Places to get DSLR prints done.

Sorry to start a new thread, but my crappy news server has been off and on
for the last 5 days and now I am missing many messages... and this thread is
one of them. (I have been able to read via a public server but not been
able to respond)

I did mention DigiLab in Brizvagas back up the thread (one of the brief
periods when my server was "on") and really I cannot say enough good things
about them... and yes they are a sponsor of my Australia Digital Photo Of
The Day site, but that is NOT why I mention them.... I have been singing
their praises long before they became a sponsor! :-)

Now to link this reply back to a few points in the other post....

DigiLab v's F-Stop prices: F-Stop prices are very good and on a par with
DigiLabs in the smaller sizes, however DigiLab offers a 4x6 price of 70
cents, while F-Stop's minimum price is $1.40 for 5x7 and below. Seeing
that my "bread and butter" sales are mostly 4x6 this effectively 1/2s my
printing cost!

DigiLab have a $15 min. while F-stop's is $25.... while this may not seem
that important, it sure helps improve my turn around time for low volume
prints.

Also, DigiLab will accept TIFF or full size JPG on CD or JPG 7 via the FTP,
while I believe F-Stop is JPEG only regardless of how you deliver the
images. I am not fussed on the JPG 7 idea.... both DigiLab and F-Stop would
have done their homework and would believe that you cannot see the
difference, but for me it's still TIFFs on CD. :-) It would seem that
it is simply a bandwidth thing and things may change as we all end up on
broadband and have unlimited data.

Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft?? Interesting... I
would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp?? While
DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is very
similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines and I
cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)

[End DigiLab rant] :-)

Russell Stewart
Australian Digital Photo Of The Day
http://www.pixelpix.com.au/adpotd.html





Russell Stewart

>
> Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft?? Interesting...
I
> would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp?? While
> DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is very
> similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines and I
> cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
>
That was me, I've only done one test of their L2 service (Lambda from jpeg)
and it was certainly soft, but I'm not blaming the process yet. The files
looked good on a computer, what I'll have to do is get a tiff of the same
file printed with their "commercial" service (more expensive though) and
compare.

Regards
Rob

"Rob Gray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> >
> > Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft??
Interesting...
> I
> > would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp?? While
> > DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is very
> > similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines and
I
> > cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
> >
> That was me, I've only done one test of their L2 service (Lambda from
jpeg)
> and it was certainly soft, but I'm not blaming the process yet. The files
> looked good on a computer, what I'll have to do is get a tiff of the same
> file printed with their "commercial" service (more expensive though) and
> compare.
>
> Regards
> Rob
>
>

Their commercial service is way too expensive and I would not even bother.
I would have thought that they were actually using the same machine for both
services (Lambda is a Lambda is a Lambda), except that they do all the post
processing for the commercial service, while leaving the L2 post processing
up to the photographer.... either way sharp images should be the result.

Try www.streetsimaging.com.au in Brisbane.....Great results.....always
sharp.

--
Ian Wharton
Creative Photographics
BabyFace Casting & Modelling
502 Algester Rd
Algester Q 4115
ph 3273 7056 (CP)
ph 3711 5315 (BF)
fx 3273 7735
www.creativephotographics.net
www.babyfaceonline,net
"Russell Stewart" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bdbfpv$e3s$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Rob Gray" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > >
> > > Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft??
> Interesting...
> > I
> > > would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp??
While
> > > DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is
very
> > > similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines
and
> I
> > > cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
> > >
> > That was me, I've only done one test of their L2 service (Lambda from
> jpeg)
> > and it was certainly soft, but I'm not blaming the process yet. The
files
> > looked good on a computer, what I'll have to do is get a tiff of the
same
> > file printed with their "commercial" service (more expensive though) and
> > compare.
> >
> > Regards
> > Rob
> >
> >
>
> Their commercial service is way too expensive and I would not even bother.
> I would have thought that they were actually using the same machine for
both
> services (Lambda is a Lambda is a Lambda), except that they do all the
post
> processing for the commercial service, while leaving the L2 post
processing
> up to the photographer.... either way sharp images should be the result.
>
>

Digilab has some colour issues with some photographers. Their "Carmen
Miranda" and grey scale blaanced on one PC but their prints off. I don't
understand how I can print a poster on my inkjet with perfect colour and the
prints from Digilab are off colour. They also have "fixed" size/price
printing. Fstop on the other hand charge by the square metre so if you have
panoramas to print, f-stop are more suitable than Digilab.
JT

"Russell Stewart" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bdaj1m$4kn$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Sorry to start a new thread, but my crappy news server has been off and on
> for the last 5 days and now I am missing many messages... and this thread
is
> one of them. (I have been able to read via a public server but not been
> able to respond)
>
> I did mention DigiLab in Brizvagas back up the thread (one of the brief
> periods when my server was "on") and really I cannot say enough good
things
> about them... and yes they are a sponsor of my Australia Digital Photo Of
> The Day site, but that is NOT why I mention them.... I have been singing
> their praises long before they became a sponsor! :-)
>
> Now to link this reply back to a few points in the other post....
>
> DigiLab v's F-Stop prices: F-Stop prices are very good and on a par with
> DigiLabs in the smaller sizes, however DigiLab offers a 4x6 price of 70
> cents, while F-Stop's minimum price is $1.40 for 5x7 and below. Seeing
> that my "bread and butter" sales are mostly 4x6 this effectively 1/2s my
> printing cost!
>
> DigiLab have a $15 min. while F-stop's is $25.... while this may not seem
> that important, it sure helps improve my turn around time for low volume
> prints.
>
> Also, DigiLab will accept TIFF or full size JPG on CD or JPG 7 via the
FTP,
> while I believe F-Stop is JPEG only regardless of how you deliver the
> images. I am not fussed on the JPG 7 idea.... both DigiLab and F-Stop
would
> have done their homework and would believe that you cannot see the
> difference, but for me it's still TIFFs on CD. :-) It would seem that
> it is simply a bandwidth thing and things may change as we all end up on
> broadband and have unlimited data.
>
> Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft?? Interesting...
I
> would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp?? While
> DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is very
> similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines and I
> cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
>
> [End DigiLab rant] :-)
>
> Russell Stewart
> Australian Digital Photo Of The Day
> http://www.pixelpix.com.au/adpotd.html
>
>
>

"Auspics" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4nILa.11$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Digilab has some colour issues with some photographers. Their "Carmen
> Miranda" and grey scale blaanced on one PC but their prints off. I don't
> understand how I can print a poster on my inkjet with perfect colour and
the
> prints from Digilab are off colour.

I have never had a colour issue with them at all. I trust that you have
calibrated your system to theirs and not just your inkjet? What colour
space are you using?


> They also have "fixed" size/price
> printing. Fstop on the other hand charge by the square metre so if you
have
> panoramas to print, f-stop are more suitable than Digilab.
> JT

They use different machines and are limited to 20x32 and their panos are
done via inkjet, so in the case of panos f-stop are the better option.

Russell Stewart
Australian Digital Photo Of The Day
http://www.pixelpix.com.au/adpotd.html

The "Carmen Miranda" image on both photo paper and a PS file is provided by
Digilabs to balance out the grey/colour scales in PhotoShop. If PS gives out
the colour value they say it should, then pics produced to their colour and
grayscale values should be correct from their printer. At least 2 wedding
photographers I know, have trouble getting consistent results from that lab.
I guess it's a function of 'scroogeness' that they do not have this problem
with Street's, they just want Digilab's prices.

So having said that... How do you suppose it works when PS (with a Sony
monitor) on one system and PS with a Samsung monitor on another in a
different suburb, can both use the 'Miranda' image to balance their system
and both output almost identical inkjet prints from the same CFC on the same
printer moved between locations without PS having any 'colour profiles'
installed, just balanced to the 'Carmen' image yet...

The CDs containing the 'test' images sent to the lab from these 2 different
photographers created on PCs which otherwise produce identical output with
ink... Come back with a different colour and tonal balance? The burning
software?

Part of the concept of digital photography for a professional is that it
removes the uncertainty of labs processing film and paper with unpredictable
results and puts back in the hands of the photographer, the control that
would otherwise be lost.

If the labs providing calibration images can't reliably produce results that
seem so uncompromisingly easy to achieve with ink and colour laser's... Give
me a reason - any reason, to recommend that lab. Just because you personally
don't have the problem means nothing other than you are either employed
there or are one of the majority of their clients who have no problems.

I suppose in the contest of my comments, 2 out of the 9 photographers I know
who use the service have had problems... The other 7 do not. One can hope
that this percentage is not carried out to their entire customer base.

JT

"Russell Stewart" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bdnms3$9su$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> "Auspics" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:4nILa.11$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Digilab has some colour issues with some photographers. <snip>

> I have never had a colour issue with them at all. I trust that you have
> calibrated your system to theirs and not just your inkjet? What colour
> space are you using?
> snip<

> Russell Stewart
> Australian Digital Photo Of The Day
> http://www.pixelpix.com.au/adpotd.html

"Auspics" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:YtKLa.60$(E-Mail Removed)...
> The "Carmen Miranda" image on both photo paper and a PS file is provided
by
> Digilabs to balance out the grey/colour scales in PhotoShop. If PS gives
out
> the colour value they say it should, then pics produced to their colour
and
> grayscale values should be correct from their printer. At least 2 wedding
> photographers I know, have trouble getting consistent results from that
lab.
> I guess it's a function of 'scroogeness' that they do not have this
problem
> with Street's, they just want Digilab's prices.
>
> So having said that... How do you suppose it works when PS (with a Sony
> monitor) on one system and PS with a Samsung monitor on another in a
> different suburb, can both use the 'Miranda' image to balance their system
> and both output almost identical inkjet prints from the same CFC on the
same
> printer moved between locations without PS having any 'colour profiles'
> installed, just balanced to the 'Carmen' image yet...

Let me make sure I have what you are saying correct...

They are using the same image file, unchanged from from machine to machine
and printing to the same printer without modifying/applying profiles... is
that correct?

>
> The CDs containing the 'test' images sent to the lab from these 2
different
> photographers created on PCs which otherwise produce identical output with
> ink... Come back with a different colour and tonal balance? The burning
> software?

Again, let me make sure I have what you are saying correct...

They are both sending the Carmen test image unchanged and getting different
results.... or are they balancing their systems with the Carmen, then using
the same file, they each colour balance/correct that file and they both get
different results... is that correct?

>
> Part of the concept of digital photography for a professional is that it
> removes the uncertainty of labs processing film and paper with
unpredictable
> results and puts back in the hands of the photographer, the control that
> would otherwise be lost.
>
> If the labs providing calibration images can't reliably produce results
that
> seem so uncompromisingly easy to achieve with ink and colour laser's...
Give
> me a reason - any reason, to recommend that lab. Just because you
personally
> don't have the problem means nothing other than you are either employed
> there or are one of the majority of their clients who have no problems.

I am one of the 7.

They didn't sent the Carmen image back for printing... That'd be like
repainting a new white car white... Don't you think? They sent the same
portrait file for printing.

I have no knowledge if Digilabs used the same printer or not but it was my
inkjet (Canon S9000) they both used to make their own test prints. before
sending the image files to Digilabs.

They both used the 'Carmen" image to check the readings and balance their
system as per Digilab's instructions, so the eye dropper from swatches
produced the colour/grayscale Digilabs said it should. The 2 prints, printed
on different day and sent to different photographers were quite different to
the results from the inkjet.

I said 9 photographers I knew. You could not be one of the 7 Russell, I
don't know you.

"Russell Stewart" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:bdntta$br8$(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> Let me make sure I have what you are saying correct...
>
> Again, let me make sure I have what you are saying correct...
>
> I am one of the 7.
>
>

"Auspics" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:ycOLa.228$(E-Mail Removed)...
> They didn't sent the Carmen image back for printing... That'd be like
> repainting a new white car white... Don't you think? They sent the same
> portrait file for printing.
>
> I have no knowledge if Digilabs used the same printer or not but it was my
> inkjet (Canon S9000) they both used to make their own test prints. before
> sending the image files to Digilabs.
>
> They both used the 'Carmen" image to check the readings and balance their
> system as per Digilab's instructions, so the eye dropper from swatches
> produced the colour/grayscale Digilabs said it should.


Yes it would be like trying to paint white car white, but then so is
printing the same file from two different systems to the same printer (your
bubble jet).... all that will show is if your printer is consistent? It has
nothing to do with the Carmen calibration that you mentioned and that is
what was confusing me.

I agree that sending the exact same file to DigiLab for printing and getting
two different results back is a problem. But if two photographers start
with the same image and colour balance that image on two different systems,
I would fully expect that there would be differences in the results.


> I said 9 photographers I knew. You could not be one of the 7 Russell, I
> don't know you.

That is not what I meant, so I will try again.... if 2 out of every 9 have
problems, I am one of the 7 that do not.