K monitor as being too warm, an often heard excuse for not wanting to use a 5000K monitor that you also have used many times. You can't have it both ways.

3. Glad to see that color consultants agree with my position. And I see that you took the opportunity to take another swipe at NEC. With some creative thinking you could have included another one of your favorites: Nikon bashing.

4. Like I said before, big poobahs are not always right and seldom use sound scientific rationales for their decisions.

Oh man, your private emails! I still remember one of the first emails I got from you many years ago that went something like: "You think you know better, uh?" Should have printed that one out and framed it. After all, you have answered that question pretty clearly over and over. Assuming that any private emails you may send me will be polite and rational, I will posts them here on the forum for everyone to see.

But going back to the original thought behind this forum thread, have you figured out yet how to save the masses from prints that are too dark? Do you think that maybe my inputs hold the key to that solution?

I gave David fair warning about what I would do with his emails to me. Here is part of his "reply" to my post above:

"Yes you are an absolute asshole as bad as one of the NEC shills and so called consultants I told off recently. At least they are getting paid big money to tout their solution, I doubt if you have the excuse.

David B. Brooks
Shutterbug Magazine"

Frans,

Now why not do a survey and ask who agrees with you and who agrees with my perspective.

This most recent chain of exchanges began with my agreement to your right to your opinions, and then you claim you also own the facts, and as far as I am concerned no one has the right to dictate to others what is fact, least of all yourself as you have attempted to do that endlessly, and management has asked you not to.

So yes you are in my view.

David,

Hmmmm, interesting. When you voice your opinion, it's just that, although truth be told nobody better disagree. When I voice my opinion it's all claiming to own the facts and dictating to others what they are? Now that's what I call spin-skills. You're right up there with the White House press secretary. We could all benefit if you brushed up on your debating skills.

Frans,

I am sick and tired of your Rush Limbaugh/Karl Rove interpretations of language. If you just go back a bit in this thread you claimed something was scientific fact but offered no reference to support that claim, so your claim by definition is really just an opinion. Then you also make the inference I am in some way prejudiced towards NEC because I mentioned that the color management consultants that agree with you on D50/1.8 gamma and display and workroom lighting be matched are mostly pre-press consultants that are sponsored by NEC, and also recommend Solux like you. The fact is that the NEC Multisync 90 series and the new P122W are LCD displays I have recommended to dozens of readers, and I own and use an NEC 2090 UXi that happens to be labelled a LaCie 320.

As a matter of opinion I think most, but not all, are best served by the default display standard of D65 and 2.2 gamma, consistent with both the sRGB and Adobe RGB workspace profiles. And I know a lot of photographers and graphic designers work in varied ambient light environments and are able to produce very high quality images and graphics regardless of that, that are published in the world' finest media.

Until you can provide references to the your claims in generally accepted sources that your way of working is the ONLY way to obtain good quality image results from digital photography, you're just stating your personal opinion. And as everyone who puts up with reading this thread knows, I disagree with your opinion.

And unless you have made a recent purchase, you stated a short time back that you were still using a CRT monitor, so why is it you are such an authorty on LCD displays and butt in every time the subject comes up trying to sell your workroom lighting theory?????

David,

Ever wondered if there is a relationship between your attitude and the low participation on the Shutterbug Forum? Did I ever say my way is the only way? No. But I've indicated what the best possible way is and why that is the case. You on the other hand keep refering to the big poobahs. And please leave political opinions at the door or I'll feel obliged to set you staight on that subject as well.

I currently own two large format printers "HP Photosmart 8750" and a "Canon PIXMA 9000Pro". I use an iMac, which I have found is difficult to get calibrated. I have read so much information on prints being too dark. Now, I use CS4 at the moment for printing and found that the best prints comes from the HP unit. I set it for Printer managing color and I have the perfect print, regardless of what photo paper I use. I could use any brand. No need to set the profile for using that printer. Now the Canon unit is a different animal, where the profile makes a difference. Any slight change in the settings and you are off to print a Super B size or Tabloid print and it comes out wrong, you now have wasted ink and good photo paper.

You can get the iMac LCD display under control and at a luminance level that matches your printing paper. The solution for adjusting, calibrating and profiling an iMac is available in the ColorEyes Display Pro software (plus a colorimeter), go to http://www.integrated-color.com and check it out, a free trial download is available.