On Wed, December 8, 2010 22:11, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > > On Tue, December 7, 2010 22:41, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: >> Well just a thought or two. First with the discount places its catch as >> catch can there. Most of the time it depends more on who happens to be >> running the equipment at any given moment. That really wasn't that much >> different than the film days. Once in a while you find someone at one of >> those places for a while that really knows what they are doing. If so >> you >> might get great work at a bargain price. More likely you will get just >> average work with good equipment. Sometimes that's good enough and the >> price difference makes it worth while sometimes to see what you get. > > Why would that be? I'm not having their operator making any corrections, > just running my file into their printer. If some operators don't do a > good job of maintenance, that would make a difference; but that's a > matter > of bothering to do their job, rather than a matter of actual skill. > > It would be interesting, if somewhat expensive, to get the same file > printed 10 times over 10 weeks, say, at different times of day, just to > see how much difference there is. Wouldn't have to be a huge print to be > interesting, either. > > That would be an interesting test. Trouble is with the operator you > may tell them not to correct, but do they actually do what you tell > them? Are they trained in the equipment to follow the directions or do > they just let the auto correct run because the prints they ran before > yours needed it and the prints they run afterwards need it. Do they > know how to turn it off? Yep, any of those can be issues. Of course, if they do it wrong, they'll be remaking the print. Those are time issues rather than quality issues, really. > How long has it been since they recalibrated a monitor? Doesn't matter; they're not making any correction, so how it looks on their monitor is irrelevant. I haven't used the Costco service. If I upload the file and specify no corrections, does the operator even get a chance to mess it up? I'm pretty sure that AdoramaPix has that automated! > I was in a nameless camera chain store that had an operator > say "Gee this film turned out funny." I took a quick glance over and > knew what happened, but just waited to see what they came up with. The > manager asked, "What kind of film is it?" The response was "Provia > 100F". The manager said, "That's a slide film." Well the less than > trained operator goes, "Well that's what it says." Poor training is > nothing new, and with digital at least the results are not > unrecoverable, but you may not get the best from a file. Maybe its not > the absolute best, but sometimes for something quick it maybe good > enough. And the question is, in what ways will I not get the best from my file printed at Costco or at AdoramaPix? (Other than the obvious -- if you really want an inkjet print, the AdoramaPix photo print may not be ideal for you, and vice versa if you want a photo print and end up getting a Costco inkjet print). With 35mm film and 4x6 proofs, the maintenance of the equipment, the care taken with the processing line, and the skill of the operator making corrctions were all important. I got notably better proofs from Photos Inc. than I did from Proex or Target. I'm wondering which of the factors were most important in that outcome? How much maintenance does an inkjet printer used at the Costco level take? I don't think of much I perform on my little one -- just changing cartridges when needed. While I do sometimes run nozzle checks, I don't think I'd need to if I printed many prints per day regularly (as they will at Costco). AdoramaPix is using real photo paper, so their processing line is a potential issue. I have no idea how much maintenance their paper-writers (exposing photo paper based on digital files) take. Taking the taste and skill of a technician making adjustments out of the picture looks like to me it might eliminate quite a lot of the difference between "consumer" and "pro" labs. I'm looking for experience and data points -- not being a pro, I can't really justify spending many hundreds of dollars on a series of test prints from each lab (and since they use different equipment for big and small prints most places, at least some of those test prints would have to be big ones). >> Now for the pros, you have another consideration and that's perception. > > When that becomes an issue, I hope that the difference between $22 and > $49 > for a print will not be something I have to worry about. > > I have actually used prints from WalMart and Target for client wedding > proofs, in particular. > > > > I don't do weddings, but the extra few bucks for a print for a better > print I am going to sell is money well spent. But that's the exact question I'm trying to find out about -- will the print quality actually be better from WHCC than from AdoramaPix? (There's about a 3x price difference for big prints.) I would happily pay a "few" extra bucks for significantly better prints. I'm not so sure I'm willing to pay 3x the bucks for prints that might perhaps be better, though I have no clear theory for why they would be. > The extra few bucks are going to be passed on anyway, and I want the > highest practical quality. Whereas I have a fixed budget for the current project, and am trying to do as good a job within it as I can. > I certainly understand other approaches. Lots of things come into play > in any situation. Sometimes speed is far more important than waiting > for a print that's slightly better. That's something we all have to > decide for ourselves. Yep, no argument there. -- David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/ Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/ Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/ Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
