Lab photos ...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing (from my
> Canon S1).WOW!!!!
> i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how and
why,
> but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon come out much
nicer
> (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
> Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will last
> longer than printed ones...

Your printer is probably doing some enhancing for you, fiddling with
hue/saturation/contrast/levels.

steve

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Steve Wolfe wrote:
>> I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing
>> (from my Canon S1).WOW!!!!
>> i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how
>> and why, but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon
>> come out much nicer (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
>> Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will
>> last longer than printed ones...
>
> Your printer is probably doing some enhancing for you, fiddling with
> hue/saturation/contrast/levels.
>
> steve

Not that i know off...at least i have all Canon extra special enchancements
turned off. And i also didn't use any software for modifying pics.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:36:35 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>leo wrote:
>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>> news:eyEvd.7098$F6.1293517@news.siol.net...
>>> I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing
>>> (from my Canon S1).WOW!!!!
>>> i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how
>>> and why, but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon
>>> come out much nicer (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
>>> Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones will
>>> last longer than printed ones...
>>
>>
>> The printing process might also have something to do with the
>> difference. It's understandable that dye based inkjets have wider
>> gamut than many one hour phot printers. The printer driver possibly
>> cranks it up even more but when you take your JPG files to the store,
>> the picture's possibly stored as sRGB format. It's not going to cut
>> it.
>> I downloaded a printer profile (Noritsu) for the Costco store I use. I
>> convert a fall foliage picture to the target color profile. The print
>> I get is quite vibrant. It's not as good as my Epson RX200 print on
>> premium glossy paper but the Costco print is beautiful enough,
>> especially at 12"x18" for $3.
>
>I didn't mess with any profiles( yet). It's just from camera to PC, from PC
>to printer. But it could be...who knows.
>But, lab photos are half cheaper than those printed by me...
>Maybe i'll try direct camera to printer printing to eliminate PC and see.
>I'll also try another lab to see if it's lab's fault.

If you haven't already done so, request a sample pack from MPIX.COM,
they only use Kodak Pro papers and the Metallic one (Endura) has to be
seen to be believed. This paper is excellent for x-mas card family
photos (yes, I hate them too, but my daughter is very cute in her
little red hat). It's the closest you can get to a projected slide
look without backlighting the paper.

Problems with MPIX is they are not the cheapest, they won't let you
mix paper types within the same order and their website was designed
by a complete moron who has no idea. If you want 30 images printed,
but different print-counts or sizes on some of them allow yourself 45
minutes to arse around with the website watching it have to do about
130 page reloads, half of which are index pages that take ages to load
and are somehow immune to the browsers cache. Their uploading widget
is nasty too. That aside, the results are good.

On your first order with any lab, create some test images with the
same slice repeated 4 or 5 times along the photo.

The first one with differing levels of sharpening 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%
etc., and the other with differing levels of saturation +5, +10, +15,
+20 etc. This will allow you to quickly learn the types of adjustment
an image needs before sending it to a particular lab. When you get the
prints, compare them to an Ink-jet print and your screen version to
mentally learn the differences.

My findings - even if they do use really expensive 400dpi continuous
tone printers, they are never as sharp or vibrant as my Epson 1270
which does it all with little dots of ink.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Robert wrote:

>Its a shame that home printing is so high, there is no reason that the ink,
>and paper cost is so high.
>What we all need to do is stop buying Canon ink until they cut their cost to
>1/4 of what it is.

Except it's on the consumables (ink/paper) that the printer companies
make their money, not the printer sales.

If the cost of consumables was driven down by market demands, the price
of printers would skyrocket to compensate. Remember when a new inkjet
printer cost $400+ for a basic model?

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Owamanga wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 20:36:35 +0100, "SleeperMan"
> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>
>> leo wrote:
>>> "SleeperMan" <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote in message
>>> news:eyEvd.7098$F6.1293517@news.siol.net...
>>>> I just received some of the photos i sent to lab for developing
>>>> (from my Canon S1).WOW!!!!
>>>> i don't like my Canon ip4000 any more...i LOVE it! i don't know how
>>>> and why, but photos, printed on glossy photo pro paper from Canon
>>>> come out much nicer (especially more contrast) than lab ones...
>>>> Maybe it's lab's fault, who knows. It's just (i think) lab ones
>>>> will last longer than printed ones...
>>>
>>>
>>> The printing process might also have something to do with the
>>> difference. It's understandable that dye based inkjets have wider
>>> gamut than many one hour phot printers. The printer driver possibly
>>> cranks it up even more but when you take your JPG files to the
>>> store, the picture's possibly stored as sRGB format. It's not going
>>> to cut it.
>>> I downloaded a printer profile (Noritsu) for the Costco store I
>>> use. I convert a fall foliage picture to the target color profile.
>>> The print I get is quite vibrant. It's not as good as my Epson
>>> RX200 print on premium glossy paper but the Costco print is
>>> beautiful enough, especially at 12"x18" for $3.
>>
>> I didn't mess with any profiles( yet). It's just from camera to PC,
>> from PC to printer. But it could be...who knows.
>> But, lab photos are half cheaper than those printed by me...
>> Maybe i'll try direct camera to printer printing to eliminate PC and
>> see. I'll also try another lab to see if it's lab's fault.
>
> If you haven't already done so, request a sample pack from MPIX.COM,
> they only use Kodak Pro papers and the Metallic one (Endura) has to be
> seen to be believed. This paper is excellent for x-mas card family
> photos (yes, I hate them too, but my daughter is very cute in her
> little red hat). It's the closest you can get to a projected slide
> look without backlighting the paper.
>
> Problems with MPIX is they are not the cheapest, they won't let you
> mix paper types within the same order and their website was designed
> by a complete moron who has no idea. If you want 30 images printed,
> but different print-counts or sizes on some of them allow yourself 45
> minutes to arse around with the website watching it have to do about
> 130 page reloads, half of which are index pages that take ages to load
> and are somehow immune to the browsers cache. Their uploading widget
> is nasty too. That aside, the results are good.
>
> On your first order with any lab, create some test images with the
> same slice repeated 4 or 5 times along the photo.
>
> The first one with differing levels of sharpening 50%, 75%, 100%, 125%
> etc., and the other with differing levels of saturation +5, +10, +15,
> +20 etc. This will allow you to quickly learn the types of adjustment
> an image needs before sending it to a particular lab. When you get the
> prints, compare them to an Ink-jet print and your screen version to
> mentally learn the differences.
>
> My findings - even if they do use really expensive 400dpi continuous
> tone printers, they are never as sharp or vibrant as my Epson 1270
> which does it all with little dots of ink.

I will try some same photos in a different lab to see. But, in general, it
would be good not to have all photos run through some program before sending
to lab...

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:30:22 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>I will try some same photos in a different lab to see. But, in general, it
>would be good not to have all photos run through some program before sending
>to lab...

But that's half the fun!

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 16:16:40 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Dec 2004 20:30:22 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>>> I will try some same photos in a different lab to see. But, in
>>> general, it would be good not to have all photos run through some
>>> program before sending to lab...
>>
>> But that's half the fun!
>
>You mean drawing the mustaches etc... :-)))

...good idea, but not exactly what I had in mind.

>I kinda agree with that. But still, a good camera (now, i don't say mine
>is...) should produce good shots. But then, it's also a man behind it...

Maybe it's just my workflow, but I don't think what you are hoping for
is realistic. By the time you've pressed the button, only half the job
is done. For example, how can the camera at this stage:

Sharpen to the right degree for a given print size.
Perform dodging/burning.
Fine tune the color temperature.
Perform a crop that is of a different ratio to the full frame.
Remove that annoying telephone pole in the background.
Make her eyes bluer.
Make his teeth whiter.
Remove that stream of slobber hanging from the dog's mouth.
De-vignette the frame.
Perform just the right amount of levels/curves.
Desaturate (convert to B/W) using 60% green channel, 20% of the blue
and none of the red.

...and none of this is really special effects yet.

Snapshots are one thing, but for the art of photography, you'll want
darkroom control.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:09:43 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>
>> Snapshots are one thing, but for the art of photography, you'll want
>> darkroom control.
>
>I guess you're right. And, i think i didn't come to this stage yet. I bet
>that once you get to known with doing this, it's quite fun...

I missed something. I don't do this to *every* picture I take, because
I don't print *every* picture I take. I estimate my shot-count more
than quadrupled when I went digital.

Depending on the subject, less than 5% get any work done on them,
usually taking no more than 2 minutes each. Only half of those ever
get printed. For family events the print ratio is much higher and it's
lowest for nature romps and 'staged/studio' stuff involving a baby.

Every computer savvy digital photographer should learn Photoshop. It
really is a truly amazing piece of software.

--
Owamanga!

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 16:19:14 +0100, "SleeperMan"
<SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:

>Owamanga wrote:
>> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:09:43 +0100, "SleeperMan"
>> <SleeperMan@too.sleepy> wrote:
>>
>>> Owamanga wrote:
>>>
>>>> Snapshots are one thing, but for the art of photography, you'll want
>>>> darkroom control.
>>>
>>> I guess you're right. And, i think i didn't come to this stage yet.
>>> I bet that once you get to known with doing this, it's quite fun...
>>
>> I missed something. I don't do this to *every* picture I take, because
>> I don't print *every* picture I take. I estimate my shot-count more
>> than quadrupled when I went digital.
>>
>> Depending on the subject, less than 5% get any work done on them,
>> usually taking no more than 2 minutes each. Only half of those ever
>> get printed. For family events the print ratio is much higher and it's
>> lowest for nature romps and 'staged/studio' stuff involving a baby.
>>
>> Every computer savvy digital photographer should learn Photoshop. It
>> really is a truly amazing piece of software.
>
>Maybe that's my down side...i usually use Paint Shop Pro...i tried a few
>times Photoshop, but i quit each time... is it really so much better than
>Paint Shop Pro...?
>And at the end, i usually don't even print much photos, i usually only look
>them on the screen... so, these lab ones were more or less test ones just to
>see how good my LCD monitor shows photos, how printer prints them etc...

Either have a quick flick through some a Photoshop books at the
bookstore or go on-line and peek at a few of the tutorials out there
to explore it's capabilities. Only if you *want* to do any of those
things that you now know can be done would you need to consider the
move to Photoshop.

It is a big learning curve - for more than 2 years I kept on needing
to go back to PSP to do something that I couldn't work out how to do
in Photoshop. But I believe Adobe's software is worth learning. Once
you have worked out how to use any one of their products, the others
all become much simpler to use too. Again, you may never need to
create a full-featured PDF with Adobe Acrobat, or edit home video with
Adobe Premiere / Adobe After Effects, or build a website with
Image-Ready / Go-Live. But if you did, and you knew how to use
Photoshop, you'd be half-way there already.

--
Owamanga!