Yeah agreed like the rainbow taken from drone. It is lake district England?

I recommand watching Mark Denney video on lightroom color tool (FINALLY! a Lightroom Tool that Actually Improves COLOR Photos! (100x better)) it will help you select your rainbow very precisely

To be honest - that one was just pure luck!

He mentions several times he is in the Lake District 😉

You need to deep dive into "printing". This begins (1) with having your monitor in a controlled (light level) room, and (2) adjusting your monitor/display in light level and contrast so as to give you an illusion of what a print will look like. In order, however, to get the print right you also need to tell your raw processing and print software (3) what printer/inks are used and what (4) paper. Nigel will have some videos about this, likely, also Keith Cooper goes in-depth by many miles, and a recent YT video (lost its reference) demonstrates how to calibrate your monitor without a calibration tool resulting in a fair but not perfect calibration. My personal 24/7 control of my monitor is a neutral dark grey wall paper with a grey scale (not wedge) strip from [0,0,0] to [255,255,255] at the top and bottom. My monitor's calibration software reminds me to run a calibration check periodically. Paper manufacturers and printer/ink manufacturers have ICC profile files that give a very good starting point and a print house like Saal will likely have an ICC profile too. A print house may have one for their entire operation irrespective of what printer and ink and paper they use (meaning they have adjusted their individual printer/paper/ink lines to that), or specific ones for a line of print (quality, etc.). "A bit too dark" is a subjective statement that may be debatable between us and them. I shot a high fashion shoot and one of the images in one of the 5 sets (backgrounds, lighting), with one of the 5 models has a very nice look when printed "neutral" (a bit vivid). When I print it much darker, it becomes an attractive almost Goth, almost old painting masters chiaroscuro kind of image. But I can make it lighter than neutral without losing detail, reduce contrast, slightly desaturate, and it becomes a modern lifestyle picture for girly fashion magazines. One correctly exposed shot. But, without instruction to the print house, which is the correct one? Herein lies the complicated relation that photographers have with their print houses. Imagine Ansel Adams, Henri Cartier-Bresson, and Richard Avedon and their anally retentive approach to printing the right gradation, brightness, tone, etc., with some dodging and burning. For his prints, Nigel here, goes through similar steps. With prints, you also have to take into account (5) at what light level your print will be displayed. Walk through galleries or museums and you'll generally see moderate room light levels with spotlights on the art works. This also means you (6) have to take into account what colour temperature/tint the light source will be when/where you display it. You may have greenish tinted windows in your car and have noticed that the sky looks magenta when you open that window a bit. Such effect can happen with prints too and the white balance (+ tint) of ambient light around you, may thus impact how the person looking at your print sees its colour rendition. The problem with print houses is that you need to figure this all out yourself (but with a photographic printer at home you have the same challenge). If you only print very incidentally, then you need to invest in sending a couple test images for them to print, making sure you have documented your assumptions about 1..6 carefully. The problem then is what test image is a good reference to begin with. YT channels with a focus on the in-depth how-to of precise printing will explain this to you. In the process, you must be aware that the rendition of your raw shot on your display internally in Lightroom's workspace may be in ProPhoto colour space (Adobe Camera Raw does the raw processing in Lightroom Classic and Photoshop) but your monitor cannot display that and your monitor shows a sort of equivalent of a JPEG rendition (8 bits per channel or 24 bits per pixel). That is not a problem and photographic printers/inks generally can render that perfectly. It becomes a problem when you want to try to print more colour space correctly than your display can render. If you sport a good gamers' monitor then it may approach sRGB colour space and use dynamic contrast (locally varying light levels in the backlight of the display). My EIZO monitor would be slower, have great static contrast, will not do dynamic contrast, be much more expensive, but it has 100% Adobe RGB colour space and that makes a serious impact in a critical work process and attitude. Sending your image as a JPEG means there's lossy compression and printing an A2 size (594mm*420mm = 23.4"*16.5") print at 300 DPI needs 34.8MP (7,016*4,961). At 8 bpc or 24 bits per pixel, you now need 2,505,782,132 bytes (2,390MB or 2.3GB) if YOU want to come up with the detailed RGB tones at the printer's DPI level. I know, dots are not pixels, and you may want to render the implied thus far 300 Pixels Per Inch at 1,200 or 1,440 DPI on your photographic printer. That will give you the maximum colour space and dynamic range (and use more ink - a simple rule of thumb with A-brand photographic art inkjet papers, is that your ink costs will equal your paper costs). While you and I would use ink jet (posh French name being "gicleur") technology, print houses may use photographic paper where our images are "exposed" onto the paper and this then is processed (developed) in the way of the film days. This resolution thing also means that you might want to generate a losslessly compressed TIFF rather than JPEG. Or PNG maybe. But the file size will blow up a lot and the print house may not support that. However, with a photographic printer at home, the blowing up of rendered pixels towards dots per inch will happen somewhere in the app-to-print chain. "A bit too dark" means you have homework to do, along these lines. I print at home to a photographic printer with larger than Adobe RGB colour space. No affiliations with print houses, nor with printer or paper or ink companies. And I do have a calibration tool. And I don't print a lot so I cannot earn that investment back. But my prints are perfect.

@@jpdj2715 Wow wasn't expecting such a detailed response! That's very helpful, many thanks. I've checked Saal digital's website and they have ICC profiles, so I've downloaded the one for the paper they used for these prints and imported that into Lightroom. I'm currently just using a TV, rather than monitor, connected to my computer, so don't think I'll be able to calibrate that, so might just be trial and error with adjusting the brightness on my TV and getting a few test prints done.