Does Costco, Walmart, etc. reduce image resolution when printing?

Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient.
Ordered some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10
megapixel camera. The images were sent to them unedited and in
full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in original JPG with all the EXIF
in tact.

Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear -
outstanding in all respects.

But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to
have less detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be,
imo.

I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc.
reduce the size of image files sent to them so that they do not
take up more than a specified amount of disk space on their
systems.

Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places?
Do they reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there
perhaps some other reason why this may be happening?

I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

Thank you.

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient.
Ordered some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10
megapixel camera. The images were sent to them unedited and in
full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in original JPG with all the EXIF
in tact.

Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear -
outstanding in all respects.

But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to
have less detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be,
imo.

I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc.
reduce the size of image files sent to them so that they do not
take up more than a specified amount of disk space on their
systems.

Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places?
Do they reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there
perhaps some other reason why this may be happening?

I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

Thank you.

It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp, but that it was
"forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.

But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie photo-labs...

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

"Paul D. Sullivan" schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:X_gzh.665$H77.594@trndny08...
Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient. Ordered
some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10 megapixel camera. The
images were sent to them unedited and in full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in
original JPG with all the EXIF in tact.

Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear - outstanding
in all respects.

But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to have less
detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be, imo.

I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc. reduce the
size of image files sent to them so that they do not take up more than a
specified amount of disk space on their systems.

Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places? Do they
reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there perhaps some other
reason why this may be happening?

I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

Thank you.
The output unit of minilabs usually has a fixed pixels per inch requirement,
most of them 300 ppi. If they do not state the required resolution in their
web page, it is best to ask because most minilabs use 300 ppi, but not all.
Your image has to be converted to that resolution before it can be output,
and their machine might just use the algorithm which fits most pictures but
not necessarily optimized for yours. Most image editors allow you to choose
from several methods and you can try out which one best preserves your
picture . As it is also a good idea to crop your own pictures instead of
letting an automatic program do it, it is a good idea to resize them and
crop them to the output format before you send the files off. Some minilabs
are also set for automatic color correction, something you do not want if
you have a calibrated monitor and corrected colors yourself. Some online
developers (in Europe at least) allow you to choose on their order page,
others don't. Use the lowest jpeg compression settings for the files you
send them, and save them to another directory to preserve your original
files.

So you are saying that an image that is crisp and sharp on screen
and crisp and sharp on 5x7" prints would somehow show up as fuzzy
and washed out on an 8x10" because the image is not really crisp
and sharp at all?

It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp,
but that it was "forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.

But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie
photo-labs...

Thanks for the post.

In thinking it through, the 10mp image at 3648 x 2736 would have
enough resolveable data (rounding down) for 364 dpi in the 10"
direction and 342 dpi in the 8" direction. For 7 x 5 it would
have 521 x 547.

That's plenty of data to work with. If it down-samples
everything to 300 dpi, would that effect the 10x8 more than the
7x5?

The output unit of minilabs usually has a fixed pixels per
inch requirement, most of them 300 ppi. If they do not state
the required resolution in their web page, it is best to ask
because most minilabs use 300 ppi, but not all. Your image
has to be converted to that resolution before it can be
output, and their machine might just use the algorithm which
fits most pictures but not necessarily optimized for yours.
Most image editors allow you to choose from several methods
and you can try out which one best preserves your picture . As
it is also a good idea to crop your own pictures instead of
letting an automatic program do it, it is a good idea to
resize them and crop them to the output format before you send
the files off. Some minilabs are also set for automatic color
correction, something you do not want if you have a calibrated
monitor and corrected colors yourself. Some online developers
(in Europe at least) allow you to choose on their order page,
others don't. Use the lowest jpeg compression settings for the
files you send them, and save them to another directory to
preserve your original files.

On Feb 10, 12:19 am, "Paul D. Sullivan" wrote:
Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient.
Ordered some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10
megapixel camera. The images were sent to them unedited and in
full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in original JPG with all the EXIF
in tact.

Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear -
outstanding in all respects.

But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to
have less detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be,
imo.

I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc.
reduce the size of image files sent to them so that they do not
take up more than a specified amount of disk space on their
systems.

Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places?
Do they reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there
perhaps some other reason why this may be happening?

I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

Thank you.

It is not completely clear what Costco does but the file size that
gets up loaded can much smaller then the jpeg it is feed. There is an
upload option for fast upload where the image is resized a lot and an
option for a more normal upload but even the normal upload does bad
things to a large file.

You want to make sure you have the "Large Print Upload" selected at
the bottom of the upload page, "Fast Upload" is selected by default.
But even with "Large Print Upload" selected it would appear that is
will down size somewhat when given a very large file. You can also
email the images to Costco and this seems to keep them from being
resized.

For print up to 8 x 12 inches this should not be an issue at all and
you should be able to get pretty sharp looking 12 x 18 prints, but I
do believe they could do better.

Scott

Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
So you are saying that an image that is crisp and sharp on screen
and crisp and sharp on 5x7" prints would somehow show up as fuzzy
and washed out on an 8x10" because the image is not really crisp
and sharp at all?

It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp,
but that it was "forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.

But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie
photo-labs...

You only said "somewhat softer."
You didn't say one was great, and one was terrible.

So...if you're seeing this "somewhat softer" difference...that would not be
unusual at all. You can fit more than two 5x7s into the area of an
8x10...so it is significant.

I'm simply mentioning the very basic reality that the more you enlareg a
photo, the more any imperfections will become apparent. This is especially
true of sharpness and detail. Even poorly focused images can look decent at
4x6, but those same photos break down quickly as you go larger.


--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Mark² wrote:
Paul D. Sullivan wrote:
So you are saying that an image that is crisp and sharp on screen
and crisp and sharp on 5x7" prints would somehow show up as fuzzy
and washed out on an 8x10" because the image is not really crisp
and sharp at all?

It's more likely that your image wasn't particularly sharp,
but that it was "forgiven" due to the smaller 5x7 print size.

But who knows? I've heard of dumber things at quickie
photo-labs...

You only said "somewhat softer."
You didn't say one was great, and one was terrible.

So...if you're seeing this "somewhat softer" difference...that would
not be unusual at all. You can fit more than two 5x7s into the area
of an 8x10...so it is significant.

I'm simply mentioning the very basic reality that the more you
enlareg a photo, the more any imperfections will become apparent. This is
especially true of sharpness and detail. Even poorly focused
images can look decent at 4x6, but those same photos break down
quickly as you go larger.

You didn't mention anything about the quality or look of the photograph upon
close inspection before sending... What do they show, enlarged on-screen?

--
Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
www.pbase.com/markuson

Thanks for the well presented response. I sincerely appreciate
it.

It is not completely clear what Costco does but the file size
that gets up loaded can much smaller then the jpeg it is feed.
There is an upload option for fast upload where the image is
resized a lot and an option for a more normal upload but even
the normal upload does bad things to a large file.

You want to make sure you have the "Large Print Upload"
selected at the bottom of the upload page, "Fast Upload" is
selected by default. But even with "Large Print Upload"
selected it would appear that is will down size somewhat when
given a very large file. You can also email the images to
Costco and this seems to keep them from being resized.

For print up to 8 x 12 inches this should not be an issue at
all and you should be able to get pretty sharp looking 12 x 18
prints, but I do believe they could do better.

Scott

"Paul D. Sullivan" wrote in message
news:X_gzh.665$H77.594@trndny08...
Sent some pics in to Costco over the internet. Very convenient. Ordered
some 8x10's and 5x7's with images taken from a 10 megapixel camera. The
images were sent to them unedited and in full resolution - 3648 x 2736 in
original JPG with all the EXIF in tact.

Got the prints back. The 5x7's look very sharp, very clear - outstanding
in all respects.

But the 8x10's look to be somewhat "softer" and it appears to have less
detail and certainly is not as crisp as it should be, imo.

I'm wondering if places like Costco, Walmart, Fred Meyer, etc. reduce the
size of image files sent to them so that they do not take up more than a
specified amount of disk space on their systems.

Anybody know if anything like that is happening at these places? Do they
reduce the image quality to save space? Or is there perhaps some other
reason why this may be happening?

I'd appreciate any helpful responses.

Thank you.

Hi.

I don't think you uploaded the full resolution and uncompressed file over
the internet. That would have been a 30 Mb file. So compression will have
been applied, and there is always a quality cost for compression.

They must have done something to the images, because 10x8 and 7x5 are not in
the same format, so they had to do the cropping, and probably had to reduce
the Ppi figure to 300. These activities will have an effect on the quality,
especially on an already compressed Jpeg.

Your explanation re the Ppi figures for your image, are more than a little
simple. You can not have different resolution figures in each direction
without distorting the image.

You should have done the resizing and cropping yourself before sending in,
and it would have been better if you had sent them on a Cd, rather than via
the Internet.

Roy G