 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006Why 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. > 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.  SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > 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? > 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. SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > 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 > 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. I see that the printers are very cheap. I wonder how well built though. The inks are expensive and you usually won't get all you pay for. One of the reasons I went away from film was to get away from developing costs, and only have to pay for prints that I want and not have to develop the ones that don't turn out. Ink jet printing at home puts much of that cost back, although I am starting to see that it may be necessary to get control of the process. > 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? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > only with more professional equipment. "More professional" does not > necessarily mean better results, however. I thought perhaps they made a slide and did exactly that. More professional sometimes means better built, more reliable, servicable, faster, etc. I agree that it doesn't necessarily mean better results as I can see on this particular set of prints that I am very unhappy with. I am still going to take them to other shops and see what else is available. I have had some done at other places that seemed to turn out ok, but I didnt compare them after. These ones jumped out at me as particularily bad which is what brought it to my attention. > 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. I calibrated my monitor with a spyder so that I would be viewing it in a standard way. I presumed that the printers used at photolabs would have a calibration that matched a standard monitor calibration so that everyones photos would look correct without having to distribute profiles. I am probably wrong about this. The colour matching was actually only the minor problem. The contrast adjustments that they did was the most offensive part of the service. It made all very dark tones black and the very light tones white. The pictures look both over and underexposed whereas they were perfectly exposed in reality. The problem of the cropping can be solved by getting borders on the prints. I am probably going to do that in the future. > 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 > 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. > > Before everyone reminds me that I need a colour managed workflow, > > here was the setup: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > -Mike Another suggestion is most Kiosk, or cheap printers use sRGB color space. If you have created your files with Adobe RGB you will get the nasty clipping that you described. Pro labs generally use Adobe RGB, but always ask, they will know, at the cheap photo places you may get lucky and have a kid interested in photography there, but most of the time it is a personal asigned from the cosmetic counter. Try to get a working relationship with a pro level lab, some small shops are surprisingly good. That way if prints aren't as you thought you can ask why. The worst thing is to get bad prints at pro prices. The way most digital printers work is the digital file is printed by a laser or led lights on photopaper. Some labs are using wide format inkjets to print larger pictures 20" wide and up, but why not, in the right hands the prints are beautiful and they last longer than traditonal photos. If you are looking for your own inkjet, get a 13x19 model, HP Designjet or Epson are the best. If you print gloss the Epson R1800 iss a great printer, HP is coming out with the 9180, pigmented ink that have been rated for 200 years. Tom > Another suggestion is most Kiosk, or cheap printers use sRGB color > space. If you have created your files with Adobe RGB you will get the [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Tom Thank you for your response. I just opened each of the images from the card I used to bring the images. Each one was using sRGB for colour representation and looked right. I think I'll go elseware for prints in the future. The price wasn't very good anyway at $0.24/print and the quality is unsatisfying. I suspect the people doing it don't have a clue and you can't pick which "technician"/cosmetic counterperson does the work. >> Before everyone reminds me that I need a colour managed workflow, >> here was the setup: [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >1) Ask the photolab for a PS profile. This is unlikely with a low cost lab. Actually he may find one here.... http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/ Drycreek has ICC profiles for many of the chain stores. Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > >1) Ask the photolab for a PS profile. This is unlikely with a low cost lab. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Drycreek has ICC profiles for many of the chain stores. Most "labs" are expecting (or assuming) an sRGB profile (which is a standard in it's own right). I'm wondering if using the correct profile for the printer may actually make the issue worse if the device is set to interpret it as sRGB. >> >1) Ask the photolab for a PS profile. This is unlikely with a low cost >lab. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >printer may actually make the issue worse if the device is set to interpret >it as sRGB. sRGB is a monitor profile not the print profile. Signature"I have been a witness, and these pictures are my testimony. The events I have recorded should not be forgotten and must not be repeated." -James Nachtwey- http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ > sRGB is a monitor profile not the print profile. > -- I believe that sRGB is a color space not a profile. And I also believe that some labs assume a photo is in sRGB color space and translate , as best they can, into the printers colors space based on this. Scott > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and translate , as best they can, into the printers colors space based > on this. I concur, and to address CJ's question: Yes, if the lab only "knows" sRGB, your aRGB (or other color space) file may look and be off when printed. Signaturejohn mcwilliams > I believe that sRGB is a color space not a profile. > And I also believe that some labs assume a photo is in sRGB color space > and translate , as best they can, into the printers colors space based > on this. It is a colour space - but it's full description is Colour Space PROFILE. There are a variety of types of profiles - a colour space is one. You'll find that just about all "1 hour" type labs assume sRGB - but to use the phrase "as best they can" is a bit "misleading" - all output profiles do is map an output value from a given input value with no particular "interpretation" of the data (excluding rendering intents). > sRGB is a monitor profile not the print profile. No - it's a device independent profile that can (and is) used for monitor profiles, but also for many other things (eg many cameras & scanners). You can read all about it on the ICC's website: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/Color/sRGB 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. This is not a joke, completely serious. Yes, I spent a lot on good hardware. This only costs me once. I'll may never need another camera. I am very happy with my lenses. The spyder should work well as long as windows can use colour profiles. These are all one time investments in the equipment. The monitor is fantastic, but eventually the backlight will burn out, but I will get it fixed. CS2 is a great piece of software and should be more than I need for as long as I can see. The Rebel XT is my first digital camera. I waited until now because prior to the XT, I didnt find the digital cameras to be good enough to put money into. They all had some tradeoff or problems that I found unacceptable. I considered the 20D but it was 50% more money for what seemed to be an only slightly better camera. 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. I don't mind spending a fair bit of money once for a good tool. I hate shelling out over and over again to upgrade or for consumables. I had presumed that since I had film developing and printing that I was satisfied with from the same company, that the digital prints would be at least as good, but it appears that they are doing something strange with the data to try to "help". Do most people have low contrast images and it makes them look better by clipping the extremes? Maybe they think if they crop a few percent of each side, the image will match the 95% view that the viewfinders give? I was just inexperienced in getting digital prints done at a consumer photo lab and wondered if there was a way to pre-process the images to make them turn out from their process. Many of my pictures end up being viewed on a monitor or on the website so I often don't need prints. If I can manipulate the images in such a way as to complement the kiosk's processing, I might be able to get good prints from it. I am going to take the same images to other places and see how they differ first though. 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. >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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Pennywise and dollar foolish. > Buy the printer. > 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? SignatureJeremy | jeremy@exit109.com > 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. SignatureStacey > 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. It's not actually that bad - bit of a steep learning curve for the first few days, but very satisfying once you've got it nailed. If you "write off" the cost of the printer, consumable costs (in my experience) mean you can print for around 1/4 of what it would cost you elsewhere (true for bigger prints, not such a big advantage for smaller ones). Plus, I've found the ability to do quality prints for others very rewarding (especially large canvases). Cartridges "drying out" isn't an issue we're seeing - so long as the device is powered off correctly (so the cartridges / printhead is sealed). Downside is that the finished prints aren't as robust - you can't print 20 6 x 4s - stack them - shuffle them - and expect them to remain scratch free. You've made a very substantial investment - and done everything right so far, seems a bit of a shame to have to suffer the indignity of "lab" printing after all the effort you've put in. > Cartridges "drying out" isn't an issue we're seeing - so long as the > device > is powered off correctly (so the cartridges / printhead is sealed). It is good to hear that this isn't such a problem anymore. With older b/w and colour inkjets I have used, if they aren't used frequently, they start to have white streaks as the nozzles clog. > Downside is that the finished prints aren't as robust - you can't print 20 > 6 > x 4s - stack them - shuffle them - and expect them to remain scratch free. Can they be clear-coated or something to make them a bit tougher? > You've made a very substantial investment - and done everything right so > far, seems a bit of a shame to have to suffer the indignity of "lab" > printing after all the effort you've put in. I mistakenly assumed that "lab" printing would be of very good quality. So far I have found it is quite a hit and miss affair. I have found a small photofinishing shop near here where the owner runs most of the prints himself and he seems to care about the quality and does great work with photo-restoration. I'm going to discuss the process with him so that maybe I can get the results that I want. > > Cartridges "drying out" isn't an issue we're seeing - so long as the > > device [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and colour inkjets I have used, if they aren't used frequently, they start > to have white streaks as the nozzles clog. I guess it's probably true to say that differing printer designs may have differing issues with things like that. I ended up writing a cheque for just over $10,000 (NZ) dollars and getting an Epson StylusPro 7800 - at times it sits idle for a week or two, and then bursts into life without any issues. I used to be the service agent for the Hewlett Packard models - most of them had rubber cups that sealed around the nozzels when the unit wasn't printing. > > Downside is that the finished prints aren't as robust - you can't print 20 > > 6 > > x 4s - stack them - shuffle them - and expect them to remain scratch free. > > Can they be clear-coated or something to make them a bit tougher? Good question. One of my customers is in the printing / binding / laminating type business - we tried laminating which produced a result that was better than I was expecting, but it was too thick and I didn't like the extra plastic around the outside - the good news though is that the lamination stuck to the paper just fine - so "the door is open" in that respect. He's told me of a new process being available shortly that laminates the photo with an 8 micron covering - we're pretty excited about this (come to think of it, it's rather sad when this is the kind of thing that gets me excited! :( The other option is a new Canon printer that I've heard is going to be released shortly - apparantly it's extremely cost-competitive with the smaller stuff, AND it make prints that are as robust as the lab ones - so we'll see what happens. > I mistakenly assumed that "lab" printing would be of very good quality. So > far I have found it is quite a hit and miss affair. I have found a small > photofinishing shop near here where the owner runs most of the prints > himself and he seems to care about the quality and does great work with > photo-restoration. I'm going to discuss the process with him so that maybe > I can get the results that I want. This was a rude awakening for me too - in the end I discovered it's a bit like building cars - the quickest and cheapest way is to use a production line - whereas the journeyman craftsman who hand builds it from scratch is going to have a much nicer end result. When I starting doing commercial digital printing I put a stake in the ground and said "it's not leaving here unless it's up to standard" - so each and every image get's tweaked in PS. It's hopelessly inefficient on some types of image, but so far we're still continuing to increase the amount of work we're stealing from the competition - and price hasn't been a big issue. Heaps of fun :) All I can say is "do your homework" - ask around - if you haven't already, grab a copy of Real World Color Management by Bruce Fraser & cohorts - when you've read through it, start talking the lingo with your local "labs" - if they don't know what you're talking about then find another lab! Which printers are capable of equivalent or superior printing compared to the equipment at professional labs? > Which printers are capable of equivalent or superior printing compared > to the equipment > at professional labs? Nice try, "Rich". Another open ended troll bait post. SignatureJohn McWilliams You don't know. No surprize there. This is a good question. Along with what are the costs/print including amortizing the purchase costs over the life of the printer? What are the other downsides of home printing? > Which printers are capable of equivalent or superior printing compared > to the equipment > at professional labs? > This is a good question. Along with what are the costs/print including > amortizing the purchase costs over the life of the printer? What are the > other downsides of home printing? It's one of those "how long is a piece of string" questions I'm afraid. I'll give you some examples though ... (New Zealand dollars here) Good old 6 x 4 postcard size works out at 83c in a world where the average "lab" price is around $1 - so nothing to be gained there - at the other end of the scale though when you get to the likes of 12 x 18 that the "lab" charges $20 for, I can do for under $5. The fun starts when you start doing things like big canvases - I sell a 20 x 30 for $115 - but it only costs 1/2 that for canvas and ink - so nice margins (even more if you're printing and selling your own work - canvases here retail (mounted) for $395 to $595 - and the mounting only costs about $45 - so HUGE margins there if you're not trying to get too much of a return on your time. If you're keen, take a look at the Epson StylusPro 4800 - it's the 17" version of my 24" unit (so you'll still be able to do 16 * 24 + panoramas) - it isn't cheap, but not too bad compared to what you've paid already. Have a read about what they're saying about the Epson K3 inks - they're getting rave reviews. I'm not normally a big Epson fan - so I tossed and turned - read every review for every printer I could lay my hands on - in the end I was left with a feeling that there were a few printers that might be able to do the job, but with the Epson there was no doubt it WOULD do the job - and I haven't been disappointed. In terms of Amortizing the capital cost of the unit into the print cost - it depends totally on how many prints you're going to do - so can't help with that one. I've certainly never regretted buying mine - in fact it's been the most fun I've had for a long time - it's always a pleasure to look at nice photos - and now, rather than have to take them myself I get people sending them to me - it's a dirty job, but someone has to do it! And if it didn't work out you could always sell it and probably not lose too much. > 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. So, why haven't you talked to the folks at the lab to see what they have to say? It sort of boggles the mind, but if you want to get good prints out of their equipment, they might actually be able to tell you how to accomplish it. If you've adjusted them on a calibrated monitor, then you might want to tell them not to make corrections or adjustments. Most places run the equivalent of auto-levels and/or auto-color on the images before printing. And remember that your LCD will probably show more detail in the shadows than the prints are capable of. steve >>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 [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > And remember that your LCD will probably show more detail in the shadows > than the prints are capable of. Steve- Rich doesn't ask many questions that have real answers, as most are hypothetical. It's alleged he doesn't own a digital camera, but I don't care about that. I care that he continually creates long threads about nothing that ever gets anywhere, and that wastes a lot of people's time. Yes, I could kill file him, but then I'd be unable to warn others. SignatureJohn McWilliams >>>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 [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Yes, I could kill file him, but then I'd be unable to warn others. Hi John, Rich does do that sometimes (although I find his posts kind of fun) but your answer here isn't in part of the thread that has one of Rich's posts in it, nor did he ask the original question for which I really did want some other's opinions and experiences on. > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > look the same. I also assumed that the photolabs don't alter the images but > just print what you gave them. Use an online service such as that offered by Adorama, and make sure to check No Auto Color Adjustment and No Crop and Resize to fit. Alternatively, see if your kiosk has these options available. Sounds like that's exactly what's happening to yours, i.e., they are adjusting color automatically and they are somehow cropping or resizing your images. I just got some prints back from Adorama, and they look exactly as they did on my monitor. SignatureRegards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com Use an online service such as that offered by Adorama, and make sure to check No Auto Color Adjustment and No Crop and Resize to fit. Alternatively, see if your kiosk has these options available. Sounds like that's exactly what's happening to yours, i.e., they are adjusting color automatically and they are somehow cropping or resizing your images. -- Regards, Matt Clara www.mattclara.com (clipped) > Use an online service such as that offered by Adorama, and make sure to > check No Auto Color Adjustment and No Crop and Resize to fit. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > got some prints back from Adorama, and they look exactly as they did on my > monitor. I've noticed that the Fuji machines used by WalMart have an option to enhance or not enhance your photos. It defaults to "enhance" and if I've forgotten to un click it, I get photos like the original poster described. They also automatically crop the 4 x 6 prints so I have to allow for that when editing them in my computer. We have our first grandaughter and my wife takes over a hundred photos on the one or two days a week we care for her. I can't afford to print them myself when WalMart does it for $.17 each. I've told her that I'm going to have to put a "governor" on her camera. Even though I'm retired, I feel like one of the labmonkeys at Wally World. Tom G. The problem is the photolabs machines make automatic adjustments to your images by default. They asume that we are idiots and try to automatically correct our mistakes. Next time you go tell them to send the files directly to the printer. >ur shifting of some |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.