Minireview - B&W, Mpix Vs. Winkflash

[gwebster]

I've noticed that the question of which printing service to use often comes up

so I hope this post might be helpful for photo.net forum readers who send their

images out to one of the various online services for printing.

<p>

Recently we visited my brother and his family in Chicago and while we were

there, my sister-in-law asked me if I would take some portraits of their small

dog Dougal. I obliged and when I got back home I developed and scanned the B&W

film and selected a couple of the images for printing. I made test prints at

10x8 on my HP printer, but then, since I have been keen for some time to try out

one of the online printing services, I decided to have some larger prints made

that I could send them as a belated Christmas present.

<p>

Based upon some of the discussions that I've seen on photo.net, I decided to try

<a href="http://www.mpix.com"> Mpix</a> and <a

href="http://www.winkflash.com">Winkflash</a>, for comparison and have 10x15

prints made of the two photographs at both. Many of you undoubtedly have other

online printing services that you prefer but I chose these two because they seem

to be quite well-known and are used by at least some photo.net forum readers.

<p>

I made multi-pass scans of the two negatives (Ilford FP4+) at 4000 dpi on my

Nikon Coolscan V using the excellent <a

href="http://www.hamrick.com">VueScan</a> software so that there would no

quality or resolution issues as far as the original digital image went. I then

used Photoshop to adjust the levels and clone out any dust spots before

uploading the two final images to the Mpix and Winkflash sites.

<p>

The process for ordering prints was very straightforward and similar at the two

sites although Mpix did seem to have a slightly wider choice of papers,

including a paper that they call "True Black and White" which is supposedly

optimized for B&W. I actually chose this option since I was printing B&W, even

though it added another dollar or two to the price. At Winkflash I selected the

matte paper. The cost at Mpix for 2 10x15 prints was $8.59 per print plus $4.95

for the shipping - a total of $22.13. The cost at Winkflash was $5.95 per print

plus $4.98 for the shipping - a total of $16.88. The shippings times were very

similar with both sets of prints arriving within 3 days of ordering.

<p>

Now for the nitty-gritty ... how good were they?

<p>

It's obviously an utterly futile exercise for me to try and reproduce them here

for you to compare, since it is prints that we are discussing, but right off the

bat, let me say that the quality of print from both services was really superb

and in the absence of any comparison, I would certainly have been extremely

happy with the results in both cases. Winkflash uses the fine art giclee

(pronounced zhee-clay) method of printing that is used by museums and art

studios for making high quality prints and posters, in which inks are squirted

onto the media (Giclee actually means "sprayed" in French). Mpix uses a kind of

laser printer whose processor-controlled laser actually "writes" the image onto

regular silver halide photo paper.

<p>

In terms of the format of the print, first blood goes to Winkflash whose 10x15

prints actually came on roughly 12x18 paper with white borders, whereas Mpix's

print was a borderless 10x15. This is really a matter of personal preference,

but the Winkflash prints could be cut to be borderless or framed with a white

border, so I do feel that the Winkflash format potentially gives you more

flexibility in how the print will be presented. The grade and quality of the

paper was excellent in both cases with nothing to choose between them.

<p>

Mpix however score an equalizing point for packaging the prints flat while

Winkflash send the prints rolled up in a tube. Again, really a personal

preference rather than any reflection of the quality of service.

<p>

Now it get's interesting though ... For me, I have to say that the Winkflash

prints actually had the edge over the Mpix prints in terms of the richness of

detail and tonal rendering. The shadow detail in particular was richer in the

Winkflash prints and the dynamic range seemed a little better with the

highlights showing some extra "punch" but without looking blown out. For a

second opinion, I showed each pair of prints to my wife without informing her of

my preference and just asked her which one she preferred in terms of the overall

look and image quality. In both cases, she also chose the Winkflash print. In

summary then, I would say that Winkflash wins by a nose, but as I said earlier,

the print quality in both cases is excellent and there is a certain amount of

subjectivity in making such a choice. I should also add that from a financial

perspective, Winkflash also scores another point by being the cheaper of the two

services.

<p>

While this little mini-review is far from being a comprehensive or scientific

survey, I hope it might prove helpful.

<p>

Gordon

[gwebster]

Oh and for the record ... I have absolutely no interests or affilliations, financial, familial or otherwise with either Mpix or Winkflash and it was the first time I had used either service so no axe to grind about brand loyalty either.

 

Gordon

[jessica_smith9]

Thank you SOOO much for writing this! It is very helpful!

[paul_sharratt]

Yes - thanks for this. Can one ask for a white border on the Mpix prints, I'm thinking that in terms of framing one needs a border to mount image in matte w/o cutting off image.

[jessica_smith9]

Also, on mpix, did you elect to have a lab person adjust the coloring or did you deselect this option? I noticed that winkflash does not adjust as default.

[gwebster]

Hi Carissa

 

I requested no color correction in both cases since I wanted to make a comparison between the two services. I would have had no control over the type or degree of color correction that each lab applied, effectively ruining my attempts at comparison. In addition, I use a calibrated monitor for accuracy and reproducibility so I prefer to do any color correction myself, retaining some control over the final result. Obviously, even doing this does not guarantee that the final print will be exactly as I see it on my monitor as a result of the variables that are introduced in the printing process itelf but I would say that both the Winkflash and Mpix prints were pretty darn close to what I saw on my monitor in Photoshop, with a slight edge going to Winkflash for overall rendering.

[emre]

What paper did they print on?

[act]

Gordon,

Did you happen to uncheck the auto-correct feature on your Mpix order? I believe they call it color correct but with b&w orders it also applies auto-exposure adjustments to your order.

 

Thanks for your review.

[act]

Ooops, Should have refreshed my browser before posting my question.

[gwebster]

"What paper did they print on?"

 

Hi Emre,

 

According to the Mpix "Help" pages, my Mpix "True Black and White" prints were done on Kodak Polymax D surface paper developed using the Polymax chemistry.

 

Winkflash reports that it uses Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper for its prints.

 

Gordon

[mark_rutledge]

fuji crystal archive is an RA-4 paper(chemical process paper), the kind used by mini-labs. winkflash probably uses this for their regular prints but their larger prints(it sounds like) are inkjet(giclee) and must be printed on a different paper.

not to muddy the water, but this comparison is of two entirely different media with potentially very different archival properties.

[gwebster]

Mark, you are right.

 

I think Winkflash uses the Fuji paper for its regular size photo prints. I think 10x8 is the size limit for their Fuji Frontier photo printers. I cannot find any details of what kind of paper they are using for the giclee process with the larger prints.

[dave_redmann]

<I>Mpix did seem to have a slightly wider choice of papers, including a paper that they call "True Black and White" which is supposedly optimized for B&W.</I><P>

 

FWIW: No "supposedly". No "optimized". This is real B&W photo paper, period. It is an Ilford product. The main difference between this paper and the stuff I'd put under an enlarger is that this stuff is panchromatic, rather like Kodak's old Panalure; the point of this is that you can feed a color image into a regular color printer (Frontier, Lightjet, etc.) and you will get an acceptable B&W image.* That's not to say that you can't often get better results by converting a color image to B&W using channel mixing etc. instead of just sending the color image to the printer.<P>

 

Bear in mind that Mpix's B&W paper is an RC paper with a finish most like Ilford's "pearl" surface on regular B&W RC paper. Ilford also has a new, experimental FB paper for B&W printing on Frontiers, Lightjets, etc. Only a few labs have it now (Mpix does not), and none is cheap.<P>

 

So indeed your compaprison is a bit apples-and-oranges, a truly photographic printing process versus an injet. I will not here wade into that debate here, but I think each potentially has its pros and cons.<P>

 

*If you tried this with a non-panchromatic paper, the paper's vastly different sensitivities to different colors of light would give you extremely strange tonality. Also, if you used a variable-contrast paper, different colors would have different contrasts. That's why you need a panchromatic paper to print in B&W with and RGB laser printer like a Frontier or Lightjet. Yes, if you first converted to B&W, you could ameliorate some of this.

[emre]

Is the density of the blacks satisfactory?

[gwebster]

Emre, one of the things that impressed me was the "blackness" of the blacks in both cases. There's certainly none of the washed-out muddiness to the blacks that you sometimes see and I actually deliberately chose one of the images because of its very broad tonal range with pronounced highlights, deep shadows and plenty of subtly graduated tones in between.

[gwebster]

Dave - I agree to some extent with your "apples and oranges" point but at the end of the day, the goal is to get a satisfactory print and I was curious to see how this giclee process compares with a traditional photographic paper process (even if the negative was transferred to the paper via a laser rather than via an enlarger lamp). Once the print is in a portfolio or hanging in a frame on a gallery wall, the enjoyment of it as a photograph doesn't really hinge on whether it was made on photo paper or by giclee.

 

When I visited the Art Institute of Chicago recently, I saw a huge B&W print of woodland foliage by a contemporary photographer whose name escapes me. The texture and tonality in the picture were incredible and the print was produced using a giclee process. When I saw that Winkflash was using giclee for their larger prints, I was very curious to see how good the results could be.

[dave_redmann]

Gordon, by all means I agree that there's nothing inappropriate about comparing different processes. I do think that those who preach the superiority of the inkjet for digital B&W prints need to be mindful of the fact that the silver-halide paper makers have been slow and late to turn their attention to digital printing, and I expect to see the relative merits of various processes shift over the next few years.

 

My main beef with inkjet prints, starting with my Apple StyleWriter (based on a Canon Bubblejet) back in 1991 and--so I understand--continuing even to the latest models, is that their prints are comparatively fragile, and especially sensitive to moisture. (That may or may not be an issue for any given print, depending on its intended use.) Have you done any experimenting in this area?

 

Just curious, have you tried any of the "carbon" printing processes? I have seen some prints that were, to say the least, interesting, albeit perhaps somewhat high in contrast (intentionally?). I'm under the impression that the process is similar to inkjet. I suspect that these prints are always more expensive than Mpix-range prices ($2.50 for an 8x10, last I noticed).

[gwebster]

Dave - no I've never tried the carbon printing process. The Mpix and Winkflash exercise was my first foray into online printing services. Before that, the last time I had prints made by anybody was about 5 years ago before I had made the transition from film to digital (and now back to film again).

[gwebster]

Seems there are other people out there who've experienced the same kind of breathtaking astonishment as I have at the quality of some of the giclee/inkjet prints that people are making these days. Check out <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00IItc&tag=">this discussion</a>

[bryan_howard]

Thank you Gordon:

I was just surfing around looking for reviews of winkflash. yours was great and I plan to give them a try.

[patricklove]

I sent them an order of 11x14s 20x30, 8x12s. They all came back too saturated or contrasty, however you want to describe it.

 

Too bad, cause their prices and service are great.

[mma1]

Thanks for sharing this info! In all of your digital printing research, have you come across

a company that allows you to print custom-sized prints? Thanks.

[adamxisxrad]

After reading this review, I conducted my own testing and review- mine focused on the 8x10 size with the barebones, base papers. I was looking for bang for the buck- you can view my detailed review at the link

<a href="http://www.adamdexterphotography.com/blog/2007/11/26/internet-printing-winkflashcom-v-mpixcom/" target="_blank">here</a>.

 

-Adam