Staples prints my Images to dark

[chumley3000]

I've been producing my bands promotional posters, flyers and hand bills for awhile. Now I have a printer but not one that can make the quality I need. I convert my work to a jpeg put on a flash drive. Then take it to staples to have them print my work. Here is my Problem, everything they print for me comes out dark. I turn the brightness up and that kind up works but its more hit and miss. Sometimes the image doesn't come out the way I want them to. I even use a few different kinds of paper but the results are always the same, dark images.

Is there a better way to proceed?

 

[Tom Mann]

Yes, there is a better way to proceed.

There are literally thousands of posts on exactly this topic in some of the major photography discussion groups. Just Google {"prints too dark" sitehoto.net} to get a feeling for how common this problem is.

By far, THE most common cause of this problem is that your monitor is lying to you and telling you that after a bunch of editing, your image looks wonderful, when it actually IS too dark (or has the wrong color balance ... or whatever...), at least according to internationally agreed upon standards. Laptops and cell phones are particularly prone to this problem.

The only way to essentially guarantee that you will solve this problem is to do your editing on a high quality desktop monitor that has been independently profiled (aka, "measured") and then calibrated (ie, making your system use the monitor profile generated in the previous step) with a special device like this:
http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1115

Of course, there are less expensive hardware calibrators, and everyone will, of course, initially try to get by with whatever monitor they are using and a cheaper calibrator -- at least until they get so frustrated with half-hearted approaches that they finally decide to purchase good equipment.

FYI, I'm using a NEC Spectraview monitor (almost $1k), with one of the $500 Color Munki calibrator systems. I just re-calibrated my system last night, and I try to repeat the calibration about once a month to compensate for aging of my monitor or other problems. Note that I and most pro photographers consider this issue so important we are willing to spend more on just the monitor system than most people spend on a laptop. The problem is that if you can't trust your monitor, you have absolutely nothing to go on.

BTW, if you want considerably more information on this topic from "THE MAN" (aka, Andrew Rodney), read this article:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/tutorials/why_are_my_prints_too_dark.shtml

HTH,

Tom M

PS - Here's a quick and dirty way to tell if the problem is you / your system, or your printer: Just post a few of your prints in this forum and we will let you know how they look.

 

[Hoogle]

Quick solution print it out on our own computer first if you can see it is dark then chances are it is dark

 

[Tom Mann]

Unfortunately, Hoogle, I have to disagree with your recommendation. I think there is just as good a chance it would mislead the OP, possibly even sending him on a wild goose chase, as it would help him.

This is because there are more problems with printers conforming to specs than there are with monitors. This is because of the huge number of different sources of consumables (papers and inks) of indeterminate behavior available, unknown amounts of wear and tear on the mechanism, people who don't install the correct driver for their particular printer, temperature (which changes the viscosity of ink), evaporation of the carrier/solvent in older ink cartridges, etc.

At least with a monitor, there are no consumables whatsoever, no wear and tear to speak of, no temperature or evaporation effects, etc.

Printer profiling and calibration is an equally critical part of the process of getting prints to match what you see on your monitor. There is absolutely no way I would essentially rely on a printer, even a new one, as a standard to check something else (the monitor) against.

At least with the suggestion to simply post some representative images here, the OP can get the opinion of many folks, some of whom actually do have hardware calibrated video systems.

Tom

 

[Hoogle]

All your points apply to staples printers as well I can assure you I have had a 3 sets of stationary printed at Staples UK for a client all the same, all 3 prints came out totally different color to each other and none of them showed true likeness to what they did on their screen or mine.

Actually lead to it all being refunded. I stated Staples UK because I used 3 Staples print centers in the UK I can not vouch or comment on US versions of Staples because I know they could be running different equipment and set up.

Lesson is if your going to go cheap on printing then be prepared for differences to how you planned your printout to be

However because I do send a lot of business their way this may be a one off offer they do me or they may make it available to everyone when placing your order they will run off a test print and will let you proof it first and will make adjustments based off of that. And that is what I recommend you do ask to see a test print first and then have them adjust it there and then. I have also taken a laptop down and done the adjustments to a copy of the document before handing them over the revised file. Just make sure you rename that file with a something that highlights it as a print file and not the original.

 

[Tom Mann]

"All your points apply to staples printers as well I can assure you..."

No argument there, I can assure *you*. LOL.

The big picture is that when printing, photographers and graphic artists face a situation where problems can arise from either of two sources and often arise from both sources: (a) the system used to prepare the image for printing; and, (b) the system used to print the resultant file.

There are so many ways either can be faulty that if one is serious about one's photography or other color output, one simply has no choice but to "get it right" in both areas.

With respect to where to invest effort and money, the difference between the two is that if your monitor & video card/driver/etc. are off, every single image that you put out, whether printed or sent electronically will be flawed. This can tarnish your reputation with all of your clients, make you look incompetent with family and friends, on the web, etc. In contrast, a color management error at the printing stage (usually) is usually seen by many fewer people. This is why I advocate so strongly that one's first step should be to get your viewing system in hand.

In my own case, I feel like I have the 1st stage of this two step process (ie, monitor profiling and calibration) fairly well under control.

When it comes to printing, I have several levels of quality that I can use. My lowest level is for ordinary family snaps. In this case, I frequently use mass market printers such as the ubiquitous printing kiosks present in almost every drugstore in the States. I know the quirks of the printers at my local drug stores (they all print too warm), and, if I care, I may make a half-hearted attempt to adjust my output to print fairly well on their machines. The next level up is either Mpix, Snapfish, or any of the similar operations. They consistently do a reasonable job with the files I send them - certainly much more consistent and accurate than the local drug store or mom and pop photo shop.

My next level of printing is for serious personal photographic work projects. For these I go to a local firm that handles many of the big weddings and other pro work in the Washington DC area. I have gone to this guy and his wife since the early 90's and he has never once let me down. I trust him so much to produce prints that match my monitor that in one case, I even trusted him to hand deliver a very costly set of large prints ( each ~ 4 x 6 feet) to a customer without me ever laying eyes on them. They turned out to be absolutely perfect.

The final level is when I am producing images that my organization will use on their website, in glossy marketing brochures, etc. Again, I can send my images directly to the editors, webmasters, etc. involved and never have to worry that they will complain about the colors or will print something that I will be embarrassed about.

All of this is possible because I have a good monitor and video system on my PS computer, as well as a stable environment with controlled ambient light in which to view the monitor.

This is why I recommended to the OP to let us take a look at some of his problematic files and we can give him the benefit of our advice / experience, and did not recommend that he print them at home or try printing them at other firms, etc.

Tom

PS - Basically, I'm saying that if your monitor/editing system is well calibrated and you use a good printer, the state of the art is such that tediously making "test prints" and then ad hoc adjustments at a printer becomes unnecessary.