burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Most professional color labs have a two-tiered pricing — one for no color correction, and a higher price for individual color correction. The latter is far more labor intensive, because they are doing the photographer's job for them!

Labs had to do that color analysis back in the days of film. Either they did it with an automatic color analyzer, using "scene balance algorithms" as Kodak called them, or they used a video color negative analyzer, which projected the negative image as a positive on a video monitor. The operator would turn dials for brightness (actually negative density), and cyan, magenta, and yellow printer lamp house filtration, until the image looked "right" to her. Then she would write those numbers on the negative envelope, so the printer operator could tune the lamp house on the optical printer.

That whole process seems amazingly primitive now...

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, CA

He means Chromogenic Color Prints, AKA C Prints. Not really a good thing. Ink Jet Prints are more stable and fad much slower. Silver Halide is cool for Black & White prints. But you will not find that easily for digital today.

Deanie1113

Thank you! I AM enjoying the cheapness of Costco, but do you have a commercial print place recommendation that is not real expensive, but maybe a little better quality than Costco? I just don't want the ink to fade quickly. Thanks!

peterg Loc: Santa Rosa, CA

When I started, I developed film in racks of seven rolls per rack. The machine lifted the racks from one chemical tank to the next. Worked great unless a rack fell and I had to untangle the mess in total darkness. The printer was loaded with long rolls of paper. The operator looked at each negative and pushed one of several buttons to adjust the exposure. The print was then cut from the roll and dropped into a rocking tank of developer. Brightness and contrast was adjusted by exposure and developer times. When the print looked good, a person would toss it into the fixer tank. The prints moved through the rocking bank of tanks and dumped into a basket. We'd then place each print onto a gas-heated chrome drum to dry. Dried prints were then individualy sorted by putting them into pigeonholes for pricing and packaging. Times have changed. I don't miss those days.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

If you're just looking for cheap prints, they won't be inkjet prints. They will be conventional 'C' (chromogenic, silver halide, wet process) prints.

Ink used in the best HIGH END inkjet printers (from Canon, Epson, and sometimes HP) is pigment based. It is very expensive, compared to 'C' prints, and the printing process is relatively slow and labor-intensive. Inkjet prints are made by better professional color labs and imaging service bureaus. Many of those same labs make conventional 'C' (chromogenic silver halide) prints.

mPix and Millers (same company), Adoramapix, Shutterfly, Bay Photo, Full Color, UPI lab, H&H, and many others you've never heard of are out there. My suggestion is this:

Use Google to find a professional lab near you. Download their catalog if possible. VISIT their facility and have a conversation about how to best use their services. They will usually discuss things like monitor calibration, soft proofing, color space for submissions, file sizes vs image dimensions in pixels, and their specific products and processes available.

About print life: Wilhelm Research tests various photographic processes. They have found that under comparable conditions, the best type 'C' color prints last, at best, 50 years. Typically, print life is 20 years or so before significant fading has occurred. I know this from making retrospective video slide shows from scans of peoples' prints.

Wilhelm's tests of the best dye-based inkjet inks shows print life of around 100 years (i.e.; Epson Claria). The best pigment-based inkjet inks (various Epson Ultrachrome variations) can last more than twice that long.

I have a 20x16 print framed under glass in my ping-pong room that I made in 2004 on an Epson 9600. It looks almost exactly like the image on my calibrated monitor does today. I have a 10x8 type 'C' print of the same image made on a Noritsu mini-lab at the same time. It's been in an album in an archival sleeve. The image is slightly faded, has less overall color saturation, and the edges are starting to turn brown! As I remember it, it NEVER looked as good as the Epson print, and could not be made to look that good. (Both were made in the lab where I worked back then... I ran the digital printing departments from 2000-2005.)

The good thing about digital images is that IF PRESERVED, the files never change. But you have to store them on a currently readable medium, and that medium has to survive the test of time.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

I'd bet $1 that your computer monitor isn't calibrated.

It's very common for uncalibrated computer monitors to be way too bright for accurate photo editing. That will cause you to adjust the prints too dark. The image will look fine on your screen, but any prints or viewing digital versions of it with a calibrated monitor will appear too dark.

In all likelihood, your colors are off, too... though that's usually more subtle.

Get a calibration device and use it. Datacolor Spyder and X-Rite ColorMunki in basic versions cost around $125 to $150, but will ultimately pay for themselves in savings of paper and ink or the cost of having outsourced prints redone.

The first thing any of these devices do is help you establish an accurate brightness. Then they run a series of color tests that are used to create a "profile" that's applied to the monitor so that it will render as accurate as possible color.

It's important to recalibrate occasionally too. I have my calibration software set to remind me to do it once a month. Some people do it more often than that. Others do it less frequently, but I wouldn't let it go for more than two months.

The reason it's necessary to recalibrate is because monitors gradually change brightness and how they render color, over time and with age. Typically the most obvious change is a gradual loss of brightness. When it was new some years ago, my monitor needed brightness reduced to "20" (I don't recall what it was or know if this is a percentage). Now after some years of use it's set to around "50", based upon my Spyder calibration device and software.

Once your computer monitor is calibrated, you also can get an "ICC profile" from most printers (I don't know about those you mention, but it's common for them to provide). Download it and "install" it in your image editing software, so that you can "soft proof" your images with a reasonably close rendition of how it will look when printed.

Prints are reflective... you view light being reflected off of them. Computer monitors, on the other hand, are transmissive... you view light being projected from them. Because of this, they can never quite look exactly the same. Monitor quality also varies... few come very close to the pure black and pure white possible in prints, monitors simply don't have a wide enough dynamic range. Most also clip some colors slightly... can't show the full range of the Adobe RGB or even larger Pro Photo RGB color spaces.

Check the printer's guidelines, too. You need to be sure your resolution, bit depth, color space and file type are optimal, for them to do the best possible print of your image. Common printers look for between 170 and 240 pixels per inch (I use 300 ppi, mostly because it makes the math easier). They also often call for 8-bit, sRGB JPEGs. But you should ask them or look for info on their website, to be sure. Particularly if you mismatch color spaces, you will likely have problems with prints.

Hope this helps!

Mark Sturtevant Loc: Grand Blanc, MI

This is super useful. A while ago one of my pictures was selected for a calendar. But the picture in the calendar came back noticeably darker than what I see on my computer screen. Now I probably know why!

Deanie1113

Burkphoto, thank you so much for sharing your knowledge! I think I will contact my local print company and see what they say. Again, thanks for all the info!

frangeo Loc: Texas

Change labs!!!!! Good Labs correct for density. Just like in the old film days.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Good labs offer two services — “as is” printing and “individual color correction” printing.

Those of us from better labs will tell you you’ll save a ton of money AND get much better results if you:

Use custom white balance

Use sRGB for in-camera JPEGs

Record raw and post-process

Use a hardware device and software to calibrate and custom profile your monitor

Use the lab’s ICC printer profile (or the correct profile for your printer+ink+paper combination) and SOFT PROOF in your post processing software

Yes, labs can color correct your work for you. But their color technicians don’t know what you saw! Nor do they know what you like, unless you work closely with them.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

👍👍 Absolutely correct. Opting out of color correction at Bay (one of the premier printers in the country) will save you almost half the cost of a print. For example, a color corrected 16x20 print is $22.00, while correcting yourself, it will cost you $13.50. Doesn’t take long for the calibration device to pay for itself.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

AND, the color and brightness (density) are what YOU want, which is huge.

dsmeltz Loc: Philadelphia

So, the upshot is, if you are printing at home and do not send anything out, adjust your display until it matches your printer.

If you are sending things out for printing, calibrate your monitor and adjust your settings as mentioned above by burkphoto