Most of the orders were submitted through the labs standard ordering system. (In most cases their version of Roes) The only lab that had a non-Roes based ordering system was H&H Color Lab which has a custom software called EZSuite which I slightly prefer over Roes.
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...
H&H is a little less known lab but they've been picking up the pace with some new products lately. Millers has the widest variety of products but I would want to send a reference print for color matching for any expensive print products so I could be sure that what I was getting back was closer to my personal preference. (I was a little disappointed in their color which was actually worse than the original files I sent. See part 3 for details on each image.)
Evolution Photo is the smallest lab tested but they actually did quite well considering. They are nearly within walking distance to me but their prices are too high for me to consider using except perhaps in a pinch.
mgipe, The reason I decided to allow for corrections was to see what each lab would do with an already fairly decent image in regards to color and density. Although I do occasionally have a troubled file, MOST of what I have printed already looks good and I do typically order uncorrected. An experienced tech should recognize that the files are already fairly good and make little or no adjustments.
The skintones.jpg file I sent I did request it to be printed uncorrected and most of the labs were able to do that. It did appear that a few may have corrected the files anyhow. (perhaps an automatic color correction?)
I do plan on testing a few of the labs again with uncorrected files only. This time I am going to order the same exact image in several color space just to see what happens and to compare what I get back to the screen.
I regularly use WHCC, and have used H&H a few times – but only with Fuji Pearl (which I did not care for – maybe I am the only one). I think I will give H&H another try – this time with luster.
The “big surprise” in your study alone made the effort totally worth it.
Please PM me with your mailing address. I would like to send you a small donation.
I am with Mike on his comments. Most pros don’t use the lab for color correction – so I really could care less about that. Your non-color corrected image was the most informative to me.
Also – if a good photographer screws up (and we all do from time to time) and sends a file in with the wrong tag, I really don’t expect my lab to pick that up. As a matter of fact, I would prefer if they didn’t and that the image came back noticeably wrong. That way I would know I did something improperly and could set out to find and fix the problem.
So my recommendation would be to NOT bother with improperly tagged files for your next test.
I do have a couple of thoughts for your next test:
1. Variability Over Time.
a. The MOST important thing to me in a lab is that they are consistent over time. That from one day to the next, one week to the next they control their chemicals and calibrate their printer so that it produces relatively the same image. Unless they can be consistent my workflow is dead.
b. My idea here would be to submit the same print maybe three times over the span of a few weeks to each of your selected labs to test for this variability.
2. Using a Standard Print.
There are a lot of standard images out there. My favorite is the PhotoDisc Target – which is available from various web sites. I find it is most useful if printed as an 11 by 17. There are quite a number of other suitable targets that can be used.
3. There are two points of evaluation here. One is to compare the test image, under your light box, to your monitor. The second would be to compare each of the three images from any given vendor to their other prints to check for consistency over time.
Others may have additional or different suggestions.
Again, thanks so much for this useful and meaningful work!
Irelevant to the vast majority of pro photographers who wouldn't let any lab do anything to their files before printing. Maybe interesting for the consumer market.
QUESTION: How do you think the best results compare to carefully printing at home on a high quality inkjet? I carefully make all of my own prints ... and sometimes wonder how they would compare to results at better labs.
- ZBE Chromira LED RGB printer on Fuji Crystal Archive papers (gloss photo, supergloss, lustre, matte photo, pearl)
- Epson 9800 K3 using Photo Black on DAS Geo Glossy Water Resistant Canvas, and Crane Museo Silver Rag (color and B&W)
- Epson 1118800 K3 Vivid Magenta using Matte Black on Hahemuhle Photo Rag, Epson Premium Luster (color and B&W), DAC Matte Water Resistant Artist Canvas, Hahemuhle Photo Rag.
Beni wrote:
Irelevant to the vast majority of pro photographers who wouldn't let any lab do anything to their files before printing. Maybe interesting for the consumer market.
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.
- ZBE Chromira LED RGB printer on Fuji Crystal Archive papers (gloss photo, supergloss, lustre, matte photo, pearl)
- Epson 9800 K3 using Photo Black on DAS Geo Glossy Water Resistant Canvas, and Crane Museo Silver Rag (color and B&W)
- Epson 1118800 K3 Vivid Magenta using Matte Black on Hahemuhle Photo Rag, Epson Premium Luster (color and B&W), DAC Matte Water Resistant Artist Canvas, Hahemuhle Photo Rag.
Jim
I ran a ZBE Chromira when I ran the custom digital dept at a small lab in Phoenix. It's a pretty nice printer.
I've never used West Coast Imaging and I understand they are quite good but their prices reflect that.
I might have to order a sample pack from them, I'd be interested in seeing some of what they can do.
Am curious about the front end interface software mentioned as used by these print houses. And how this affects dealing with print houses.
It looks like the ROES software expects you to modify your image in the ROES package? That seems strange doesn't it? With all the work we do on post-processing, why would one want to use the ROES or any other software to modify an image? Isn't that what we use our CS etc programs for?
Also on the H&H site they seem very interested in helping you sell your photographs? But I didn't find easy access to pricing info for printing??
Bottom line question: I will need a good print shop for printing some of my images for sale, gallery display and gifts this year. What is the best direction to go? It looks like HH at least wants a "relationship" when what I want is a good print shop who can print what I see on my TOL monitor better than I can with my medium level Epson inkjet. Figured for matting and framing, I'd have to get that done locally at a frame shop.
ROES is only an ordering system. It does have cropping and rotation options within it so you can use the same file for prints of multiple sizes and crop ratios. Same goes with the EZSuite software from H&H. I dislike ROES as it seems so jumbled and often difficult to find sizes and services in unless you know where to look.
H&H pricing is in PDF's you can download. I do wish their was an option to display print pricing and an approximate total within the software (and hide it when working with clients) or even display a "studio" price in place of lab pricing to make it into a selling tool as opposed to an ordering tool. Though that may be something they implement later as it is their own home brew software application. (ROES is an off the shelf lab ordering system that is end user customized to an extent.)
H&H and a few other labs now offer custom framing at the lab level so you are actually sent a framed, matted, ready to hang piece of artwork from your file. It is a very new service to them and I have not used it myself, but it looks promising if they have a frame option that suits your needs. I believe some of the other labs also offer limited framing services as well.
ModifiedPhoto wrote:
ROES is only an ordering system. It does have cropping and rotation options within it so you can use the same file for prints of multiple sizes and crop ratios. Same goes with the EZSuite software from H&H. I dislike ROES as it seems so jumbled and often difficult to find sizes and services in unless you know where to look.
Agreed ... it seems each lab can configure how ROES is laid out and organized ... I much prefer the way WHCC has done this as I only need one window open to accomplish all my ordering tasks ... other labs ... you need to have several windows open and it can get quite confusing to keep track of what has been done ... and what yet needs to be accomplished ....
Some good ideas here for further tests. A good lab can make all the difference in the quality of the final work. I encourage you to continue with this very valuable experiment -- and keep sharing the results!
Thanks for that info. I just could not figure using their software for post processing. But I can see that being able to crop might be good at times.
Maybe I'll call H&H and see how they sound. I take it WCI & H&H are well thought of. Are there others here on the east coast which might be at the same high level?
