Photoshop Image doesn't print as it looks on the screen

[tcwaters]

I have an art image I'm working on, where I've added a bunch of noise, maxed out the vibrance, and lightened it extensivly while boosting the contrast- this is three adjustment layers on top of the base image layer. The image on my screen looks perfect, but it prints super flat, and dark, and not at all like I want/what the screen looks like. If I flatten the four layers down to one,m the image on screen looks like what it is printing like. 

So, can I not use three adjustment layers, with each maxed out at the top of the sliders? I'm using a screen/paper profile created for this monitor/paper/printer via a ColorMunki so I thought what I saw is what I would get. but it is clear to me that the issue is around my adjustment layers. Since when the layers are merged, my image looks like it prints. I've never pushed the sliders for these adjustment layers so far to the right before. Any feedback welcome.

THX

[D Fosse]

This is a classic, we get one or two every week 😉

Your image either has a lot of noise, or it's a "binary" image where individual pixels are either on or off.  In that case you get misleading adjustment previews when you are not viewing at 100%.

Previews are calculated based on the on-screen zoom ratio. This uses what is called the image pyramid, which is a series of cached downsampled versions kept ready to pull up on screen. This downsampling softens the image, and introduces a lot of intermediate values that aren't there in the original.

Only 100% maps exactly one image pixel to exactly one screen pixel. No downsampling, all the crisp pixel transitions are preserved.

In short, for a reliable preview, always check at 100% view. In a normal photograph this isn't an issue, but with increasing noise it becomes important.

[waters_tc]

THX for the explanation.  This makes perfect sense now that I think it through, and helps me improve my workflow.

[D Fosse]

Just an additional comment. This whole phenomenon is a lot more complicated to explain, than the basic underlying mechanism.

Think of a checkerboard pattern of black and white pixels. You can see that a tonal adjustment of gray values won't do anything. A black pixel is still black, and a white pixel is still white. Nothing has changed.

Now downsample that checkerboard to half the pixel size. The checkerboard is gone; now you have a basically gray rectangle. A tonal adjustment is suddenly very effective, and you get a significant change in your preview.

This is basically what happens in your case. It's important to understand that the preview is wrong, but there's nothing wrong with your adjustment layers as such. When committed, they do what they're supposed to do.

Unless you view at 100%! Then the two match and are in full agreement.

You could argue that with today's hardware, it should be possible to always perform adjustment preview calculations on the full image data. It would slow Photoshop down a little bit, but probably not to an immediately noticeable degree. This is most likely too deeply embedded in the PS code to rewrite easily.

[Mitchell6C1C]

I have the same exact problem. 

For me, the adjustment layers are "flattened" by Photoshop. This alters the image considerably.

So what I did was to use Snip & Sketch to copy the image from the screen. This wss saved as a jpeg. The outpu on my ink jet printaer then looked almost exactly as it did not the screen. To get it exact, I uploaded the jpeg to PhotoShop ^& printed it from PhotoShop using their absolute colorimetric setting. 

[D Fosse]

This is not the way to do it. Printing a screenshot is just putting your head in the sand. You will never get a master file that you can rely on to reproduce correctly further on.

Look, it's really simple: all you have to do is View > 100%. Just press ctrl+1 to get 100%. Then you see a true representation of the file, as it really is, and you will see what your adjustment layers actually do.

If you still don't understand what's going on, read my above posts again. I really don't know how to explain it better.

[Mitchell6C1C]

The printed image is messed up by adjustment layers, such that it looks neither like the .image at 50%, 100%, or 200%. 

The printed image looks like 1) the Cloud thumbnail image of the picture shows, 2) a flattened image on the screen, & 3) a saved JPG.

Wisdom might dictate making the adjustment without the layers. 

[NB, colourmanagement]

Hi Mitchell6C1C

D.Fosse is right, taking a screenshot is no way to work with image printing, for one thing, you lose your image's resolution.

Try making a copy of the layered Photoshop file, first view at 100% as advised and then flatten it - before printing.

How is the appearance?

Now make the print.

If there is a change in appearance in the process above, when does it occur?

Tip:

Don't use the Absolute Colorimetric rendering intent, unless you are working on a CMYK press-ready file and making a pre-press proof and wish to preserve the 'paper colour' of the final print job as defined in the press ICC profile. Relative Colorimetric is a more suitable choice. 

I hope this helps
neil barstow, colourmanagement net :: adobe forum volunteer
google me "neil barstow colourmanagement" for lots of free articles on colour management
[please only use the blue reply button at the top of the page, this maintains the original thread title and chronological order of posts]

[Mitchell6C1C]

Well, I did a bit of messing around.

Although this is not a complete solution, it has worked well the first few
times.


1) merge the filters with the underlying images, one by one.
2) create, for each adjustment layer mask a layer of the filter merged
image with the masked region amid transparent pixels.
3) for the bottom image layer, clear all the masked regions above.
4) merge down, one by one, each adjustment layer into its filter fused
cohort.
5) merge the masked cohorts and the bottom layer. When doing this the image
has not changed.

This produced what I wanted. I guess the better solution while creating
the object is to check the adjustment layers at 100% to see what they look
like. The only problem is then when working on the images, one can’t be
sure what one is looking at.

[D Fosse]

You can be sure what you're looking at. View at 100%, and what you see is an absolutely correct representation of what your adjustment layers do to the data.

[Mitchell6C1C]

Unfortunately, with RAW only about tenth of the image is visible.