Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory

Dan’s Photofinishing Test for PP5E

    From: Dan Margulis
    Date: Mon May 15, 2006 7:52pm(PDT)
Subject: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Before my last trip, I started a thread called "Has Anyone Tried This?" in which I said I was going to test photo labs and also cheap providers of photofinishing services, sending them a set of RGB files with a view to finding out how the degree of color variability in their prints would compare to sending CMYK files to a commercial printer.

I said that I suspected that variability would be at least as bad, but the list did not have a consensus. Some people thought the match would be very close. I have now done enough of the testing to be able to give a conclusion, which is, the variability is considerably worse than that found at commercial printers.

My test consists of 25 real images (one contains a computer-generated gradient; one is an RGB grayscale image; one has clearly inadequate resolution. The rest pose every kind of challenge, and were specifically picked to check on all aspects of the provider's work. One image is duplicated, once with an sRGB profile and once with an Adobe RGB profile assigned and embedded.)

I said the test would be of a dozen facilities, but I intend to have some of this work done when I am on the road, so that it would not just include New Jersey. So I only have seven packages so far. Four are done by photo labs or by shops that service serious photographers. One charged me 49 cents per print, another 39, and two charged me 39 cents for the first 20 prints and 29 cents thereafter.

I also went to a large chain store, where they have a serious photofinishing department with full-time personnel and high-end equipment. They charged me 29 cents per print. I also went to self-service photo kiosks in a drug store, which also charged 29 cents, and at my local grocery store, which charged 23 cents.

The equipment came from four different manufacturers, six different models.

Here are the findings.

*Taking the three low-cost providers as one group and the photo labs as another, the low-cost providers kicked butt. The single best result came from a photo lab, but two of the four produced unacceptable work.

*Of the seven providers, I would say that one delivered first-rate work, approximately what I expected. A second, which used the same equipment but different paper, was distinctly cooler. Fleshtones looked disturbingly blue. A third provider had a greenish-yellow bias. Much of the time this actually made the pictures look better, and in fact a layperson might well prefer this package to the one that I would say did the better job. However, in an image of a blond (the same one in Chapter 16 of Canyon Conundrum) the hair came out slightly green, and the B/W image clearly was yellow. Nevertheless, I rate all three of these packages as acceptable. They are in line with the variation one might get from commercial printers.

*I rated two others as marginally acceptable. One was basically OK but plugged shadow areas badly. The other pumped color into saturated areas, which generally looked good, but whenever I had to hold detail in a vividly colored area such as a flower, it turned into a blob. Again, it was generally pleasing color, and a layperson might actually prefer this package to the one that I think is the best.

*The last two were not acceptable because one was grossly dark and the other grossly light. By "grossly" I mean that if the file were in CMYK, the dot gain setting would have to go up or down 8-10% to duplicate these results.

*One package had banding in the gradient and the other six did not.

*One B/W image came out just right; three others were off slightly; three others were very far off and clearly would not be accepted by anybody as B/W work.

*All seven providers ignored the embedded profile.

*With the exception of one provider where highlight detail was totally blown out, all these systems seem to have similar capabilities. I could write an action that could make any one of them match any other in from ten minutes to one hour, depending on how eccentric the initial conditions were.

*I was treated courteously everywhere.

*The employees at the photo labs seemed knowledgeable. I have no clue how their companies make any money by doing this type of work.

*****************
Conclusion. I will be putting a couple of these images in the next edition of Professional Photoshop in a chapter about how to cope with the realities of printing conditions. I will show half a dozen variants and compare them to the results of giving the same CMYK files to half a dozen printers.

I must say, after doing this test, that I am even more disgusted, if possible, at the tactics of the mindless color management apologists who are always saying that all printers are brain-dead and that there is an industry conspiracy whereby printers don't calibrate because they want to make money on reprints. What this test appears to demonstrate is that if you just send a CMYK file, without further information, to a random commercial printer, unless there is a process control problem you will probably get a more predictable result than if you send a properly tagged sRGB file to a photo lab.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "David Riecks"
    Date: Tue May 16, 2006 9:02am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Dan:

First off, thanks for sharing your results. I think you'll find once you are on the road and testing others, that the results will be pretty similar to what you have learned already.

This is one of the main reasons why I helped to get the Universal Photographic Digital Imaging Guidelines coaltion started. We released version 1.0 of the UPDIG guidelines last October in order to address these very issues. For anyone that is interested, the website is http://www.updig.org/ and there is a PDF version for download as well.

I'm giving a talk tonight in Chicago for the American Society of Picture Professionals and will use your findings as one more example of the problems with sending out digital files.

Another example I will relate regards a "Professional" lab that I auditioned recently. The first test did not meet my expectations, so I called and got through to the senior most tech person in the lab. What she told me completely contradicted what the sales staff told me, and explained the problem with my unhappiness of my initial test.

In this instance, the sales staff told me that they could handle AdobeRGB files. However the tech person said to convert all files to sRGB and then send!!! Since I'd sent Adobe RGB files and the printer simply ignored the profile, the results were a very flat color response.

My second test and subsequent actual print runs were right on the money, and have remained so since then.

Contrast that with having prints made at my local drug store on their Fuji Frontier machine. I knew that I would have to supply sRGB files, so converted files before taking them in. Provided I stuck with reasonable end points for highlights and shadows, my initial tests were very positive. I had little to no interaction with the staff, and the result were very pleasing. This was because I assumed they would not know the answers to my questions, and I converted my files to the "lowest common denominator."

I've always made it a point to speak directly to the prepress people or most knowledgeable press person when sending CMYK files to a 4 color printing firm. This direct communication helps me to determine what the type of file and specifications that are needed. The sales people at these firms are often operating with old knowledge, and are not up to speed with what is happening in their own plant. Nearly everytime I've trusted what a saleperson told me I've ended up with results that I was not completely happy with.

It appears that I need to apply the same methodology when sending in RGB files to any local printer, be they professional lab or consumer minilab. Assume the lowest common denominator, and the results will be reasonable. Assuming anything more is asking for trouble without extensive testing.

Thanks,

David
--
David Riecks (that's "i" before "e", but the "e" is silent)
http://www.riecks.com , Chicago Midwest ASMP member
Chair, SAA Imaging Technology Standards committee
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "George Reis"
    Date: Tue May 16, 2006 9:19am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

I haven't been to a photo lab in quite some time, and maybe that's why I'm confused. Are you saying that "shops that service serious photographers" are providing prints for 49 cents each or less? I looked up one of the labs I used to use (Photomation in Anaheim, CA) and found that they charge $9.35 for a 4 X 5 inch "Digital Master" print.

If you aren't comparing professional photo labs in your test, that's probably where my confusion lies. But, it would be interesting to see if paying 20 times your current highest price gives you better, more consistent results.

George
--
Imaging Forensics    <http: //www.imagingforensics.com
Forensic image analysis, digital imaging & photography.
Consulting, training & litigation support.
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "jimbean"
    Date: Tue May 16, 2006 10:13am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

a few comments, most 1-hour labs may have one semi-knowledgeable tech on staff, with several more part-time students filling in... no real training or suprise there.. the facts are: most consumers not only do not know what they are looking at... but if there were problems... who do you think they blame? they blame themselves, not the lab, not their cell phone camera.. little black dogs that are now unnaturally blue, unbelieveably thin/underexposed/impossible flash shots that look incredibly good, family 'portraits' where everyone looks radioactive.. an everyday experience.. the vast volume of photography is generated by people that are happy to see any likeness from their efforts/regardless of the 'quality'...

several area professional photographers do utilize these labs.. and each shop also 'writes an action' or similar to dan's in an effort to help the output... I believe the biggest challenge yet is to produce images not for the 1-hour guys.. but for commercial printers and larger offices that output to a variety of 'digital presses' via a variety of rips (cmyk?)...

additionally, several comments continue regarding artificial/naturally occuring gradients... if you want to see variation in output.. send any form of gradients to several of the newer generation printers.. 'the possibilities are unlimited...'

best, jim bean
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Howard Smith
    Date: Tue May 16, 2006 0:20pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

David,

Your comments gave me a clue as to why I used to get such pitiful results from professional labs, whether they were developing film, scanning from transparencies, or directly from the originals placed on an oversided flatbed scanner. I was dealing with a different kind of lowest common denominator--the sales reps and desk clerks. Had I gone to the experts in charge, perhaps the outcomes would have been far better. The lcd's routinely brushed off complaints by arguing that the results were outstanding and that I just didn't know what I was talking about. To be fair, one established printing firm called out the entire staff to argue that a marked fluorescent green cast in an offset job was all in my imagination.

There's just no substitute for investing in the equipment to do your own work whenever its feasible. At least in the case of having digital photos printed, your suggestion about using sSRGB for the files may solve a lot of problems for all of us.

Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Tue May 16, 2006 4:54pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Howard, you are absolutely correct in stating that good communications make the difference. I've run a quality custom photo lab for thirty years, and I can categorically state that without proper communications with the customer, it's impossible to give consistent and predictable results. However, it isn't that hard to give or get the right instructions if both parties are willing. Unfortunately, most minilab operators are completely helpless where it comes to color management issues and they wouldn't know what to do with the correct info anyway.

As I've said before, there's no way to simply put a CD in the average machine and come out with perfect color. With our Agfa digital lab, we must stop in Photoshop first, do a profile conversion and then utilize the almost unknown "repro mode" to send the files to the machine, bypassing the front end "intelligence" of the lab. It's the only way to get predictable color, even with this top-of-the-line equipment, and I don't know of anyone else in the business who knows about it let alone takes the trouble to do it. The problem is that photographers have become the worst consumers and want all labs to be cost competitive with Wal-Mart and Costco. How much service can you offer for nineteen cents?

It's a sad commentary on the business and the economy that so many people like yourself have decided that they have to do their own work if they want it done right. This is because the best labs have been driven out of existence by the likes of Walgreen's and those who think that it's all the same except for the price.

john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
fairfield, nj
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Adam L (CT)"
    Date: Tue May 16, 2006 8:45pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Dan,

I've tested Wal-Mart 1 hour digital prints (19 cents each). I found each of 3 locations to be very contrasty. 33, 33, 33 went completely black, and 240 was pure white. Midtones were reasonably good for a test print, but not critical matching. There is no image enhancements, they just print it as is, however, I didn't ask about the profile, but on the other hand, I always gave them Srgb.

I just came back from a 5 week trip to India and have selected 500 prints in the first cut. I need prints to edit it down properly, and Rite Aid seemed to do a well enough job with highlights and shadows, color, etc... to have a good enough feel to continue editing down. Cost: 19 cents for 50 or more prints, and when friends put their sticky fingers all over them, I won't worry.

The biggest problem I found are in the edges of fine detail, (like palm trees backlight against a sunset, or a salt and pepper colored beard), the blacks go greenish at Rite Aid, and at Wal-Mart black and white images turn slightly reddish in hard edge contrasty areas.

I would never give this quality of print to a client.

Adam Lejak
562.972.4157
Ready To-Go!
AdamLejakPhotography.com
Photo & Digital Assistant

___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "David Harradine"
    Date: Tue May 16, 2006 9:24pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1780

Hi Dan

Did you return to see if they were at least consistent with their unique settings ?

If so you could easily profile them and have their number.

David Harradine
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Shangara Singh"
    Date: Wed May 17, 2006 4:16am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

On 16 May 2006, at 16:58, David Riecks wrote:

In this instance, the sales staff told me that they could handle
AdobeRGB files. However the tech person said to convert all files to
sRGB and then send!!! Since I'd sent Adobe RGB files and the printer
simply ignored the profile, the results were a very flat color
response.

David

I had a similar experience with a pro lab in the UK. I went to them because they were supposed to be fully color managed. They looked into it when I complained and found, though they were color managed, the printer used for my job wasn't setup to honour profiles automatically. They then did the conversion manually before sending the files to the printer and all was fine.

My second test and subsequent actual print runs were right on the
money, and have remained so since then.

Ditto.

Contrast that with having prints made at my local drug store on their
Fuji Frontier machine. I knew that I would have to supply sRGB files,
so converted files before taking them in.

Ditto.

Shangara Singh.
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Lee Clawson"
    Date: Wed May 17, 2006 7:09am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1780

on 5/17/06 12:18 AM, David Harradine wrote:

Hi Dan
Did you return to see if they were at least consistent with their
unique settings ?
If so you could easily profile them and have their number.

David,

I as thinking the same thing. Without repeating the tests, that is, knowing if the results are repeatable, none of our conclusions are going to hold up. In addition I'd like know we aren't seeing differences (if any) between poorly calibrated/maintained equipment vs standard working methods.

Lee Clawson
2/\V/\7 Studio
___________________________________________________________________________  

    From: Dan Margulis
    Date: Wed May 17, 2006 9:48am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

David Harradine writes,

Did you return to see if they were at least consistent with their  
unique settings?

I will be doing that in about a month, but I know that at least two of these sources are repeatable. I would be quite surprised if repeatability is a problem here, the way it is on a press.

If so you could easily profile them and have their number.

Now that I've seen their output I could certainly give almost any one of these labs files that would match the reference ones, and I could do so this afternoon, if necessary.

That, I think, is a side issue. The more interesting observation is that for all the braying about how printers need standards and printers are brain-dead and printers are Luddites, the printers seem to be a lot better color-managed and a lot more standards-oriented than the photo labs are. If you give an untagged CMYK file to a random printer, it appears that you get a *far* more predictable result than if you give a properly prepared sRGB file to a random photo lab.

It goes without saying that there are good printers and bad ones, and likewise good and bad photo labs.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Henry"
    Date: Wed May 17, 2006 5:02pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

On May 17, 2006, at 12:37 PM, Dan Margulis wrote:

The more interesting observation is that for
 all the braying about how printers need standards and printers are brain-dead
 and printers are Luddites, the printers seem to be a lot better color-managed
 and a lot more standards-oriented than the photo labs are. If you give an
 untagged CMYK file to a random printer, it appears that you get a *far* more
 predictable result than if you give a properly prepared sRGB file to a random photo
 lab.

One consideration is that the mechanical aspects of a press give cause to the employees to be concerned about the size and quality of the dots they are printing. Gee whiz, they walk around with loupes and study dots - they troubleshoot at this level.

In the case of fairly hands-off, self-calibrating photoprint machines, one would figure that there would be more time and attention given to workflow since they aren't spending time grinding out mechanical issues. This test is revealing that in some cases even no attention is given to workflow. But, it may not matter - except to a small population of customers.

One poster suggested that most photoprint customers care more about the subject in the scenes than the precision of the color and contrast, and pros are finding that swimming with the masses is hit or miss with regard to quality and repeatability. Now, I'm not suggesting that all print houses are excellent, but they do have a tradition of process control that hasn't yet evolved with the photoprint shops. The question for labs is how many different workflows they will develop and ride herd over for each of their customer's differing needs. There will be one or two workflows for the pros and another for the general public, as well as a method for figuring out how to do future reprints so that they match. It is a mess already, and gets even messier when juggling the solutions.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:34pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Dan,

Was there any instruction given to either honor or not honor the profiles? Some technicians may take it upon themselves to "improve" an image and others may not. I've had professional photographers yell at me for NOT changing their images to make them better. They actually said that just because there was an embedded profile we didn't have to honor it - for less than fifty cents a print, mind you. This paradigm is appropriate when printing from negatives where the darkroom tech actually creates the image, but with digital I expect that the photographer has done his job to his satisfaction before I get the file. Still, there are those who assume that we fix everything and want us to do so, and then there are those who want us to not change a thing. In short, we have to be told.

john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Henry"
    Date: Wed May 17, 2006 6:59pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test
 
On May 16, 2006, at 7:52 PM, jc castronovo wrote:

Unfortunately, most minilab operators are completely
helpless where it comes to color management issues and they wouldn't
know what to do with the correct info anyway.

This might also be a suitable description of *most* minilab customers -- just as the big boxes predicted.

Kudos to you for offering a higher level of service. Do you have many customers that are not pros?  I would be curious to know if they are put off by customer service talk about color management and what profiles are or are not embedded in their files etc.  Questions from print service providers about file prep in CMYK make some novice print designers/buyers uncomfortable, so I am guessing that it could generate some discomfort. I try to bone up whenever I go to the auto parts store so that I can answer their questions about my car, but I wouldn't have guessed that going to get pictures would have become as complicated.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 3:05am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Those who lack time or curiosity generally want us to correct their images to print a 'pleasing result' and that's the end of the discussion We get pros as well as the general public in this category and they are made to understand that we're deciding how their files look as we print them.

Those who want to know more are never put off by the discussion. They like to do their own color adjustments and are instructed that they must use a calibrated display and embed a proper profile. Some of them also go further to actually convert to our output profile and crop and size their images to the 400 ppi necessary for output. These folks get the most predictable results.

To answer your first question, there are just as many non-pros as pros who understand these issues. There are also far too many pros who are only concerned with price. These are generally wedding shooters who do such volume that saving a few pennies per print means a lot to them at the end of the year. They generally wind up being customers at big box stores like Costco.

john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Dan Margulis
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 6:01am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

John Castronovo writes,

 Dan,
Was there any instruction given to either honor or not honor the profiles?
Some technicians may take it upon themselves to "improve" an image and
others may not. I've had professional photographers yell at me for NOT
changing their images to make them better. They actually said that just
because there was an embedded profile we didn't have to honor it - for less
than fifty cents a print, mind you. This paradigm is appropriate when
printing from negatives where the darkroom tech actually creates the image,
but with digital I expect that the photographer has done his job to his
satisfaction before I get the file. Still, there are those who assume that
we fix everything and want us to do so, and then there are those who want us
to not change a thing. In short, we have to be told.

Most of the files in my test were tagged sRGB, some were untagged, and one was tagged Adobe RGB. The vendors were not informed, and, as I expected, the tags were ignored, although I did think that there might be enough remembrance of the resistance-is-futile days that maybe one or two sources might either honor the profile or at least raise a question about it.

I agree also that you have to be told, but if I remember correctly this is a slight change of view on your part. We had this problem a couple of years back. We had one long thread where the printer honored a CMYK embedded profile without discussing it with the client, and the job was ruined and the client wanted it redone. We had a second where the printer ignored an RGB embedded profile without discussing it with the client and the job was ruined and the client wanted it redone. In both cases the list was asked for advice. I said that I believe the first printer has to rerun the job for free , but by the same token the second client is out of luck.

If somebody else wants to reverse it--say that the printer has to eat the cost of the second job--then it seems to me that as a matter of intellectual consistency they have to tell the client to eat the cost of the first. The amazing thing was that some people wanted the printers to eat BOTH jobs.

That is, whichever decision you make, if it turns out wrong, you pay. Easy solution, they said--educate the client! When each file comes in, check it out to see if it has a profile. If it does, call up the client and find out whether he knows what he's doing, and if he doesn't, educate him. But certainly, don't charge for it.

Under these circumstances I think the logical response is the one you state above.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Dan Margulis
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 6:02am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

John Castronovo writes,

Those who want to know more are never put off by the discussion. They like
to do their own color adjustments and are instructed that they must use a
calibrated display and embed a proper profile. Some of them also go further
to actually convert to our output profile and crop and size their images to
the 400 ppi necessary for output. These folks get the most predictable
results.

There's only one problem with this scenario, as several other graphic arts segments have found out. You give out a lot of free advice, because you are a full service provider, and it makes the client more knowledgeable, which is good. It also empowers the client to get good results from Costco, and no matter how loyal and ethical the client is, sooner or later that knowledge will come back to bite you.

I am not certain this is a viable business model.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Ric Cohn"
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:10am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

On May 18, 2006, at 8:47 AM, Dan Margulis wrote:

It also empowers the client to get good
results from Costco, and no matter how loyal and ethical the client  
is, sooner or later that knowledge will come back to bite you.

I am not certain this is a viable business model.

Sad and probably true. I've heard it said "no good deed goes unpunished". This is an ongoing process with both Photographer's and Labs (and I'm sure Printers). As far as I can see, the only solution is to continually adjust like an antibody to the disease. Once the disease is out there, ignoring it is not an option. Unfortunately, sometimes the "cure" can be fatal.

Ric Cohn
___________________________________________________________________________
 
    From: "Tom Judd"
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 9:53am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

I'm not sure that a business model that depends on hiding a better solution from your clients is viable either. They will eventually find out that they can get adequate results at far lower cost in cases where that makes sense, and their resulting anger will be directed at you.

I sympathize with print vendors who are struggling to make a go of their rapidly changing business. They are concerned with their bottom line, but so are their customers. Loyalty and ethics don't count for much in today's business climate, unfortunate as that may be. Receiving good perceived value is what makes me come back to a vendor, and I don't think I'm unique in that respect.

I think Ric has the correct approach. Conventional photofinishers will have to adapt to the new technology. As digital minilabs become ever more automatic, the indifferent/untrained operators will become less critical. I personally get good results from sending sRGB files to Costco and Walmart in those cases where I just need a large number of snapshots. The critical work I print myself but I can't afford the time or materials to make 4x6 prints myself in quantity.

So if you want to compete in the 4x6 market, get the best digital machine you can find and run it better than the guy next door. But don't expect to compete with 59-cent prints when 19-cent prints are (nearly) as good. Otherwise, find a niche that the guy next door doesn't fill and keep your costs reasonable.

Tom Judd
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 6:17pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Dan - you are so very right on this. Truer words are seldom said, yet I don't know how to avoid doing it. Yours is the best model, "If you want to know, come to one of my courses or buy my book". In my case, I'm standing right there with someone picking my brains for a half hour for free. I've actually had to defend our scanning work after someone brought it to Costco to be printed and he didn't like the results. This defense and time cost me more than actually re-printing Costco's work for free.

john castronovo
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 6:17pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

What's the point in buying the best machine and running it better than the guy next door if people like yourself are only going to use an outside service when you're looking for the best price? If I could show that I not only can honor your profiles but my color gamut is at least ten percent larger than Costco's with better darks and blacks does it matter to you or anyone else any more? You're right. The era of the custom lab is definitely over. Many people come to us for a free education so they can work it somewhere else that's cheap. Fortunately there are still those who put value on integrity, knowledge, relationships and hard work but they are a vanishing minority.

john castronovo
___________________________________________________________________________
 
    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 6:17pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Not really a change of view on my part because the scenario is different where a file is being sent to a printer for a large order worth maybe thousands of impressions and when a file is sent to a minilab for a print worth less than a dollar. It would seem that in all cases, more communication is always a good thing. In your second example, I still say that the RGB profile should've been honored by the printer or at least questioned if only because the size of the job. We're not talking about
pennies in that case.

john castronovo
tech photo & imaging

___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Tom Judd
    Date: Thu May 18, 2006 6:42pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

John Castronovo wrote:

What's the point in buying the best machine and running it better than the
guy next door if people like yourself are only going to use an outside
service when you're looking for the best price? If I could show that I not
only can honor your profiles but my color gamut is at least ten percent
larger than Costco's with better darks and blacks does it matter to you or
anyone else any more? You're right. The era of the custom lab is definitely
over. Many people come to us for a free education so they can work it
somewhere else that's cheap. Fortunately there are still those who put value
on integrity, knowledge, relationships and hard work but they are a
vanishing minority.

I have no argument with what you say.  I use the automated labs in cases where I need a lot of prints to give away (e.g., from a relative's wedding where there was no photographer).  Better blacks and larger gamut don't matter much in that case.  I convert to sRGB and generally get prints that these folks are thrilled with.  The camera work and Photoshop postprocessing give them prints way beyond what they're used to.

I do use a custom lab on occasion, mostly for prints bigger that the 13x19 I can do.  I found a place with excellent profiles and pricing that reflects that I do all of the file prep work.  I have used "custom labs" where the most apparent result is a high price.  If you can show good value to your customers, and find the right markets, you will stay in business.  But it's certainly a lot harder now than in the past.

Tom Judd
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:17am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

I must reply that if your only memory of using a custom lab was the high price, then it sounds like you never found one.

That's so much of a problem that I hardly want to go there, but most people don't know what's available. They may try what they believe is the best assuming that reputation somehow equals value, and they may also think that it couldn't be better elsewhere where there is no reputation, so why change. I can tell you that in the NYC area the best labs were never the ones with the top reputations. The best values in restaurants, mechanics, movies or anything else are usually not the prosperous ones with the top brand reputations either, so this shouldn't be surprising.

I'm sure you do good work, so don't take offense at this, but the philosophy of settling for something that's "better than they're used to" instead of doing your best, simply to save a few bucks, is something I've seen taken to extremes everywhere these days. It's driven the very best out of business. Maybe such beliefs are more endemic to the current economic crisis than we think - but that's another discussion on another group.

Cheers,
john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Marco Ugolini
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:18am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

In a message dated 5/18/06 4:51 PM, jc castronovo wrote:

Dan - you are so very right on this. Truer words are seldom said, yet I
don't know how to avoid doing it. Yours is the best model, "If you want to
know, come to one of my courses or buy my book". In my case, I'm standing
right there with someone picking my brains for a half hour for free. I've
actually had to defend our scanning work after someone brought it to Costco
to be printed and he didn't like the results. This defense and time cost me
more than actually re-printing Costco's work for free.

Hi John.

Isn't this a somewhat condescending and slightly spiteful attitude, one that implies that the best customer is an ignorant customer?

If our livelihood depends on our clients being clueless, our days are numbered already.

Regards.

--------------
Marco Ugolini
Mill Valley, CA
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:52am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Hi John.

Isn't this a somewhat condescending and slightly spiteful attitude, one that
implies that the best customer is an ignorant customer?

If our livelihood depends on our clients being clueless, our days are
numbered already.

No, the best customer is never clueless. The whole reason we do educate the customer is to make them better and easier to communicate with and also so that they understand the difference between what we do and the less expensive sources. Dan's point, and I agree, is that most of them will eventually take that knowledge to find ways of doing their work for less elsewhere and they even teach the lower priced competition our hard earned knowledge, so it's a bad business model in an age where loyalty and integrity have all but vanished. It was better in the last millennium.

I've never had a mechanic invite me into his shop to teach me how to do my own brakes, but these days more customers are finding ways of getting free lessons with their work and there's no nice way to stop it when it gets abusive. How can you answer the arrogance of someone who's complaining that he can't get results as good as ours when he takes our scans to Costco or Kinkos and he's demanding that we fix it for him?

john castronovo
tech photo & imaging
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Dan Margulis
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:58am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

John Castronovo writes,

Not really a change of view on my part because the scenario is different
where a file is being sent to a printer for a large order worth maybe
thousands of impressions and when a file is sent to a minilab for a print
worth less than a dollar. It would seem that in all cases, more
communication is always a good thing. In your second example, I still say
that the RGB profile should've been honored by the printer or at least
questioned if only because the size of the job. We're not talking about
pennies in that case.

OK, but just to make sure I'm not misunderstanding what you're saying, I'd like to verify that the following is your position: that, limited to this specific scenario (unknown client, small order, no specific instructions, 25 images of which most are either tagged sRGB or untagged and one is tagged Adobe RGB), your recommended behavior is to ignore the embedded Adobe RGB profile.

Your point about how more communication is better is noted and agreed to.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
 
    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 6:56am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

I'd always attempt to get the first question answered which is whether or not we're supposed to make adjustments to make "nice" prints or print them without correction. In the first case, no profiles would be honored as we'd be adjusting each image on the fly to yield what we think is a pleasing result. In the second case, we'd honor all embedded profiles and the ones that are not tagged would get assigned one that we believe to be correct. Without instruction we run the risk of being wrong either way but opt for the former of ignoring everything in most cases. What we know about the client plays into that decision.

To draw a parallel to film, the first case is like the traditional printing a roll of negatives and having the technician adjust each image and making reprints of the ones that need further correction, and the second case is like keying in to the gray card shot at the beginning of a roll of film and then printing without correction until there's another gray card (profile) signifying a change of exposure conditions.

john castronovo
___________________________________________________________________________
 
    From: "Pylant, Brian"
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 8:41am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

How can you answer the arrogance of someone who's complaining that
he can't get results as good as ours when he takes our scans to Costco or
Kinkos and he's demanding that we fix it for him?

Whenever I get a customer who compares my work to Kinkos, etc. in any manner I politely but firmly explain to them how Kinko's is at best a low- to mid-level consumer product, not professional output by any means, and if they want professional-level output then they shouldn't even be considering a shop like that.

IMO the same would apply to Costco, WalMART, Walgreens, etc. in regards to photo prints. Do professional photographers stick their flash drives into that little machine to get prints for their clients? Doubtful.

I see no harm in telling them that their expectations are exceeding the realities of the process they have chosen, and if they want better results then they need to select a better vendor. They are coming to you for professional work, and they should value your professional opinion. And if they still somehow feel that Cosco is right and you are wrong then they are probably clients you really don't want to keep anyway -- there is nothing wrong with "firing" clients you lose money on, especially because they irrationally refuse to accept reality.

BRIAN PYLANT
Manager, Electronic Prepress

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::

Disc Makers
7905 North Route 130, Pennsauken, NJ 08110
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Henry"
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 10:59am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

On May 19, 2006, at 7:40 AM, jc castronovo wrote:

How can you answer the arrogance of someone who's complaining that
 he can't get results as good as ours when he takes our scans to Costco or
 Kinkos and he's demanding that we fix it for him?

Goodbye.

Henry Davis
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Marco Ugolini
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 3:49pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

...plus a very swift kick in the pants!

Marco
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Rick Gordon"
    Date: Fri May 19, 2006 4:09pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Dan,

For the first test, you approached the vendors without explicit communication of your expectations and with a package that has the earmarks of an uneducated customer. ("Most of the files in my test were tagged sRGB, some were untagged, and one was tagged Adobe RGB.")

I think it would be useful to handle test #2 using the the same approach as before (so you're comparing apples to apples), but then run a separate test #3 in a different manner. Tell the vendor that the files are prepared as you want them, and that:

1) They should honor embedded profiles;

2) Where no profiles have been embedded, please assume the sRGB working space;

3) No enhancement or correction should be applied.

I might expect that some of the low-end vendors may not have much of a clue as to what you are talking about, but I would also expect that the high-end vendors might deal with your files differently based on that premise. If you do that, I think you will have created a test that is considerably more comprehensive, and ultimately more useful.

Rick Gordon
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Bob Frost"
    Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:39am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Dan,

The answer to your question "Has anyone tried this? is YES. Many photography magazines do such tests about once a year to fill their pages and provide their readers with some idea of the current best photo labs to use.

What you don't seem to have ackowledged is that many photo labs have two levels of service. The basic cheap service, usually uses a Fuji Frontier which does not understand color profiles and which therefore requires sRGB files which they usually tell you in their instructions. Small 6x4 prints made by this service costs just a few cents, pennies, euros, yen, etc each, and the quality depends on the accuracy and frequency of calibrations. When I was in a camera shop in Tokyo recently, there was a row of about 20 DIY print machines; you sit in front of the machine, stick your camera card in, tell it what you want, and out come the prints.

But many photo labs have a second level of service that you have to ask for. That uses better machines that are color managed, do respect icc profiles, and which cost a lot more.

You get what you pay for. Most images are taken in sRGB, so that is what the cheap machines are designed for.

Bob Frost.
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Marco Ugolini
    Date: Sat May 20, 2006 4:39am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

In a message dated 5/19/06 4:40 AM, jc castronovo wrote:

I've never had a mechanic invite me into his shop to teach me how to do my
own brakes, but these days more customers are finding ways of getting free
lessons with their work and there's no nice way to stop it when it gets
abusive. How can you answer the arrogance of someone who's complaining that
he can't get results as good as ours when he takes our scans to Costco or
Kinkos and he's demanding that we fix it for him?

Hi again, John.

Reading your reply, I believe that I misunderstood you, for which I apologize. I understand your point better now.

On the plus side, the client can only hope to be able to do the work as well as you by just stealing a few tips from you here and there. I doubt that the results will ever be as good as *you*, the professional, can make them, and the proof is that they came back to you.

What I don't understand is why you ended up reprinting the job for free for such an unethical customer. Can't you just tell this sorry specimen to take a jump into the river? Using the nicest words, of course...

Best regards.

--------------
Marco Ugolini
Mill Valley, CA
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Dan Margulis
    Date: Sat May 20, 2006 11:59am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Bob Frost writes,

Dan,
The answer to your question "Has anyone tried this? is YES. Many photography
magazines do such tests about once a year to fill their pages and provide
their readers with some idea of the current best photo labs to use.

There was a rather extended thread on this topic a short time ago, in which there was no agreement on the list as to what such a test would show. If anyone had mentioned these articles then I would have been happy to have considered them.

What you don't seem to have ackowledged is that many photo labs have two
levels of service. The basic cheap service, usually uses a Fuji Frontier
which does not understand color profiles and which therefore requires sRGB
files which they usually tell you in their instructions.

No photo lab that I tested had a Fuji Frontier. One provider, a large general-purpose trade store, did. I rated its output marginally acceptable.

But many photo labs have a second level of service that you have to ask for.
That uses better machines that are color managed, do respect icc profiles,
and which cost a lot more. You get what you pay for.

That tired cliche is not supported by my results. As I indicated, although the best single performance was by a photo lab, on the whole, the low-cost providers outperformed the photo labs by a considerable margin.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________
 
    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Sat May 20, 2006 0:00pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

From: "Marco Ugolini"

What I don't understand is why you ended up reprinting the job for free for
such an unethical customer. Can't you just tell this sorry specimen to take
a jump into the river? Using the nicest words, of course...

Sometimes it comes to that, but I don't like being maneuvered into embarrassing myself in public that way (I don't know how to do it nicely). I'd much rather prove that there's nothing wrong with our work and hopefully turn the customer around to using us more in the future rather than taking our work to the cheapest source. A big problem is that many people want to believe that it's all the same except for the price. Surprisingly, I find this as often with professionals as with amateurs.
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Dan Margulis
    Date: Sat May 20, 2006 0:00pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Rick Gordon writes,

Dan,
For the first test, you approached the vendors without explicit communication of
your expectations and with a package that has the earmarks of an uneducated customer.

Correct. I was trying to pass myself off as exactly that.

I think it would be useful to handle test #2 using the the same approach as
before (so you're comparing apples to apples), but then run a separate test #3
in a different manner. Tell the vendor that the files are prepared as you want
them, and that:

1) They should honor embedded profiles;

2) Where no profiles have been embedded, please assume the sRGB working space;

3) No enhancement or correction should be applied.

As I categorically recommend against establishing workflows that require strangers to honor embedded profiles, this test would be counterproductive. It is clear that the majority of labs don't know what profiles are and would be uncomfortable with such an approach. If I were thoroughly confident in the lab (as, for example, if it was John Castronovo's) then possibly it could be considered. But trying to force this kind of workflow down the throat of someone who doesn't understand it is asking for trouble. It's so much safer to write an action that converts everything to sRGB before giving it to them. Saves time, too.

Dan Margulis
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Peter Leyland
    Date: Sun May 21, 2006 3:41pm(PDT)
Subject: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Dan - you are so very right on this. Truer words are seldom said, yet I
don't know how to avoid doing it. Yours is the best model, "If you want to
know, come to one of my courses or buy my book". In my case, I'm standing
right there with someone picking my brains for a half hour for free. I've
actually had to defend our scanning work after someone brought it to Costco
to be printed and he didn't like the results. This defense and time cost me
more than actually re-printing Costco's work for free.

john castronovo

I guess the future business model just won't include us? Digital printing along with most other things is destined to become a commodity and I am sure that should the Walmart's of the world suffer from customer abuse caused by failure to meet expectation then the equipment suppliers will inevitably respond by closing the loop. Perhaps they already have as it has been fairly well established that 'they' will only fail when presented with a image tagged with an alien profile (anything other than sRGB). Given that anyone who presents a tagged image hopefully knows what he, or she, is doing then what's the point in presenting anything other than a tagged sRGB to a Walmart or a Costco? Even more to the point why do so without saying so? What is so wrong with adapting the workflow ('yours') to suit the output device - especially so if price is a factor? We follow much the same argument when presenting tagged files to a commercial printer and it would seem to come up a similar range of problems. In so many ways the aims of colour management are blinded by a desire to be, or even appear to be, more knowledgeable than the next guy. There really is no point to it - neither the equipment nor the supplier make any claims to be totally colour managed and whilst 'we' do (John C and I) I suspect both of us take any such claims from a 'new' customner with a pinch of salt?

Hopefully the lack of total automation will see me out or at least allow me to sell my business as a going concern? Some of us, of course, just enjoy imparting our knowledge (to whoever will listen) and wouldn't it be nice is they paid us for it too! Actually that is the business model - if the customer wants to talk he will go somewhere appropriate and if he's lucky the prints will be OK as well...

Peter Leyland
PDQ Print Services
93 Commercial Street
Dundee DD1 2AF
T: +44 (0) 1382 201778
F: +44 (0) 1382 201776
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Steve Bye"
    Date: Mon May 22, 2006 5:13am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

I've followed this thread with some frustration. All I need as a photographer is a way to be in control of color. Whether a photo lab honors profiles, or even understands them, is not important so long as they have a consistent process and provide a good profile for their printer. I can convert to their profile. Costco does this. That puts color under my control. With a consistent process and a good profile, I have no need to even talk to the photo lab.

I have created a Photoshop Action the sizes and sets the resolution of my images to Costco's published requirements, converts my tagged images to the Costco profile for their local Noritsu 3111, does a modest sharpening, then saves the files as quality 10 jpgs without an embedded profile. I can batch process 100s of photos using this Action. I then go online and download all my pictures to Costco and select "no correction." The next day I pick up my pictures. The limitations seem to be primarily due to the Noritsu 3111 color gamut.

As a photographer, the things I'd like the photo lab to improve would be:
1. A wider gamut printer
2. A wider selection of papers
3. I'd like the photo lab to drop ship photos in some cases
4. Cheaper prices for 8x10s

I'm glad I do not own a photo lab. They are going the way of film cameras. It's sad in a way, but it does no good to moan. The photographer now has pretty much total control, and total responsibility, and uses a high-volume photo lab to get prices down. Add a higher quality printer and there is no need to compromise quality.

Steve
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "fruitlessbeast"
    Date: Mon May 22, 2006 5:16am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

“Bob Frost"wrote, among other things:

But many photo labs have a second level of service that you have to ask for.
That uses better machines that are color managed, do respect icc profiles,
and which cost a lot more.

You get what you pay for. Most images are taken in sRGB, so that is what the
cheap machines are designed for.

Hi Bob,

True, a Frontier isn't CM savvy. but I'm curious, what better machines are you referring to in this "second level of service?"  

John Eakin
Warner Bros. Studios
___________________________________________________________________________
 
   From: "colorman042000"
    Date: Mon May 22, 2006 4:10pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

A word of encouragement to John Castronovo and Peter Leyland.

I have had an gratifying experience with a small "off the street" Fuji Frontier Mini Lab.  A few months ago after getting some very bad scans from a highly regarded (and expensive) Custom Scanning Service outfit, I took the very same 2.25 x 2.25 transparencies to this Mini Lab and the results were one hundred percent better, for half the cost.

I have a question regarding that experience: the Mini Lab uses a Frontier Laser Scanner (?) How does it compare with a Imacon ?

Also, Peter, these statements that you made are very pertinent:
1- " What is so wrong with adapting the workflow ('yours') to suit the output device - especially so if price is a factor?"
2- "... what's the point in presenting anything other than a tagged sRGB to a Wal-Mart or a Costco?"

Andre Dumas
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Bob Frost"
    Date: Mon May 22, 2006 4:10pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

John,

The online service I have used recently is Photobox.co.uk (I'm in the UK). Their basic service uses the Fuji Frontier, and their other machine, which handles larger prints and is fully color managed, is a 'Polielettronica Laserlab'.

<http: //www.polielettronica.it/Public/Products/Digital_Printer/Laserlab_50x80/DataSheets/LaserLab50_Eng_2004-08-24.pdf>

Bob Frost.
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: John Castronovo
    Date: Mon May 22, 2006 4:11pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steve Bye"

As a photographer, the things I'd like the photo lab to improve would be:
1. A wider gamut printer

Although the papers in use are the real limitation, our gamut is significantly larger than Costco because we use different equipment and we don't limit our dmax as much as they do so we have more saturated colors.

2. A wider selection of papers

The paper surface choices for everyone are Gloss, Matte and Luster. Some offer Kodak metalic as well. That's all there is unless you go to inkjet.

3. I'd like the photo lab to drop ship photos in some cases

You'd have to pay for the added service, but adding service and flexibility is what custom labs do.

4. Cheaper prices for 8x10s

Only for quantity orders.

I'm glad I do not own a photo lab. They are going the way of film cameras.
It's sad in a way, but it does no good to moan. The photographer now has
pretty much total control, and total responsibility, and uses a high-volume
photo lab to get prices down. Add a higher quality printer and there is no
need to compromise quality.

The only thing I moan about is that mediocrity has become good enough for professionals. I'll never agree that dumb machines operated by unskilled labor can outperform career technicians who've chosen their equipment for it's quality and flexibility rather than the best financial deal for hundreds of stores. I'm sure you don't sell your services as a photographer as the lowest bidder. You'll never convince me that if you had to pay an extra dollar for the assurance that you're getting the best prints, then you couldn't add it to your price and still keep as much on your bottom line. Saving your customer a buck only drives professionals out of the business.

john castronovo
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "todie"
    Date: Mon May 22, 2006 4:11pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

I've used Lambda profiles with Frontier and they worked fine.
(your mileage may vary—as the cautious say : )

Laurentiu Todie
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: Andrew Rodney
    Date: Mon May 22, 2006 4:11pm(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

On 5/21/06 11:56 PM, "fruitlessbeast"  wrote:

Hi Bob,
True, a Frontier isn't CM savvy. but I'm curious, what better machines are you
referring to in this "second level of service?"

Sure it is if you use the PIC Pro front end. And I've built ICC profiles for a few users of Frontiers using this software.

Andrew Rodney
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "fruitlessbeast"
    Date: Tue May 23, 2006 6:40am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

-Steve Bye sadly wrote:

...I'm glad I do not own a photo lab. They are going the way of
film cameras. It's sad in a way, but it does no good to moan. The
photographer now has pretty much total control, and total responsibility...

Hi Steve,

It's unfortunate that many people, including software developers seem to share your view about the lack of necessity of photo labs. Perhaps that should be qualified. Many consumer photo labs have evaporated. They either couldn't keep up with technology or they couldn't convince their clients of their value. Then again certain software developers (and I'm not just thinking of Adobe and Apple here) have the new business model of enabling the photographer to be his own lab. Shucks, for the longest, I couldn't even buy a copy of Nikon Capture because I didn't own a camera. When it was explained that as a photo lab, we needed the software, the salesperson's canned reply was, "the photographers do that now".  I know this has the potential of rapidly spiraling off topic and I'll drop it after this post but I feel this is a better place than most to make it known that the photo lab needn't be passé.  And not   because of secret technical knowledge. There's a lot of image processing to be done and the sheer volume of some jobs isn't something I'd wish on any of my photographer friends. Try imagining 30 projects a year with between 15000 and 25000 images in each one. Oh yeah, I forgot. Raw images. What photographer wants to manage that?  There are still some labs that understand workflow, color management, and professional output.  Let's not say their eulogy just yet. Thanks and sorry for the near off topicness. It really is something to think about, though.

John Eakin
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "fruitlessbeast"
    Date: Tue May 23, 2006 6:40am(PDT)
Subject: Re: Dan's Photofinishing Test

Bob,

Thanks for the reply and the pdf. That's a really expensive device. Here in the U.S. the Frontier isn't always relegated to bottom of the barrel output. It really does a good job with a good input.

Thanks!
John Eakin
___________________________________________________________________________

    From: "Chris Murphy"
    Date: Thu May 25, 2006 2:32pm(PDT)