Louise in the grass

[Bobalongwhale]

I took this picture of my daughter one morning in the New Forest and I quite like it, however whener I attempt to print it (A3) the colours and contrast are all wrong. I have made several attempts at rectifying it with Adobe Photo Elements, but I cannot seem to get it right (OK I am a newbie at post production so that might not help either ). The best print I managed to get was on plain paper with the office printer !

Any piece of advice on this but also on the photo itself would be most welcome.

Thanks !

Nikon D40 - 50-200mm lens
Aperture 4.5
Shutter speed 1/160
Focal length 75mm
Iso 200

[OsmosisStudios]

Is your monitor calibrated? is it calibrated to any particular printer?

[Niresangwa]

what a great little picture.

as Os mentioned, calibration will help.

missing the exif data (as per the forum rules) i'm just guessing, but it looks underexposed. If you were able to run it through PS this could be accounted for however with a curves adjustment, a little saturation boost and maybe a warming filter.

edit: I downloaded the image and worked with it, literally for 60 seconds, and was able to fix the exposure quite easily. If you have the curves feature in elements (i don't know, as i dont have it) try a curves adjustment to approx Output:140, Input:100. Boosted saturation +12, applied a warming filter at 38% and it turned out quite delectable. No time to upload the copy however.

[prince]

Hardware for calibration is very expensive.. which are also most preferred by pros. There are some software applications that might be at budget. Also, try some free calibration articles.. but they are very basic and may not be very accurate.. Monitor calibration and setup for photography and printing

As Os said calibrating your monitor as well as your printer will help you get close to what you saw through the viewfinder

Good luck!!

[Krusty79]

What colorspace are you using? If you're using Adobe RGB, it has more colors than most printers can reproduce. When I worked at a digital printing company, they wanted photographers to submit images in "regular" RGB.

I did look at a histogram of your image and it is underexposed.

[LeeR]

I don't believe this is a printer or colorspace problem; it is a post processing problem. My experience has been that when the post is done correctly the printer suddenly seems to do a much better job. Your image looks flat and unappealing because it is underexposed and uses only a limited part of the tonal range. Fix those problems and you have not only a much more appealing image, but one that should print better as well.
If I am wrong I'll be the first to apologize, but give this image a try and see if your printer doesn't suddenly spring to life.

[OsmosisStudios]

Originally Posted by prince

Hardware for calibration is very expensive.. which are also most preferred by pros.

It really doesnt have to be, but if you insist.

[Bobalongwhale]

Originally Posted by Niresangwa

what a great little picture.

as Os mentioned, calibration will help.

missing the exif data (as per the forum rules) i'm just guessing, but it looks underexposed. If you were able to run it through PS this could be accounted for however with a curves adjustment, a little saturation boost and maybe a warming filter.

edit: I downloaded the image and worked with it, literally for 60 seconds, and was able to fix the exposure quite easily. If you have the curves feature in elements (i don't know, as i dont have it) try a curves adjustment to approx Output:140, Input:100. Boosted saturation +12, applied a warming filter at 38% and it turned out quite delectable. No time to upload the copy however.

I have now input the exif data. Thanks a lot for your feedback

[Bobalongwhale]

Originally Posted by LeeR

I don't believe this is a printer or colorspace problem; it is a post processing problem. My experience has been that when the post is done correctly the printer suddenly seems to do a much better job. Your image looks flat and unappealing because it is underexposed and uses only a limited part of the tonal range. Fix those problems and you have not only a much more appealing image, but one that should print better as well.
If I am wrong I'll be the first to apologize, but give this image a try and see if your printer doesn't suddenly spring to life.

Thanks very much. I guess I need to practice with post processing.... Your version of the photo is much punchier. I just can't open it any bigger?

[LeeR]

If you click on the image it should take you to the flickr page where I have posted this under the "Private" setting. (I want no confusion about whose image this is.) Once there, right clock on the image and you will see an option to view the image in its original size which you should be able to save. If you have trouble, please let me know and we will figure out another way to get it to you.