Some places those 4x6s are not done by an inkjet. They take the digital file and expose conventional photo paper for wet prints which are significantly cheaper than an inkjet print. One machine that does that in common use is the Fuji Frontier, but there are others. There you do have chemistry issues, control strips, maintenance ect. to worry about. Some offer very few options with paper type. Not only do they have to know what to do to maintain the gear, the company involved has to be willing to spend the money to do it. Many to speed production run the process at a higher temperature than intended. It saves some time and allows more to be done in an hour, but the process is also far less controlled. That means you are far more likely to get inconsistent results. Many places use these machines for prints up to about 11x14.
It's my opinion you simply can not take the operator out of the picture. Many el cheapo places have the exact same equipment, but they have far less knowledge on how to use it. IF you find one of the cheap places that has a first rate operator, you can get first rate results and I have had that happen from time to time over the years. My experience is that I have had my best results at Mom and Pop shops that open due to a love of photography and take pride in their work. They rarely charge as much as a full fledged pro lab, but they sometimes lack some equipment and the ability to do a few things a pro lab might do. Usually they have a connection they can send it out for you, but not always.
If you tell them not to alter the file, does the operator know how to comply with that request??? Do they even know how or was the kid that did know how on break and leave you with the kid working his first shift? Yes color management if you need an EXACT match is tough anywhere. Just because you tell them not to alter the file, does that printer and computer interpret the 1's and 0's the same way as your computer?? Doubtful but it may be very good and might be perfectly satisfactory for your needs. Time available may also factor in the consideration. Do you have time to go somewhere else if the prints are not to your needs?
Not trying to tell anyone where they should or shouldn't take their prints. Just something to think about.
-------- Original Message ------
Subject: RE: AdoramaPix?
From: David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, December 09, 2010 10:37 am
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
<photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
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
