If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
Hi,
I took some of my pictures from the Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D) in to Superstore's photolab http://www.photolab.ca/Brand/en/PhotolabHP.asp to have prints made. I used the kiosk to order the prints in 6x4" and I now have the prints back and I am not pleased with them at all. Firstly they cropped the pictures about 4mm on all sides. Secondly the colours are not accurate. Finally they have clipped both the shadows and highlights. They highlights are quite blown and the shadows have lost most of their detail. Before everyone reminds me that I need a colour managed workflow, here was the setup: Canon Rebel XT in raw mode. Adobe photoshop ACR and CS2. Viewsonic VP201s 20.1" LCD. Colorvision Spyder calibrated and ICM file loaded. The output files were quality 12 jpgs in sRGB colour at 3456x2304 resolution. I copied them back to a compact-flash card and took the card to the store. The pictures looked great on the monitor with good detail in the highlights and shadows. They also were not clipped but they did have full histograms. I assumed that photolabs have the printing machines calibrated to a standard so that if I have a calibrated monitor, that the prints that come back will look the same. I also assumed that the photolabs don't alter the images but just print what you gave them. Luckily I only had a 5 prints made, but I am wondering what I did wrong. Do the kiosks do levels adjustments or sharpening or colour shifting of some sort or do they print exactly as given. It seems that their black level is much to high and the white level much to low. My file had values from 0-255, but the printed output looks clipped to about 30-210 or so. I don't plan on buying my own photoprinter as the operating costs are too high compared to the 16-24 cents per print at local photolabs. How do you prepare your images so that the prints will look right when a lab does them? The blown highlights and lost shadow details are the most offensive to me, followed closely by the cropping, and finally the colours being a little off is annoying but less important. Thanks for any responses. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
default wrote:
Before everyone reminds me that I need a colour managed workflow, here was the setup: You don't need a color-managed workflow (well, you do, but you already have one). What you need is for that workflow to extend to the output stage. You need a lab that will print your pictures as you give them to you, with no "helpful" automatic adjustments. Basic consumer labs are not those labs. I assumed that photolabs have the printing machines calibrated to a standard so that if I have a calibrated monitor, that the prints that come back will look the same. You were being over-optimistic, I'd say. I also assumed that the photolabs don't alter the images but just print what you gave them. They most certainly, definitely, and emphatically do not do that, unless they say they do. I use printroom.com, which supports ICC profiles and will do your prints exactly as you send them. There are others like that as well. If they don't present themselves as a "pro" lab, you should assume they do not do these things. Almost no consumer labs support a color-managed workflow. How do you prepare your images so that the prints will look right when a lab does them? The one thing you need to understand is that printed pictures will be perceptually darker than what you see on screen. I apply a slight gamma adjustment to files I send for printing. You sometimes lose the deepest shadows anyway; that's the nature of the beast. But, by and large, you're doing nothing wrong other than using the wrong lab. -- Jeremy | |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
default wrote:
Before everyone reminds me that I need a colour managed workflow, here was the setup: :-) You have missed a step in your workflow. You must also use an output profile to the photolab. There are 3 choices I can think of ATM. 1) Ask the photolab for a PS profile. This is unlikely with a low cost lab. 2) Find out what printer the lab uses and use a generic profile. 3) Make a series of test prints and do a rough profile yourself. I had reasonable results using this method with a photolab across the road from where I work but it took about 30 prints and is still not perfect. -Mike |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
I find it astounding that you would invest all that money, time and effort
(CS2, Spyder, 20 inch LCD) and then worry about the cost of printing your own images. You expect quality 4x6 images from a do it yourself kiosk? This is not a joke? The money you wasted on the LCD alone would cover many months of printing costs. Pennywise and dollar foolish. Buy the printer. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
"Jeremy Nixon" wrote in message
... The one thing you need to understand is that printed pictures will be perceptually darker than what you see on screen. I apply a slight gamma adjustment to files I send for printing. You sometimes lose the deepest shadows anyway; that's the nature of the beast. But, by and large, you're doing nothing wrong other than using the wrong lab. Thank you, Jeremy. I knew they would be a bit darker and not quite the same as the print reflects light and the monitor emits. I wasn't expecting such a large cropping (about 3/16" of the picture is missing on all sides). I've had prints done elsewhere but I didn't compare them carefully until I got these back and wondered how I blew out the highlights so bad and what happened to the detail in the dark areas that were now black. Then I compared carefully and was shocked how bad the prints were when the image on the monitor looked so good and wasn't blown out at all. I'll have to look around for a different place, or go to a small shop where the owner runs it and I can ask to have them unprocessed, just printed. Do photolabs use an enlarger and do chemical prints, or are they just inkjet or laser prints on photopaper? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
default wrote:
I wasn't expecting such a large cropping (about 3/16" of the picture is missing on all sides). Borderless ("full bleed") prints are always cropped to some extent, and always were, even with film. Some places less than others; it depends on how precise they try to be when projecting the image onto the paper. Personally, I order my prints with white borders, which results in no cropping at all. I prefer the look anyhow. I'll have to look around for a different place, or go to a small shop where the owner runs it and I can ask to have them unprocessed, just printed. Well, you need more than just unprocessed; for the absolute best results, you need a lab that actually supports a color-managed workflow. Then you can leave your files in Adobe RGB or whatever other working space you use, and the output will be correct. The place I mentioned, printroom.com, does this, and also provides an ICC profile for soft-proofing. (There is no need for you to do the color space conversion.) A "pro" lab should have no trouble with this, and it frees you from needing to do test prints, adjustments, and whatever other nonsense. It also frees you from having to convert to sRGB, which is good since almost all printing processes, especially photographic ones, are capable of colors outside the sRGB gamut. Do photolabs use an enlarger and do chemical prints, or are they just inkjet or laser prints on photopaper? They will be photographic (optical) enlargements, but nowadays the paper is usually exposed with a laser in the digital printing machines. Google "Fuji Frontier" to get an idea. -- Jeremy | |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
"Mike Warren" wrote in message
... You have missed a step in your workflow. You must also use an output profile to the photolab. There are 3 choices I can think of ATM. 1) Ask the photolab for a PS profile. This is unlikely with a low cost lab. I doubt the counter guy would have a clue what it is but maybe a manager would know. 2) Find out what printer the lab uses and use a generic profile. This is an interesting idea if the printer they use is reasonably consistant with others of the same type. 3) Make a series of test prints and do a rough profile yourself. This may be be fairly good. I can compare the originals to the prints and figure out what levels they are clipping to and pre-compress the dynamic range of the picture into this region. Thanks for your suggestions. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
default wrote:
Consumables for a colour printer is an ongoing expense. Printers can be quite a hassle, especially if you don't use them frequently. Ink cartridges dry out and get unreliable necessitating early replacement. The real cost per print for a consumer printer for my infrequent use would be very high. Besides, after spending thousands to get well set-up, I don't want significant ongoing expenses. Ordering photographic prints is cheaper than doing your own printing on a really good inkjet, and the results are better to boot. With a real, color-manged workflow all the way to output, you have total control over the result. Do most people have low contrast images and it makes them look better by clipping the extremes? Yes. Think of the average consumer. They are impressed by oversaturated, contrasty images that "pop", or whatever sound it is they're supposed to make. That's the target audience. They don't *want* their pictures to look just like the files they're sending. They would complain if they did, and go somewhere else where they would oversaturate them and clip their highlights and shadows just the way they like it. Maybe they think if they crop a few percent of each side, the image will match the 95% view that the viewfinders give? That's just being sloppy. Think back to the darkroom -- it's harder (takes more time) to set up an enlarger to do a borderless print while preserving as much of the frame as possible, than to just let the edges bleed off and leave it. To really get it precise every time they would probably end up having to adjust it for each run, at least sometimes. And no one but us perfectionists is ever going to notice, so why bother? -- Jeremy | |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
default wrote:
But thank you for your response. I appreciate differing opinions and priorities and I might end up having to get my own printer anyway to really have control of the process end to end. This is why most people do their own printing, not trying to save money. As you said the "minilab" 4X6 prints are cheap but this is yet again a case of you get what you pay for. Also IMHO a good inkjet print looks better than any of the comercially made prints I've had done even at "pro" labs. -- Stacey |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Why do photolab digital prints not look right?
In article Yp%_f.5066$7a.876@pd7tw1no,
"default" wrote: I'll have to look around for a different place, or go to a small shop where the owner runs it and I can ask to have them unprocessed, just printed. Good inkjet printers are surprisingly cheap (although the ink is sometimes costly). Get yourself a good printer and calibrate your computer and printer so you get what you expect. Do photolabs use an enlarger and do chemical prints, or are they just inkjet or laser prints on photopaper? You mean do they take your CD, generate an image on a projector, project it onto photosensitive paper and process it chemically to create a print? While that is technically possible (in fact, that is how a lot of movies are made--shot digitally and converted to film for distribution), that is not what a typical photo lab would do. They use an inkjet or laser printer and photo quality printer paper, just as you would do at home, only with more professional equipment. "More professional" does not necessarily mean better results, however. The difference is, at home, you can control the quality. At a photo lab, unless you want to pay for custom work, you may get no better than what you got on the K-Mart machine. And that applies to film as well as digital prints, except it is probably easier for a lab to screw up a digital print. Also, keep in mind that a monitor and a printer will not have the same color characteristics. You have to calibrate each separately. A picture adjusted to look good from a printer, may not look good on a monitor and vice versa. But calibration software will take care of that for you. Merritt |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NY Times: "Digital Moves to Top-Tier Cameras" | Jeremy | 35mm Photo Equipment | 5 | February 22nd 06 11:15 AM |
Digital Stock /Footage & Clips CDs, updated 24/Jan/2006 | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 8 | February 3rd 06 03:00 AM |
Why digital cameras are no good | Scott W | Digital Photography | 26 | April 12th 05 10:14 AM |
Price War Hits Digital Photos | MrPepper11 | Digital Photography | 3 | March 19th 05 12:32 AM |
New Leica digital back info.... | Barney | 35mm Photo Equipment | 19 | June 30th 04 12:45 AM |