Is it me or the printer

[BananaRepublic]

The shop I go to print images can through out stuff that isn't at all what I see on the computer. Yes I know screens are different then print but I find I have to spend time messing around with the shops uploading device editing options , a fuji ATM style thing, to get what I want and double check those with a 5x7 sample. it as if I have done no work on an image at all sometimes

In an age of metadata should a printer not print what the code tells it.

 

[john.margetts]

n an age of metadata should a printer not print what the code tells it.

I shall start with the assumption that you are editing your photos on a calibrated screen.

Metadata has nothing to do with how the photo looks when printed. There is no code involved in an image file. Your image file consists of a number of bytes each of which stores the brightness of one colour for one pixel. The output device (screen or printer) interprets these according to the colour space you have attached to the image file.

If you have problems, make sure you have a colour space (the same colour space that you edited in) attached to your image file - if you do not, the printer is likely to assume sRGB. If you edited in Adobe RGB , or one of the other colour spaces, the image will be the wrong colour.

 

[BananaRepublic]

Thanks for the reply, its helpful.

I was told by an load mouth snook that metadata played a part in printing

No my screen is not calibrated, shouldn't the images look different on each screen, assuming there also not calibrated. How do I tell what colour space is attached to a file, I had assumed that once you edited in LR for example it would automatically attach this information. Is it likely that the printer operator would know what their default setting is.

 

[Designer]

I think printers are rather full of themselves, and they want you to know that they are in charge. I guess if the outcome looks good, then allow them the opportunity to be an arse.

I once took my files to a printer, and he spent a day adjusting the WB, but they looked good when I got them back.

 

[ClickAddict]

The images will look slightly different on most peoples' screens as they are not calibrated. They should look fairly close to other photographers / graphics artists screens however that are calibrated (That's the point). We can't control if a user has their brightness cranked up to "I want to melt my eyes" levels. or their saturation set to "let's pretend we're doing an acid trip". We just aim for what we know is properly calibrated and assume everything they look at would be off anyway so why should our photos look any more normal for them? And the goal is if you do print, that there is no guessing when you print. What you see on your screen is what comes out on paper.

 

[BananaRepublic]

I think printers are rather full of themselves, and they want you to know that they are in charge. I guess if the outcome looks good, then allow them the opportunity to be an arse.

I once took my files to a printer, and he spent a day adjusting the WB, but they looked good when I got them back.

The outcome doesn’t look good more often then not that’s why I end up printing samples as it’s a guessing game . It’s a big deal for them to adjust the image as there’s only one person in the store so handing over a TIFF is like reinacting the bay of pigs. Is there not a way that I can make sure myself that I just upload a file to there system, they only print jpeg images from the self service uploading devices btw, and get what I want.

 

[Designer]

Is there not a way that I can make sure myself that I just upload a file to there system, they only print jpeg images from the self service uploading devices btw, and get what I want.

Try a different printing service. Some online services offer their printer configurations for customers to download, and as I understand, you just transmit the files and they print what you sent. I have not tried any of them, but I have heard good reports about Adorama, for one.