Yes - WCI and H&H are well thought of by most photographers. But then so are some of the labs that did not fare so well in ModifiedPhoto's test. That to me is the BIG value of his efforts.
One of the larger labs on the east coast is Nations Photo Lab in Owings Mills, MD (http://www.nationsphotolab.com/ ). I have no personal experience with them, but various posters have been happy.
Shipping times from the mid-west labs to the east coast should be pretty short - so you might want to compare quality and shipping times of the various labs.
As for shipping to me (in the midwest), H&H, Millers, Black River Imaging and WHCC all shipped to me quite fast. The labs further out were still quick but took two or three days longer to get here from the time I ordered. (No doubt due to the distance and shipping method.)
I'd love to test every big lab, but that is a truly large undertaking.
Personally I think you did a phenomenal job in picking the labs you did!
A wide range. You covered most to the better known national U.S. labs (between Millers, Collages, WHCC, Bay Photo and Black River you got the "big guys"). Then you got the affiliated store labs - Costco, Ritz. Then a smaller local lab - Evolution. Then a few more for good order.
You should feel proud of your work - and it is appreciated!
Jammy Straub wrote:
Thank you for doing this, you should try and get this circulated around the web!
It's funny you mention that, I've found that the link is showing up on other camera forums already. (as are some of my other posts) Feel free to share the direct link to any of my blog posts whenever relevant to a topic.
ModifiedPhoto wrote:
...
Also, as for people who do use a lab, the vast majority of photographers DO use corrections though some need it more than others. (Some don't need it at all but pay for corrections to leave the door open for a color remake if they are not satisfied with the print.)...
I color correct all of my files before sending them off to the lab. However, I recently tried a different lab and used their color correcting for this very reason.
Very valuable information. Like anything, the results aren't for everyone, but for those who do things this way (or another way), it's invaluable.
Oct 05, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Mark Metternich Offline • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
mgipe wrote:
Interesting. Thanks for doing this test and sharing the results.
I am curious about why you let all the labs color correct each print. One of the most important things I look for in a lab is their ability to accurately reproduce the colors and densities that I create on my calibrated monitor. I put a lot of effort into processing each photo to get exactly the look I want from it. I expect the lab to interpret the file according to the correct colorspace and print it as close as possible within the limits of the printing process. If the lab color-corrects to their idea of what the picture should look like, it ruins all my work.
People often ask me why I won't supply a file so they can print it wherever they want ... until I show them two copies of the same photo, one printed by WHCC and one printed by Shutterfly...
Just ran across this while doing a search. It gratifies me as I have predominately used WHCC for my work. Might have to check out H&H however. The framing option you mentioned intrigues me! Thanks for taking the time to do this test!
Jammy Straub wrote:
Thank you for doing this, you should try and get this circulated around the web!
You'd actually be surprised how well it has circulated itself. I've had hits from dozens of different websites with people referring to the throwdown test results.
I'm actually planning at least two more "throwdowns" but when I can afford to do it again. (Money is a little tight right now.)
I've considered asking the labs to participate (to reduce costs) but then it would potentially skew the results since they would be expecting the files. Where as if I send the orders anonymously, they handle it just like any other customer.
ModifiedPhoto wrote:
This is only partly true. The vast majority of photographers who wouldn't let a lab print their work aren't concerned about my results as they would never send a file to a lab for printing and likely print everything using inkjet on "fine art" papers. (And more power to them. I'd do the same if I could only afford a few thousand dollar printer and hundred dollar paper and ink reloads.) However, if the need arose for prints in quantity or the cost/time involved in printing their own work, knowing which labs to use or avoid might be something nice to know in advance.
Also, as for people who do use a lab, the vast majority of photographers DO use corrections though some need it more than others. (Some don't need it at all but pay for corrections to leave the door open for a color remake if they are not satisfied with the print.)
FYI, most of the labs tested do not allow consumer printing. A few even required a tax ID and other business information in order to even open an account....Show more →
I still think you are wrong. Pretty much every wedding/event/studio photographer on the planet uses labs only. Inkjet is the realm of the Fine Art photographer who doesn't ever print in bulk and will put up with all the calibration nonsense and the far higher costs. I also don't know of any pro who would allow a lab to do corrections, what the heck is the point of processing images just to see a lab techs take on it?
I agree - with the original title to the post - this is quite shocking - I'm very interested in using H & H after reading this - I've used the same lab for the past 15 years - and yes, it is on the list and one of the major ones in the industry. I must admit, that there have been times when I've been very unhappy with the results, both on prints that I've submitted as ready files and ones that I've let them correct. I realize that mistakes will be made by every lab and every person, however, with almost a perfect score in every category, that sounds pretty darn good to me.
Thanks for taking the time to do this - I'm sure everyone including myself appreciates it !
Beni wrote:
I still think you are wrong. Pretty much every wedding/event/studio photographer on the planet uses labs only. Inkjet is the realm of the Fine Art photographer who doesn't ever print in bulk and will put up with all the calibration nonsense and the far higher costs. I also don't know of any pro who would allow a lab to do corrections, what the heck is the point of processing images just to see a lab techs take on it?
While I could be considered the lab my wife use for her printing, I print all final prints on inkjet in-house for the wider gamut,lower cost and repeatable print quality of our inkjet vs wet process labs. If her clients contract includes printed proofs, those are the only times I use outside labs as i'm not in the mood to babysit hundreds of small prints for no profit. However once it's an ordered print, it will be printed in house.
Yep, I said lower cost. Once you move up to larger format cartridges, the cost of DIY printing is lower than labs. That iclude the rare wasted print and ink used in maintenance cycles by the printer etc
Her clientèle ranges from weddings, portraits, maternity to school pictures and If the print is smaller than 16' on the short side, it will be printed in house on our 4880. Exceptions are things such as canvas prints/wraps for which we use outfits that specialize in such prints.
Now, as for me photography is just a hobby and being the more technically inclined of us, I wouldn't be surprised if my wife would outsource to labs, if she would have to print all her prints herself due to the time required.
There is no "Calibration nonsense" involved in inkjet printing unlike wet process printing where every print will change the chemicals ability to develop the print and you either have as constant flow of new chemical into the machines to balance the mix or constant calibration/quality drift (yes I used to work in photo related industry and are well aware of what the labs go though to maintain quality).
The only" calibration nonsense" I deal with is to create a new paper profile one in a blue if we decide to try out some new paper, but we pretty much have a standard paper and use the same profile for every paper batch as I haven't seen any visible variation from paper batch to batch. Creating a paper profile takes all about 10 minutes, not including the time the printed patches takes to dry, but is not very work intensive.
If you are willing to go with a low control as with a lab, you could simply use the OEM profiles and not even do that.
I agree with mikaelo. The color from the lab will vary from hour to hour, machine to machine, even with no changes to your file on the part of the lab. I sent some competition prints to be printed this spring and did a warm tone black and white finish on color paper and ended up with a cyan-blue looking print come back. Needless to say, I wasn't thrilled and got it remade at no cost but their are a LOT of variables going on within a wet process print. Chemistry, paper emulsion, age and conditions the paper was stored under, machine calibration, laser temperature just to name a few. I've ran a number of wet process machines (ZBE Chromira, Polielettronica, Fuji, Noritsu and others) so I know a thing or two about the quirks they have. I'm actually planning a test for some of the labs that will be uncorrected files and I will be ordering images more than once to compare the results over a period of time. Depending on how close the images match from run to run will show how consistent the labs internal processes are for keeping everything color managed and calibrated properly.
As you said, inkjet printing isn't that bad once you get the proper profiles made for your papers. That and understanding the work flow to print with profiles correctly is the real hurdles for most people printing good, accurate images.
Not everyone processes and corrects their own images before printing. You'd be surprised what goes through a lab from "professionals".
