Printing At Faa

I have the same problem hope someone knows not all but a few looks washed out

Some have complained that the metals come out too dark....but that is more about the type of metal used...there could be white and metal choices for bases, matte and gloss a well, but as I recall faa only has one opiton.
My prints come out fine...what paper are you having them print on? That could easily be affecting your results.

Honestly, if "all but a few" look washed out, then the problem is very likely on your end. I have got about ten prints down through FAA (either for me or as gifts) and eight of them were absolutely perfect. Two of them looked nothing like they did on my monitor and after some e-mails back and forth with Customer Service, I got replacements for those two that were perfect.

As far as why they look different on FAA than they do on your computer's hard drive, I'll let someone more technically savvy reply to that.

Thanks for your replies.

I have never actually had anything printed yet, so I have no results, and so far, only one of my images looks washed out on the site. I have taken it off, reworked and reposted it three times, but it still looks the same, no matter what I do to it. So, I have no idea what it's going to look like printed by them.

So, I guess the best thing is to leave it alone and if anyone wants it, I'll expect FAA will let me know it's not printing well.

Thanks again.

Ellen,

I would order a small print,greeting card,etc. and see for your self. They also offer a "test kit" which I saw a while ago and maybe you can ask for one of your images to be printed on it,that would make more sense than a generic image getting printed,since you don't know what the original looked like and then the results wouldn't mean as much to you.

Make sure you're uploading in Adobe RGB or sRGB,

Rich

Thanks Rich,

Good ideas. I'll order something and see for myself.

I'm in RGB. Everything looks right except for one.

Ellen

Rich, in year's past, a different company has printed the cards, so I wouldn't suggest ordering a card unless all the paper printing is done at the same facility....

Ellen, what is "fairly well calibrated"? Either a monitor is calibrated or it isn't. Are you talking about calibration with external hardware (Spyder, Eye-One, etc.) or with a built-in calibration program?

Also remember that greeting cards are printed on a digital press vs the Epson inkjet for prints.

We do not print custom images on the sample kit which you can find here http://fineartamerica.com/samplekits.html

You can purchase a small print to check you are happy with the colours etc. As the artist that is at the base cost when you are logged in. As the images are printed to your data, it is always advisable to make sure the monitor you are using for your graphics is properly calibrated to be sure of no disapppointment

If you are uploading Adobe RGB you may find some but not all the images are not true to what they look like on your monitor (depending also on the browser). That does not affect how they print.

Thank you everyone :)

Your shoe analogy 'almost' works - but even if you go into a shoe store and try two or three of the same pair, same maker, same size, everything shoe - you may find that there are in fact three different fits.

as for prints - I've only ordered canvas and metal - both were superb.

Fairly well-calibrated for me means that I use my (external) calibration software every so often and not every time I work on another project. It also means that the lab that prints for me on occasion, pretty much matches what I'm looking for, and my own 3880 is spot on. I guess everyone's suggestion of purchasing a print at FAA is the only true test.

Okay then. Lots of pertinent information here.

TY

Cards and prints look substantially different so a card is no indication of what a print will look like. It would be nice if that was disclosed on an order page that contained both.

and the image looks fine on my computer, but looks a little washed out or too light, or whatever on the FAA site

Ellen,

I have been going in a few different directions this morning and afternoon, so I have not worked this totally out.

The statement FAA prints look different than monitor images is not just the calibration. You have not discussed your brightness level.

On some monitors you need to bring the brightness down to 16%. In units the brightness should be 80 cd/mm^2.

You are looking at prints which reflect light. Monitors project light. You need to match or come very close to matching your monitor's
brightness to reflected light.

Good luck,

Dave

an do not forget that sRGB is for web display and Adobe RGB is what we print at and recommend

You can upload either but the quality on the web is better with the sRGB and the Adobe better on the print

BTW just for those who like this techie stuff....

I am using an Asus PA249Q monitor. Cost $463 on Amazon.

The Asus only allowed me to get down to 81 cd/mm^2, more than good enough.

The Asus is a proper professional graphics monitor at the lowest cost available
today

Comes in 27" as well. The PA249Q model is 24", 9th generation or version.

Dave

Lots of great information Dave.

I bow down to you !

Ellen

More techie talk.

sRGB v aRGB.....

The human eye can only see 3 to 4 million colors.

sRGB is 16 million plus colors.

aRGB is 1.07 billion colors.

The human eye and those other two color systems work on the same colors.

The difference is the amount of detail picked up in the gradients.

At the end of the day sRGB is more than good enough for the human eye.

What fails is the computing of color in gradients. If you dont use enough material, data,
when computing you get banding of your colors in the images when you go to print.

Computers need far more data to edit and print images than what we can see. But our eyes
cover the same light spectrum. In fact visible light, what we can see, falls beyond what is
in the sRGB and aRGB light area spectrum measures.

What we pick up with our eyes is partial parts of the over all visible spectrum.

Dave

Ellen,

No bowing allowed, but you are very welcome.

Dave

What fails is the computing of color in gradients. If you dont use enough material, data,
when computing you get banding of your colors in the images when you go to print.


Currently Photoshop CC works best with Intel Quad Core chips.
You need 12 GB of RAM to keep work speeds reasonable. (just added, now I have 16 GB)
The Intel on board 4600 graphic cards are actually more than good enough. JMO (I dont feel like debating this now)

Using PS people preferably would work with 16 bits per channel to make enough color depth for aRGB.

The monitor like the Asus really should be 10 bit color depth to allow for the proper viewing of aRGB.

I am just getting into using PS 3D mode. I dont know if I have enough RAM. I think as I
come to understand meshes and work with them my amount of RAM will be okay. Without using
meshes the work space runs to infinity.I get this message not enough RAM.

Dave

Ellen, also be sure that you're using a color-managed browser. That can affect what you're seeing onscreen. Learn more, here -

http://www.naturefocused.com/articles/internet-color-management.html
http://www.gballard.net/psd/go_live_page_profile/embeddedJPEGprofiles.html

Microsoft has finally color-managed IE9, if you're using that. My understanding is that earlier versions of IE are not color-managed


I use software calibration (Calibrize.com), FireFox browser, and upload everything as sRGB. These choices give me the most consistent results across all my various online print services. After trying it several times over the years, I've not found that Adobe RGB gives the best print results for my work. Some artists agree, some don't. That's where test prints come in handy.

So far (knock wood) I've been very pleased with all the FAA prints I've seen. The cards are a different matter altogether and, as mentioned above, are printed from a different source (last I heard, at least).

Best of luck!

Using PS people preferably would work with 16 bits per channel to make enough color depth for aRGB

This is important. In my work my images are sRGB. I still work with 16 bit color depth in the computing.
I really have to do this. This allows the computer enough material, data, and functionality to do the job
and avoid banding.

Banding is where you have a splotch of color, a flat wide splotch of one color with no gradient. This
problem is from how much material your computer has to work with and can in fact manage. If you use
8 bit color depths in your computing process you will more than likely have banding. No good.

Dave

My local printer charges $70 a proof. I've switched to having FAA do my prints. I figure I could order a couple of small prints to test color matching with my watercolors. The price of living on an island.

I have ordered prints on different papers, canvas and metal prints and have been happy with all of them.

Kerri

Thanks Wendy,

I tried Firefox after you mentioned this. I notice a difference over Safari, at least on the photo that was giving me problems. It looks quite a bit better. I would have thought Safari was plenty good enough.

You're welcome, Ellen. The Internet browser is such a critical component of viewing and selling art online; it's too bad more users don't consider it. I don't use Safari in my day-to-day, but understand that it is color-managed. No idea what the problem is there.

it took several years to come up with the sRGB + Firefox + Calibrize formula. I'm sticking with that, as long as I continue to have great results with what I see onscreen, AND the prints I receive. As always, YMMV. :-)

I had three different prints made from FAA and I am pleased with the way it turned out. And Ellen I think it may be your computer that makes your print look washed out, probably needs to be darken alittle on your end.