I just did some ads for a shopper, which was printed on standard newpaper material. In spite of the fact that the files I sent the paper were beautiful, the final product was very drab and uninspiring, to say the least. Would I be correct in thinking that for newsprint, I should increase contrast, saturation, brightness, and sharpening, well beyond what is normal for other print media? Any tipe greatly appreciated.
My editor usually just brightens the photos up a whole bunch and they come out ok in the paper. I saw him just adjust the midtones slider in levels until the photo looked really bright and unattractive. I send the file to him looking the way I would send it to a photo printer. It's his job to make sure that it looks good in the paper.
i work for our school paper and i normally convert to BW then mess with the curves to bring out the highlights and shadows. if not, most the photos would look tooooo bland.
deebo7 wrote:
i work for our school paper and i normally convert to BW then mess with the curves to bring out the highlights and shadows. if not, most the photos would look tooooo bland.
I've never done that. So I would do the curves/levels in BW, and then convert back to RGB, is that correct?
Kelly Phillips wrote:
My editor usually just brightens the photos up a whole bunch and they come out ok in the paper. I saw him just adjust the midtones slider in levels until the photo looked really bright and unattractive. I send the file to him looking the way I would send it to a photo printer. It's his job to make sure that it looks good in the paper.
That seems like an easy benchmark to guide me - "really bright and unattractive". Boy, these ads look soooooooo terrible that the look you're suggesting sounds like just the ticket. Maybe I'll combine that with the BW conversion technique the next time.
hfillmore wrote:
That seems like an easy benchmark to guide me - "really bright and unattractive". Boy, these ads look soooooooo terrible that the look you're suggesting sounds like just the ticket. Maybe I'll combine that with the BW conversion technique the next time.
I can't really tell how to take your last comment. It almost sounds like you're being kind of snooty. I'm sure you're not, but I just wanted to add that my editor knows what looks good in the paper based on how it prints. I was standing behind him when he adjusted one of my photos with the technique I described. They looked normal in print. I would suggest that you ask the editor in charge of whatever paper you are using to explain how he would like your work to be processed in order to look good. I hope that helps. Good luck to you. Sorry if I took you wrong
Does the ad print in color or black and white? I normally edit in color whether or not the final output is black and white. Once the photo looks good on screen, convert to grayscale with your method of choice, make a few changes in tonality with Levels or Curves, and apply sharpening.
Newsprint is little more than fancy toilet paper in terms of print quality. It absorbs a lot of ink quickly, so the individual ink drops spread out on the paper, causing a loss of contrast, sharpness, and saturation. When I submit something for print on newsprint I do submit it at least a half stop lighter than what looks good on my screen (one of many reasons to shoot RAW - even "properly" exposed images will look dark on newsprint without lightening).
In addition to making the image lighter than what looks good on screen, try adding more sharpening than what looks good on your screen.
How do the other images in the publication look? Perhaps your editor would let you look at some of those images on his/her computer screen... compare what you see on his screen to what ended up in print, and that will give you a good idea how to make adjustments in the future.
If the images are color, it's possible your RGB files didn't get converted to CMYK... that will really mess up a photo. It's best to let your editors do the conversion though, and never do any editing on a CMYK file after you have converted it.
Kelly Phillips wrote:
I can't really tell how to take your last comment. It almost sounds like you're being kind of snooty. I'm sure you're not, but I just wanted to add that my editor knows what looks good in the paper based on how it prints. I was standing behind him when he adjusted one of my photos with the technique I described. They looked normal in print. I would suggest that you ask the editor in charge of whatever paper you are using to explain how he would like your work to be processed in order to look good. I hope that helps. Good luck to you. Sorry if I took you wrong...Show more →
Hey Kelly, my comment was sincere, It's refreshing to actually have something as straightforward as your recommendation to go by, in a world of subjective nebulous judgements. Really, I view your comment as a valuable assesment tool to guide my newsprint processing in the future. You can be sure that for my next newsprint shopper, "process it 'til it looks too bright" will definitely be my guideline.
Curtis......... thanks a lot for your reply. Your recommendation to do the processing brighter than normal jibes with Kelly's comments and makes sense.
The shots were in color. It was the flyer's first edition, and a bad as my shots looked, they were by far the best in the shopper, which unfortunately, doesn't say much.
I hadn't thought of increasing the sharpness, but I'll be sure to do that the next time as well.
You've given me something to think about with the CMYK thing. As you suggested, I left it to the printer to do the conversion, but maybe he didn't. I think I'll do it myself the next time to avoid that possibility. I submited PSD files, since I was told that the graphic artist who put the flyer together used to work for a newpaper, and that he''d "tweak" the shots for best results. Evidently, that just didn't happen.
Since, as you mention, the "toilet paper" absorbs the ink so readily, would you recoment increasing the saturation and contrast beyond normal as well?
Thanks again,
You, and the others on this thread have given me a whole lot more to work with the next time.
Sorry if I took you wrong