Online Photo Processing Nightmare

[celia_moore]

<p>Fellow photographers-<br>

I am in dire need of a recommendation for an online photo processing center. My dilema started when I got my Canon EOS 40d when my daughter was born. We've taken hundreds of pictures and are thrilled with them when we see them on the computer but when we send them off to get developed it is a dissapointment. We just want some nice 4x6 for her album. The problem is they come back with the faces all red and splotchy, the reds in the picture come back very strong. When I take the samepicture with my cheapy pocket canon and get them developed the colors are fine. So we have resorted to using that but I hate that a nice camera is not being used because of the developng. I have tried Walmart & Shutterfly. Any suggestions or is it something I am doing wrong with my camera?<br>

Thanks so much for any help,<br>

Celia</p>

[trevor_martin]

<p>Try <a href="http://mpix.com/">Mpix</a> , they are reliable, fast and produce great quality prints. </p>

[dhhensler]

<p>I obviously don't know the entire story of your photos, but it sounds like this might be a case of post-processing woes. There isn't any reason why you shouldn't be able to get great prints from a 40D. So, a few questions.<br>

1. What format are you shooting in; JPEG or RAW?<br>

2. If shooting in RAW, are you post-processing the pictures with software (Lightroom, Aperture, even Picasa maybe)<br>

3. If JPEG, what software are you using to store them? <br>

Cheers!</p>

 

[phule]

<p>[[We've taken hundreds of pictures and are thrilled with them when we see them on the computer but when we send them off to get developed it is a dissapointment]]</p>

<p>[[Any suggestions or is it something I am doing wrong with my camera?]]</p>

<p>Without seeing any examples, it would be tough to pinpoint the source of the problem, but there are dozens of photo finishers (both online and in local stores) that would be more than happy to get your business. I would suggest giving others a test.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>as said above, it could be your post processing. But until you figure that out, the Kodak Gallery site which lets you upload pics for gallery also will print them for you. And somewhere in all the settings/options for how you want them to handle it, they will "edit" the pics.....to at least white balance, exposure problems.....for you for at no extra cost. Plus they have double checks on certain parameters they want the pic in....and will also let you know how large of a file you need for what enlargement size. Mind you, they ain't to be used for "fine art" stuff, but I use them for the family pics and am usually quite satisfied.</p>

[davidroossien]

<p>Yes, it could be something you're doing wrong with the camera. The only way to know for sure is to calibrate your monitor. (read more here <a href="http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html">http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html</a>). </p>

<p>A calibrated monitor will allow you to see if your photos are underexposed, overexposed or shot in poor light with a color cast. Then you can decide whether or not you want to adjust the photos prior to printing.</p>

<p>Manually calibrating your monitor might be good enough for you. If not, then you would probably want a low cost calibrator. These can be purchased for less than $100.</p>

<p>I doubt that it is the printer you are using (it could be, but only under very rare circumstances). </p>

[wgpinc]

<p>I have been satisfied with Snapfish. snapfish.com Good prices and decent service. Good luck!</p>

[davidroossien]

<p>Trying a 3rd printer most likely won't solve your problem, though it is nice to have additional options.</p>

<p>I like Thomas' idea of a site that lets you edit the photos, but without a calibrated monitor you won't know if you are making improvements. You might be making the photo worse without knowing it.</p>

[PuppyDigs]

<p>The problem with a DSLR like the 40D is they're a lot more detailed and revealing compared to a point 'n shoot. You can get much better results but have to take more control of lighting and exposure or you'll also see more of your bad technique.</p>

<p>Post an image and we'll stop guessing... </p>

[phule]

<p>[[(it could be, but only under very rare circumstances).]]</p>

<p>Hardly. I've experienced this directly with different photo finishers.</p>

<p>Suggesting that the OP go out and buy color calibration hardware before trying anything else is just silly.</p>

[martin-s]

<p>Yes, please post one of the images you sent off to be printed.</p>

<p>It does sound like a colour space issue. The vast majority of printing services expect images to be in the sRGB colour space. If you've set your 40D to record images in AdobeRGB, you will most likely be disapointed since they'd be treated as sRGB.</p>

[celia_moore]

<p>What a great community! Thank you so much to everyone for helping me out. As requested I have submitted some of the photos that best exemplify my issue. <br>

<img src="http://whoadog.com/new_page_1.htm" alt="" /><br>

Thank you,<br>

Celia</p><div></div>

[celia_moore]

<p>I am using Lightroom to crop and remove red eye etc. as my editing software. I am shooting in JPEG format and storing them in Window Photo Gallery.</p><div></div>

[phule]

<p>Are you saying you're not seeing any redness in the cheeks on your computer in these sample photos?</p>

<p>Any chance you can photograph or scan one of the prints for comparison?</p>

<p> </p>

[celia_moore]

<p>Yes I am saying that I see no redness in the cheeks on my computer in these sample photos. Here is a photograph of one of the prints for comparison. I took it with my pocket canon so it's not the best but it gives you a good idea of what's coming back to me from the printers.<br>

Thanks so much!</p><div></div>

[martin-s]

<p>These do look alright and they're in the sRGB colour space, so shouldn't pose a problem.<br>

However since they're downsized I don't suppose, they're the exact same images you sent off to be printed?</p>

<p>You mention Lightroom. What export setting do you use to export images for printing?<br>

As far as I recall, the option to "Burn full-size JPEGs" renders images in the AdobeRGB colour space, which would explain the discrepancy.</p>

[phule]

<p>[[Yes I am saying that I see no redness in the cheeks on my computer in these sample photos.]]</p>

<p>Though it's minor, there is definitely redness in the cheeks on the first photo and some around the mouth in the second. But the poor printing really exacerbates what's already there.</p>

[dhhensler]

<p>Martin,<br>

Is that the default setting for "Burn full-size JPEGs", because I have used the feature a few times and my photos were sRGB? Or it is possible that I changed the default. Now I'm not sure! Sorry for the digression.<br /> <br /> I get the idea that the OP may not be saving new versions out of Lightroom, but instead just using the same files in Windows Viewer?</p>

[martin-s]

<blockquote>

<p>“Is that the default setting for "Burn full-size JPEGs", because I have used the feature a few times and my photos were sRGB? Now I'm not sure! Sorry for the digression.”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No, my bad. I just checked and sRGB is indeed the default, so disregard my comment.</p>

[celia_moore]

<p>Sometimes I use Lightroom to manipulate the photos but lots of times I don't as there is no need to crop or remove red eye in all photos. So in those instances I just send the image just as it is as it comes off the camera. When I do manipulate in Lightroom the export settings are set to Format:jpeg, Color Space:sRB. So I guess it's my monitor. But see I was sending them to Walmart in the beginning and everything came back just fine. Then one day they renovated my store and got new equipment and then everything came back red. And so I tried Shutterfly and they were red too. Is it possible that different labs calibrate their machines differently too?</p>

[hal_b]

<p>This is beyond calibration or colorspace issues. I've been through this myself with many online printers.</p>

<p>Regardless of who you send your pictures to, you have to select "No Auto Corrections". If the service does not have that option, then DON'T USE THEM! If you talk directly with a representative and they assure you that, "We never process your photos. All the photos go directly to print," they are either ignorant of their own processes, or they are lying. Avoid them like the plague if they don't understand your request.</p>

<p>All cheap photo printers use "Auto Correction" as a default. It automatically crops, adjusts contrast, levels, color, etc to bring your photos to their idea of a crowd-pleasing standard. Think of this as "Auto Crap." Your pictures have to be terrible for this method to actually be an improvement. Usually, it just gives mediocre results. If you ask, and they say they don't do this, they are lying. They ALL do this, unless you specifically bring up the point and tell them not to.</p>

<p>Notice in your baby picture that the cabinets were yellow in the original. In the printed image, they are white. Where did that yellow go? "Auto Crap" decided that they must be white, and sucked the yellow out of your picture. This removed the yellow from the dress and the baby's cheeks, making her look sick.</p>

<p>The standard of quality is so low at budget printers that you are lucky if you get your money's worth. You're better off using a more expensive (and reputable) printer like Adoramapix, paying double, and getting the good results the first time. Tell them "No Auto Corrections" and get the pictures you want.</p>

[scott_langille]

<p>I use a company out of Pawtucket RI called Printmakers, INC. I have used CVS, Target, Simplephoto, Mpix, Adaorama, Bayphoto. Printmakers is by far the best in my opinion. I love the results every time I get my photos back from them. I have never had an issue. They offer a wide variaty of print sizes, as well as numerous specialty products. You can download their software for free from their web site which is: <a href="http://www.printmakersinc.com/pages/cfHome.cfm">www.printmakersinc.com/pages/cfHome.cfm </a><br>

Mpix, Adaorama, and BayPhoto come close, I will never switch back from these guys. One last thing it is owned and operated by professional photographers so they know what you want and how to do it!<br>

Just my opinion! :-)<br>

Good luck! Nice shots btw.</p>

 

[phule]

<p>Hal's answer is spot on. This is poor printing due to "Auto Adjust" being done by the photo lab. You can approximate the print by take the original into Photoshop and really messing with levels and contrast. </p>

<p> </p>

[onewish]

<p>Hal is correct, auto adjustments do not work well on Caucasian babies especially on light backgrounds and underexposed images.</p>

[nordborg]

<p>I too agree that it seems like an issue with auto-correction. I took your image and applied "Auto white balance" and "Auto Color Enhance" in Gimp. The result is similar to the photograph of the print.</p><div></div>