Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

I shoot RAW with a Nikon D7100 and D850, develop in Lightroom, and so far I've limited my images to the computer. I used to get prints made when I used 35mm and a Nikon D60, never had any complaints. Today, I got two 8 x 12's back from a local camera shop & couldn't recognize my own work, told he doesn't use inkjet. I then did cursory research on how printing is done, and my guess is that the local shop doesn't use silver halide, either. Do most online services use that? Can anyone lead me to good ones who will not make me feel my Lightroom work is in vain? Also, if anyone is interested in comparing halide vrs. inkjet, I want to hear.

PixelStan77 Loc: Vermont/Chicago

I use COSTCO and they use Silver Halide on my 4 x 6. You can get a calibration curve from them so what you see on your screen is the same as to what you get back. If you don't want to do that, you can have them autocorrect.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

MPIX for me, and especially for B&W.

NOT the last nickel cheapest on price, but certainly not expensive, and they do awesome work with almost Fort Knox security packaging.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Ex-lab mgr here... Is your monitor custom calibrated and custom profiled monthly? If not, know that all good labs calibrate to the same standards, regardless of printing methods. If your images were adjusted on a properly calibrated monitor, and exported in sRGB, the lab should give you prints that closely match your monitor.

If unfamiliar with ICC color management techniques, visit datacolor.com and x-rite.com to learn, and then order a kit. Used correctly, it yields “what you see on the monitor is (nearly) what you get from the lab” results.

LWW Loc: Banana Republic of America

Good advice.

photoman022 Loc: Manchester CT USA

me too and I'm very happy with them

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Silver halide *B&W process* leaves pure silver metal in the emulsion. With proper processing and care of *fiber-based* papers, these prints can last hundreds of years.

Silver halide *color (chromogenic) process* leaves only dyes in film and paper emulsions. All the silver is removed and recycled (it’s poisonous and valuable).

The dyes in wet processed color papers are the least stable of any color process. 20-40 years (Estimated...) is the expected lifespan before noticeable fading.

*Photographic* Inkjet printing can use dyes or pigments. Dye inks can last 100 years. Pigment inks can last 100 to 400 years. (Estimates...)

Photo printers use 6 to 12 inks. The more colors, the smoother the reproduction — to a point. Dyes reproduce pastels more delicately. Pigments are better for saturated colors, but these differences are SLIGHT.

Inkjet can print on a wide variety of “substrates” including canvas, cotton rag paper, thin art board, and standard photo papers.

Inkjet prints are a lot more expensive than silver halide papers. 4x to 5x the cost is not uncommon. They make the most sense for large, archival salon prints, huge family portraits, large point of purchase posters, etc.

Home inkjet printing can be fun, IF you know ICC color management disciplines. IT IS NEVER CHEAP. If you want cheap, go to Costco or some mass photofinisher.

ChappyKeith

I get all my prints done at Hitechalbums.com find them to be very knowledgable and prints are great.

StaneeRae Loc: Lincroft, NJ USA

I’ve never tried this lab, but lots of New Jersey wedding photographers used to take their film there. Their large print - poster special has good prices.
https://elcocolor.net/index.php/poster-special

Judy795

I just had two different photo's printed at BayPhoto. For the first time I had them done on their better papers. Each were 8x12 prints. Both came back very dark. Yes, they did color correction. While I don't have a fancy monitor, I do calibrate it with Sypder Pro, and use sRBG, edited in Lightroom.
I called them and they are being reprinted on "regular" paper. No charge for reprinting and they gave me a credit on my account in addition.
I have used them before numerous times and this is the first time I have had such a color disparity.

coolhanduke Loc: Redondo Beach, CA

I owned a photo lab for 17 years. If it's not Silver Halide and not Ink Jet, I'm not sure what it would be. Other than "direct to substrate" technology. And if it's not one of those two, maybe that's why it came back so horrible. If it's not a traditional printing technology it may not be printing the colors very accurately at all.

I would try sending one of the prints to an on-line service that uses Silver Halide and see what the result it. If it come back looking like what you expected, go back to the local lab with both prints and ask for a refund.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

First, reset the monitor to factory settings. Then, with your Spyder5Pro, try doing a FULL calibration with these aims:

Gamma 2.2
Initial color temperature 5800K
Black Point 0.5 candelas/square meter
White Point 80 to 120 cd/m^2

A white point of 105 is close to the PPA print competition brightness standard.

The #1 cause of dark prints is too much monitor brightness.

Judy795

Thanks

Brucer Loc: Bedminster, NJ

Thanks for everybody's help. Monitor calibration is new to me, and I'm going to go over recommendations here with my son, who is better with the technology by far than I am. Also, I'm surprised silver halide chromogenic process is good for only 20-40 years...are "wet processed color papers" the only sort of papers used chromogenically? Also, as an ancillary interest, I assume large gallery prints are all done by ink jets?

About the two bad prints, the proprietor, who did return my money, said he doesn't use an ink jet, but he didn't say what he does use. I gave him room to tell me if he could change settings or what have you. That didn't get very far. I had immediately driven back to discuss the prints with him, having discovered the problem at home. I hadn't begun yet begun to look into the printing process. I know something was amiss on his end, because I got 4 x 6 prints of the same 8 x 12 images, which were closer to what I had done in Lightroom, although even these prints were not quite right.

Thanks again and you've been very helpful.