Home · Register · Software · Software · Join Upload & Sell

Moderated by: Fred Miranda
Username  

  New fredmiranda.com Mobile Site
  New Feature: SMS Notification alert
  New Feature: Buy & Sell Watchlist
  

FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
  

How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?
  
 
lara_ckl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #1 · p.2 #1 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


Jeff Donald wrote:
What type of machine is your commercial printer using? Not all commercial machines are created equal. This looks like a print from an old analog printer that was converted to digital. Modern commercial printers should do a much better job.


PhotoMaximum wrote:
The new printer (technology) at home you are proofing little test segments of your images from might be several generations ahead of the commercial print shop you are considering for the final large prints.


Com1 was printed on a HP inkjet while Com2 was printed on an Epson inkjet. Neither company will tell me which model they were using other than the fact that they were using pigment inks. Won't tell me if their inks were OEM or refills either.



Mar 05, 2017 at 01:24 PM
Jeff Donald
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #2 · p.2 #2 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


Wow, I've never had a commercial printer that didn't show pride in his company and equipment and refuse to tell me what printers/inks he was using. It sounds to me like they're not "real" commercial printers, just guys with large format printers. I'd keep looking for a printer that will work with you.


Mar 05, 2017 at 01:58 PM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #3 · p.2 #3 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


I would never send a jpg to a printer and certainly would not expect to get a high quality print from such a file. The dithering of your inkjet printer is masking jaggies but you will not get this "correction" with the lab.

I always send a 16-bit TIFF and I only use labs that can work with a TIFF and that will read the Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB color profile.

As the old saying goes, garbage in garbage out.



Mar 05, 2017 at 08:01 PM
lara_ckl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #4 · p.2 #4 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


elkhornsun wrote:
I always send a 16-bit TIFF and I only use labs that can work with a TIFF and that will read the Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB color profile.


I did not do an exhaustive search, but all of those that I looked into will only accept JPG and sRGB. Do you mind sharing the names of printers accepting TIFF and Adobe/Prophoto RGB?



Mar 05, 2017 at 09:10 PM
CanadaMark
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #5 · p.2 #5 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


44 Wide and Posterjack both accepts TIFFS you just need to email them.


Mar 05, 2017 at 10:36 PM
lara_ckl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #6 · p.2 #6 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


CanadaMark wrote:
44 Wide and Posterjack both accepts TIFFS you just need to email them.


Thanks. I didn't know that.



Mar 05, 2017 at 11:20 PM
Rags Hef
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #7 · p.2 #7 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


lara_ckl wrote:
Thanks. I didn't know that.


I don't know how you processed but I would...

From 5x7 I would try 10x14 (with 300dpi)) with some hdr toning ... then

try 20x28 checking the colors and add'l hdr toning

My guess is sharpening would simply sharpen pixelation

Just my guess...

Any conversion of tiff to the printer would probably carry with it the pixalization

Rags






Mar 06, 2017 at 12:39 AM
chez
Offline
• • • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #8 · p.2 #8 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


elkhornsun wrote:
I would never send a jpg to a printer and certainly would not expect to get a high quality print from such a file. The dithering of your inkjet printer is masking jaggies but you will not get this "correction" with the lab.

I always send a 16-bit TIFF and I only use labs that can work with a TIFF and that will read the Adobe RGB or ProPhoto RGB color profile.

As the old saying goes, garbage in garbage out.


If the jpeg is of the highest standard, it should not cause the issues seen in the samples. I've made many prints for people from jpegs and they all came out just fine. Sure Tiff might be better but the issues we are seeing with those samples are not caused by jpegs.



Mar 06, 2017 at 02:24 AM
pw-pix
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #9 · p.2 #9 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


The commercial printer I use in Australia has a Durst Lambda.
They require sRGB jpg at either 200 or 400 ppi.

The results are excellent and they are widely regarded as the best and used by a lot of wedding and some landscape photographers.



Mar 06, 2017 at 06:17 AM
Peter Figen
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #10 · p.2 #10 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


A few years ago a similar discussion came up here on FM. The person who started it couldn't believe you could get great prints from both a jpeg and from sRGB. I ended up making a pile of prints, and I can't remember now if they were 16x24 or 24x36, but either was plenty large to see any anomalies.

I set a test image that had skin tones, blue skies, memory colors, detail, etc. and made prints on an Epson 9900 from the same image file that started out as a 16 bpc ProPhotoRGB tiff and was then copied and saved as a succession of sRGB jpegs, each one being saved at a progressively lower quality level - no. 12, 10,8,6,4 and finally 2. Each of the jpegs versions was saved off the original tiff, closed and then re-opened in Ps to make sure that I wasn't printing the original image from ram.

What we found out was that the prints were virtually indistinguishable from the 16 bit tiff down to the number 6 jpeg. The number 4 level jpeg started to show some visible artifacts but was still quite usable. The number two jpeg, well, was getting pretty harsh.

We were both pretty surprised at how well the jpegs held up, and even more impressed that only on certain saturated yellows was there any real visible difference in color rendition.

Now, of course, if someone modifies and resaves jpegs as jpegs, you're going to get progressive degradation, but if you are only saving off a pristine copy from a master tiff, you are never going to see an issue. And don't forget that the stock photo industry has been almost exclusively number 8 quality jpegs for many years now.



Mar 06, 2017 at 06:46 AM
 

Search in Used Dept. 

        


kinconorb
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #11 · p.2 #11 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


I needed some photos printed for an application, they wanted 5 images printed and a CD containing digital copies of the 5 images. Anyhow I had a discount code for AdoramaPix so figured why not give them a shot, needless to say I wasn't very impressed with the results. The images came out looking similar to your commercial prints. If you step back and look at them from afar it is okay, but held at arms length they look rather lackluster.


Mar 06, 2017 at 06:58 PM
morrismike
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #12 · p.2 #12 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


Steve Perry wrote:
I tired a variety of commercial print labs and came to the same conclusions - I'm better off doing it myself. Every time I tired a print from a lab and compared it to the same image done from my own printer, it wasn't even close. I went through a period where I think I tried about a half dozen of the big name labs, and while some did better than others, they just couldn't beat the detail, color, and tonal range I was getting at home.

Sad thing is, I hate printing, and I'm never going to be accused
...Show more

Don't overthink it. Walmart.com on line lab does pretty good.



Mar 07, 2017 at 02:40 AM
elkhornsun
Offline
• • • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #13 · p.2 #13 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


WHCC or White House Custom Color has been accepting TIFF from day one and reading Adobe RGB profiles since 2008. They have a very wide range of mounting options which I like as the larger the print the more beneficial I find it to have it pre-mounted before shipping it to me. Second day service so I can upload files on Sunday and have the prints delivered on Tuesday.


Mar 11, 2017 at 07:49 PM
kaplah
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #14 · p.2 #14 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


morrismike wrote:
Don't overthink it. Walmart.com on line lab does pretty good.

The few times I've used walmart, at least in Canada, were disastrous. Over-sharpened, hyper-saturated, white balance off. Fine for snapshots on vacation, nothing else.



Mar 11, 2017 at 11:11 PM
lara_ckl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #15 · p.2 #15 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


elkhornsun wrote:
WHCC or White House Custom Color has been accepting TIFF from day one and reading Adobe RGB profiles since 2008.


That may have been true at one point, but it is not currently the case. Their website is very clear on this (only accepting JPG), and I re-confirmed it with their online customer support.

[Not a comment on JPG vs TIFF, one way or the other. ]



Mar 13, 2017 at 10:35 PM
goosemang
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #16 · p.2 #16 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


Aside from image quality as it relates to fine detail and the like, I found it futile to try and have black and white prints made online. I'd make a print, decide it needed a particular adjustment, have a second print made and it'd be completely off. Like the overall tonality of the same file would shift from day - places couldn't make the same print twice. That's impossible to negotiate. So I maintain an inkjet even though I don't print that often, because I can get the job done quickly and correctly myself. It's not worth the aggravation and time to sort things out with the online crowd.

The exception being the really high quality folks, who are definitely around. But I'm too cheap to pay em!



Mar 14, 2017 at 03:18 AM
SoundHound
Offline
• • • • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #17 · p.2 #17 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


I too had the smaller printers and then decided that I could afford a large carriage printer since it cost less than the many premium camera bodies I was buying. My first one was a HPZ3100 24" carriage. I had some problems with it.

So I "traded in" the HP (got an allowance) on a 44" carriage Canon IPF 8400. It came with 12 large 330 mL ink tanks (a very good deal). To my door it was less than $3300. I was proud that I set it up myself, alone, except for hiring two stalwarts to muscle the carriage into the stand.

About as big as a small horse or long Shetland pony. Nothing like the thrill of seeing your print coming out of the rollers. Really never had a problem with it. One thing though if you don't make a print a week or so it flushes ink in thru the system anyway so there are no clogs. So, whether you print or no, you will spend for ink.

However, no way I could EVER make the prints I make now. Feedback, control and my choice of paper and schedule, etc. Proud of myself I bought it. Most people/clients have never seen a 40" X 60" (movie "One Sheet" size) print (on 42" X 62" paper) just tacky 4 color lithos. The extra size, literally, adds an extra dimension to your work. You will find yourself looking for blank walls too.



Mar 15, 2017 at 12:57 AM
Archibald
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #18 · p.2 #18 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


lara_ckl wrote:
Background:
Original image was 4333x3095 pixels. Print size was 5"x7". All three prints were inkjet.
For the commercial prints, I exported a JPG file from Lightroom at 300dpi, Standard sharpening, Matte paper, 100% JPEG quality, sRGB.
For the home print, I printed directly to the printer from Lightroom at 300dpi, Standard sharpening, Matte paper, 16 Bit output, color management by printer, no print adjustment.

Cross posted to Nikon because the camera was a D810


Please clarify - the original image of 4333 x 3095 px - was this the file used to print the 5x7? Or was this the scan of the 5x7?

What were the pixel dimensions of the pic sent to the commercial labs?



Mar 15, 2017 at 03:27 PM
lukejc1
Offline

Upload & Sell: Off
p.2 #19 · p.2 #19 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


Paper type could be playing a role here too. Luster paper is generally sharper than matte paper as far as I've seen. Try printing the image on matte paper for a better apples to apples comparison and see what you get.


Mar 15, 2017 at 03:45 PM
lara_ckl
Offline
• • •
Upload & Sell: On
p.2 #20 · p.2 #20 · How can commercial prints be so bad vs home-made prints?


Archibald wrote:
Please clarify - the original image of 4333 x 3095 px - was this the file used to print the 5x7? Or was this the scan of the 5x7?

What were the pixel dimensions of the pic sent to the commercial labs?


The original cropped RAW image was, as reported by Lightroom, 4333x3095px.
From the same cropped RAW image, Lightroom exported a JPG (quality = 100) at 360dpi.
Opening the JPG in a JPG viewer (Apple's Preview), showed a file that was 1800x2520px.
That same JPG file was sent to the 2 commercial printers and printed on 5x7 paper.

What I posted were scans of a very small area of the resulting 5x7 prints.

Again, I am not complaining about the absolute detail/resolution. I am questioning how a home-made print can be so much better than the commercial lab prints.



Mar 15, 2017 at 07:56 PM
1      
2
       3       4       end






FM Forums | Post-processing & Printing | Join Upload & Sell

1      
2
       3       4       end
    
 

You are not logged in. Login or Register

Username     Reset password