Photos look different on distilled pdf than photoshop edit

I have a customer who prints her tabloid with us> Yesterday she sent a couple screen shots to show me the difference in her black and white photos
that she edits in photoshop compared to that edited pic on the finished pdf which she then sends to me.
She is concerned because the photo in photoshop after she edits it to what she wants it to look like looks considerably lighter on the pdf.
Anyone know what causes this?
thanks

It all depends on the print condition, the accuracy of the ICC profiles, and the accuracy of the display (the monitor needs to be properly calibrated and profiled).
Black ink only can print pretty dark and rich using a sheetfed press and a #1 coated sheet. So much depends on the characteristics of the paper and the solid black ink density. Still, no halftone can ever print as deep as a black and white image using CMYK, or 2 hits of black.
Generally speaking the default dot gain 20 is not the most accurate profile for grayscale. The absolute best course of action is to obtain a CMYK profile from the printer or get them to recommend one. Then a grayscale profile can be generated from this CMYK very easily. If you are interested I can tell you how.

Similar Messages

  • Elements 10, windows 8, 64 bit, epson artisan 835 printer: prints are really dark even after using enhancements like adjusting lighting. Prints are darker than photoshop edit screen. Prints are acceptable using paint, windows photo viewer, or gallery.

    Elements 10, Windows 8, 64 bit, Epson Artisan 835 printer: Prints are really dark even after applying enhancements, like adjusting lighting. Prints are darker than Photoshop Edit Screen. Prints are acceptable using Paint, Windows Photoviewer, or Photo Gallery.

    In general theory, one now has the Edit button for their posts, until someone/anyone Replies to it. I've had Edit available for weeks, as opposed to the old forum's ~ 30 mins.
    That, however, is in theory. I've posted, and immediately seen something that needed editing, only to find NO Replies, yet the Edit button is no longer available, only seconds later. Still, in that same thread, I'd have the Edit button from older posts, to which there had also been no Replies even after several days/weeks. Found one that had to be over a month old, and Edit was still there.
    Do not know the why/how of this behavior. At first, I thought that maybe there WAS a Reply, that "ate" my Edit button, but had not Refreshed on my screen. Refresh still showed no Replies, just no Edit either. In those cases, I just Reply and mention the [Edit].
    Also, it seems that the buttons get very scrambled at times, and Refresh does not always clear that up. I end up clicking where I "think" the right button should be and hope for the best. Seems that when the buttons do bunch up they can appear at random around the page, often three atop one another, and maybe one way the heck out in left-field.
    While I'm on a role, it would be nice to be able to switch between Flattened and Threaded Views on the fly. Each has a use, and having to go to Options and then come back down to the thread is a very slow process. Jive is probably incapable of this, but I can dream.
    Hunt

  • Color balance looks different going from lightroom to photoshop which is correct?

    color balance looks different going from lightroom to photoshop which is correct?

    Besides calibrating you rmonitor:
    Make sure that in PS you have selected ProPhoto RGB as Working Space.
    Go > Edit > Color Settings.
    LR uses ProPhoto RGB and tht cannot be changed. So you have to make sure that PS uses the same Working Space.
    WW

  • Photos look different in Photoshop than when viewed with Picture Viewer

    I am running Windows XP, using Photoshop CS2, with a Samsung SyncMaster LCD monitor. I have recently noticed that my picures look different when viewing with Picture Viewer than when the same picture is opened in Photoshop. The photoshop version is much lighter while the pic viewer version is darker. I want to make sure of what I'm sending to my online printers. Do I have color setting wrong? My color setting in Photoshop are: sRGB IEC61966-2.1, U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2, Dot Gain 20%, and Dot Gain 20%. And preserved embedded profiles for RGB, CMYK, and Gray. Is the problem with calibrating my monitor, and if so, do you know of any free calibration software? I'm on a budget.
    I appreciate any help. Thanks.

    Well, it surely is a problem with your monitor settings, but, forgive me for saying this, mentioning "sending stuff to the printers" and then asking for free calibration software is a bit naive. If Adobe Gamma, the settings in PS itself and the color calibration in Windows don't cut it, then your system is seriously bent in terms of color and some other steps are required first.
    a) reset your monitor to its default color temperature and brightness
    b) get rid of any color tweaking your graphics card may introduce
    With a clean slate, create a color reference image (pure colors, grayscale gradient) with all color calibration turned off and see how it looks at the system level and in PS. Now you can begin to adjust settings everywhere and re-enable color profiles until the results match in sRGB space.
    The rest is pretty much unpredictable. Unless you gain access to the exact color profiles of the target device (the printer) and your monitor is properly hardware calibrated, there will always be minute variations. The only thing you can do is to solely rely on your visually aligned sRGB setup and have all color profile adjustments and color space conversions done at your printer. However, even that's assuming you do not wander too far off the default values and the sRGB is indeed "intact".
    Mylenium

  • Colors look different in browser window than in InDesign or Photoshop

    So, the colors look quite different (brighter) on Kuler (in
    my Firefox browser window), than when I download or copy the CMYK
    numbers exactly over to InDesign or Photoshop. In Kuler, the colors
    are significantly brighter and more saturated than how they appear
    in my design software.
    My coworker theorizes that InDesign & Photoshop are
    'compensating' for how the color will actually look when printed.
    Thoughts? Is there a setting I need to change on either
    Firefox or my Adobe software so the colors match up?

    I have a similar problem - colours look brigher in Firefox,
    IE and Photoshop, darker in Illustrator and Dreamweaver. I've tried
    resetting the color settings in Bridge, but still get the same
    difference between Photoshop, and Illustrator and Dreamweaver. I
    can't understand this at all. I don't know if it has something to
    do with the fact that I have a color profile called "Natural Color
    Pro" installed on my computer (came with the monitor) which
    Photoshop reminds me is faulty every time I open it - I tell it to
    ignore the profile. I don't seem to be able to uninstall it for
    some reason.

  • Photos look different (bad) when placed in InDesign CS4

    I'm having a problem in that my photos look bad when viewed in InDesign. I labor on my photos until they're looking perfect in Photoshop -- with just the right color balance and tonalities -- but when I place them in ID, they look much darker and redder, or oversaturated. Then I look at them again in Photoshop, and they look fine. What gives? Which program is showing the real state of the photo? Btw, the photos are using the same color profile in both programs and the monitor is unchanged b/w viewings.
    I'm wondering if anyone has had a similar experience and what I can do about this? It makes me very nervous to see my photos looking so bad in InDesign, where I prepare my layouts for offset printing. Will they print as I see them in Photoshop or will they print as I see them in InDesign (which would be dreadful)? At this point I'm hesitant to make further adjustments and hoping it's the Photoshop view that's correct.
    But why is this happening in the first place? Is there some setting I should be fixing? Or is there a color issue or incompatiblity b/w Photoshop and InDesign that I'm unaware of?
    I'm using ID and Photoshop CS4 on Mac OSX 10.4.11
    Hope someone out there can help me with this issue.
    Thanks in advance!
    Scarlett

    There's a discrepancy in the way Photoshop and ID display images on the screen. I wasn't aware of this before.
    If your display performance is set at High Quality there's no significant difference in the way color is displayed between PS and ID. The screen capture linked below shows a CMYK file with no profile assigned, side by side in ID and PS. The ID file has no profile assigned and the CMYK Working Spaces are the same for both programs:
    http://www.zenodesign.com/scripts/IDPS.png
    You can check the RGB values of the screen capture in Photoshop and there is virtually no difference—I could only find an occasional 1 gray level in 1 channel shift.
    If you are seeing a color change with a High Quality display setting then chances are you have a color management issue.
    Syncing your Color Settings doesn't guarantee matching color between the programs because you are just syncing the program's Working Spaces, and they don't necessarily color manage the documents (assigned profiles override the Working Space). If you are assigning profiles in PS, the assigned profiles need to match your ID doc's assigned profile (which could be different then the ID Working Space)

  • Photos look different in Light room vs. PS2 or any other photo software

    Using LR2,PS2 and ACDSee8.0 on windows xp pro. I have no trouble exporting or importing photos to LR. My problem is the photos have a different tone or color in light room. When I make changes and export to say photoshop, its as if no changes were transferred to Photoshop. Best way I can describe is: Nature photo looks like evening light in LR and exported to PS2 looks like midday original light. Any Ideas?

    Recalibrate your display. This is the clear symptom of a bad monitor profile (or of an incorrectly setup Photoshop but that is more rare.)

  • Templates look different in FCE HD than in LT

    I'm starting to use templates in LT in a project I'm working on to jazz it up a little.
    I use 2 LT stock templates, modify the the background colors, adjust some font sizes, add a drop shadow here & there, do a little extrusion on some of the LT fonts, and it looks great when I save and render it in LT.
    I play back the LT render file in LT and it looks just like I want it.
    After I import the render file into FCE HD (3.0), place it on the time line, render it, and then finally get to see what it looks like, some of the font colors are wrong and there appears to be some aliasing happening on the fonts themselves making the whole thing look second rate - not sharp and crisp like it was in LT.
    Is it a no no to extrude fonts?
    I also get aliasing on the stock non-animated fonts when I change their color. In one case from black to a dark green . In this case I also put a .5 px stroke around the font to help with contrast against the background.
    Could the .5 px stroke be aliasing?
    The dark green also comnes out looking grungy and frazzeled.
    Any help would be appreciated. This has happend in several templates now.
    Ken

    I have never tried importing the .ifr file from LT because I want to see what it looks like before it goes to FCE.< </div>
    You get used to estimating timing and anticipating your results with experience.
    Tom said that basically it doesn't play well in the time line because it gets compressed by a factor of 5 when it goes to DV AND that even though I'm using a 19" Apple Studio Display, that the display is not showing it like it would play from a DVD to a TV. < </div>
    Tom Wolsky knows all this stuff inside and out.
    And interlacing gets in the way or something like that, and yeah I'm so newbee my wings are still tired just getting to this hive.< </div>
    We were all new at this at one time or another. Welcome tot he family.
    But this brings up another question. Since exporting the sequence to a QT self-contained movie and burning it on a DVD means that it gets even further compressed into mpeg, how is that the LT scenes actually display much better on a TV (which is way larger) than in the canvas? Is that where the interlacing thing comes in? < </div>
    Umm, no.
    I have never really understood why video has 2 images in one frame when film gets buy just fine with one. Can you point me in the right direction to learn about that?< </div>
    Different universes of time. But when film gets transferred to vidoe, those single frames get interlaced and interleaved with a process known as 3-2 Pulldown. That will give you a headache because there are many different types of pulldown.
    Anyhow, why buy a video monitor if it's all going to sort itself out in the bake and shake process going to DVD? < </div>
    That's a stylistic question you will answer for yourself in a few months.
    And if one really should have a "video monitor" are there any decent ones that aren't megabucks? My understanding is that it's going to look different on the TV any how, correct? < </div>
    It's not that easy, TV and video are different, too.
    So does this mean that when we create in LiveType, we are creating a NON-Interlaced image that looks so sharp & clear on the non-interalced computer screen? And that the interlacing gets put in during the rendering process in FCE? And that interlacing makes the LiveTyp image look like it's got ants in its pants (fuzzy)on the computer screen? < </div>
    There's an option in your prject settings to use NONE, LOWER or UPPER fileds for your movie. Set it to LOWER. If you use NONE< you will get a progressive render.
    <div class="jive-quote">Do I have it or do I have to go back to school?< </div>
    It might help but we do that every day around here. Don't sweat the small stuff but, now that you have some fundamental grounding in video basics, you could benefit dramatically from reading the LT manual and doing the tutorials one more time. They'll make some sense this time around.
    Bogiesan

  • Dark areas in photos looks different in Loupe and Develope

    First let me say that I´ve created a similar thread in lightroomforums.net.
    Let me also add that I´ve made extensive research on the web and also read this post: Why does the color and or tone of my image change after import?
    This is my current setup.
    I run lightroom 5.6, OSX 10.10.
    I have been shooting with a 7D or a EOS M in RAW, Adobe RGB With picture style set to standard and no JPG´s.
    I have imported my photos as DNG´s with no develop settings applied and build previews set to 1:1 (I have tried different settings here).
    I have my Catalog Settings / Preview Cache set to 2880 pixels, quality: High (I have also tried different settings here) (I have a very big screen)
    Now to my problem.
    Now when I review my photos in 1:1 (or any other size) the dark areas looks good in develop module but when i go back to Loupe the dark areas have a slightly brighter, less contrast look.
    This problem only occurs in the darkest parts and does not effect the rest of the image. The overall picture looks the same except for the very darkest parts.
    I have tried different monitor calibration settings but the issue persists.
    I have tried to create a new catalog, import some new shots but with no difference.
    I have also done the same but instead of import to DNG´s I have copied the CR2´s, no difference.
    I have tried to optimized the catalog and I have also "Update DNG previews and metadata", no difference.
    When "edit file in photoshop CC" the version of the photo that opens in photoshop is the "Loupe" view.
    This only happens with RAW/DNG files and not with TIFF or JPG.
    Here is a picture that in my case looks very bad in Loupe view but significantly better in Develop View: Dropbox - IMG_3662.dng
    I will also try to post two screendumps at 2:1 from the the two views. The picture with more darks in it is the screendump from the develop module and the less dark is from the loupe view.
    Why is this occurring? How can I stop it?
    Any help is highly appreciated.
    UPDATE:
    I have taken 4 new shots with the same setup as described above.
    But with different color settings and picture styles.
    Adobe RGB - Standard
    Adobe RGB - Neutral
    sRGB - Standard
    sRGB - Neutral
    With the same results. Dark areas look darker in Develope module.
    Message was edited by: K E I added some extra information

    ELBE wrote:
    Here's my problem:
    Magic Wand is configured like this:
    Tolerance: 0
    Continuous [sic]: Not active    [emphasis added] …
    There indeed is your problem.  Check the "Contiguous" box:

  • Images Look Different in Finder Compared to Photoshop

    Hi,
    I have a bunch of photos on my MacBook. They have all got profiles embedded. When in Finder they look much less saturated than when opened in Photoshop. It seems as though Finder doesn't honor the profiles unless they are in Apple RGB, ColorMatch RGB or sRGB IEC61966-2.1 when they look in Finder how they look in photoshop.
    I store my profiles in Mac HD>Library>ColorSync>Profiles
    Can anyone help?

    UPDATE: When I use column view in Finder the Preview looks correct. But the thumbnail when in thumbnail view looks incorrect....

  • Photos appear much darker in Lightroom than Photoshop or Picassa

    Hi
    I've just put Lightroom onto my PC but all the photos I've imported look much darker than when I look at them in either photoshop or picassa.
    I have to up the exposure and fill light to get the photos to match how they look in photoshop.
    Is there something I need to do to rectify this?
    Cheers Rob

    That definitely indicates the profile is to blame. If you care about your
    prints and how your images look to others, it is a very good idea to buy a
    hardware calibrator. Even the cheap ones (Huey Pro, SPyder 2, etc) do a
    pretty good job. You really need separate hardware to do this. If you run
    Windows 7 or Mac OS X there is a built-in software calibrator that uses your
    eyes, but these usually do a pretty poor job.
    To test the hypothesis and since you're running windows, try the following.
    Open up your monitor's properties pane. Navigate to "color management" and
    delete the profile you see there associated with your monitor (probably
    called Samsung Natural Color something). Apply the changes and restart
    Lightroom. You should now get identical (but wrong since you haven't
    actually calibrated) color in both apps. Doing this makes Windows assume
    your monitor is sRGB, which is rarely true nowadays. This is better though
    than using the corrupt profile.

  • Trouble with photos looking different after exporting to LR5

    I am new to lightroom 5.  My photos do not look the same after exporting to CD or to a photo lab for printing.  I am exporting to my hard drive before burning to CD.  Can someone help?  I am starting with RAW or CR2 files before editing.

    What export settings are you using. For jpegs I always choose color space as sRGB (unless the printer requests Argb) and then I set print  size, with resolution between 240 and 300 ppi. For glossy paper I choose a high sharpening setting.
    It’s also possible to print a whole batch to jpeg files using the Print Module (see image below). You can then set an output value for brightening and contrast.
    This can be useful as many people using uncalibrated monitors often find prints look darker than shown on their PC. When using for the first time it’s well worthwhile doing a test batch using different settings to see which gives you the best results.

  • My photos look worse in iPhoto 6 than in iPhoto 4

    In iPhoto 6 on my new MacBook Pro, the quality of images from my Canon PowerShot SD300 is lower than that of the images from the same camera in iPhoto 4 on my iBook G4. When I email photos from the new computer via Apple Mail, they look worse than emailed photos from my old system do--even when I contrast a small 30-40 KB iPhoto 4 image to a 150-900 KB iPhoto 6 image. Is this possible? If it is, then can I change a setting in iPhoto or on my camera, or do something, to rectify the situation?
    MacBook Pro   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

    Thanks for replying, Old Toad. Sorry for my delay in getting back to you.
    When I compare the same image, in edit mode, in iPhoto 4 (on my iBook G4) and in iPhoto 6 (on the MacBook Pro), the first distinction to make is that in 6 the color, especially red, is much richer. The same picture in 4 looks washed out. But while the contrast is higher in 6, the 6 image is less sharp than the 4 copy: in 6 everything's a little fuzzier, blurrier, more pixillated; lines are less distinct. It's as if the color is richer in 6 because the dot pattern is more apparent. This is especially evident when I email the pictures.
    I should add that I've been comparing pictures at the default settings in 4 and 6. When I increase the sharpness in 6 (which I do not know how to do in 4), the problem seems to lessen---until I email the photo. In an email, the sharper 6 image is grainy and, overall, worse.
    Can I do anything else to improve the quality of images in 6? Thanks again.
    MacBook Pro   Mac OS X (10.4.6)  

  • Colours look different in Elements compared with Photoshop Album

    Hello All,
    I have a bit of a problem with Elements 5.0. When I import a RAW file and save to jpeg (at the maximum image quality selection) I have the image exactly as I want it. However if I then double click the image from the folder where it is stored it opens in Photoshop Starter Edition 3.0 and the colours of the image are much warmer with skin tones appearing more pink.
    If I then open the same image back in Elements it appears all ok.
    Has anyone else had this issue whereby Elements displays an image differently to other programs?
    Help!!
    Grant

    UPDATE: When I use column view in Finder the Preview looks correct. But the thumbnail when in thumbnail view looks incorrect....

  • Photo looks different when decreasing exposure with adj. brush & when decreasing exp. on whole photo

    I want to darken the overexposed sky in a photo. I reduced the exposure ( - 4 EV) of the whole photo to see how the sky would look. It looked great. Deep blue sky with white clouds with light gray areas. Then I reset the exposure & painted the sky with the adjustment brush set to Exposure - 4 EV. The sky looked terrible. Clouds were dark grayish black in some areas. I increased the exposure to - 3 EV & then - 2.5 EV & it looked less terrible but not good. Why is there such a difference in the way the sky looks when changing the exposure of the whole photo & changing it with the adjustment brush. Thanks!

    It is a known issue with how the adjustment brush works in exposure
    compensation mode. Hopefully it will be fixed in the future.
    I want to darken the overexposed sky in a photo. I reduced the exposure ( - 4
    EV) of the whole photo to see how the sky would look. It looked great. Deep
    blue sky with white clouds with light gray areas. Then I reset the exposure &
    painted the sky with the adjustment brush set to Exposure - 4 EV. The sky
    looked terrible. Clouds were dark grayish black in some areas. I increased the
    exposure to - 3 EV & then - 2.5 EV & it looked less terrible but not good. Why
    is there such a difference in the way the sky looks when changing the exposure
    of the whole photo & changing it with the adjustment brush. Thanks!

Maybe you are looking for