Comparison: Shutterfly, Winkflash, Adorama, Mpix, A&I, and local pro lab

For a variety of reasons, recently I’ve made a semi-scientific comparison of prints from Shutterfly, Winkflash,

Adorama, Mpix, A&I, and my local pro lab, Professional Color Service. I’d be curious to hear how your experiences

and observations compare to mine.<P>

 

<B><U>Shutterfly</U></B><P>

For a couple of years, I’ve used Shutterfly as my main source of prints. The print quality has always been good. They

make it fairly easy to turn off their ‘corrections’, or at least most of them. They use Fuji Crystal Archive paper, which

appears to be the most archival. Their website is easy to use. You can mix and match glossy and matte prints in

one order. But I’ve had a number of <I>minor</I> frustrations: they can’t or won’t tell you the exact pixel dimensions

that their printers need for each print size (so some resizing and probably sharpening almost certainly occurs), they

don’t offer real black and white paper, Fuji Crystal Archive matte is not as nice as Kodak Endura matte for some

pictures, they don’t offer glossy prints larger than 8x10, they ship prints larger than 8x10 rolled up instead of flat, and

they don’t always ship within one business day of the order. On top of that, they are more expensive than many of

their competitors.<P>

 

<B><U>Winkflash</U></B><P>

I’d heard generally good things about Winkflash. Their web site does list exact pixel dimensions for each print size,

and it claims (at least on one page, although in truth their is an option that you have to look out for) that they never

make corrections. On top of that, their prices are low. I should have known that you rarely get more than what you

pay for. I’d ordered the same 5x7’s on both glossy and matte paper, in separate orders, but they both came on

glossy paper; re-checking the e-mails shows that I ordered correctly and they just printed on the wrong paper. The

packaging was on the cheap side. Larger prints are inkjet, not photographic, which you may or may not like. The first

8x10’s were not cut square--the print was a parallelogram, and also noticeably soft. The second set of 8x10’s were

better, but the overall experience was a notably bad one.<P>

 

<B><U>Adorama (Adoramapix)</U></B><P>

The 11x14-inch prints for $1.99 sale caught my attention, so I gave them a try. They use Kodak paper, so for glossy

you get the (IMO) less-than-desirable Kodak Royal paper. On the other hand, they do have Kodak Endura in matte,

lustre, and metallic finishes, which are nice options to have. The prints were very well packaged--almost as well as

Mpix packages its prints--and the 11x14’s were shipped flat, and with reasonable shipping fees. The prints were a

tad soft, compared to the Shutterfly prints, but I suspect this is because they were probably stretched less to cover

the paper and maybe as a consequence got no, or at least little, extra sharpening (the files looked a little soft at

100% on the monitor, but by experience I thought they were sharp enough, and for Shutterfly they were, so I suspect

Shutterfly always adds some sharpening). One 11x14 on matte paper looked like it had been pressed down on a

small, hard object, resulting in a minor defect. The Adorama web site is not as easy to use as some of the others.

You can only get one paper type in each order; the 11x14’s on glossy, matte, and metallic required three separate

orders, with three separate shipping charges.<P>

 

<B><U>Mpix</U></B><P>

Mpix always ships promptly and packages well. They web site is pretty good. They offer Kodak Endura lustre (I

think, instead of the close-to-matte surface) and Metallic, plus Ilford real black-and-white paper (which, alas, until

recently only came in the “pearl” surface, which I don’t really like, and which is the only surface Mpix offers). They

offer many more print sizes than others. If you don’t want regular glossy paper, Mpix may be the best choice. They

are the choice for real black-and-white (albeit on RC paper with only one choice of surface). Unfortunately, you can

only put one paper type in each order (and therefore, for each shipping charge).<P>

 

<B><U>A&I</U></B><P>

With A&I, you pay a real premium, and they are not normally fast to ship. But the prints have always looked good.

Just be aware that they usually use the pro version of Fuji Crystal Archive paper, which I think has lower contrast

than the standard version. Depending on your workflow (I don't calibrate / profile), you may want to increase contrast

somewhat, if you are used to the more common papers / printing services.<P>

 

<B><U>Professional Color Service, Metairie, Louisiana</U></B><P>

This is my local pro lab. They will still run my 4x5 transparencies in a dip-and-dunk machine on a more-or-less daily

basis. They also offer you-upload, we-don't-make-corrections prints for very competitive prices, in a large variety of

sizes. They use Fuji’s professional-version Crystal Archive paper (see A&I re workflow and contrast). The downsides

are that even though I can walk in almost any weekday morning easily enough, jobs often take several days (even

just no-corrections prints), and their web uploading and ordering system is much more difficult than any of the other

places’ systems. (I'll admit that my uploading system issues may be due in part to the highly 'safe' configurations I

have my browser set to, although I did download the Java applet that they use and did get it running.) They are very

pleasant and helpful. They do ship (which I've never tried), so if you live in Missouri but want to try them, by all

means, go for it.<P>

 

<B><U>Conclusion</U></B><P>

The only <I>easy</I> answer is that, in my (admittedly limited) experience, Winkflash was not worth dealing with.

Two significant problems in four or five print orders is just way too high a problem rate. After that, I think I will

continue to use all of the other labs, at least for some purposes. Shutterfly will probably still make most of my prints,

although I really hope they post exact pixel dimensions for each print size, and work to see that shipping taking

more than one business day is rare; good prints on both glossy and matte easily obtained in the same order at

relatively reasonable prices is a good formula. Mpix is the clear choice for B&W. I have not tried A&I’s B&W on fiber-

based paper, but at $50 for one 8x10, it’s not a great option for me. Adorama and Mpix offer some nice paper

alternatives and good packing; Mpix ships a little faster but Adorama offers more paper options. Between the pro

labs, A&I and the local Professional Color Service were generally comparable in quality; where I like or want

the “professional” Fuji paper, the choice is between the easy-to-use, upload-and-forget A&I for a relatively high price

and the hard-to-upload / order but very reasonably-princed, friendly local Professional Color Service (which does ship,

but I've never tried it). I will probably use PCS more, in part on price and in part because I want to support having a

local place with very pleasant personnel who will not give me a blank stare when I walk in with 4x5 film and request E-

6 processing. So nowhere was perfect, but most were pretty good, and all have advantages in certain areas.<P>

 

Last but not least, evidently nobody makes what I regard as a true matte color paper any more, nor a B&W one for

minlab printing. Neither Fuji "matte" nor Kodak "Lustre" is really matte, and even the Endura matte is more shiny

that I might want for some purposes. The last color paper I saw that was (IMO) a true matte was some Agfa stuff on

which I got prints years ago. For B&W paper, Ilford's "satin" surfuce in RC regular wet darkroom paper is a true

matte, but, Ilford offers their digital minilab paper in "pearl" (most similar to Kodak "lustre" and Fuji "matte") and, as

of recently, glossy, but <I>not</I> satin.

I noticed when I got B&W prints from Shutterfly the contrast seems to be off. They look ok, but the blacks could be

darker.

As of last year, I've found Winkflash has consistent color and neutral B&W on thin-feeling Crystal Archive paper. I have not had them mix up matte and glossy (I use matte for my BW 4x6s). 8x12 print a bit cooler than the 4x6s (subtle color difference).

 

I found Ezprints didn't do neutral B&W and there were color inconsistencies from batch to batch.

 

My local lab here does Frontier prints with huge color shifts from day to day (greenish B&W, etc). Winkflash beats them handily.

 

These days I don't print much at all and print what I have at 8.5x11 or 11x14 on an R1800 with MIS inks.

As of a week or two ago, MPix now allows multiple paper types in the same order.

Dave

 

your comparison study made for very interesting reading, and I'm sure will be helpful to many people - I've sent it to our Director at AdoramaPix.

 

BTW if you ever have a query or concern with any order from Adorama Camera, or AdoramaPix, you can aways contact me directly: helen.oster@adoramacamera.com

 

Sincerely

 

Helen Oster

Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador

The reason matte finishes from Kodak and Fuji aren't like traditional silky textured low shine satin finish is to prevent fingerprints

from showing up.

 

The majority of folks tend to pass their pix around between friends and family which can lead to quite a bit of fingerprints.

 

I do see a need for this better looking low shine satin finish for enlargements and posters destined for framing.

I've tried Adorama, Mpix and A&I. A&I does all my E-6 and B&W film processing. A&I is not the fastest but they do a nice job with my films.

For prints, in addition to those mentioned, aside from A&I, I have had very good service from SmugMug and excellent service from

myPhotopipe.

 

A special mention must be made about the absolutely terrific service received from West Coast Imaging. They are my first choice for

important work. Yes, expensive but worth it when the best is needed. The Schneider glass used to capture the image cost too. It would be a

shame not to maintain one's standards throughout the imaging process. :)

 

Cheers, Jim

Mark: Excellent to know about Mpix and the multiple papers in one order--thanks.

 

Helen: Glad to know someone is listening. Kudos to Adorama for I think being the only one of the places I tried that

offers Kodak Endura in the surface that is more matte than "lustre" (which I think they call matte). This is probably

the best portrait color paper out there today. If the web site were a tad easier, that would be great. Also, I seem to

recall that Adorama used to offer the Ilford real B&W digital paper, but stopped. I guess it didn't sell enough. I would

be curious to see how someone other than Mpix does with it.

 

Tim: You're probably right. Still, it's a shame. With B&W paper, the Ilford "satin" (true matte) always appealed to me

more than Ilford "pearl", but satin was always the red-headed stepchild at Ilford (e.g., not available in the

heavier "portfolio" weight when glossy and pearl were, and now not available in a digital paper when pearl and now

glossy are). But to me, Ilford satin is the best B&W RC paper for many subjects.

 

James: I've heard a lot of good things about West Coast Imaging. Actually I have some 6x6 film I've been meaning to

get re-scanned, and I'm 95% certain it will go there for drum scans.

<p>I just created a 12 month photo calendar at Shutterfly and ordered one. Hope it works out!</p>

<p>http://share.shutterfly.com/action/welcome?sid=0Qas2LRoycMnEw</p>

<p>My past Adorama print orders have been wonderful.</p>

<p><em>My past Adorama print orders have been wonderful.</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Thanks, Ken. We really do appreciate the feedback; I'll make sure it is passed on to the team at AdoramaPix<br>

Sincerely<br>

<strong>Helen Oster<br />Adorama Camera Customer Service Ambassador</strong><br>

helen.oster@adoramacamera.com<br>

www.adorama.com</p>

 

<p>In my experience, West Coast Imaging is expensive but worth it. I use for prints that I am framing and putting on display. FYI, they print the exact size you provide, which is a positive in my opinion. For routine printing, I have used Shutterfly and dotphoto. I find both provide prints that are Very Good and offer a wide variety of merchandise (love the ability of Shutterfly to add custom events to calendars). Have recently stopped using dotphoto because their user interface is a nightmare. In several cases, making a minor tweak to a project required starting from scratch.<br>

Interested in comments re: MPIX. They have a lot of buzz right now, which has me thinking that I should consider them vs. Shutterfly, but the posts here have me thinking otherwise.</p>

<p>I recently made two orders: one from mpix and one from winkflash. <br>

The mpix prints looked really good. A little expensive, but they look great.<br>

A few of the winkflash ones looked ok, but most were really dark and unusable. I emailed winkflash to try and see if they had any suggestions about how I could avoid having the prints come out so dark in the future. They have not replied yet and I do not plan on ordering any prints from them in the future. </p>

<p>Just placed my first order with Adorama. Really hoping they turn out good. After the bad experience with winkflash, I decided to let Adorama perform corrections and left a note that I had adjusted some settings to bring the blue in the skys out which I would like preserved. I'll let you know how they match up when I get the order. </p>

<p>Thanks for all the info! This has been a helpful discusion. </p>

<p>Justin<br>

If you are at all unhappy with your Adorama prints, please do contact me.</p>

<p>Helen Oster</p>

 

<p>I did a close comparison between AdoramaPix and MPix. Here is my review.<br /> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>

First of all, both of them are on the top bar - remarkably better than snapfish / shutterfly / local pharmacy like walgreens / cvs / target. <br>

I have been a adoramapix customer for three years until a friend recommended mpix to me. I had a set of pictures, taken by Kodachrome using a Contax T2, developed and scanned by Dwayne’s Photo. The resolution suffices 300dpi. I had adoramapix print one set and mpix print another set using the same original jpeg files embedded sRGB color space. The extra set was for my parents.<br>

<br /> I chose metallic paper from both labs (no lustre coating from mpix). For a 4×6 print, it cost 29c at adoramapix and 59c at mpix. Mpix roughly double the price.<br /> <br /> The packaging of mpix is slightly better but both over suffices protection purpose.<br /> <br /> Both of them use Kodak Professional Endura paper, adoramapix has a more shining finishing in its surfaces.<br /> For a long time I was not happy with the details of adarama prints – it’s worse than my Canon MP980 printer on Canon Photo Plus paper. Mpix is doing better but not much – still worse than my home printer.<br /> <br /> Talking about the “edges” (object contours) in the prints, mpix is slightly more crispy. Mpix offers more stereo human face on portraits than adorama. These can be identified by naked eyes. Using a Pentax 5.5x Loupe, I could see finer edges on mpix prints with about 1.5x resolution than adorama. There are more noise (white dots on dark objects near borders) on adorama prints.<br /> <br /> Overall, mpix is about 20-25% better than adorama. But I do not think it worth double the price. For photo enthusiasts, adaramapix is good enough.</p>

<p>I am fresh to the business side of photography and I thank you for this post. It has been very helpful to me. </p>