WalMart and jpeg printing

"nosredna" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Rita Ä Berkowitz" wrote:

John McWilliams wrote:

One possibility is the operator made prints of the thumbnails. These
aren't even viewable on most Mac setups, but can appear first on the
CD when read by Windows boxes. An ignorant- call it inexperienced if
you will- operator might not know that, and never get to the higher
res. jpegs.

Yep, this happened to me once. Who would have thought that the kiosks
don't
do NEF's even though they display them clearly? I paid for a bunch of
prints and got back a bunch of distorted checkerboard prints from the
thumbnails. When I converted them to JPG I was happy.


Rita


It looks like you need to use a real CD burning program such as TOAST that
makes standard ISO CD format, rather than drag and drop the files on CD. MAC
OSX left lots of hidden files whereever it touches - on PC via filesharing
too. I hate having to clean up the garbage that OSX left afterward so I ONLY
access the MAC from the PC instead.

"nosredna" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Alan Meyer" wrote:

"nosredna" wrote in message
...

..., but I just remembered that I converted to jpeg from a (tiff)
cmyk file. Should I have converted it from the RGB version instead--or
does the color space not matter when converting to jpeg?

If I understand it correctly, JPEG is always and only RGB. Any
conversion to JPEG would always result in RGB. You shouldn't
have to separately convert it to RGB first.
...
It doesn't appear that "any conversion to jpeg would always result in
RGB," since, according to Photoshop's Mode menu, the jpeg is definitely
CMYK, presumably because I converted from a CMYK tiff.

Looks like I didn't understand it correctly. After reading your posting
I did some research and found multiple references to saving CMYK
JPEG encoded images. Sorry for the misinformation I posted. Unfortunately,
it's not the first time I've posted wrong information. I'll have to try
to be more careful in the future.

Alan

EZPRINTS is the hardest to use!

Michael Meissner wrote:
nosredna writes:

On my Macintosh, I converted a friend's wedding photo from tiff to
jpeg
and burned it to a CD for a friend so she could have WalMart make
it
into Christmas cards. I mailed it off to her, and three weeks
later she
called and said WalMart did a test print and it "doesn't look
right." I
have no idea what she means; her description over the phone didn't
help
me at all. (She lives several hours away, so I can't just drop by
to see
it.) She said she took it to KMart and Staples also--same problem.
While
on the phone I suggested she try opening it on her PC, but she got
an
error message ("jpeg file has errors" or something like that). I
tried
it in my daughter's Windows 98 PC and I get the same error message.
But
it opens fine on my husband's PC at work (with Windows XP). And of
course it opens and prints fine on my Mac. I burned a new CD and
went to
my local WalMart to test it. It showed up on the photo machine
screen,
but I didn't do a test print. (Am I correct in assuming that if I
could
see it on the WalMart screen it would probably print correctly?
I've
never used one of those photo machines.) I plan to mail it to her
tomorrow, but I just remembered that I converted to jpeg from a
(tiff)
cmyk file. Should I have converted it from the RGB version
instead--or
does the color space not matter when converting to jpeg?

Yes the color space matters. In my area at least, Walmart uses Fuji
machines
for the 1 hour printing, and Kodak dye-subs for the instant prints
(which is
more expensive). For the Fuji machines, you want to make sure the
JPG is in
the sRGB color space (evidently most/all of the Fuji machines ignore
any color
space indications in the EXIF header).

After some bad prints, I have been stopped printing at Walmart, since
they now
crank up the auto-correction and boost the saturation which took
pictures that
used to print fine and now turn them into garish ugly prints
(presumably the
majority of prints they deal with look better with this, or else
everybody else
thinks they do). However, you may be able to request them not to do
any
corrections. If I don't print it myself, I will send out my pictures
to
mpix.com (shutterfly.com and ezprints.com are other places that I
like).

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

EZPRINTS is the hardest to use!

Michael Meissner wrote:
nosredna writes:

On my Macintosh, I converted a friend's wedding photo from tiff to
jpeg
and burned it to a CD for a friend so she could have WalMart make
it
into Christmas cards. I mailed it off to her, and three weeks
later she
called and said WalMart did a test print and it "doesn't look
right." I
have no idea what she means; her description over the phone didn't
help
me at all. (She lives several hours away, so I can't just drop by
to see
it.) She said she took it to KMart and Staples also--same problem.
While
on the phone I suggested she try opening it on her PC, but she got
an
error message ("jpeg file has errors" or something like that). I
tried
it in my daughter's Windows 98 PC and I get the same error message.
But
it opens fine on my husband's PC at work (with Windows XP). And of
course it opens and prints fine on my Mac. I burned a new CD and
went to
my local WalMart to test it. It showed up on the photo machine
screen,
but I didn't do a test print. (Am I correct in assuming that if I
could
see it on the WalMart screen it would probably print correctly?
I've
never used one of those photo machines.) I plan to mail it to her
tomorrow, but I just remembered that I converted to jpeg from a
(tiff)
cmyk file. Should I have converted it from the RGB version
instead--or
does the color space not matter when converting to jpeg?

Yes the color space matters. In my area at least, Walmart uses Fuji
machines
for the 1 hour printing, and Kodak dye-subs for the instant prints
(which is
more expensive). For the Fuji machines, you want to make sure the
JPG is in
the sRGB color space (evidently most/all of the Fuji machines ignore
any color
space indications in the EXIF header).

After some bad prints, I have been stopped printing at Walmart, since
they now
crank up the auto-correction and boost the saturation which took
pictures that
used to print fine and now turn them into garish ugly prints
(presumably the
majority of prints they deal with look better with this, or else
everybody else
thinks they do). However, you may be able to request them not to do
any
corrections. If I don't print it myself, I will send out my pictures
to
mpix.com (shutterfly.com and ezprints.com are other places that I
like).

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

writes:

EZPRINTS is the hardest to use!

I don't recall it being that much more difficult than the other two selections
I pointed out (shutterfly.com and mpix.com). However, if you find it hard,
there are always other vendors willing to take your money.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

writes:

EZPRINTS is the hardest to use!

I don't recall it being that much more difficult than the other two selections
I pointed out (shutterfly.com and mpix.com). However, if you find it hard,
there are always other vendors willing to take your money.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

Try to go there, upload images and choose a calendar. It is the least
intuitive program I have EVER used. Shame on them for not conducting
simple usability testing.

Try to go there, upload images and choose a calendar. It is the least
intuitive program I have EVER used. Shame on them for not conducting
simple usability testing.

writes:

Try to go there, upload images and choose a calendar. It is the least
intuitive program I have EVER used. Shame on them for not conducting
simple usability testing.

I'll take your word for it, since I've only done normal prints.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org

writes:

Try to go there, upload images and choose a calendar. It is the least
intuitive program I have EVER used. Shame on them for not conducting
simple usability testing.

I'll take your word for it, since I've only done normal prints.

--
Michael Meissner
email:
http://www.the-meissners.org