best place for digital prints - local or online

[charton]

Help, I went and had some enlargements done yesterday at HN (hobart). 1xB&W, 1xcolour, 1xSepia. The B&W is horrid! The file on screen (my laptop, work computer and kiosk machine) shows B&W contrast as it should be.

I picked up the print after work yesterday and it has a blue hue!! And colour one has it also but only noticable in part of the photo (if that makes sense). This is not the first time I have had problems with HN both city and northern suburbs. :angry0: So you could say I am over it!

Please can someone recommend a local store that is better or online store? I don't mind paying a bit more to get the print that is 'printed in correct colour tones'

ps. Also I have my wedding photos to print and I don't want to waste money having to get reprints time and time again.

pps. I hope I have put this post in right section.

[astrogirl529]

http://www.theedgephoto.com.au/

[ricktas]

Firstly are you using a calibrated monitor? PC monitors are notorious for being completely out of whack colour wise, and if they are, what you see on your screen will NOT be what gets printed. It is not generally the printers fault (though it can be), it is more the fact that your monitor is often not displaying the colours correctly, but you assume that they are.

Having said that. HN are also notorious for not being good at accurate colour rendition as well.

[kiwi]

Could also be that you are not looking at SRGB etc

[~Raven~]

www.digitalworks.net.au I had some shots printed last week...awesome.

[charton]

Could also be that you are not looking at SRGB etc

My file in Adobe PS tells me (and after saving file) that it is a SRGB file. So this now presents another question after some research today, should I be saving my images colour profile as sRGB or Adobe RGB?

[ricktas]

sRGB generally, but it is worth chatting to your printer about. If they act like they have no idea what you are talking about, find another printer.

I would go to Midcity Camera World on the corner of Collins and Murray, take your files, and the prints from HN and show them the issue and have a chat. They can be really helpful.

But in the meantime, you probably need to look at getting a calibration device like a colorvision syder etc, and calibrate your monitor(s). At least then you can be assured that what you see on your screen is set to a known standard, and it will ensure better results overall from your prints.

[charton]

Thanks Rick. I will be in town tomorrow, so I will pay Midcity a visit. Just so frustrating. I also was looking into getting the colorvision spyder too at work today.

[smorter]

If you can, avoid Spyders like the plague. A better calibrator is the Xrite Eye One Display 2

[dbax]

www.digitalworks.net.au I had some shots printed last week...awesome.

yep!:th3:

[charton]

If you can, avoid Spyders like the plague. A better calibrator is the Xrite Eye One Display 2

Thanks:)

[ricktas]

If you can, avoid Spyders like the plague. A better calibrator is the Xrite Eye One Display 2

That would have to be the most useless post ever on AP. If you are going to state that sort of rubbish, back it up with reasoning.

I have a Spyder 3, and I know lots of other people who do as well, the spyder works very well, and the prints I (and others) get after calibrating are a damn good representation of what we see on screen, when you take into consideration the differences between reflected and transmitted light.

The Spyder 3 has recently rated over all other calibrators in reviews.

Yes there are different brands of calibrators and all work slightly differently, but in the end it is no different to choosing between Canon or Nikon.

[Kym]

http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?t=24290 Has a few links on monitor calibration. (Post on publishing)

Before you buy a calibration unit you can calibrate manually. This is not perfect but better then not calibrating at all.

[charton]

Rick, thank you, this is all new to me - callibration... so I am finding myself a little out of my depth.

Kym, I will look at the link you have provided, thanks.

[ricktas]

Calibration. It is done with a harware device that has a small spectometer in it. You load the software and then attach the device to your screen.

Then it runs, what it does is display a range of colours on your screen, it reads those colours. The software knows exactly how a certain shade of red 'should' look, by reading your screen, it works out how different the shade of red on your screen is to how it should be..it then does this for blue and green as well (screens are made up of RGB pixels - hence sRGB, AdobeRGB etc).

When the calibration device has completed it then builds a profile for your monitor, that 'corrects' the monitor, so that the known shade of red, is displayed at exactly that shade of red to you. This profile is then loaded to your graphics card everytime your PC starts.

The outcome of this is that if you process a photo on your calibrated monitor, and I view the same photo on my calibrated monitor, then what I see, is exactly what you saw. It sets a 'standard'.

By using a calibrated monitor, you are not only ensuring your photos are edited as accurately as possible for colour rendition, but also ensuring that your prints come out looking the same. Well as close as they can be. A screen is transmitted light, and a print is reflected light, so they will look slightly different, but you should be able to hold the print up beside the screen and see that they both look similar, no blue casts etc.

Hope that short tutorial helps.

[smorter]

That would have to be the most useless post ever on AP. If you are going to state that sort of rubbish, back it up with reasoning.

I have a Spyder 3, and I know lots of other people who do as well, the spyder works very well, and the prints I (and others) get after calibrating are a damn good representation of what we see on screen, when you take into consideration the differences between reflected and transmitted light.

The Spyder 3 has recently rated over all other calibrators in reviews.

Yes there are different brands of calibrators and all work slightly differently, but in the end it is no different to choosing between Canon or Nikon.

So it's ok to say something is good without backing it up, but not ok to say something is bad without backing it up?

So a post is useless and rubbish if it disagrees with your view, but not rubbish if it's congruent with your views?

My post is admittedly colourful in its language and I should not have chosen a word like plague given it's grim connotations, but I am just expressing the view that the Eye One Display 2 is a better budget option and better value than a Spyder

I don't understand why I'm attacked again for offering a view on something (just like the camera store thread), and again feel I have to act defensive and justify myself:

http://www.drycreekphoto.com/Learn/monitor_calibration_tools.htm
- Spyders were the worst performers (read last paragraph)

Amazon Reviews:
4.5 stars: http://www.amazon.com/X-Rite-EODIS2-Eye-One-Display-2/dp/B000JLO31M
3.5 stars: http://www.amazon.com/ColorVision-S3P100-Spyder3-pro/dp/B000X4X37A/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1239418347&sr=1-1
(Read the actual reviews)

Some threads from a quick google search:
http://espanol.istockphoto.com/forum_messages.php?threadid=84790
http://www.talkphotography.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=941509
http://www.opensourcephoto.net/forum/index.php?showtopic=40061

Anyway, it's my opinion. Spyder 3 does seem to be restoring some of Spyder's reputation, but Spyder 2's were really, really bad imo, not just my experience but also web reviews. Anyway I don't really want to have to keep justifying my opinions on things, if you disagree, then whatever. We all get different results and have different preferences. I apologise and retract my views in my previous post due to its inflammatory nature

[Kym]

<snip>
Anyway, it's my opinion. Spyder 3 does seem to be restoring some of Spyder's reputation, but Spyder 2's were really, really bad imo, not just my experience but also web reviews. Anyway I don't really want to have to keep justifying my opinions on things, if you disagree, then whatever. We all get different results and have different preferences. I apologise and retract my views in my previous post due to its inflammatory nature

Spyder 3 is ok? But you said - generically - avoid Spyder altogether.
I wont debate it now and appreciate you retraction.
It pays to think through what you post before 'shooting from the hip'.
Random unsubstantiated generalised opinions tend to get a reaction whereas a well thought through and argued position is appreciated.
As a good example of someone who has strong opinions, but are very well argued is Tannin (Tony).

Web reviews are one thing, real life experience is another.

[ricktas]

So it's ok to say something is good without backing it up, but not ok to say something is bad without backing it up?

So a post is useless and rubbish if it disagrees with your view, but not rubbish if it's congruent with your views?


I was not attacking you, stop taking it all to personal. I was attacking your claim. If you read my reply fully, I justified my statement by saying that the Spyder 3 had rated very highly in recent reviews, if that was not a statement to support my opinion, then I don't know what was.

Your original comment stated 'avoid Spyders like the plague', to a new member who is starting out in photography. If this thread had been about camera brands and I had said "avoid Canon like the plague", can you imagine the response, and deservedly so. Chill out a bit and think about what you post.

If you feel you are being attacked, maybe you should move onto another site...easy!

[mcdesign]

If you can, avoid Spyders like the plague. A better calibrator is the Xrite Eye One Display 2

I have just upgraded to the X-rite Eye One...it has made so much difference, now waiting for the profiles for my printer from Imagescience. Also I thought, and have read today in Better Photoshop Techmiques that have just run a big article on Colour Management, that for print your file needs to be Adobe RGB (1998) sRGB is for the Web. Margaret

[charton]

Rick, thank you once again for your tutorial on callibration. I really hadn't heard how it can effect your photo process. It all makes sense. Budget wise the Sypder 3 may be out of my price range at the moment.

[Kym]

Rick, thank you once again for your tutorial on callibration. I really hadn't heard how it can effect your photo process. It all makes sense. Budget wise the Sypder 3 may be out of my price range at the moment.

Then at least calibrate manually. It will help.
http://www.ausphotography.net.au/forum/showthread.php?p=232445#post232445

[arthurking83]

I can only give a laymans response to this problem, so here goes!

Most 'print labs' prefer Adobe RGB colour space,(hence you should really be working with RAW images!), and from my asking, most quick print shops use sRGB colour space.
Reason most quick print places like HN or Woolies or Kmart, use sRGB is that they get mainly P&S users going in for 'quick prints' straight off the camera, which is all sRGB.
Adobe is supposed to be better in many aspects of professional prinitng, so the pro labs prefer using it and recommend that an image is saved in Adobe RGB.

I've never actually printed any of my images anywhere, except my lil Canon home bubblejet, and every image so far has come up spot on, in terms of colour balance and brightness! I haven't yet got myself a calibrator either!

So for most printing purposes, any half decent calibrator is going to suffice.
maybe one is better than another, but of course you can find that soem calibrators work better with some monitors than with others.. so take any review of a calibrator with a grain of salt. I'll say that again! Not all reviews of a calibrator is going to relate to yoru situation, because the chances are that it hasn't been reviewed with your monitor in your environment!! I can post more useless info to back that claim up, but Smorters usual colourful metaphor is not quite accurate!
A calibrated monitor should be better than an uncalibrated monitor, if done correctly.

Maybe Smorters experience is borne of issues with his hardware, where the eye thingy simply did a better job with his current monitors of the time.
Remember calibrators work differently with different monitors and you may actually find that the Xrite is going to be worse than the plague with your monitor!(even though Smorter is adamant that it's worse than the plague).

When in doubt, there are online printing services that can help to get your monitor approximately calibrated/I]... to level that should at least yield an acceptable result to what you want.
I think digitalworks has something like that as a service.

Back to the topic of calibrator reviews, and that link that Smorter posted actually speaks volumes for the older Spyder 2 calibrator.(yes! contrary to the summary in the last paragraph!!)
Why? .. because I said so! :p LOL! seriously read the table of results where each individual calibrators performance is ranked for a given monitor!!!
That's where I think the secret lies(literally)
While the original Spyder did perform below average compared to other calibrators, not only was the Spyder2 a better performer than most of the others, those others include a sea of Gretag MacBeth's which are supposedly the 'best' calibrators. But the pattern is there to see, if you know how to read statistical data and make your own conclusion.

The data is inconclusive to say the least!! That's it. there is probably no real 'better calibrator' as one if better than the other for a given circumstance!

Just to go against Smorters recommendations!!...


The Spyder2 was particularly impressive on the HP p920 and IBM LCD.
Quote from that Drycreek review site! Yes!!... the one linked to by Smorter!

.. better brace yourself for the next [I]plague! ;)

ps. Smorter!! If you don't post information that could be detrimental to the person seeking advice, then you'd find yourself less and less the victim. Try to keep it balanced and objective, and explain your experiences!
I have no experience with them, yet I've seen them in action time and again, and everyone has a different experience to tell... but I've seen many design studios using Spyders for calibration. Andrew's Spyder is doing sterling service on his images, as well as mine, so your 'comment' is somewhat opposing to what I've experienced with them.

Why haven't I got one yet. No real urgent need, my screen seems to be working well(and printing well off my lil bubblejet), and I've yet to find one for a decent price.
I actually am looking for a Spyder3 as it has the ambient sensor, and ambient lighting is what I find the most annoying 'difference' to how my monitor looks.
I have an old Sony 400PS rescued from a media/video production company, and funnily enough calibrated with Spyders(originals) back in it's day :p

[Dan Cripps]

None of the consumer labs in Hobart are much chop in my opinion.

I've been using Bond Imaging (http://www.bondimaging.com.au) for the last 6 months and have been pretty happy with their output.

[charton]

I received some prints back today from digiworks.net.au, I am sooo happy with them!!! Just what I expected them to look like. :D Def. will use them again and again.