Printing photos
Mar 30, 2021 11:57:25 #
dat2ra wrote:
I send out photos to be printed commercially for clients to Bay Photo and have not been satisfied with either color balance or exposure even though I paid extra for "color balancing". However, all the work from Meridian has been spot on, and some of which I had previously printed through Bay Photo so could compare. It seem that some labs actually have humans who look at the work. Also, if you want the colors to last, even when under glass, keep them out of florescent light.
Ex lab guy here...
Every time I see a comment like this, the system troubleshooting alarm goes off in my head. I spent five years of the early 2000s transitioning a portrait lab from 100% film/optical printing to a fully digital portrait lab, so I've been through the "tunnel of color nightmares and horrors" many times, back when we were all pioneers.
In 2021, every "professional color lab" in the world worthy of that designation has access to the finest color management tools and materials we have ever had. If you give them properly color-managed files, they are capable of excellent output. But if you adjust your images on an uncalibrated, un-profiled monitor so they look good TO YOU, they will look very different on someone else's *calibrated* monitor or printer!
While some labs can color adjust files sent to them, unless you give them a 16-bit TIFF file in a wide gamut color space (and let them know exactly what you're sending), chances are they will have limited ability to adjust the color into the "pleasing" zone.
Here's the paradox of JPEG adjustment: The closer to perfect it is, the more latitude they have to fix it. The farther out in the weeds it is, the less latitude they have to adjust it. JPEGs contain limited information. The JPEG format is for image storage and file transportation efficiency, and it is meant to be a distribution format, not a format used to adjust images.
The simplest way to get EXCELLENT results from any lab, commercial printer, or high-end giclee service bureau is to:
> Use a monitor made for photographers and graphic artists
> Calibrate and custom profile that monitor with a hardware and software package from X-Rite or Datacolor
> Work from raw files, in a completely non-destructive application such as Adobe Lightroom Classic
> Output fully finished, color-adjusted JPEGs in sRGB color space for most labs, or 16-bit TIFFs in Adobe RGB color space for high-end labs and service bureaus.
I have a humble Late 2013 iMac. I calibrate it and profile it monthly with a SpyderXElite. I also calibrate it and profile it before every major image editing session.
My prints (on photo paper) — even off a mediocre office inkjet — are an excellent match for the iMac monitor. Lab prints from mPix and Shutterfly and Bay Photo are also extremely close matches with my monitor images. Honestly, I really don't need to care where I send a properly color-managed file. It's gonna look acceptable.
And no, I never ask for custom color adjustment. I do that myself.
How do I know this is possible, other than having done it? Well, in 1998, I joined DIMA, the Digital Imaging Marketing Association. At each year's PMAI (Photo Marketing Association International), they held a "printer shoot-out".
DIMA had a small group of top, independent industry experts make prints on every printer entered in the competition by manufacturers, using the same exact test file. They tested printers that cost anywhere from $80.00 to $280,000.
The results were matted and displayed under controlled lighting in the PMAI exhibit halls, and we DIMA members were asked to vote on the best image in each category. A reference print made on the previous year's overall winner was displayed with each batch of entries. In nearly every category, some devices were able to match the reference print!
Amazingly, there seemed to be little correlation between printer price and faithful reproduction. Every year, the best $5000 inkjet print was better than the best prints from the best $126,000 laser mini-lab and the best $150,000 dedicated 20" roll paper printer. But even a $100 desktop printer made an excellent match to the reference image in 2010. I stared at that print — posted next to the standard reference — and realized that we were in a new world of control!
Every year, the point was made that proper ICC color management was largely responsible for the consistency and quality of the entries. It isn't the tools... It's how they are used!
Mar 30, 2021 12:22:34 #
Just f.y.I., most inks used in professional printers have a life expectancy of up to 100 years. That’s of course if you keep them out of direct sunlight.
There are test results you can probably google on life expectancy of ink jet prints.
There are test results you can probably google on life expectancy of ink jet prints.
Mar 30, 2021 12:30:40 #
Apr 15, 2021 19:50:19 #
Cutelouise
Loc: New Jersey
No question being able to accomplish a start to finish job on your own is something to be proud of. Many of us have decided that's not always possible though or want larger. I discovered "Walgreens" to be an exceptional and convenient option. If you use their "discount coupon" offers you can get a Large poster size at very competitive pricing and usually in almost the same time it takes you to print it yourself. I've had a few "re-do's" at no charge also. If you take the file to them they will help you load it, resize it and correct it. I would at least look into their service. Remember to check for the DISCONT too, usually 40 to 50% off, I've had 20"x30" done for 10 or 12 dollars.
Apr 15, 2021 20:58:57 #
coolhanduke wrote:
Wilhelm-research is the place to get info.
Some recent Epson black inks are estimated to be good for 200 years under glass in museum light, and 400 years in dark storage. (Assumes archival papers and mounting materials or sleeves).
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.