shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto Prints

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Robert J Batina, Aug 26, 2004.

  1. Al <> spewed:
    > shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    > best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    > third of them were to dark.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Al


    I've used all of those services, and I've found that www.xpphoto.com has the
    best quality/cost value for me. The prints aren't cropped more than they
    should be, they offer tons of sizes as well as matte and glossy, they pack
    everything well, and they have quick turnaround. Try them, I think you'll
    be pleased. IIRC they use Fuji Crystal Archive paper.

    --
    The Toe Pages:
    http://www.rubbertoe.com
     
    Robert J Batina, Aug 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Robert J Batina

    Al Guest

    shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    third of them were to dark.

    Thanks

    Al
     
    Al, Aug 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Robert J Batina

    Jeremy Nixon Guest

    Al <> wrote:

    > shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    > best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    > third of them were to dark.


    "Too dark" is a common observation with prints from digital. The main
    cause of it is that, quite simply, prints are perceptually darker than
    pictures viewed on the screen. You have to keep that in mind when
    doing Photoshop corrections. Also, I apply a gamma boost to all of my
    pictures when I make the files to send for printing -- Photoshop Levels,
    gray point raised to 1.19, arrived at by simple experimentation. (I
    created an Action to do that correction and then save out a jpeg to
    upload, and turned it into a "droplet".)

    I use Printroom.com, which, unlike other online printing services, uses
    ICC profiles, so I get prints that look like the pictures on my screen,
    but only after that gamma boost to correct for the perceptual difference.
    I'm sure there's a better way to do it by accounting for it when profiling
    the monitor, but the results are perfect, and I'd rather not have my
    monitor "too dark" for everything else.

    The other thing to consider is whether your monitor is correct. Is it
    calibrated? Maybe the prints are perfect, the pictures really are too
    dark, and you're seeing them differently because your monitor is set
    too bright?

    --
    Jeremy |
     
    Jeremy Nixon, Aug 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Robert J Batina

    c0smic Guest

    Jeremy Nixon wrote:

    > Al <> wrote:
    >
    >> shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    >> best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    >> third of them were to dark.

    >
    > "Too dark" is a common observation with prints from digital. The main
    > cause of it is that, quite simply, prints are perceptually darker than
    > pictures viewed on the screen. You have to keep that in mind when
    > doing Photoshop corrections. Also, I apply a gamma boost to all of my
    > pictures when I make the files to send for printing -- Photoshop
    > Levels, gray point raised to 1.19, arrived at by simple
    > experimentation. (I created an Action to do that correction and then
    > save out a jpeg to upload, and turned it into a "droplet".)
    >
    > I use Printroom.com, which, unlike other online printing services,
    > uses ICC profiles, so I get prints that look like the pictures on my
    > screen, but only after that gamma boost to correct for the perceptual
    > difference. I'm sure there's a better way to do it by accounting for
    > it when profiling the monitor, but the results are perfect, and I'd
    > rather not have my monitor "too dark" for everything else.
    >
    > The other thing to consider is whether your monitor is correct. Is it
    > calibrated? Maybe the prints are perfect, the pictures really are too
    > dark, and you're seeing them differently because your monitor is set
    > too bright?
    >


    Shutterfly “automatically” adjusts the levels and the photos will turn
    out different than what you see on the screen. It is probably OK for
    people who do not make any adjustments before uploading the files for
    printing. When I tried it last year there was no option to not have the
    photos automatically adjusted and I did not like the results.

    I have received excellent results from Printroom.com. The photos turn out
    exactly as edited in Adobe RGB. Printroom has some good tips in the help
    section on how to set up Photoshop to view proof colors correctly. They
    have an ICC profile you can download and set it up in Photoshop to
    preview using black point compensation and simulate paper white. The
    prints look almost exactly like the calibrated monitor when viewed in
    Photoshop Adobe RGB.

    Walmart.com has given excellent results using sRGB. I just had over 300
    photos printed and the results were excellent. It was tedious uploading
    1GB of photos because you can only upload about 40MB at a time. You can
    edit the photos using sRGB and uncheck the automatic enhance and they
    will turn out as viewed in Photoshop sRGB.
     
    c0smic, Aug 26, 2004
    #4
  5. In article <>,
    Al <> wrote:

    > shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    > best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    > third of them were to dark.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Al


    Shutterfly has automatic image enhancement that you can turn on or off,
    but I don't think it darkens photos. It may be a problem with your
    monitor's gamma. It could also be that luster/matte prints look dull in
    some lighting conditions. Shutterfly's customer support can take a look
    at your photos if you give them a call.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Aug 26, 2004
    #5
  6. In article <>,
    Al <> wrote:

    > shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    > best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    > third of them were to dark.
    >
    > Thanks
    >
    > Al


    Shutterfly has automatic image enhancement that you can turn on or off,
    but I don't think it darkens photos. It may be a problem with your
    monitor's gamma. It could also be that luster/matte prints look dull in
    some lighting conditions. Shutterfly's customer support can take a look
    at your photos if you give them a call.
     
    Kevin McMurtrie, Aug 26, 2004
    #6
  7. I use www.Dotphoto.com and have been happy with them.


    "Kevin McMurtrie" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Al <> wrote:
    >
    > > shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    > > best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    > > third of them were to dark.
    > >
    > > Thanks
    > >
    > > Al

    >
    > Shutterfly has automatic image enhancement that you can turn on or off,
    > but I don't think it darkens photos. It may be a problem with your
    > monitor's gamma. It could also be that luster/matte prints look dull in
    > some lighting conditions. Shutterfly's customer support can take a look
    > at your photos if you give them a call.
     
    Gene Palmiter, Aug 26, 2004
    #7
  8. << shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    best prints. >>

    I have stopped using online print services since getting prints from Costco
    store in Bend, Oregon.

    I Photoshop my pics for printing and load them on to a CD. Bring pics into
    Costco and choose from 4x6 (0.19 cents); 8x10, 8x12 ($1.99); 11x14 b/w ($2.99);
    12x18 (2.99). Glossy, matte, lustre finish printed on Fuji crystal archive
    paper from Noritsu printer (320 DPI).

    Best part -- WYSIWYG.

    Best,

    Conrad

    PS Gene, one of the Costco workers at photo counter, is a jewel. The man is so
    pleasant and nice amongst the usual busy uproar at Costco shops.

    Conrad Weiler
    Camp Sherman, Oregon
     
    Conrad Weiler, Aug 26, 2004
    #8
  9. Robert J Batina

    Dave Guest

    Al <> wrote in message news:<>...
    > shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    > best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    > third of them were to dark.
    >



    I've gotten good results from all of the above, but my current
    favorite is http://www.ezprints.com/. The interface is a little busy,
    but they offer lots of options, including panoramas.

    Dave
     
    Dave, Aug 26, 2004
    #9
  10. Robert J Batina

    Al Guest

    I have calibrated my monitor with Monaco Optix xr. Also I shoot
    slides and use a film scanner to digitize them. I think my images are
    ok they look correctly exposed to me. I will try Printroom.com on
    some of the problematic images.

    I had the images created with a matte finish.

    Albert



    On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:28:44 -0500, c0smic <>
    wrote:

    >Jeremy Nixon wrote:
    >
    >> Al <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces the
    >>> best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly. About a
    >>> third of them were to dark.

    >>
    >> "Too dark" is a common observation with prints from digital. The main
    >> cause of it is that, quite simply, prints are perceptually darker than
    >> pictures viewed on the screen. You have to keep that in mind when
    >> doing Photoshop corrections. Also, I apply a gamma boost to all of my
    >> pictures when I make the files to send for printing -- Photoshop
    >> Levels, gray point raised to 1.19, arrived at by simple
    >> experimentation. (I created an Action to do that correction and then
    >> save out a jpeg to upload, and turned it into a "droplet".)
    >>
    >> I use Printroom.com, which, unlike other online printing services,
    >> uses ICC profiles, so I get prints that look like the pictures on my
    >> screen, but only after that gamma boost to correct for the perceptual
    >> difference. I'm sure there's a better way to do it by accounting for
    >> it when profiling the monitor, but the results are perfect, and I'd
    >> rather not have my monitor "too dark" for everything else.
    >>
    >> The other thing to consider is whether your monitor is correct. Is it
    >> calibrated? Maybe the prints are perfect, the pictures really are too
    >> dark, and you're seeing them differently because your monitor is set
    >> too bright?
    >>

    >
    >Shutterfly “automatically” adjusts the levels and the photos will turn
    >out different than what you see on the screen. It is probably OK for
    >people who do not make any adjustments before uploading the files for
    >printing. When I tried it last year there was no option to not have the
    >photos automatically adjusted and I did not like the results.
    >
    >I have received excellent results from Printroom.com. The photos turn out
    >exactly as edited in Adobe RGB. Printroom has some good tips in the help
    >section on how to set up Photoshop to view proof colors correctly. They
    >have an ICC profile you can download and set it up in Photoshop to
    >preview using black point compensation and simulate paper white. The
    >prints look almost exactly like the calibrated monitor when viewed in
    >Photoshop Adobe RGB.
    >
    >Walmart.com has given excellent results using sRGB. I just had over 300
    >photos printed and the results were excellent. It was tedious uploading
    >1GB of photos because you can only upload about 40MB at a time. You can
    >edit the photos using sRGB and uncheck the automatic enhance and they
    >will turn out as viewed in Photoshop sRGB.
    >
     
    Al, Aug 27, 2004
    #10
  11. Robert J Batina

    c0smic Guest

    Al wrote:

    >
    >
    > I have calibrated my monitor with Monaco Optix xr. Also I shoot
    > slides and use a film scanner to digitize them. I think my images are
    > ok they look correctly exposed to me. I will try Printroom.com on
    > some of the problematic images.
    >
    > I had the images created with a matte finish.
    >
    > Albert
    >
    >
    >
    > On Thu, 26 Aug 2004 00:28:44 -0500, c0smic <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Jeremy Nixon wrote:
    >>
    >>> Al <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> shutterfly,snapfish,Ofoto which of these online company produces
    >>>> the best prints. I got some matte print back from Shutterfly.
    >>>> About a third of them were to dark.
    >>>
    >>> "Too dark" is a common observation with prints from digital. The
    >>> main cause of it is that, quite simply, prints are perceptually
    >>> darker than pictures viewed on the screen. You have to keep that in
    >>> mind when doing Photoshop corrections. Also, I apply a gamma boost
    >>> to all of my pictures when I make the files to send for printing --
    >>> Photoshop Levels, gray point raised to 1.19, arrived at by simple
    >>> experimentation. (I created an Action to do that correction and
    >>> then save out a jpeg to upload, and turned it into a "droplet".)
    >>>
    >>> I use Printroom.com, which, unlike other online printing services,
    >>> uses ICC profiles, so I get prints that look like the pictures on my
    >>> screen, but only after that gamma boost to correct for the
    >>> perceptual difference. I'm sure there's a better way to do it by
    >>> accounting for it when profiling the monitor, but the results are
    >>> perfect, and I'd rather not have my monitor "too dark" for
    >>> everything else.
    >>>
    >>> The other thing to consider is whether your monitor is correct. Is
    >>> it calibrated? Maybe the prints are perfect, the pictures really
    >>> are too dark, and you're seeing them differently because your
    >>> monitor is set too bright?
    >>>

    >>
    >>Shutterfly “automatically” adjusts the levels and the photos will turn
    >>out different than what you see on the screen. It is probably OK for
    >>people who do not make any adjustments before uploading the files for
    >>printing. When I tried it last year there was no option to not have
    >>the photos automatically adjusted and I did not like the results.
    >>
    >>I have received excellent results from Printroom.com. The photos turn
    >>out exactly as edited in Adobe RGB. Printroom has some good tips in
    >>the help section on how to set up Photoshop to view proof colors
    >>correctly. They have an ICC profile you can download and set it up in
    >>Photoshop to preview using black point compensation and simulate paper
    >>white. The prints look almost exactly like the calibrated monitor when
    >>viewed in Photoshop Adobe RGB.
    >>
    >>Walmart.com has given excellent results using sRGB. I just had over
    >>300 photos printed and the results were excellent. It was tedious
    >>uploading 1GB of photos because you can only upload about 40MB at a
    >>time. You can edit the photos using sRGB and uncheck the automatic
    >>enhance and they will turn out as viewed in Photoshop sRGB.
    >>

    >
    >


    Here’s the link on how to set up Photoshop:
    http://www.printroom.com/ICCProfile.asp? . You can work in Adobe RGB
    (1998). I had nice 8x10 glossys, all excellent quality. If Photoshop and
    your monitor are set up correctly you should get exactly what you see. I
    upload 3 to 4MB 2272x1704 JPGs tagged with Adobe RGB and they look great
    in any size. There is a crop tool and it works good too.
     
    c0smic, Aug 27, 2004
    #11
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ron Baird
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    695
    Ron Baird
    Jul 10, 2003
  2. Teresa

    Shutterfly, Ofoto, or Snapfish? . . .

    Teresa, Aug 5, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    2,665
    Webkatz
    Aug 7, 2003
  3. JC Dill

    print comparison - club photo and snapfish

    JC Dill, Sep 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    461
    Paddler
    Sep 23, 2003
  4. Dan Irwin
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,430
    starlord
    Sep 29, 2004
  5. Jeremy

    Kodak/OFOTO Offering $.10 Prints To Members

    Jeremy, Sep 8, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    350
    Jeremy
    Sep 9, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page