Hey, Thanks so far so good. The problem about working in Asia is that you can "lose face" when you complain especially if you don't go through the proper channels like I did. I was concerned about the results of the images and not being able to find out the cause so I went straight to the most senior editor. I guess I won't know until I get my staff report this July, but I sleep better at night knowing the cause and my last shot printed fine this past monday! :)

kanuck said:
Wow what a day I was finally able to get to the bottom of the printing problem at work. It turns out its the paper afterall! I can't believe it because the paper seemed the same to me, but speaking through a translator and the actual head pressman, our newspaper decided in 2011 to use 100% fully recycled paper. It is deinked paper recycled mostly from printers and other unsold publications. It is also slightly thicker with a different chemical finish on top. Any of which might have been the culprit. I printed a single shot on the same type of paper at work, and made a few editing tweaks with some prepress staffers and its finally okay. Its amazing how underexposed they were! I can't believe I was the only person to complain or even notice.

Mike you are right I am so glad I kept my head it would not have been go to blow a gasket on this. I inquired 3 times to the editor but did the digging on my own today and brought the translator. Word has gotten around already and several co-workers seemed to be impressed I took the initiative to correct the problem myself. Its such a monkey off my back to solve this it was keeping me up late at night. Thanks guys for the helpful insights! :)

Matt

Good work, I'm sure the Editors will appreciate your hard work.

Okay will do! May is going to be a very busy month with Buddha's birthday, parent's day, teacher's day and children's day over here. A lot of family and values celebrated in May in Korea. I'm going back home for one month in July for a rest.

Take care Mike.

Hi Matt,

Thank you so much for your most kind words.

Keep up the good work at the paper and put your work in the POD.

My very best,

Mike

Hi Mike,

Thank you I really value your opinions. I remember when you first joined Nikonrumors.com and being very pleased to have your experience on this forum.

Take care,

Matt

Hi Matt,

I've looked at your work and like it, and I'm so glad that everything worked out for you.

I'm looking forward to your continued success.

My very best,

Mike

Wow what a day I was finally able to get to the bottom of the printing problem at work. It turns out its the paper afterall! I can't believe it because the paper seemed the same to me, but speaking through a translator and the actual head pressman, our newspaper decided in 2011 to use 100% fully recycled paper. It is deinked paper recycled mostly from printers and other unsold publications. It is also slightly thicker with a different chemical finish on top. Any of which might have been the culprit. I printed a single shot on the same type of paper at work, and made a few editing tweaks with some prepress staffers and its finally okay. Its amazing how underexposed they were! I can't believe I was the only person to complain or even notice.

Mike you are right I am so glad I kept my head it would not have been go to blow a gasket on this. I inquired 3 times to the editor but did the digging on my own today and brought the translator. Word has gotten around already and several co-workers seemed to be impressed I took the initiative to correct the problem myself. Its such a monkey off my back to solve this it was keeping me up late at night. Thanks guys for the helpful insights! :)

Matt

Hi SS,

I'm assuming that kanuck is doing his job well, and that there is a 'difference' between now and before. (That needs to be ironed out.)

I'm also assuming that the paper wants to do the best that they can do. (It that isn't true...)

I'm _not_ assuming that they are working or using on any particular file format or tied to any particular work flow. (Who knows what they are using/doing?)

I don't want to get into their work flow, their file formats and such. (That's their business.)

If the assumptions are _true_, they they will want to assist kanunk, if he has done due diligence on his end - making sure his photo prep is up to speed.

But you're right about creating bad blood with coworkers telling them that they are crappy at what they do. I'm suggesting that kanuck get involved in the chain to fix the problem.

My best,

Mike

Are you doing any curve adjustments to your images? If you are giving them AdobeRGB TIFF files then there is little you can do on your side. You are pretty much at the mercy of whatever profile they are using and whatever adjustments the design wants or doesn't want to make.

Is it really that bad or are you the only one who notices the underexposure? Don't annoy them over a slight shift. Trust me you don't want to piss off the prepress guys. B&W images on paper will always look very different from a monitor. I don't care how calibrated it is. I say don't worry about. Maybe a previous designer always adjusted your photos and now a new guy doesn't or vice versa. Like I said before there are too many variables to single out a cause without more samples or info from you.

Hi,

My last teaching job included advising the student newspaper and it's conversion to digital photography (which may seem anachronistic now, but then it was cutting edge) - we were ahead of most newspapers and magazines.

SB likely has the answer in the question what's changed?

I would expect the occasional over/under inking in a random copy of a given issue, but a systemic problem that is consistent is something should be attributed to either the source (you) or something consistent in the chain (art director, plant personnel, printing).

If you have an unsympathetic editor (or simply a language barrier), I would first suggest that you make sure your end is in order by ensuring the monitor is correct and that your output is exactly what you want it to be and expect it to be when printed - keep in mind that newsprint has tonal limits.

When you're 100% of that, take a finished print for one of your stories that can be printed (be realistic in the tones a newspaper can print) and you'll have an image that you'll want to shepherd through the process. Find out what's wrong with that image. It'll be a pain in the ass for you and them, but I _think_ the art director will get it and the press people will, too. Nobody wakes up in the morning wanting to fail.

Essentially, "I want it to look like this" is your argument. You don't give a rat's ass what it takes, you want them to do their job; after all, you've done yours.

My best, and if we can be of any help, please put an area up for posting,

Mike

ProImages said:
1. Did your images used to look correct in the paper?
if yes, What changed?
2. Is you monitor profiled?
3. Do you have the newspaper's printer profile installed so that you can soft-proof in PS CS4?

All the above is what I would do as well - especially the monitor. It may come down to trying to copy the settings the paper uses right or wrong.

You could just have someone at the paper who's personal "taste" is printing a more underexposed image or is just getting something wrong. The human factor should never be underestimated and is always my first notion to look into.

kanuck said: It has started since January this year.

Seems to me the answer is in the question! What's changed?

1. Did your images used to look correct in the paper?
if yes, What changed?
2. Is you monitor profiled?
3. Do you have the newspaper's printer profile installed so that you can soft-proof in PS CS4?

Thanks for the responses guys, as I mentioned before it has only been the past 4 months or so. I have to submit TIFF files only, and TaoTEJared I actually tried overexpose by a stop but got same result.

Supershooter the files come out of Lightroom 3.2 to CS4 converted to Adobe RGB 1998. There is a difficulty communicating with my prepress guys in English however, I have a meeting again today with my editor and hopefully I can get an answer today. Thanks again for the comments so far guys!

@kanuck - so can I barrow that M9? Nice!

One thing you may want to check is the embedded profile (if you use one or if Photoshop is attaching one) on the image. This has caused me problems with labs in the past. The only other thing I have experienced is for some reason at times is that when I shoot with a +/- exposure the lab compensates it back to zero. I have no clue why. Maybe Gamma? Royal pain for sure.

To fix it, not sure other than overexpose the file you send them by a stop or two max.

Too many variables to say where or what the problem is. What color space are you shooting in? Are you converting to AdobeRGB? Are you giving them TIFF files? The problem is almost certainly a profile conversion somewhere in prepress. Talk to your paper's prepress guys and ask them about the profiles they use. They probably aren't going to want you to mess with their profiles on your own, but they can at least give you an idea of how to better prepare your photos in regards to color space and resolution. Other than that there's not much you can do to correct your images. It's up to them to convert the images to whatever profile/paper they use.

cue Mr. Gunter...

This image was used for a Christmas story last year regarding the homeless and shelters in Seoul South Korea. It was the first to appear underexposed in the paper, but the original file is fine I thought.

Recently I have had trouble with my images being under exposed when they appear in the weekly editions. At this point I'm not sure if it is a mistake in the editing department, printing or the paper itself, but it bothers me because it reflects poorly on me I'm sure. Has anyone on this forum dealt with this problem? It has started since January this year and I have discussed this with the editor three times to no avail so far. Any advice? Thanks guys!

Matt