Jeff Offline Upload & Sell: On
|
p.1 #1 · p.1 #1 · WHCC.com’s printing and QA/QC has become unacceptable | |
After 15+ years as a client of White House Custom Color, I will no longer use them, and I suggest anyone think twice for professional (i.e. drop-ship) applications. Their consistency has gone out the window, and they no longer stand by their product, effectively stating that a large Standout Mount triptych was printed on lustre paper ‘within tolerances’ (it most certainly was not). For the record, I use calibrated monitors set to 80cd/m2 (controlled lighting in my office), and always use the correct WHCC ICC profile during soft-proofing in LR. Been doing this quite a long time (not my first rodeo with printing night images), and they’ve always been good in the past about correcting their mistakes.
For the backstory, I had a 76x24” three-panel pano shipped direct to a client, and they gently complained that the print came out too dark. I confirmed that it did look too dark (~1-stop), notably darker than the original files. After returning to my client’s home to photograph the prints with a color-checker in the frame, WHCC still refused to replace the print, saying although it was a ‘bit dark’, it was ‘within their tolerances’, and I’d have to supply a different file if I wanted a different result. I had a two-week back-and-forth trying to discover how I was supposed to soft-proof the file correctly if using their ICC profile didn’t cut it; they had no answer, and simply told me to lighten the file. Left with no recourse, I tried to approximate how much I needed to lighten the file based upon how (relatively) dark the first one was, and they did a test print of the right panel to confirm that it looked like I thought it should (it appeared to, from the iPhone photo they sent). They then charged me 50% to re-print the file ($200!), but I had little recourse, given that it was for a client.
I receive the replacement print (shipped to me, this time), open the box to take a look at one of the panels, and it seemed close enough, certainly in the ballpark. Arrange to go to my client’s house to personally re-hang the prints, and after standing back to look at the three panels together, was positively horrified to see that the right panel was about 2/3-stop lighter than the other two panels!
Unbelievable. They had used the initial test print that they ran, and instead of re-printing the three panels at the same time, weeks later they printed the two left panels and added to the test print, assuming they’d match. They most certainly did not match. I sent them images that clearly show the non-matching brightness levels of the prints, and they stalled for another week or two, asking me what I expect, appreciating my patience, but not addressing the problem. I finally lost it and asked for a Supervisor, and within a day or so they readily admitted that they completely screwed up, and the replacement prints never should have shipped looking like that. That was an understatement.
The second set of replacement prints was acceptable even though their source was a jpg file that did not resemble the output, so I went back to my client’s home one last time, embarrassed beyond belief.
Even after their replacement prints directly demonstrated that their printers can drift substantially (causing significant differences in brightness that they acknowledge was beyond what they consider ‘normal’), I still lost the $200 re-print fee. This process took 2 months and 1 week to play out.
I’ve been working with WHCC for nearly 20 years, and since COVID, they’ve had increasing quality control issues (which I acknowledge has become the norm for many companies). However, this set of circumstances has demonstrated to me that they no longer value professional clients (they often parrot that they have tens of thousands in the print queue, and they can't catch every problem). I thus cannot possibly fathom ever drop-shipping a print to a client without seeing it first. You'd think they'd have a process for scrutinizing a $400 print before shipping it out.
It honestly pains me to say it (as I was a WHCC fan for many years), but I’m done, and I’d strongly caution any professional photographer from ever using them again, particularly for drop-shipping expensive prints.
-Jeff
Attached: Unaltered iPhone images of 'replacement' prints, plus initial print vs. jpg file comparison. Note that the third image demonstrates exactly how much their printer output can drift, as it is effectively two different printings of the exact same file. Thus, this is how much they feel is normal for their output to change, from day-to-day, in this case in the 'lighter' direction.
The (replacement) triptych installed
Left-Center (looks good)
Right-Center (!)
Original prints, Center-Right (dark)
Original files (note especially differences in grass/trees)
|