Weekend Update 8/19/18

[peteski]

Thanks!

Good point.  When I print them at home on an inkjet, they used to come out too dark as well.  I find that by correcting the gamma (also sometimes called the "color curve" in programs like GiMP) so that I truncate it at the right edge of the last hump in the color curve (this also makes the photo visibly brighter on the screen), those big differences between how the brightness looks on the screen vs how it looks on paper go away.  It's also important to adjust the gamma setting of your monitor.  Mac machines have a control panel for doing that, and my Windows machine has an NVidia card in it that has a utility for doing it.   I have two monitors, so I already had to go through the exercise of matching the gamma and color level settings so that images look about the same on both monitors.  Between doing that and adjusting the gamma on the photo itself, I find that I get good brightness out of my printer, and it seems to have worked great for how Shutterfly printed them.

Thanks Max.  So you didn't do anything special to make sure the images will print out well in the book (other than doing what you normally do to make them look god when using your local printer).  It was a a bit of a crapshoot and it came out ok?  I wondered if  maybe they do some automatic image correction when they prep the images for printing?

Here is the gamma correction dialog I have in my graphic editor.


So you only mess around with the Gamma value itself (like here, I increased it from 1.00 to 1.13) and you don't touch the other values (Input Value Clipping or Output Range Compression)?

Sorry for the slight OT diversion. 

[mmagliaro]

Thanks Max.  So you didn't do anything special to make sure the images will print out well in the book (other than doing what you normally do to make them look god when using your local printer).  It was a a bit of a crapshoot and it came out ok?  I wondered if  maybe they do some automatic image correction when they prep the images for printing?

Here is the gamma correction dialog I have in my graphic editor.


So you only mess around with the Gamma value itself (like here, I increased it from 1.00 to 1.13) and you don't touch the other values (Input Value Clipping or Output Range Compression)?

Sorry for the slight OT diversion. 

Take the extreme right-hand value slider on the compression graph (which is at value 255 currently), and slide it LEFT, to where the first non-zero values are (the right edge of that last "hump" in the graph).  Generally, that will tend to brighten up darker areas of the photo without completely blowing out the brightness the way "turning up the brightness" would.   I find that when I do this, two things happen.  It does appear somewhat brighter on the screen, but it is always better, not "blown out", and it tends to make the photo display more uniformly across different monitors, as well as printing better on paper.

[nkalanaga]

Chris333: I like the color.

[Chris333]

Better look at the color:

/>
Fun fact: I mixed the flake with binder instead of clear. Binder is what's used for basecoat. It is a milky color, but sprays clear and end up flat like basecoat. Basecoat is like 99% binder with a few drops of color in it. The binder was $118 a gallon and the color was $316 a gallon. So I guess those few little drops of color are worth $200. 

[bbussey]

Better look at the color:

Fun fact: I mixed the flake with binder instead of clear. Binder is what's used for basecoat. It is a milky color, but sprays clear and end up flat like basecoat. Basecoat is like 99% binder with a few drops of color in it. The binder was $118 a gallon and the color was $316 a gallon. So I guess those few little drops of color are worth $200. 

Sweet.  Looks like the Antifreeze Spectraflame candy paint used on original Hot Wheels in the late 1960s / early 1970s.

[peteski]

Take the extreme right-hand value slider on the compression graph (which is at value 255 currently), and slide it LEFT, to where the first non-zero values are (the right edge of that last "hump" in the graph).  Generally, that will tend to brighten up darker areas of the photo without completely blowing out the brightness the way "turning up the brightness" would.   I find that when I do this, two things happen.  It does appear somewhat brighter on the screen, but it is always better, not "blown out", and it tends to make the photo display more uniformly across different monitors, as well as printing better on paper.

Hmm.  If I do what you suggest then the entire photo gets darker.  Basically I'm making the brightest whites into grays, and the brightness of the entire photo gets shifted towards dark. And this is not the Gamma adjustment (which is lower in that window).  Moving the Gamma slider to the right makes the photo look brighter while still preserving the highlights and blacks. I guess I'll have to experiment with this a bit more.

[MK]

I have hard time doing that printing photos on my home printer hooked up to my PC.  The look good on the screen but usually come out too dark on the printer.  If I was spending fre hundred dollars, I would want to make sure the photos come out looking good.

Peteski, calibrate your monitor and then to your printer.  The calibration (of the monitor) takes into account the room light your monitor is in.  Then what you see on the monitor is what the camera saw and what your printer will see.  All three will be in unison.  Check out the Color Munki, it's not cheap though.  Then if you really want to go crazy you can use ICC color profile depending on what printer paper you are printing on. 

I never have the dark/light problem when I print at home (Nikon bodies, Dell IPS monitor, Canon PRO-100 printer).  I've done gorgeous 13x19 prints.

[mecgp7]

Those Milwaukee cars are unreal!
Got bored and decided to play. Pulled out the remains of the Turtle Creek Central decals that came free in Model Railroader years ago. Left the airbrush in the box and brush painted the red and blue cars.

Apparently the TCC acquired some second hand MEC waffle side boxcars and had to get them into service quick so they just slapped on the necessary info (The MEC delivered this car with an archbar truck; cheap bastards).
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

When they got around to it the cars got the traditional paint and lettering:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Then corporate got some brain storm to re-brand and shot for the one word logo:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Point353]

August 23rd last year is when I got this thing.

That thing is not a Thing.

This is a Thing:

[peteski]

Peteski, calibrate your monitor and then to your printer.  The calibration (of the monitor) takes into account the room light your monitor is in.  Then what you see on the monitor is what the camera saw and what your printer will see.  All three will be in unison.  Check out the Color Munki, it's not cheap though.  Then if you really want to go crazy you can use ICC color profile depending on what printer paper you are printing on. 

I never have the dark/light problem when I print at home (Nikon bodies, Dell IPS monitor, Canon PRO-100 printer).  I've done gorgeous 13x19 prints.

Thanks Mike. The thing is that I don't really want to go crazy calibration-wise.  I am aware of the ICC color profiles and also how expensive it can get when professional graphic designers calibrate their equipment.  I was just curious what Max did since his book came out looking the ballz!  I also realize that to get really good and consistent results one must spend some time and money to get the equipment calibrated.  And I also do not  print my really good photos at home. I either go to a local drug store (for 4x6s or 8x10s) or if I need a larger size, I would sent it out to be printed.  At that point the calibration process is broken since I have no control over how the equipment at the printing site is calibrated.  This is all consumer stuff (not pro). And again, I know that professionals have ways to work around this but it is not a trivial thing.  Again, I'm not really unhappy with my results - I was just wondering what Max was doing.

[peteski]

That thing is not a Thing.

This is a Thing:

Paint this thing camo and send it out into battlefield!   
Yes, I realize that this vehicles is not the same thing like the "real" military AWD version.

[m_nanson]

Paint this thing camo and send it out into battlefield!   
Yes, I realize that this vehicles is not the same thing like the "real" military AWD version.

It's French, It is the right colour to go on the battle field!
 

[johnb]

I have added windows, all 1124 needs now are poles

[MK]

Thanks Mike. The thing is that I don't really want to go crazy calibration-wise.  I am aware of the ICC color profiles and also how expensive it can get when professional graphic designers calibrate their equipment.  I was just curious what Max did since his book came out looking the ballz!  I also realize that to get really good and consistent results one must spend some time and money to get the equipment calibrated.  And I also do not  print my really good photos at home. I either go to a local drug store (for 4x6s or 8x10s) or if I need a larger size, I would sent it out to be printed.  At that point the calibration process is broken since I have no control over how the equipment at the printing site is calibrated.  This is all consumer stuff (not pro). And again, I know that professionals have ways to work around this but it is not a trivial thing.  Again, I'm not really unhappy with my results - I was just wondering what Max was doing.

Got it Peteski.  Not disagreeing with you there.  Like everything else in life, it's how far you want to take it.  And that usually translate into how much money you have or want to spend. 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Got it Peteski.  Not disagreeing with you there.  Like everything else in life, it's how far you want to take it.  And that usually translate into how much money you have or want to spend. 

My guess on this is that Shutterfly knows their business and calibrates stuff themselves prior to printing.