Page: 1 2 3
kitdafos
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2007
Posts: 3
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!, stand by I can get a bit techncal
Yep sometimes Lab prints do suck, but why. Well digital images need to be imaged on InkJet, dye-sub or photographic (99% of which are printed using RGB light onto dye based photographic paper, or if you are realy lucky you can find someoobne who is prepared to put traditional silver hailid throgh a digital imager - Lambda)
The problem with the dye based photo paper is it is colour paper and will (is designed to) pick up on subtleties in the exposure, thus tints. The real problem is if you view a b/w image on colour (RA4) paper under artifical daylight it will show a tint, view in natural daylight, it will not. Also if the paper is hot you will also get a tint Mag-Green.
Dye-sub, forget it, ribbion, heat yuc!
Ink jet can be good but its dots fixed size not contiuous tone, ensure the ink you use has the same reflective index as each other, that can eliminate the metamerism of the inks, oh and a good paper.
Dont get me started on CMS, (Colour Management Systems) B/W cannot be CM-ed, according to the icc, but if you can Cm and iamge even with Gray tones you can get a better image (More predictable)
Ill get off my box now, get a good lab who will give you an ouput profile for the printer and get to talk to someone who cares.
Matt
|
|
23/Mar/07, 8:03 pm
|
Send Email to kitdafos
Send PM to kitdafos
|
martinimages
Head Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 01-2006
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 4137
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
Matt agree with what your saying, certain ink jets are now better as regard metamerism my own Epson is free from that [well 90%] the tonal range they produce is getting close to traditional wet prints [not AS good]the problem I find with pigmented inks is the shadow regions they do tend to block up on Mat fine Art papers and is a problem that's virtually impossible to rectify but this is disguised in the depth of black produced giving stunning velvet looking tones IMHO, this Durst Lambda sounds exciting I am assuming that after the image is scanned on to photo paper it is then developed with traditional chemicals if this is so then the output will be far better tonally and more like the wet darkroom print, am I on the right lines there ???
Martin
--- One to one workshop in monochrome, from capture to fine art print, printing service available
Contact for details |
|
23/Mar/07, 9:01 pm
|
Send Email to martinimages
Send PM to martinimages
MSN
Blog
|
kitdafos
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2007
Posts: 3
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
Dear Martin
You are correct, exposed at 400ppi with RGB lasers at 26" per min for a slow machine. Then it is placed in a traditional rotary (RT) processor for resin coated or in dishes with Fibre based. Some machine we do also do the processing much like a mini-lab, but a lot wider.
The nice bit is you get continues tone, on traditional silver halide B/W paper!
Regards
Matt
|
|
25/Mar/07, 3:15 pm
|
Send Email to kitdafos
Send PM to kitdafos
|
crimbo
Administrator
Global user
Registered: 02-2006
Location: Shetland, UK
Posts: 3729
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
Okay Matt the sales pitch is coming through 
Now where in the UK (or Canada or Oz or..) would we find one to use then?
And come on...post some monochrome ;-)
---
Chris
60N
1W
http://www.paddle.shetland.co.uk
http://www.paddle.shetland.co.uk/my%20piccys/index.htm
|
|
25/Mar/07, 4:38 pm
|
Send Email to crimbo
Send PM to crimbo
|
martinimages
Head Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 01-2006
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 4137
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
Sounds very exciting to me, where in UK or for that matter abroad will it be available for us mono nuts to give it a go ??
And of course you joined this forum not just for sales pitch  but also to post some of your work for use to get our sharpe teeth into 
Martin
--- One to one workshop in monochrome, from capture to fine art print, printing service available
Contact for details |
|
25/Mar/07, 5:14 pm
|
Send Email to martinimages
Send PM to martinimages
MSN
Blog
|
PeteT
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2009
Posts: 10
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
I recently ordered a number of prints from ProAm Imaging of Bradford, The colour prints were superb, but I have to say the monochrome prints were disappointing, exhibiting a slight magenta cast, lack of contrast and being too dark.
In order to determine the quality of the prints, I got them to print the same image as Martin printed for me at one of his workshops. It is probably unfair to compare (the lab print only cost £1.22 for a 12 x 18), but placing the lab print next to Martin's did show just how poor the lab print was in comparison.
I do not intend to sell my prints (yet) but I would like to have high quality prints of them for my own enjoyment and to give as gifts to friends and family. As I see it, I have 3 choices :
1. Find a lab which can produce good quality prints - I will try photobox, but I must admit I will be surprised if they are any better than ProAm.
2. Get Martin to print my images via his printing service; or
3. Bite the bullet and buy an Epson 3800.
At the moment the Epson 3800 can be had for £750, as Epson are offering a £150 "loyalty bonus" for owners of certain Epson printers (I had an R1800, so qualify for the reduction).
Given approx 2ml ink usage per sq foot, and an A3+ print being approx 16" * 10.5" (or 1.66 sq feet) with a white border, ink usage is approx 2.33ml per A3+ print (depends on coverage I know). Approximating 50p / ml for ink cost, a print from the 3800 costs £1.17 per print in ink.
The Museo Max paper Martin uses is approx £3.50 per A3+ sheet - making a total print price of £4.67 for DIY assuming 100% success rate.
Assuming £3 postage per print on top of Martin's £15 fee, the break even point is approx 75 prints, above which, owning your own 3800 is the cheaper option.
Anyway, a bit of a ramble, but the upshot is that unless I can find a lab which produces acceptable prints, the best option in the long term is to buy the 3800 !
Last edited by PeteT, 14/Mar/09, 11:55 pm
|
|
14/Mar/09, 11:55 pm
|
Send Email to PeteT
Send PM to PeteT
|
Bill Allsopp
Administrator
Global user
Registered: 10-2008
Location: Bagworth porridge mines
Posts: 1382
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
Where did you get the ink coverage and cost from? I checked the usage of my Epson printer for the complete first change of ink tanks and found the ink costs were almost exactly the same as the paper costs.
Paper I was using then (and still do for colour) was Hahnemuhle German etching which listed then at £212 a box of 50 x A2. So 100 A3 prints had an ink cost to me of £2 each approx.
Ink costs have risen quite a bit over 3 years too.
---
Bill Allsopp
Don't just look, see!
http://www.britishlandscapephotographs.co.uk
http://www.billallsopp.co.uk
|
|
15/Mar/09, 9:41 am
|
Send Email to Bill Allsopp
Send PM to Bill Allsopp
Blog
|
martinimages
Head Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 01-2006
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 4137
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
When I used to do weddings, film days, we got packages, machine prints, pro lab quality, but if needed a higher quality picture they had to be hand printed which cost lots more, but worth it for special pictures of the wedding. Digital is just the same, send a file full to a lab, its banged into a machine and that determines the output which is often very good, labs, like in film days are not geared up to do Mono images there main stay is colour, If you want to get quality BW images either print them your self providing you are competent to do that and have the right equipment, or you have to have them hand printed. I receive lots of orders for BW prints, the edited file is sent to me, 9x out of 10 I have to tweak here and there so they will print well on fine art papers, and in some cases will not even try to print as I know the results would be awful , and thats the difference. Most labs would never have heard about say Museo Max etc, and understanding of the paper characteristics is needed in how it will respond to shadows and highlight printing, that only come with experience and knowing how your own workflow works for a particular paper edit combination, some might think that my charges seem to high but quality and knowledge don't come cheap, at the end of that day a £1.50 A3 lab BW comes no way near a £15.00 hand printed fine art based cotton print in terms of archival properties and customer satisfaction, its the same old story u gets what you pay for in most cases
Martin
--- One to one workshop in monochrome, from capture to fine art print, printing service available
Contact for details |
|
15/Mar/09, 3:12 pm
|
Send Email to martinimages
Send PM to martinimages
MSN
Blog
|
PeteT
Registered user
Global user
Registered: 03-2009
Posts: 10
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
quote:
martinimages wrote:
some might think that my charges seem to high
Martin
Martin, No way was I suggesting that your charges were too high! Sorry if my post appeared that way, it was most certainly not my intention.
BTW - I have just ordered a custom made frame to put the print you did for me during our one on one day - I would most certainly not do that for the machine print I received from the lab.
I was trying to do 2 things with my post :
1. Agree that Lab prints suck! I was spolied by your excellent fine art print.
2. Wrap my brain around whether buying my own 3800 was a worthwhile investment.
If I were simply going to make prints for hanging in my own house, there would be no contest I would send the images to you for printing, however I would like to give some to friends and family and maybe even eventually sell some. This is where things become less clear cut from a financial point of view......
I'm still no nearer making my mind up - the niggling feeling I have is that it will cost me a fortune in ink and paper to get to the point where I am confident in the quality of output I will achieve.
|
|
15/Mar/09, 3:38 pm
|
Send Email to PeteT
Send PM to PeteT
|
martinimages
Head Administrator
Global user (premium)
Registered: 01-2006
Location: West Yorkshire
Posts: 4137
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Lab Prints SUCK!
quote:
PeteT wrote:
quote:
martinimages wrote:
some might think that my charges seem to high
Martin
Martin, No way was I suggesting that your charges were too high! Sorry if my post appeared that way, it was most certainly not my intention.
Pete I think you are reading my post wrong lol I was not biting back at you just pointing things out about lab versus hand prints, and babbled on the way.
Sorry for confusing the issue.
I was just pointing out that even years ago lab prints where not that good and seems things not changed much now, talking BW prints of course. Now forgetting me offering to print, the only way to get super fine art monos is either print yourself or hand printed with some one who can do that.
Farting Martin 
--- One to one workshop in monochrome, from capture to fine art print, printing service available
Contact for details
|
|
15/Mar/09, 3:52 pm
|
Send Email to martinimages
Send PM to martinimages
MSN
Blog
|
Add a reply
Page: 1 2 3
Link to us
- Blogs
- Hall of Honour
- Chat
|
You are not logged in (login)
Board's time is: 30/Nov/09, 2:14 am
|
|
|
