Computer requirements for digital photography

[Caddis]

I just picked up a new camera (Nikon D3100), and I would like to be able to do a little processing on the images. However, my computer is so old that it can't handle it.

 

So I am looking for suggestions on what things I should look for when I am shopping for a new one. I am a software developer, but I don't know a lot about hardware, and I am just getting started with the digital photography thing.

 

So are there some "must haves" that I should be aware of? For example, is there a minimum amount memory that you would recommend (I will probably use Lightroom 3, or something similar)? Is there any reason to favor one type of processor over another for this type of work? Is there anything special that I should look for in a monitor? Anything else?

 

[beemerman2k]

Nice camera! I use Lightroom 3 and think it's fantastic software. You'll want to shoot in Raw (or jpg + raw) as you can really tailor the image using Lightroom if it's a Raw file.

 

My computer is an older model: an Intel Core 2 Duo 1.8Ghz with 4GB RAM and about 4TB of disk space Hey, I've taken a ton of photos with my D70s over the years! My processor, however, is way too slow for Lightroom. Fortunately, pretty much any computer you buy today will be more than powerful enough for processing photos in Lightroom. My priorities for my next system are as follows:

 

- 8 GB RAM

- Quad Core Processor (I like AMD, so I'd get their Phenom X4 or X6 at near or above 3Ghz)

- Decent Nvidia or ATI graphics card

- Lots of disk space (and maybe an external drive for photo backups)

 

One might think my next system is over powered for this purpose, but have you ever exported Raw, edited images in Lightroom to jpg files? It takes all day and renders the computer pretty much useless as the CPU's peg the redline and gigabytes of RAM are consumed.

 

I now own a Nikon D7000, so exporting those 20MB Raw files from Lightroom takes quite a while! No problem with my 5MB Raw files from my D70s, but a big problem with the D7000 Raw files.

[JayW]

I agree with Beemerman2K, though I don't bother with RAW files unless I shoot a wedding. I find JPEGs are excellent for day-to-day shooting and require much less storage space. Yeah, this is a controversial issue, but to me the benefits are usually not worth the extra space and bother.

 

I also use Lightroom 3, and it runs well on my 3 year old IBM laptop. It has an Intel Centrino Duo processor with 3 GB of RAM. Virtually any new computer would exceed those specs. I hook up an external monitor for serious photo perusing. I still keep most of my images on the HD, though back them up to an external drive too.

 

A D7000? Just when I reach a level of contentment with my D5000, this comes along to tempt me.

 

Jay

[beemerman2k]

For years I didn't bother with Raw at all. Now I am sorry I didn't. David Baker and Scott Adams turned me on to the post processing of my photos. I was quite content with in-camera processing until they showed me how much better my pictures could look if I just took control of the process. Now, I only shoot Raw as I know I am going to edit the pictures in Lightroom myself. Lightroom makes this easier as I can edit multiple files at a time. If I had to do them one by one, then forget it! I don't have that kind of time at all.

 

In any case, I have pictures now that I cherish but took back before I appreciated post processing, so I only have jpg copies of them

 

The D7000 is an awesome camera, but I only bought it for its support for ISO 6400, and extended ISO support to 25,600. Most of my pictures are shot indoors and at night. My kids are usually performing on stage at some school function or playing sports (ballet, indoor basketball, etc), so I need a camera that will capture fast moving images in these kind of settings. My D70s, as much as I love that camera, only supported ISO 1600, and you really didn't want to dial it up much beyond ISO 800 or you'll get a ton of noise. I love the noise reduction support in Lightroom 3. In any case, when I pop my Nikon 35mm F1.8 prime on the D7K, there isn't much I cannot easily freeze to capture as a clean, low noise image

 

BTW, Kevin (the OP) is dealing with 14MB files if he shoots lossless compressed Raw, so those Lightroom exports to jpg are going to be awfully taxing. Jay, you're dealing with 12MB files when you decide to shoot Raw, don't you find the Export process in Lightroom to be rather computer cycle intensive when you do process Raw files?

[Twisties]

For LR (and most photo processing software):

 

Not much use of the video card. Processing is done on the main cores. Excellent use of multi-core machines, up to 22 threads running simultaneously. LR is probably the piggiest program I have used. CS5 and PS Elements are much less demanding. More RAM is better. I had doggy performance on a dual core WP machine with 4 gb ram (maybe it used 3 gb). My W7 Core i7 (quad core running as 8 cores) with 9 GB ram flies. On the other hand, my 1 y.o. ulv dual core laptop (2x 1.3 ghz) does fairly well, as well. I think w7 just does a much better job of this than did XP. That and faster busses and other ancillaries in newer machines. You are going to eat up hard drive storage space rapidly. I can pile up 8 gb of images in a day easily. You also may want to consider back up options.

 

Bottom line: Put money in processors and hard drives, back up, and ram. Probably in reverse order if you must prioritize.

 

A few minor points before moving on: 7200 rpm or better hard drives, a card reader, plenty of usb 2.0 ports.

 

Monitor. Yes. Major issues there. First of all you will want a monitor calibration system. I use Colormunki, but might choose something else next time... Look at Spyder. I think calibration is the most bang for buck.

 

Second, there are three types of monitor technologies. The IPS panel technology is generally recommended for photo processing. There are options from $200 - $8000 depending on size, resolution, options, and manufacturer. After technology, resolution is the next most important factor. What percent of the pixels you capture will you be able to see? At one time I was salivating over this one, although I have yet to upgrade my monitor:

 

U2711

 

Since I got over it, the user reviews piled up and I am glad I didn't get this one. But it gives you an idea of the middle of the range. For about $200 you can get something with good quality and like half this much size and resolution, say a 19" with 1200 pixels. A lot folk find the sweet spot at about 23-24" and 1600-1800 pixels. If it was me, I'd pony up for 2560 pixels.

 

Software: LR should do for you unless you really want to spend a lot of time with post-processing. CS5 offers much more control, but so far I don't really use it much. I am planning to force myself with my Death Valley days shots though. CS5 is a tall learning curve and much work. LR does much and is fast.

 

PS Elements is a bit too crippled.

 

Look at Microsoft ICE (free) for panorama editing, and a free trial of Photomatix Pro for hdr editing (somewhat crippled on trial version, but useful).

 

[Twisties]

Oh, and 64-bit Operating system.

[ghaverkamp]

If it was me, I'd pony up for 2560 pixels.

 

I'll just note that video card does become important at 2560 width, as that will require dual-link DVI, and some of the video cards shoved into otherwise beefy machines sometimes don't have it. (Having recently been in the market for a system with decent video capabilities, I was appalled by how many folks seemed to shave all their costs on the video card.)

 

Software: LR should do for you unless you really want to spend a lot of time with post-processing. CS5 offers much more control, but so far I don't really use it much. I am planning to force myself with my Death Valley days shots though. CS5 is a tall learning curve and much work. LR does much and is fast.

 

PS Elements is a bit too crippled.

 

Am interested in both of these points. I'm just starting out myself (complete n00b), having been inspired by the works of several around here. The reviews I've read suggest that there's little that even highly skilled photographers need to do in Photoshop CS5 (though I guess HDR might be a big one, which I gather you're looking at based on other comments) that LR3 itself or even Elements can't accomplish.

 

For now, I'm far short of even needing to worry about software...

[Twisties]

I have LR2. Looks like LR3 has added a lot. I'll down load a trial and get back to you on CS5 v LR3. However, the fundamental difference is no ability to apply layers. I doubt they changed that.

 

PSE doesn't allow the same bit depth and image file choices as LR and CS5. I find the difference noticeable even for internet display resolutions and have stopped using it. Too much down sampling. I was outputting a jpeg from LR and adding the Blind Man Images copyright notice in PSE. But the down sampling just drove me nuts. Now I am using CS5 for that. Looks like LR3 would solve that issue for me.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

Wow Jan, your photos on SmugMug are awesome!

[Caddis]

Thanks for all of the good info. It gives me a lot to think about.

 

Of course, I will need to spend time learning how to use the camera, and getting better at taking photos. This should be fun...

 

 

[Twisties]

@Greg: I just looked at LR3. It is still fundamentally what LR2 is, with a few tweaks that should make it more useful. Lens correction, adding a useful watermark/copyright notice, better noise reduction, a couple of more options here and there are all nice things. I may pop for the upgrade fee.

 

However, that means the differences between LR3 and CS5 remain pretty substantial.

 

These are fundamentally different programs. Besides the blockbuster features of CS5 such as HDR and Content Aware Fill, CS5 has much, much more refined selection tools, the use of adjustment layers to edit images allows far more control and frankly much broader possibilities, the ability to add text, graphics, copy from one image to another, etc are also fairly profound. CS5 is much more of a full editor.

 

The disadvantages to CS5 compared to LR in so far as I can see are: price, complexity and learning curve, speed of processing, Adobe Camera Raw work flow is on top of other editing (LR just has one integrated editing space).

 

I should clarify my earlier comments on PSE. To get photos from LR to PSE I would have liked to use a lossless or low loss format such as psd or maybe tiff. When I did this I would have to down sample in pse. I believe to 8-bit image depth, IIRC. So I ended up exporting jpegs to pse and adding the copyright info. This resulted in loss. I believe as a result of several factors: One jpegs are a lossy format. However, I would think you could do one edit cycle on a jpeg without too much damage. The jpeg saving routine from pse is different than from LR. It was a complete reprocess with different parameters. Anyway, it just didn't work. I think in general pse doesn't handle the bit depths of good dSLRs. PSE has some RAW editing tools, but lacks the full suite. You can do a lot with it and it's a great value. I would certainly recommend it to anyone with a P&S camera.

[Twisties]

Wow Jan, your photos on SmugMug are awesome!

 

Thanks James.

 

Some of those galleries at the bottom are Sharon's, in the interest of credit where credit is due. I really need to update that page! That's about a year and a half behind the times.

[JayW]

..Jay, you're dealing with 12MB files when you decide to shoot Raw, don't you find the Export process in Lightroom to be rather computer cycle intensive when you do process Raw files?

 

Maybe I don't know what I am missing, but my IBM laptop seems to do the job pretty fast. OTOH, most of my photos are JPEGs which are speedier on any machine. I still use XP, and perhaps that allows a processing speed that would otherwise be unavailable with Vista or Win7 on my aging machine.

 

I need to upgrade soon, but I prefer a 4:3 screen size because it travels so well, and is best for viewing documents. All the new laptops are widescreen, or shortscreen as I call them. As I said earlier, I wire my laptop to a larger monitor when I am working with photos at home.

 

Your comments about RAW files have me considering doing some additional experimentation with them. I don't know as much as I would like to about the considerable capabilities of LR.

 

Jay

[Twisties]

I agree with Beemerman2K, though I don't bother with RAW files unless I shoot a wedding. I find JPEGs are excellent for day-to-day shooting and require much less storage space. Yeah, this is a controversial issue, but to me the benefits are usually not worth the extra space and bother.

 

This is probably very camera dependent. Yours may be one that produces good jpgs.

 

With LR you can now do most, if not all, of the same edits on jpgs as you can on raw. It used to be that you could not adjust white balance on a jpeg for instance. However, I don't think you get the full range of adjustment, as much of the info has been discarded.

 

Jpegs are a lossy format, but I believe LR uses non-destructive editing form them too, so you will only get loss on export.

 

My camera just did such poor jpegs that I went into raw after the first few days.

 

The main issue with jpegs is that the camera applies noise reduction that can not be undone. This can result in loss of resolution. Jpegs are also compressed, so much information has been discarded (why files are smaller). Generally the preferred approach is to apply your own noise reduction as the final step in post-processing. Actually, I almost never apply any. Therefore, for me, the raw images seem to have noticeably more resolution and pop than the jpegs produced by my camera.

 

The price of raw is:

 

Slower recovery from multiple shots (buffer full, sit and wait before you can shoot again)

 

larger file storage size, and accompanying longer transfer times, larger memory card requirements, and bigger hard drive requirements

 

More post-processing required.

 

To me though the post-processing is like having my own digital darkroom. It's a lot of where the fun and creative process happens.

 

No right or wrong here. I just wanted to put the opposing view on the table.

[Twisties]

BTW, Kevin (the OP) is dealing with 14MB files if he shoots lossless compressed Raw, so those Lightroom exports to jpg are going to be awfully taxing. Jay, you're dealing with 12MB files when you decide to shoot Raw, don't you find the Export process in Lightroom to be rather computer cycle intensive when you do process Raw files?

 

I just exported 20 jpgs in 2.5 minutes on the laptop using LR3. Seemed slower than LR2, but still this seems reasonable to me. Quite a bit less on the core i7, 30 seconds. Using LR2 still there, but most of the difference would be machine specs.

 

The dual core laptop ran both cores at 100% most of the time. The core i7 used all 8 virtual cores evenly and managed about 50-60% overall processing capacity.

 

My raw files are anywhere 15 to 19 mB.

[Francois_Dumas]

I guess I'm the odd one out here, but I used to shoot just jpg's up until a few years ago. I still use them a lot, but that's because most of my results are aimed at computer viewing, on the Internet.

Now with more storage space available, both off- and on-line, I shoot RAW or RAW+jpg.

 

I now have a D70 and a D300s.

 

Where I am 'odd' is that although I own Photoshop (and tried a few other programs) I am a long-time ACDSee Pro user.

 

After quite a few trials with other programs, I feel I am best versed with this program, it does all I need and want (and one cannot be blamed for not wanting something one doesn't know), and has served me well over many years.

 

I think it is cheaper than the rest too, but haven't looked up recent pricing.

 

For blowing up 'lower-quality' pictures I use PhotoZoom 4 Pro.

 

But all the peeps above are probably more professional than I am, so don't worry! :-) They make great photos !

[Twisties]

FWIW, LR3 is definitely significantly slower then LR2. I can say after doing some processing tonight.

[beemerman2k]

FWIW, LR3 is definitely significantly slower then LR2. I can say after doing some processing tonight.

 

Some of the sliders in the "Develop" module get slow after a time using the software. Makes me think there is memory being allocated that is never being freed. But for the epitome of slow, export your Raw files as jpgs, that process brings my computer to its knees!

 

BTW Jan, what type of camera(s) do you use? I always like to know what people are using out there.

 

As I already mentioned, I use a Nikon D7000 usually paired with my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 lens (w/o VC) or a Nikon 35mm F/1.8 prime.

[Couchrocket]

FWIW, LR3 is definitely significantly slower then LR2. I can say after doing some processing tonight.

 

Jan,

 

Go into preferences and make sure you've allocated sufficient disk space.

 

LR3's engine is brand new. Get the LR3 tutorials from Luminous Landscape. Watch them til your eyes bleed. It will be worth it.

 

Intel i7 do a better job w/ LR & CS5 than will AMD according to a computer builder in Seattle who sells both (and is helping me design my next machine).

 

For the OP & others, watch the performance meter as you process files. I thought I was running out of RAM, when what was really happpening was that only about a max of 6 of my 8 gigs was in play, but the CPU was slamming out at 100% and bogging down (AMD 2.4 quad core). That may help to figure out where to put the $$ in an upgrade.

 

My RAW files are 36 megs & a trip from LR to CS5 as TIFF can produce some excellent but HUGE files.

[Twisties]

FWIW, LR3 is definitely significantly slower then LR2. I can say after doing some processing tonight.

 

Some of the sliders in the "Develop" module get slow after a time using the software. Makes me think there is memory being allocated that is never being freed. But for the epitome of slow, export your Raw files as jpgs, that process brings my computer to its knees!

 

BTW Jan, what type of camera(s) do you use? I always like to know what people are using out there.

 

As I already mentioned, I use a Nikon D7000 usually paired with my Tamron 17-50mm F/2.8 lens (w/o VC) or a Nikon 35mm F/1.8 prime.

 

I have a Rebel XSi with a 10-22mm, a 100mm, and a 400mm. I have a couple of other lenses that I have more or less stopped using. I'll probably update the body very soon. It's coming on 3 years old and the iso improvements are getting to be very significant.

[Twisties]

FWIW, LR3 is definitely significantly slower then LR2. I can say after doing some processing tonight.

 

Jan,

 

Go into preferences and make sure you've allocated sufficient disk space.

 

LR3's engine is brand new. Get the LR3 tutorials from Luminous Landscape. Watch them til your eyes bleed. It will be worth it.

 

Intel i7 do a better job w/ LR & CS5 than will AMD according to a computer builder in Seattle who sells both (and is helping me design my next machine).

 

For the OP & others, watch the performance meter as you process files. I thought I was running out of RAM, when what was really happpening was that only about a max of 6 of my 8 gigs was in play, but the CPU was slamming out at 100% and bogging down (AMD 2.4 quad core). That may help to figure out where to put the $$ in an upgrade.

 

My RAW files are 36 megs & a trip from LR to CS5 as TIFF can produce some excellent but HUGE files.

 

On my dual core (2x 1.3) laptop I am pegging the processors. On my desktop it's neither ram, nor the processors so I assume I'm actually pegging disk write speed when outputting files. Editing files isn't pegging anything on that machine, smooth as silk, although I haven't tried LR3 on it yet.

[Couchrocket]

I just picked up a new camera (Nikon D3100), and I would like to be able to do a little processing on the images. However, my computer is so old that it can't handle it.

 

So I am looking for suggestions on what things I should look for when I am shopping for a new one. I am a software developer, but I don't know a lot about hardware, and I am just getting started with the digital photography thing.

 

So are there some "must haves" that I should be aware of? For example, is there a minimum amount memory that you would recommend (I will probably use Lightroom 3, or something similar)? Is there any reason to favor one type of processor over another for this type of work? Is there anything special that I should look for in a monitor? Anything else?

 

In my first response to Jan below, I mention processors. But I wanted to comment on monitors and calibration. I'll assume you're new to this, so forgive if I'm telling you stuff you already know. If you're images are primarily for display on computers, sharing in email, etc. then the monitor isn't "as" critical as it is if you intend to have high quality prints made - or make them yourself.

 

 

Monitors - look for:

 

% of Adobe RGB that they can display (the more the better).

User adjustable RGB channels, brightness, contrast

"satin" or matte screen surface (avoid reflections)

"even-ness" of display illumination (this is where the big bucks start to show up in monitors like LaCie and Eizo)

 

 

Brands to look into that have models that can meet the above considerations (in price / performance order):

 

HP

Viewsonic (VP series pro monitors)

NEC

LaCie

Eizo

 

MONITOR CALIBRATION

 

If you want your prints to look like your screen, you MUST calibrate your monitor. Lots of products out there for this, my current favorites:

 

X-write Eye 1-2 display w/ software

 

Colormunki - allows calibration of the entire work flow.

 

A general comment re monitors and prints. The most common complaint I hear is that, "My prints look too dark compared to what I see on the monitor." There are two primary reasons for this:

 

1. 99.9% of the LCD monitors out there today are WAY TOO BRIGHT at their default settings for photo editing. They are set up for "wow factor" in gaming etc. A good luminance value for photo editing starts at about 110 and goes down from there. Mine is currently calibrated to 90 and some folk even recommend 80.

 

2. Your monitor is a "projection device" and your images are "lit from behind" so to speak. Unless you have a good viewing booth for print evaluation, prints will almost always look "down" a little from what you see on the screen. You can learn about "soft proofing" if you get to the point where "exact" is what you need, rather than "close enough" between monitor and print.

 

The most important thing is to get your system where the output is predictable for you. If you don't bucks or inclination to really get into a profiled system, knowing how much "fudge factor" to compute for pint output is a decent alternative. You can create a virtual copy in LR3 and send it to Photoshop and create a brightness layer mask that automatically does the fudge factor for you.

 

This all may sound daunting, but it is actually pretty simple once you get your head around the basics. It is very fun and very satisfying when you create a great image in the field and then make a print that knocks your socks off.

 

Best,

Scott

[Couchrocket]

Jan,

 

Good deal... still, though, go take a look at: Edit, Preferences, File Handling (tab), Camera Raw Cache (at the bottom). Default can be pretty low - give it plenty of gigs to work with. That may be your issue if the processor and RAM are not overloaded.

 

Just to make sure that is "never" an issue for me, I have mine set to 75 gigs! LOL My next machine will have solid state drives to make this all go a lot faster.

[David]

I just put a 500 GB SSD in my 17" MacBook Pro, and all I can say is WOW!

[Couchrocket]

I just put a 500 GB SSD in my 17" MacBook Pro, and all I can say is WOW!

 

Rat-bag! Drool......

 

Have you been working in LR3? Or still Aperture?

 

LR3's sharpening, noise handling, and processing engine are another quantum leap.

 

As you probably know, my A900 isn't exactly famous for high ISO quality (a bit undeserved, but still true compared to Canon and Nikon flag-ships). LR3 has changed the game. Here's an image shot at ISO 1600 that is noiseless in a 17x25" print:

 

 

Like being gifted a new camera!

[Caddis]

Scott, I am new to this, so all of this information is helpful. I will probably just start with a middle of the road system for now, but knowing what things to watch for will help me avoid getting something that I regret.

 

Thanks.

[Couchrocket]

Scott, I am new to this, so all of this information is helpful. I will probably just start with a middle of the road system for now, but knowing what things to watch for will help me avoid getting something that I regret.

 

Thanks.

 

Glad it was helpful. And for the record, many many stunning images come from "middle of the road" set-ups! Some aspects of my own set-up are still "marginal" by David's standards... ... yet I still manage to make a decent print!

 

All kidding aside, just being aware of a systems capabilities will greatly aid in doing well. Some of my favorite and technically "best" prints are some that I made when my system was very far from optimal. The photographer's eye and learning to know what looks good to you and why are 98% of what is needed.

 

When you get to printing, give us a shout, and we can talk about the natty questions of printer drivers vs. your editing program being "in charge" of the printer. That's the single biggest difficulty and cause of prints being wildly different from the screen. "Dueling color management" - where both the printer driver and, say, Lightroom are both sending info to the printer.

 

Most of all, have fun!

[Linz]

I've seen enough of Lightroom 3 to believe that it's speed and problems are extremely device dependent. It's blindingly quick on my Mac Pro towers (7Gb and 8Gb ram respectively). The older tower (Dual 2.66Ghz dual processor) is slower than the 3.3Ghz Quad core but is still respectable. I have never experienced the slider lag reported by others, nor the lengthy export times to Jpegs. I used to use Capture One V5 until I realized that I could get better results from LR with more custom control.

 

Cheers,

 

Linz

[ghaverkamp]

I've seen enough of Lightroom 3 to believe that it's speed and problems are extremely device dependent. It's blindingly quick on my Mac Pro towers (7Gb and 8Gb ram respectively). The older tower (Dual 2.66Ghz dual processor) is slower than the 3.3Ghz Quad core but is still respectable. I have never experienced the slider lag reported by others, nor the lengthy export times to Jpegs. I used to use Capture One V5 until I realized that I could get better results from LR with more custom control.

 

The reviews I've read have all said LR3 was noticeably faster than LR2. When I went back to look them up after Jan's comments, I noticed they were all on Macs. So, that may have something to do with disparate results.

[Twisties]

I've seen enough of Lightroom 3 to believe that it's speed and problems are extremely device dependent. It's blindingly quick on my Mac Pro towers (7Gb and 8Gb ram respectively). The older tower (Dual 2.66Ghz dual processor) is slower than the 3.3Ghz Quad core but is still respectable. I have never experienced the slider lag reported by others, nor the lengthy export times to Jpegs. I used to use Capture One V5 until I realized that I could get better results from LR with more custom control.

 

The reviews I've read have all said LR3 was noticeably faster than LR2. When I went back to look them up after Jan's comments, I noticed they were all on Macs. So, that may have something to do with disparate results.

 

I set my available cache as suggested by Scott. In a test of just a few minutes it seemed snappier with respect to slider lag and image loading. Image loading may still be a touch slow, but not unmanageably so. Sliders snapped. An export of three raws to photomatix went much faster. Again, this is all on the laptop which is a low spec'ed ulv dual core running w7 in 64-bit with 4 gb of ram. I would rate LR3 performance on the laptop adequate before the cache adjustment and good after the cache adjustment. I would have rated LR2 good, with no adjustments. In other words, they are now about the same. Certainly fast enough to work without frustration.

[beemerman2k]

As you probably know, my A900 isn't exactly famous for high ISO quality (a bit undeserved, but still true compared to Canon and Nikon flag-ships). LR3 has changed the game. Here's an image shot at ISO 1600 that is noiseless in a 17x25" print:

 

 

Like being gifted a new camera!

 

What an incredible picture. My goodness, I feel like I'm there!

 

I'm loading Lightroom 3 right now to set the configuration you mentioned earlier. I love this program, although for me it is sometimes too slow and buggy, too! Once this program gets into a funk, you have no choice but to kill it and restart it. Kinda like we used to do with Windows :smile:

[beemerman2k]

OK, I boosted my cache to 75GB (I have (2) 1.5 TB drives striped, so disk space is not a problem ) and the computer is running much better. I am exporting a huge number of files and yet I can type this no problem. Major improvement. Thanks Scott

[longjohn]

For those just starting out in photography a good forum can give you a lot of useful info and feedback. Try photography on the net, or potn. It is canon based but they won't hassle you too much:)

[Caddis]

Resurrecting this old thread because I am attempting to figure out the color management and printing thing.

 

When you get to printing, give us a shout, and we can talk about the natty questions of printer drivers vs. your editing program being "in charge" of the printer. That's the single biggest difficulty and cause of prints being wildly different from the screen. "Dueling color management" - where both the printer driver and, say, Lightroom are both sending info to the printer.

 

Most of all, have fun!

 

I don't have a good enough printer (yet) to print images at home, so I am sending them out to Costco to be printed. Yes, I know Costco is not a custom lab, but they have a Fuji Noritsu printer, and use Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper, which I assume is good?

 

But I am having a difficult time getting the colors to match, even reasonably so, to what I think I am printing. The prints all have an amber, or orange, cast to them. This is especially pronounced with bright yellow aspen leaves, which come out looking very amber, rather than yellow.

 

I am using Lightroom 3, and I have used XRite i1D2 to calibrate my main monitor, and create an ICC profile. It appears that the profile is being used by Windows 7, as it shows up as the default profile for my monitor when I open the Windows Color Management control panel. I checked to see if Windows was running a profile loader at startup, and it looks like it is running the one from XRite.

 

When creating images to send off for printing, I am using the Lightroom "Export" function, and for the "Color Space", I am selecting the Costco printer profile for the paper that will be used, which I downloaded and installed in Windows. And when submitting the print, I turn off the "auto-correct" option that is offered by the Costco service.

 

From what I have read, Lightroom is automatically supposed to use the profile that is assigned to the monitor. Is there some way that I can confirm that Lightroom is using my monitor profile?

 

Is there something that I am missing, or doing wrong, with color management?

 

Any suggestions?

[Linz]

Kevin, do you have access to The Costco printer profile? If so, you can set that in Lightroom so you can soft-proof before you send to print.

I can assure you that Lightroom uses your custom display profile.

 

Do you have access to Photoshop? If so, does the image appear the same in LR and PS?

 

Tell me, do the neutrals in your i images look neutral or is it some kind of compression of the saturated colors... If you can take an image with a reference in it, like a Gretag Macbeth ColorChecker and have that printed, that will tell you where the warming effect is being added. It may be the lab.

 

Linz

[Caddis]

Thanks for the reply. I do have the Costco printer profiles (one for each paper type) and have installed them. When exporting an image to be sent for printing, I am selecting the Costco profile. It does seem to be having an effect. When Windows displays thumbnails of the images, the ones that used the printer profile look different. I'm not quite sure what that means, but at least I think it proves that the printer profile was picked up and used by LR when the image was exported.

 

Unfortunately, I don't have Photoshop. And as far as I am aware, LR 3 doesn't have a soft proofing feature. I have heard that LR 4 has it, but I don't know for sure.

 

It does seem like neutral grays are looking pretty good in the prints. I would also say that other colors (blue skies, green trees, etc.) come out pretty close to what I was expecting. The issue really seems to be with the yellow. It is especially pronounced with bright yellow aspen leaves.

 

Prints also come out looking over all a bit dark, but I can understand the issue of a monitor being illuminated making a difference. I have my monitor brightness turned down quite a bit as per the calibration software. But at least I can adjust the brightness quite easily before printing. So that isn't a big issue.

 

I will look into the ColorChecker. I will also try printing to some other printers. Perhaps the LR color management is working as expected, and it is something about the Costco lab that is off. Also, the monitor that I am using is a relatively old LCD, and probably isn't great. However, I thought that was the point of the profile to help with adjusting for differences in how devices represent different colors. So hopefully, the monitor itself isn't too much of an issue.

[Couchrocket]

Is your monitor a wide gamut monitor, i.e. does it approach AdobeRGB?

If so, without soft proofing capability w/ the Costco profile you are apt to process your images so that colors you see on screen are out of gamut. This often results in over saturated appearance in prints or colors that are "off" compared to screen display.

 

I'm assuming the Costco profiles are paper ICC profiles. If so you are probably better off (absent the ability to soft proof) calibrating your monitor for sRGB and exporting your image files to Costco w/ sRGB colorspace assigned.

 

Give that a try and see if the results are a better "screen to print" match.

 

As to the prints being darker, that is most likely due to the luminance value in your monitor profile being too high. Default is often 120-140 CDM which is way too high IMO. Recalibrate w/ a lower value (e.g. 95 to 120) and see if that helps.

 

For instance, my NEC PA271w is calibrated to 95 which produces an excellent match with my custom ICC profiles for my favorite papers on my R3000 & 4880 printers. Also, you will always have a slight difference do to reflective (print) vs. transmissive (screen) display. You can, however get it dialed in really close with some experimentation in monitor luminance.

 

Keep us posted.

[Couchrocket]

Another thought. LR uses whatever monitor profile is loaded by the computer at startup. So you're good there. But, LR "works" in a very wide colorspace (ProPhotoRGB). Hence my monitor profiling recommendation above and assigning sRGB on export of the files.

 

And... The Costco ICC paper profiles do you ZERO good w/o the ability to soft proof. I'm not familiar w/ Costco service but I'd be very surprised if somewhere in their instructions they don't tell you to send them sRGB files. Or if they're really cutting edge AdobeRGB.

[Caddis]

Is your monitor a wide gamut monitor, i.e. does it approach AdobeRGB?

 

My monitor is an old ViewSonic vx924 LCD, and I believe it only covers sRGB (if that). Despite my thread from about a year ago, I still haven't upgraded to newer hardware yet. I thought I would use what I have while I learn more about digital photography, and color management, before I spent the money on better hardware. Although, if this is just silly and getting a better setup will make this a lot easier, I could be convinced to do that.

 

I'm assuming the Costco profiles are paper ICC profiles. If so you are probably better off (absent the ability to soft proof) calibrating your monitor for sRGB and exporting your image files to Costco w/ sRGB colorspace assigned.

 

Give that a try and see if the results are a better "screen to print" match.

 

There is a separate profile for each of the paper types for that printer. I am using the one for the paper type that I request when I submit the print request.

 

I actually printed several photos before I started looking into the color management topic, and those prints also had the same issue of yellows looking very amber. I believe the defaults in LR were to print with sRGB. So the issue was still there, even without using the printer profiles. Using the printer profiles when exporting images may be helping a little (I can't swear to it though - I will have to do a little print test to be sure), but it certainly didn't change things very dramatically.

 

It has been a little while since I ran the xRite calibration software, so I will run through it a again. I don't recall having to specify a color space, but I will pay more attention this time.

 

As to the prints being darker, that is most likely due to the luminance value in your monitor profile being too high. Default is often 120-140 CDM which is way too high IMO. Recalibrate w/ a lower value (e.g. 95 to 120) and see if that helps.

 

I don't recall if the xRite system reported a luminance value, but I will check that when I run it again. It did have me set the brightness on the monitor to a desired level, which turns out to be about 50% on the monitor's brightness level.

 

Another thought. LR uses whatever monitor profile is loaded by the computer at startup. So you're good there. But, LR "works" in a very wide colorspace (ProPhotoRGB). Hence my monitor profiling recommendation above and assigning sRGB on export of the files.

 

And... The Costco ICC paper profiles do you ZERO good w/o the ability to soft proof. I'm not familiar w/ Costco service but I'd be very surprised if somewhere in their instructions they don't tell you to send them sRGB files. Or if they're really cutting edge AdobeRGB.

 

The Costco photo lab information is not terribly informative, but they do point to Dry Creek Photo, which I assume is the company who provides the printer. That is also where I followed the link to locate the printer profiles for local Costco photo lab. There is a lot of good information on that site, and I have read through much of it. But I may need to read it about 100 more times! Much of their instructions are targeted toward Photoshop, rather than Lightroom, but I am attempting to do the equivalent things. But I'm not really sure if I am missing something.

 

 

 

[Couchrocket]

The Costco photo lab information is not terribly informative, but they do point to Dry Creek Photo, which I assume is the company who provides the printer. That is also where I followed the link to locate the printer profiles for local Costco photo lab. There is a lot of good information on that site, and I have read through much of it. But I may need to read it about 100 more times! Much of their instructions are targeted toward Photoshop, rather than Lightroom, but I am attempting to do the equivalent things. But I'm not really sure if I am missing something.

 

I went and took a look at Dry Creek. It does, indeed, appear as though they want you to assign an ICC profile to the image in Photoshop. (Strikes me as odd since there's no absolute guarantee that's the printer model and paper they will "absolutely" use on your image.)

 

But you can assign the ICC on export in Lrightroom. Assuming you have downloaded and installed ICC profile correctly, do the following:

 

In Lightroom you can access ICC profiles on export via the export dialog box. "File - Export" Then, in the dialog box you have "file settings." Most likely you'll export as jpeg, and under the "Image Format" drop down menu there is the "Color Space" drop down menu. If you drop that down you'll see "other" at the bottom. If you click that it will take you to all the profiles on your system. If you've installed the ICC from Costco it will be in the list and you can select it. Export a location you'll remember on your system (perhaps amend the file name to incidate it is the "Costco ready" version of the file so that you won't confuse it later with your original image file. Then, I suspect you upload that file to Costco printing service.

 

Give that a try.

 

So, in other words:

 

Edit the file until it looks good to you in Lightroom.

Then export it from LR (as described above) with the Costco ICC profile.

Then upload that to Costco.

And then see if you get a decent print to screen match on the prints you get.

 

If you do, and the only remaining problem may be "dark print" then go into your monitor calibration software and before you tell it to run a calibration, see if there is somewhere that allows you to set the target "luminance" value. If it does, set it all the way down to 100 cd/m2.

 

Actually, I'd do this last luminance bit first to see if you can set the luminace lower via the calibration software. That will undoubtedly help if you can. And, don't just "turn the brightness down" manually "outside" of the calibration process as that will induce color shifts.

 

Another "trick" you can apply is in the gray area around your image in Lightroom, you can put your mouse cursor anywhere in there and "right click." You'll get a pop up menu that allows you to set the "shade of gray" that background is. I think either "medium gray" or "light gray" is the default. Whichever it is, try "raising" that one notch. I.e. either go to "light gray" or to "white" whichever is the next notch up. Believe it or not, your brain is part of the process and the lighter the surrounding area, the darker the image looks to your eye so that you'll end up adjusting the overall exposure/tone curve of the image a little brighter to compensate. That will help a little too (though I'd argue that's kind of a bass-ackwards approach to solving the problem).

Best of luck . . .

 

Scott

[Caddis]

I went and took a look at Dry Creek. It does, indeed, appear as though they want you to assign an ICC profile to the image in Photoshop. (Strikes me as odd since there's no absolute guarantee that's the printer model and paper they will "absolutely" use on your image.)

 

The downloadable printer profiles are organized by "location", so that I can select the ones for the specific Costco location/printer that I use (Dry Creek supplies printers to several locations), and when I submit photos for printing through the Costco service, I select which paper to use. So the profile that I am using should match the printer/paper that I am using.

 

But you can assign the ICC on export in Lrightroom. Assuming you have downloaded and installed ICC profile correctly, do the following:

 

In Lightroom you can access ICC profiles on export via the export dialog box. "File - Export" Then, in the dialog box you have "file settings." Most likely you'll export as jpeg, and under the "Image Format" drop down menu there is the "Color Space" drop down menu. If you drop that down you'll see "other" at the bottom. If you click that it will take you to all the profiles on your system. If you've installed the ICC from Costco it will be in the list and you can select it. Export a location you'll remember on your system (perhaps amend the file name to incidate it is the "Costco ready" version of the file so that you won't confuse it later with your original image file. Then, I suspect you upload that file to Costco printing service.

 

Yes, that sounds exactly like what I am doing.

 

I also did just try a couple of quick prints to my home printer. I had not tried that before since I didn't plan on using it for printing images. But it is a Canon MG5220, which "should" be able to do an OK job with images. From a very quick test, it seems that the same issue appears with yellows whether I use a profile or not. But I need to be a bit more methodical in testing some different settings before I can tell much.

 

I think I am going to move forward with getting a better monitor before I spend too much more time on the print issue. I may just be chasing my tail until I do that, as I can't really say that I have a good known starting point for judging image colors.

 

Also, I have the Nikon image editing application, "Capture NX 2" that came with my camera. I haven't been using it, but I will try some experiments with it, viewing images generated from LR, as well as processing the images using NX 2 and sending them to the Costco print service. Perhaps that will help me diagnose where any issues might be.

 

I will report back when I have done those things, and see if I still have questions.

 

Thanks.

 

[Caddis]

Well, since computer hardware was the original topic of this thread, and I am now actually getting around to looking at monitors, I have some more questions.

 

I am mostly interested in processing photos with the goal of making prints for myself. I won't rule out the possibility of trying to sell a few some day, but that day is probably a long way off.

 

- With this in mind, would I be better off looking for a wide color gamut monitor, or would that be overkill for what I am doing? Do printers usually have a smaller gamut anyway, causing additional color management complications when I make prints?

 

- It seems that the NEC PA series monitors have their own special calibration software, and some people have complained that this makes calibration more complicated and/or difficult. Any experience with this, or is this really a non-issue?

 

- Quite a few people seem to like Dell UltraSharp monitors. I notice that Dell is not in the list of recommended brands that Scott posted in this thread. But of course, that was also a year ago. They seem to be relatively inexpensive for IPS monitors. Any thoughts or opinions on Dell UltraSharp?

 

- I am hoping to stay under about $800, and possibly under $600 if I don't lose too much by doing that. Any recommendations for that price range?

 

Thanks for any advice.

 

[Couchrocket]

- It seems that the NEC PA series monitors have their own special calibration software, and some people have complained that this makes calibration more complicated and/or difficult. Any experience with this, or is this really a non-issue?

 

I use a PA27w SPII and I can categorically state that it is the best, and easiest to accurately calibrate, wide gamut monitor I've ever used. Whoever said "difficult/complicated" doesn't know much.

 

The PA24 w/ Spectraview calibration option may fit your budget. If it does, I can heartily recommend it.

 

 

[Couchrocket]

Make sure when you print at home that the printer driver has color management turned off so that LR & the appropriate selected profile is in charge. "Dualing" color management is a common problem.

[Caddis]

Thanks, Scott. I did figure out how to turn off my home printer's color adjustments, and I was able to get the yellows to come out much better now. The print had other issues, but at least this tells me that the issue is probably at the printer side of things, rather than with what I am doing in LR.

 

I am also beginning to think that the Costco print issue may also be a dueling color management issue. Even though I am selecting the option to turn off the "auto correct" feature, I wonder if that is really happening. I assumed everything was automated, but perhaps someone in the lab actually has take note of that option, and take some action to turn it off. Maybe they just aren't paying attention. I'm going to try to find out a bit more about how that is really supposed to work.

 

I have ordered LR4, which now has a soft proof feature. And my monitor search continues. When I get the new pieces in place, I will give this all another try. But I think I am on the right track.

[Couchrocket]

Great! With a good monitor, properly profiled, and the use of good/correct ICC profiles, you should get accurate color & a good screen-print match.

 

Now, see if Ilford has an ICC profile for their Prestige Gold Fiber Silk paper, and give that a go. Sharpness, Dmax, tonality is the best out there IMO.

 

And, get Jeff Schewe's book, "The Digital Negative" & his soon to be released, "The Digital Print" & you'll have all the info you need to move toward truly fine art quality image files & prints.