Help needed with good processing lab, Jessops not good

Discussion in 'UK Photography' started by Tom, Sep 25, 2003.

  1. Tom

    Tom Guest

    I have just returned from Jessops with 8 sets of prints from a recent
    holiday. I paid the extra and went for their Diamond laser service,
    but almost all of the shots have a very artificial look to them as if
    they've been through a sharpening filter in photoshop. The pictures
    were all shot in good light with a Nikon f75 and 50mmf1.8 lens. I'm
    considering going back and asking them to reprint the lot without the
    diamond laser. Has anyone else had good bad experiences with Jessops
    service? The prints cost me £60 at 7x5 so I'm now considering using a
    different lab. Has anyone had any good/bad experiences with labs in
    the west London area, or are there any recommendations for mail order
    labs that will process and develop 36 shots for around £10?
    Thanks
    Tom
     
    Tom, Sep 25, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Tom

    A.Lee Guest

    They probably have been sharpened.
    Thats modern mini-labs for you!
    The negs are scanned, put through their computer, then the image is
    projected onto the paper via a laser.Add in the variability of the staff
    to look after the chemicals in the machine, and you'll realise anything
    could happen to the images.
    snip

    You get what you pay for. 8 rolls for £60 is cheap.
    You wont get quality for £10.
    Peak Imaging is regularly recommended here.I can recommend K+S
    Photographic in Leicester for quality, but it would be more like £20 for
    36 prints from there.

    Alan.
     
    A.Lee, Sep 25, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Tom

    aj Guest

    aj, Sep 25, 2003
    #3
  4. Tom

    fossil Guest

    fossil, Sep 25, 2003
    #4
  5. Tom

    Pat Chaney Guest

    I was planning to try them but I just found that they only accept JPEG
    files, not TIFF.

    Pat
     
    Pat Chaney, Sep 27, 2003
    #5
  6. Tom

    Vic Ayres Guest

    OK, I'll bite. Why would that stop you from trying them?
     
    Vic Ayres, Sep 27, 2003
    #6
  7. Tom

    Pat Chaney Guest

    I simply don't want to print from JPEGs due to their relatively lower
    quality. Thinking about it though, I may try them anyway just out of
    curiosity.

    Pat
     
    Pat Chaney, Sep 27, 2003
    #7
  8. Tom

    Tim Hobbs Guest

    If you crank the compression right down to its lowest setting how much
    quality do you lose?

    Tim Hobbs
     
    Tim Hobbs, Sep 27, 2003
    #8
  9. I thought the lowest compression on JPEG files was effectively 'zero
    compression'. Still doesn't mean it's a good format. :)

    cheers,

    David H


    --


    "When the tough get going, I'll steal their sandwiches."

    If you need to contact me direct, please remove the obvious from the
    reply address
     
    David Harrison, Sep 27, 2003
    #9
  10. Tom

    Vic Ayres Guest

    Not really. See http://www.faqs.org/faqs/jpeg-faq/part1/ Subject 13.

    But, I would have thought that the reference there to "visual
    indistinguishability" (phew!) strongly suggests that, with care, it can
    be a perfectly acceptable format.
     
    Vic Ayres, Sep 27, 2003
    #10
  11. Tom

    Pat Chaney Guest

    I don't know, but certainly some. I just checked and a TIFF file is over
    five times the size of the equivalent highest-quality JPEG.

    Like I said, I may try it anyway.

    Pat
     
    Pat Chaney, Sep 27, 2003
    #11
  12. Tom

    Pat Chaney Guest

    That may well be true; however, I don't find the general definition of
    acceptability in matters of photographic print quality to be one worth
    aspiring to.

    Pat
     
    Pat Chaney, Sep 27, 2003
    #12
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.