Print quality - again

TomaS

Hey Andy,

Looks like I still have not resolved my concerns about print quality (Auto vs True).

I just printed 60 4x6 test prints using 'True' from various galleries. I do not like the results in many cases. So I sent 5 of the same files to a local LARGE chain for printing on their equipment. They have no options for setting color. The results in all cases were better than what I got from SM with 'true'. Sharper, brighter, and more vibrant colors. And unsaturated colors did not wash out.

I would like to send you the 10 prints to compare for yourself. Perhaps the SM 'Auto' color option is what I want. But the Auto color images you posted in my test gallery do not look as good as what I have here. A display issue?

Can you give me an address to send them so that we can get this resolved?

Thanks for your help,

Andy

TomaS wrote:

Hey Andy,

Looks like I still have not resolved my concerns about print quality (Auto vs True).

I just printed 60 4x6 test prints using 'True' from various galleries. I do not like the results in many cases. So I sent 5 of the same files to a local LARGE chain for printing on their equipment. They have no options for setting color. The results in all cases were better than what I got from SM with 'true'. Sharper, brighter, and more vibrant colors. And unsaturated colors did not wash out.

The lab you sent them to, ran the files through some sort of "auto" color program, to enhance the photos. We're one of the few places around that offers "true" color printing, but you really have to be spot on in your processing. SmugMug Auto to the rescue!

I would like to send you the 10 prints to compare for yourself. Perhaps the SM 'Auto' color option is what I want. But the Auto color images you posted in my test gallery do not look as good as what I have here. A display issue?

Probably. Have you calibrated?
http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-color and gotten a calibration print from us?

Can you give me an address to send them so that we can get this resolved?

Thanks for your help,

You want to send me the print from the other lab? Or the prints from us back?

Please post the gallery of the auto shots that I made up for you again, so I can find it easily? Thanks.

TomaS

The test prints are here: http://tomsprophoto.smugmug.com/gallery/2160782

I am sure you are correct that the chain lab ran them thru some 'auto' process. It appears that I do not have the skill or time to upload images that will print correctly with 'true' color at SM.

I was proposing sending you 5 of the prints I got from SM, along with 5 that I got from the chain lab to compare. I do not think comparing them on a monitor (as in the test gallery) gives me the proper visual feedback that will aloow me to decide. The 'shiprock' image is a good example. Printed too dark at SM (true), looks washed out in gallery on 'auto', looks great from the chain lab. Another good example is the 'old adobe' image. SM true print is very dull, chain print pops with great detail in the subtle colors of the building walls.

Should I just order another batch set to 'auto'? Or should I use 'photo effects' and leave them on 'true'? Or send you the prints to compare for yourself?

Andy

TomaS wrote:

Should I just order another batch set to 'auto'? O

Yes, please order a set, choosing Auto.
Give me the order # so I can have a look
You do not need to send me any paper prints, thanks.

dogwood

TomaS wrote:

It appears that I do not have the skill or time to upload images that will print correctly with 'true' color at SM.

Sure you do! It's a matter of calibrating your workflow -- it's easier than it sounds. I personally recommend the EyeOne device-- I pop it on my monitor, click through three steps, and it does the rest. Calibrating will help you out with every aspect of your post-production and editing. It's not a bad idea to soft-proof at first-- this too is VERY easy.

TomaS

I have calibrated monitor (Spyder II) and do soft-proofing, but still am not getting what I expect. I think the only real way to proof prints is with it in hand, or even better, in a setting similar to where it will be framed.

dogwood wrote:

Sure you do! It's a matter of calibrating your workflow -- it's easier than it sounds. I personally recommend the EyeOne device-- I pop it on my monitor, click through three steps, and it does the rest. Calibrating will help you out with every aspect of your post-production and editing. It's not a bad idea to soft-proof at first-- this too is VERY easy.

TomaS

Andy,

I just placed the order for five 4x6 Autocolor prints from the test gallery using the original upload files (not the ones you posted).

Order # 220341

Andy wrote:

Yes, please order a set, choosing Auto.
Give me the order # so I can have a look
You do not need to send me any paper prints, thanks.

dogwood

TomaS wrote:

I have calibrated monitor (Spyder II) and do soft-proofing, but still am not getting what I expect. I think the only real way to proof prints is with it in hand, or even better, in a setting similar to where it will be framed.

I don't have any experience with the Spyder but when I was shopping for my calibration device, the reviews for the Spyder weren't the best. But yeah, I know what you mean about having the prints in hand. You're right-- that is the best way to dial everything in. I didn't realize you had already calibrated.

I know you're tight on time and learning all this is a pain-- but-- if you find yourself needing some reading on the topic, the best book (in my opinion) is by Tim Grey, "Color Confidence". Grey also publishes a daily 'digital darkroom' e-mail that is fantastic. If nothing else, Grey seems to be one of the few photo professionals who actually uses a PC (he works for microsoft these days)-- so I love him just for that. I'm writing this on a mac-- but I'm definitely a PC guy. Grey also has a color target image on his website (timgrey.com) that is useful.

TomaS

Thanks Pete - I do get Tim's email newsletter, but find myself using Capture NX almost exclusively for my post work. He is very good with Photoshop, but I never managed to get over the the learning curve hump on that. I will check out that Color Confidence book. I seem to remember reading a great review of it somewhere else too.

If I wasn't quite so lazy, I would just buy a good printer and make my own prints. That is the way to go for 'instant' feedback and total control.

dogwood wrote:

I don't have any experience with the Spyder but when I was shopping for my calibration device, the reviews for the Spyder weren't the best. But yeah, I know what you mean about having the prints in hand. You're right-- that is the best way to dial everything in. I didn't realize you had already calibrated.

I know you're tight on time and learning all this is a pain-- but-- if you find yourself needing some reading on the topic, the best book (in my opinion) is by Tim Grey, "Color Confidence". Grey also publishes a daily 'digital darkroom' e-mail that is fantastic. If nothing else, Grey seems to be one of the few photo professionals who actually uses a PC (he works for microsoft these days)-- so I love him just for that. I'm writing this on a mac-- but I'm definitely a PC guy. Grey also has a color target image on his website (timgrey.com) that is useful.

TomaS

Andy - are you still monitoring this thread?

I got the Autocolor 4x6 prints yesterday. They are not what I expected.

If you want to PM me I can explain the problem outside the forum. It can wait until after the holidays if you are too busy with holiday orders.

Andy

TomaS wrote:

Andy - are you still monitoring this thread?

I got the Autocolor 4x6 prints yesterday. They are not what I expected.

If you want to PM me I can explain the problem outside the forum. It can wait until after the holidays if you are too busy with holiday orders.

Email ATTN: Andy at the help desk. We're never too busy to make our customers happy!