Printing question - looked better on computer

[anne_kerr]

Yesterday I sent out a few photos to Walgreens and when I picked them up, they looked crummy. They looked better on my computer, at

least. Is this common or was it just me?

 

I read somewhere a while back that major retailers like Walgreens, CVS, Shutterfly etc. have printers that focus more on quantity instead

of quality - something about colors and matching the files exactly in terms of color and brightness and all that (I'm sure I just explained

that incorrectly but I can only assume someone with more knowlesge than me can put togeter what I'm tryin to say). I didn't think the

photos would look the way they did though. They were darker and kinda dull...

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Print quality has gone downhill at my local Walgreens since switching from a Fuji Frontier and Crystal Archive paper RA-4 process prints to a Noritsu dye sub printer. Some of my b&w prints through the Noritsu dye sub printer look good. The most recent b&w and color photos have been mediocre.</p>

<p>However, unless your computer/monitor system is calibrated and you have the appropriate profile set up, you won't know whether the problem is on your end or the printer. Try other printing services with the same files.</p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>Yesterday I sent out a few photos to Walgreens and when I picked them up, they looked crummy. They looked better on my computer, at least. Is this common or was it just me?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi Anne, yes, I think it is fairly common.</p>

<p>I tend to think the user (you) is more often the main problem, but as Lex says, it's hard to be sure where the (main) problem is.</p>

<p>The main issue is that any one specific set of RGB numbers in your image stand for a definite color (assuming it has a color profile). So your computer monitor is supposed to show this definite color, or at least fairly close. Likewise, the Walgreen's printer is supposed to print this same color. So which one is wrong? (or both?) Since the Walgreen's printer is in a commercial operation, and is intended to make good prints, I expect that it is more likely to be right.</p>

<p>If it were me, I'd take an image file that I know is good (you might download some on-line printer test images), then 1) make sure it looks good on your monitor and 2) try having it printed. If you save these test prints, you can use these for future reference. If you ever suspect that your printing service has shifted, run another test image to see if it's any differnt.</p>

<p>one important thing to be aware of is that printing services usually give the option to have your images printed "as is," with no adjustment, or with "auto-correction," where their system automatically tries to improve your image. For best control of the process, you would ideally not let them auto-correct. If you let them auto-correct, this is just another fly in the ointment.</p>

<p>My last point: your eye tends to be much more critical with a physical print than with monitor color. The reasons are too complicated to explain here, so I hope you'll just trust me on this one.</p>

[sgust]

<p>I had the exact same problem when I started getting prints made from digital files. Turned out I had my monitor cranked up to full brightness and high contrast, and I did my editing accordingly. So when the prints came in they were dark and dull.<br>

Windows has a basic monitor calibration tool. I believe you go to the Control Panel in the Start menu and select Display under the Hardware menu. That way you can at least check to see if your close. It's not nearly as good as calibration tools you can buy, but for my needs it's been enough.</p>

[grh]

<blockquote>

<p>So which one is wrong? (or both?) Since the Walgreen's printer is in a commercial operation, and is intended to make good prints, I expect that it is more likely to be right.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm going to disagree with this statement. It's more likely that Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, et. al., are going to be incorrect. The print quality is usually low, and they often automate the cranking of red hues for skin tone. I've also had this latter problem with VistaPrint.<br>

How do I know? I've had prints and books made through Shutterfly and Adorama, and they arrive looking exactly like the screen image. Colors match and and the prints look great (compared to Walgreens, etc).<br>

Another factor is how much ink is used to produce the print. At the cheap outlets they don't push for the highest quality. I can produce comparable results on my home Epson using a standard print quality. If, however, using the same source image, I push the quality up to the highest (best) setting and print on premium glossy paper I can get output that looks just as good as Shutterfly. And a heck of a lot better than the drugstores.<br>

I was hoping to be able to use the drugstores for fast prints of reasonable quality. Such is not the case, so I've purposed to ensure I have a supply of ink and decent paper on hand.</p>

[paddler4]

<p>A simple test: send a couple of images to a really good lab, such as Bay Photo. It won't cost much, and if they come back looking crummy, then the problem lies with the way you are preparing the images--perhaps because your monitor is too bright, as Siegfried suggested, or is not properly color-balanced. However, keep in mind that prints (using reflected light) will necessarily look somewhat different than illuminated images on the screen.</p>

[byteme90k]

<p>I had the same issue with the local Rx prints....I then sent the same image to Mpix and it came back looking perfect. I will always go with the quality labs over the Rx's from now on.</p>

<p>Mike</p>

 

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>It's more likely that Walgreens, CVS, Walmart, et. al., are going to be incorrect. The print quality is usually low, and they often automate the cranking of red hues for skin tone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Gary, the automated cranking of red hues would most likely be from an auto-correction routine - you need to be able to disable such handling.</p>

<p>I didn't intend to defend the "cheap labs," but I don't think a solid case has been made against them. For example, for those who had better results with a good lab, they were not clear if those labs handled color corrections for them, or possibly fixed a misassigned color profile.</p>

<p>I've never used one of the cheap labs, so I can't say for sure how good or bad they are. But in prinicple, in the best case, they should be able to match the quality of a "good lab," for straight up, uncorrected image files. (If correction is done, nothing will match what a professional color corrector can do, at least for portrait work.)</p>

<p>It would be interesting to do a large-scale survey of some chains by using custom color targets. Unfortunately there's no pay-back for this, so it probably won't ever happen.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>Walgreens, Wal-Mart and so on appear to hire a lot of folks at low pay who are not trained particularly well. Having said that it may not be that simple. I have an expensive Epson computer at home and get lousy prints. It turns out I need to match the computer to the screen output and match the computer to the screen. This takes a couple of extra gizmos and a couple of hundred extra dollars. It used to be you could take a well lit color slide and it was easy for whomever to match the colors -- they just looked at the slide. Digital is, unforuntately, another animal in the woods. It may be as simple as your monitor being a bit off. Good luck.</p>

[savagesax]

Well at Christmas time I send out about 75 to 100 cards; 4X6. I have them done at Walmart. I have them print 1 image. Then I will go around the store and check out the sales deals. When I get the 1 pic back almost always they look great. However you need to do this check everytime. Walgreens usually use Agfa from the experiences and their locations.

 

Why, you may be wondering! Well it a secret!

 

No it's not a secret. It's just fun! OK the reason for a test print are the chemicals can be new, old, wrong mixtures, or the actual printer sucks.

 

As far as the monitor goes most of my images actually look better from assorted labs. Monitors vary a lot. The pro labs are always best to use. I balance my monitors using a program called Spyder. Once the monitor is set correctly double check the same image at Walgreens who pretty much use Agfa printers. I personally hate them; Agfa, not the Walgreens! Well then send the same image to a pro lab. Pro labs usually use some sort of Fuji printers. There's a huge difference between Agfa and Fuji.

 

My monitor is now calibrated by the Spyder program, so my next step was to send an image to Walmart and my pro lab, called Protek. Protek uses a Fuji printer as well. The models are perhaps different but the colors are really close. With my pro lab they've adjusted and saved my images using a computer. Well it costs a tad more using the pro lab, however for the holiday cards I try to use walmart and their fuji lab machines.

 

The reason for asking the pro lab to set the colors, balance, harshness, you get the idea. There are perhaps 100 to 300 and up of assorted cameras on the market. This is why I like pro labs, they dial in your specs. I have the 1Ds Mk 3's, so this camera is top of the line and you have to take advantage of what it offers.

 

I'm NOT saying your pictures will be poor. All I'm saying is your pictures can look excellent if you stay away from agfa and find places that use fuji.

 

I read that the future printers from places like Sams Club and Walmart will be converting to ink jet printers. This scares the heck out of me.

 

Hey Anne, good question. Lets see what happens next year. For now use Fuji printers and let us know what happens. Maybe even post the same image from the 2 different labs.

 

I haven't seen any Kodak printers. Perhaps the aren't around anymore. There was a time that Protak used Kodak printers. By far Kodak beat out all of the companies. The photos really popped.

[anne_kerr]

Well, I have a Mac Pro so I looked up "Mac screen calibration" and I followed the steps. Im not too confident about what I

did though, considering the display's appearance would changr depending on the angle my head/screen was at. I tried my

best to make it so that my screen was straight and at the right angle etc. but I'm still not confident. I was supposed to

have made the Apple logo on the screen blend with the background provided. It never really blended in perfectly. Was

this a process that shouldve taken longer than 15 minutes? Because thats how long it all took me. I was trying my best to

get it right...

 

Actually, now that someone mentioned it, I had sent photos to Shutterfly once and I didnt notice anything. At Walgreens I

noticed that the image looked darker and duller. Maybe Ill send the same photo without adjustment sent to Shutterfly also.

 

So how can I find out what kind of printer theyre using, anyway? I have a feeling the CVS employee is going to have a

"deer-in-headlights" when I ask.

[jenkins]

<p>Anne I would stay away from the Mac Pro's inbuilt calibration, it's a real hit and miss affair, I just left mine on factory settings and left it at that.</p>

[anne_kerr]

^Now you tell me! Lol

 

Well, in that case, can anyone recommend a good calibrator? Looks like that might have to be a different posting lol

[savagesax]

Anne, you would be surprised. The people that print usually know what machines they use or if they send out your images to a different place, ask for the phone number. With Walmart, Sams Club, and Costco, you can see the printers or you can ask the folks printing. Most of these places use the Fuji Frontier's. As I said before there are several models, however the printing looks pretty close with all of them. They aren't cheap. New ones are about 1 million. This is why there are so many Frontier models.

 

Hope this helps. Sorry to say I'm not a Mac user.

[jenkins]

<p>Anne the X-Rite is the industry standard, it's supposed to be very good. I am at this point myself, I have heard the Spyder Pro's software isn't very good, which is a shame as it is cheaper.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.wexphotographic.com/buy-x-rite-i1-display-pro/p1526088">Link</a></p>

[Bill C]

<blockquote>

<p>Well, in that case, can anyone recommend a good calibrator?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hi I'm not up on the variety of gear available, so I won't attempt this. But essentially, you would need a package with both software and an instrument that can measure color. A pretty decent one is probably upwards of a couple hundred dollars.</p>

<p>There is a decent article on this website. It's a few years old, but the Q&A following it is more updated. <a href="/learn/digital-photography-workflow/color-management/monitor-profiling/index.published.adp">http://www.photo.net/learn/digital-photography-workflow/color-management/monitor-profiling/index.published.adp</a> If you find the article to be "too much information," don't feel bad; it probably is to most photographers.</p>

<p>Don't overlook what I first suggested, downloading a good printer test image. If you also have it printed at a reputable lab (and the print looks "right" to you), you can use this as a guideline to adjust your monitor. You won't have any control over individual colors, etc, but if you get the overall contrast and color saturation in the ballpark, this may be plenty good enough for you, and most likely better than what you have now. (Don't order any large, expensive prints, though, without some preliminary small test prints, though.) </p>

<p>ps; Simon suggests X-rite gear. You won't go wrong with their stuff, provided you're willing to spend the money. I've done quite a lot of work, a great deal of printer and camera profiles, using their (more expensive) gear.</p>

[Jeff Lear]

<p>I like the X-Rite Colormunki Display which, as others have said, runs around $200-ish.</p>

[jenkins]

<p>Anne my Colour Munki arrived today, it's really easy to use and makes a huge difference.</p>

[hernan_enriquez1]

<p>I get better results at Walmart than at any other store!</p>