WYSISYG?

So, lets say I shoot jpeg only, I use Fuji velvia or whatever. Lets make it a landscape. Now, I am going to send it off for prints without any PP, I have reviewed the images on my camera lcd, I like what i see. When I get my prints back, Are they going to be what I saw in camera?

If you shot with Natural Live View off, the jpegs produced should match what you saw in the EVF. Whether or not a print will also match is mostly dependent on the printer - lots of variables there, not to mention that a print cannot reproduce quite the dynamic range that you will see on most modern monitors. Should be in the ballpark, though.

Thanks Erik, if a person plans on doing that, it would pay to find a good print shop.

Thanks again Erik, after your response, I found this....fujiframe.com/articles/natural-live-view/

With NLV on, the EVF view, the histogram, and the highlight warning blinkies are no longer representative of the resulting jpeg (or RAW file).
There are YouTubers and and other online people that will tell you different, and that NLV is useful for RAW exposure. They are wrong.

No, they never are. A reflective medium with six stops of dynamic range can't replicate the viewing experience of a glowing screen. They're different things. But they probably will look similar, have a similar balance between tones and colors, and hopefully evoke the same emotions.

So, when NLV is "Off", you say that WYSIWYG is what you get for Jpeg. And you keep repeating what NLV is NOT good for. So NLV "On" is not good for anything? You seem to be accepted as the resident (not only on this forum) specialist on the NLV setting, so...

I suppose it’s good for shooting with flash in a dark space (so you can see what you’re shooting). If you trust your metering and don’t care to see a WYSIWYG preview, I guess it’s good for that too. As I don’t do either of those things, I don’t think it’s especially good for anything at all.

Maybe confusing NLV with PREVIEW EXP./WB IN MANUAL MODE?

No, NLV if you aren’t shooting in manual.

So you are telling this forum that NLV set to "On" is for modes A, S and P like PREVIEW EXP./WB IN MANUAL MODE is for M mode when set to "Off"?

No, I’m telling you that NLV is for simulating a, well, “Natural Live View” - an optical viewfinder experience. You can use it however you see fit. My suggestions were only what someone might want to use it for. As it renders all the WYSIWYG features useless, I don’t use it at all.

Me!

The answer is no. Viewing an image on an emissive display such as a monitor, EVF or camera display is physically different than viewing on a reflective medium. Also different types of papers and paper surfaces will modulate the image viewed on a print. To come close to exactly matching the printer and the emissive display you use to view the image need to be calibrated and that calibration needs to take into account the lighting where the print will be displayed. This is an extensive process to match the printer to the monitor.

Commercial printers are calibrated to a standard as is the displays you use. However, they won't necessarily be exactly the same. If a print is mounted in a location where the lighting is not spectrally white - it can look different than one when viewed in halogen lighting that a good approximation to white light.

However, if the printer is calibrated and your monitor is also calibrated - the print should be close. It might be best to send them a trial print ( a smaller size ) to see if there is any significant difference before you commit to a large print. Then you can take the trail print to the location where it is going to be display and view it in the ambient lighting. You will have better results if you get an art display light (halogen light designed to for displaying art work) and hang above your print to light it. You will have better luck if you use SRGB colorspace.

While I agree that those saying “no” are technically correct,it is my practical experience I get usable prints that “mostly look like what I see on my (reasonably calibrated) screen”.

The answer for you will depend on how critical you are in your viewing. There will also be a learning curve as you discover how certain types (or parts) of images translate from screen to print. Sometimes I’ll send multiple versions of the same image off to the printer to be sure I get what I need. This is particularly true for the relatively inexpensive “mass-market” prints I use for salon competition and low key “coffee shop” group shows. When making archival fine prints as gifts or for gallery display and sale, I work with my (local) printer directly to assure that my vision is realized.

I have done my own printing in the past. I fully support the efforts of those who enjoy the act as part of their own expression. I am no longer interested in curating a printer beyond the 4x6 Selphie. Just as I did in my my analog work, I prefer to collaborate with an expert and job the process out.

Absolutely correct. It will be close. Probably the biggest difference is the lighting of where the image is displayed. With a monitor - the lighting is emissive from behind and is more or less consistent. That is not true with a print. Also because of that the type of paper also impacts the warmth or coolness color of the print. Interesting enough, the divergence of the print and display version can be more obvious in B&W than color. Paper selection can be extremely important to the overall quality of the print. However, color printing is much easier today with digital and inkjet printing with quality pigment inks than in the wet darkroom days where one would burn through reams of paper at varying filtration to get a descent color balanced print.

I'm don't consider myself finished until I'm satisfied with the print. Maybe that comes from the fact 99,9% of what I'm interested in is B&W. It never ceases to amaze me how different the same image can render on two different papers or the same basic paper with a different surface. So I find myself often slaving over my Epson SC P900.

But: you both are looking at the image on a [calibrated ?] pc screen, the OP seems to be looking at the camera monitor

Good observation. I’ve never gone direct to print from the camera, but I do print SOOC regularly. I use the camera dispkay to create those images so there is some correlation — but I’m going to need to make some critical observations to provide an answer to the question as asked.

I never trust even a calibrated PC screen to match the print. One calibrates a monitor to a printer in a lighting condition. Sure it might match it in daylight, but how about in artificial light? The camera monitor only adds another variable to the equation. On the other hand for a color print to hang over the couch - it should be close enough as long as one uses SRGB across the board. I bit the bullet and sent a 200 buck premium for the nano textured screen in my Apple Studio monitor to mitigate lighting conditions on the monitor from being an issue. While it is helpful when I print my wife's color images for her numerous camera club submissions, it is really helpful for my B&W work. While I would not trust a camera LCD at all for fine arts B&W, for color it might be close enough - although I very seldom use my camera LCD for anything else by browsing the menu settings.

Sorry it took so long to reply, but you are right, I am talking about the camera LCD.

I should have mentioned in my post that it would be for "hanging over the couch", nothing special.

I respectfully disagree. Unless you’re using my “clipped to a wire” permanently rotating display system, “hanging over the couch” is a commitment, and not to be taken lightly.