Sorry to start a new thread, but my crappy news server has been off and on
for the last 5 days and now I am missing many messages... and this thread is
one of them. (I have been able to read via a public server but not been
able to respond)
I did mention DigiLab in Brizvagas back up the thread (one of the brief
periods when my server was "on") and really I cannot say enough good things
about them... and yes they are a sponsor of my Australia Digital Photo Of
The Day site, but that is NOT why I mention them.... I have been singing
their praises long before they became a sponsor! :-)
Now to link this reply back to a few points in the other post....
DigiLab v's F-Stop prices: F-Stop prices are very good and on a par with
DigiLabs in the smaller sizes, however DigiLab offers a 4x6 price of 70
cents, while F-Stop's minimum price is $1.40 for 5x7 and below. Seeing
that my "bread and butter" sales are mostly 4x6 this effectively 1/2s my
printing cost!
DigiLab have a $15 min. while F-stop's is $25.... while this may not seem
that important, it sure helps improve my turn around time for low volume
prints.
Also, DigiLab will accept TIFF or full size JPG on CD or JPG 7 via the FTP,
while I believe F-Stop is JPEG only regardless of how you deliver the
images. I am not fussed on the JPG 7 idea.... both DigiLab and F-Stop would
have done their homework and would believe that you cannot see the
difference, but for me it's still TIFFs on CD. :-) It would seem that
it is simply a bandwidth thing and things may change as we all end up on
broadband and have unlimited data.
Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft?? Interesting... I
would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp?? While
DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is very
similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines and I
cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
[End DigiLab rant] :-)
Russell Stewart
Australian Digital Photo Of The Day
http://www.pixelpix.com.au/adpotd.html
>
> Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft?? Interesting...
I
> would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp?? While
> DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is very
> similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines and I
> cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
>
That was me, I've only done one test of their L2 service (Lambda from jpeg)
and it was certainly soft, but I'm not blaming the process yet. The files
looked good on a computer, what I'll have to do is get a tiff of the same
file printed with their "commercial" service (more expensive though) and
compare.
Regards
Rob
"Rob Gray" <public@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3ef93d47@no-spam
> >
> > Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft??
Interesting...
> I
> > would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp?? While
> > DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is very
> > similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines and
I
> > cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
> >
> That was me, I've only done one test of their L2 service (Lambda from
jpeg)
> and it was certainly soft, but I'm not blaming the process yet. The files
> looked good on a computer, what I'll have to do is get a tiff of the same
> file printed with their "commercial" service (more expensive though) and
> compare.
>
> Regards
> Rob
>
>
Their commercial service is way too expensive and I would not even bother.
I would have thought that they were actually using the same machine for both
services (Lambda is a Lambda is a Lambda), except that they do all the post
processing for the commercial service, while leaving the L2 post processing
up to the photographer.... either way sharp images should be the result.
Try www.streetsimaging.com.au in Brisbane.....Great results.....always
sharp.
--
Ian Wharton
Creative Photographics
BabyFace Casting & Modelling
502 Algester Rd
Algester Q 4115
ph 3273 7056 (CP)
ph 3711 5315 (BF)
fx 3273 7735
www.creativephotographics.net
www.babyfaceonline,net
"Russell Stewart" <adpotd@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdbfpv$e3s$1@no-spam
>
> "Rob Gray" <public@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3ef93d47@no-spam
> > >
> > > Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft??
> Interesting...
> > I
> > > would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp??
While
> > > DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is
very
> > > similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines
and
> I
> > > cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
> > >
> > That was me, I've only done one test of their L2 service (Lambda from
> jpeg)
> > and it was certainly soft, but I'm not blaming the process yet. The
files
> > looked good on a computer, what I'll have to do is get a tiff of the
same
> > file printed with their "commercial" service (more expensive though) and
> > compare.
> >
> > Regards
> > Rob
> >
> >
>
> Their commercial service is way too expensive and I would not even bother.
> I would have thought that they were actually using the same machine for
both
> services (Lambda is a Lambda is a Lambda), except that they do all the
post
> processing for the commercial service, while leaving the L2 post
processing
> up to the photographer.... either way sharp images should be the result.
>
>
Digilab has some colour issues with some photographers. Their "Carmen
Miranda" and grey scale blaanced on one PC but their prints off. I don't
understand how I can print a poster on my inkjet with perfect colour and the
prints from Digilab are off colour. They also have "fixed" size/price
printing. Fstop on the other hand charge by the square metre so if you have
panoramas to print, f-stop are more suitable than Digilab.
JT
"Russell Stewart" <adpotd@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdaj1m$4kn$1@no-spam
> Sorry to start a new thread, but my crappy news server has been off and on
> for the last 5 days and now I am missing many messages... and this thread
is
> one of them. (I have been able to read via a public server but not been
> able to respond)
>
> I did mention DigiLab in Brizvagas back up the thread (one of the brief
> periods when my server was "on") and really I cannot say enough good
things
> about them... and yes they are a sponsor of my Australia Digital Photo Of
> The Day site, but that is NOT why I mention them.... I have been singing
> their praises long before they became a sponsor! :-)
>
> Now to link this reply back to a few points in the other post....
>
> DigiLab v's F-Stop prices: F-Stop prices are very good and on a par with
> DigiLabs in the smaller sizes, however DigiLab offers a 4x6 price of 70
> cents, while F-Stop's minimum price is $1.40 for 5x7 and below. Seeing
> that my "bread and butter" sales are mostly 4x6 this effectively 1/2s my
> printing cost!
>
> DigiLab have a $15 min. while F-stop's is $25.... while this may not seem
> that important, it sure helps improve my turn around time for low volume
> prints.
>
> Also, DigiLab will accept TIFF or full size JPG on CD or JPG 7 via the
FTP,
> while I believe F-Stop is JPEG only regardless of how you deliver the
> images. I am not fussed on the JPG 7 idea.... both DigiLab and F-Stop
would
> have done their homework and would believe that you cannot see the
> difference, but for me it's still TIFFs on CD. :-) It would seem that
> it is simply a bandwidth thing and things may change as we all end up on
> broadband and have unlimited data.
>
> Someone mentioned that the F-Stop prints were a bit soft?? Interesting...
I
> would doubt if it's a JPG thing and a Lambda "should" be sharp?? While
> DigiLab do not use a Lambda, they have a DLab laser machine that is very
> similar and also a Pegasus LED... I have used both of these machines and I
> cannot fault them in any way.... and I am a fussy bugger too! :-)
>
> [End DigiLab rant] :-)
>
> Russell Stewart
> Australian Digital Photo Of The Day
> http://www.pixelpix.com.au/adpotd.html
>
>
>
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
news:4nILa.11$VH3.957@no-spam
> Digilab has some colour issues with some photographers. Their "Carmen
> Miranda" and grey scale blaanced on one PC but their prints off. I don't
> understand how I can print a poster on my inkjet with perfect colour and
the
> prints from Digilab are off colour.
I have never had a colour issue with them at all. I trust that you have
calibrated your system to theirs and not just your inkjet? What colour
space are you using?
> They also have "fixed" size/price
> printing. Fstop on the other hand charge by the square metre so if you
have
> panoramas to print, f-stop are more suitable than Digilab.
> JT
They use different machines and are limited to 20x32 and their panos are
done via inkjet, so in the case of panos f-stop are the better option.
Russell Stewart
Australian Digital Photo Of The Day
http://www.pixelpix.com.au/adpotd.html
The "Carmen Miranda" image on both photo paper and a PS file is provided by
Digilabs to balance out the grey/colour scales in PhotoShop. If PS gives out
the colour value they say it should, then pics produced to their colour and
grayscale values should be correct from their printer. At least 2 wedding
photographers I know, have trouble getting consistent results from that lab.
I guess it's a function of 'scroogeness' that they do not have this problem
with Street's, they just want Digilab's prices.
So having said that... How do you suppose it works when PS (with a Sony
monitor) on one system and PS with a Samsung monitor on another in a
different suburb, can both use the 'Miranda' image to balance their system
and both output almost identical inkjet prints from the same CFC on the same
printer moved between locations without PS having any 'colour profiles'
installed, just balanced to the 'Carmen' image yet...
The CDs containing the 'test' images sent to the lab from these 2 different
photographers created on PCs which otherwise produce identical output with
ink... Come back with a different colour and tonal balance? The burning
software?
Part of the concept of digital photography for a professional is that it
removes the uncertainty of labs processing film and paper with unpredictable
results and puts back in the hands of the photographer, the control that
would otherwise be lost.
If the labs providing calibration images can't reliably produce results that
seem so uncompromisingly easy to achieve with ink and colour laser's... Give
me a reason - any reason, to recommend that lab. Just because you personally
don't have the problem means nothing other than you are either employed
there or are one of the majority of their clients who have no problems.
I suppose in the contest of my comments, 2 out of the 9 photographers I know
who use the service have had problems... The other 7 do not. One can hope
that this percentage is not carried out to their entire customer base.
JT
"Russell Stewart" <adpotd@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdnms3$9su$1@no-spam
>
> "Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:4nILa.11$VH3.957@no-spam
> > Digilab has some colour issues with some photographers. <snip>
> I have never had a colour issue with them at all. I trust that you have
> calibrated your system to theirs and not just your inkjet? What colour
> space are you using?
> snip<
> Russell Stewart
> Australian Digital Photo Of The Day
> http://www.pixelpix.com.au/adpotd.html
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
news:YtKLa.60$VH3.2190@no-spam
> The "Carmen Miranda" image on both photo paper and a PS file is provided
by
> Digilabs to balance out the grey/colour scales in PhotoShop. If PS gives
out
> the colour value they say it should, then pics produced to their colour
and
> grayscale values should be correct from their printer. At least 2 wedding
> photographers I know, have trouble getting consistent results from that
lab.
> I guess it's a function of 'scroogeness' that they do not have this
problem
> with Street's, they just want Digilab's prices.
>
> So having said that... How do you suppose it works when PS (with a Sony
> monitor) on one system and PS with a Samsung monitor on another in a
> different suburb, can both use the 'Miranda' image to balance their system
> and both output almost identical inkjet prints from the same CFC on the
same
> printer moved between locations without PS having any 'colour profiles'
> installed, just balanced to the 'Carmen' image yet...
Let me make sure I have what you are saying correct...
They are using the same image file, unchanged from from machine to machine
and printing to the same printer without modifying/applying profiles... is
that correct?
>
> The CDs containing the 'test' images sent to the lab from these 2
different
> photographers created on PCs which otherwise produce identical output with
> ink... Come back with a different colour and tonal balance? The burning
> software?
Again, let me make sure I have what you are saying correct...
They are both sending the Carmen test image unchanged and getting different
results.... or are they balancing their systems with the Carmen, then using
the same file, they each colour balance/correct that file and they both get
different results... is that correct?
>
> Part of the concept of digital photography for a professional is that it
> removes the uncertainty of labs processing film and paper with
unpredictable
> results and puts back in the hands of the photographer, the control that
> would otherwise be lost.
>
> If the labs providing calibration images can't reliably produce results
that
> seem so uncompromisingly easy to achieve with ink and colour laser's...
Give
> me a reason - any reason, to recommend that lab. Just because you
personally
> don't have the problem means nothing other than you are either employed
> there or are one of the majority of their clients who have no problems.
I am one of the 7.
They didn't sent the Carmen image back for printing... That'd be like
repainting a new white car white... Don't you think? They sent the same
portrait file for printing.
I have no knowledge if Digilabs used the same printer or not but it was my
inkjet (Canon S9000) they both used to make their own test prints. before
sending the image files to Digilabs.
They both used the 'Carmen" image to check the readings and balance their
system as per Digilab's instructions, so the eye dropper from swatches
produced the colour/grayscale Digilabs said it should. The 2 prints, printed
on different day and sent to different photographers were quite different to
the results from the inkjet.
I said 9 photographers I knew. You could not be one of the 7 Russell, I
don't know you.
"Russell Stewart" <adpotd@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bdntta$br8$1@no-spam
>
> Let me make sure I have what you are saying correct...
>
> Again, let me make sure I have what you are saying correct...
>
> I am one of the 7.
>
>
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ycOLa.228$VH3.5828@no-spam
> They didn't sent the Carmen image back for printing... That'd be like
> repainting a new white car white... Don't you think? They sent the same
> portrait file for printing.
>
> I have no knowledge if Digilabs used the same printer or not but it was my
> inkjet (Canon S9000) they both used to make their own test prints. before
> sending the image files to Digilabs.
>
> They both used the 'Carmen" image to check the readings and balance their
> system as per Digilab's instructions, so the eye dropper from swatches
> produced the colour/grayscale Digilabs said it should.
Yes it would be like trying to paint white car white, but then so is
printing the same file from two different systems to the same printer (your
bubble jet).... all that will show is if your printer is consistent? It has
nothing to do with the Carmen calibration that you mentioned and that is
what was confusing me.
I agree that sending the exact same file to DigiLab for printing and getting
two different results back is a problem. But if two photographers start
with the same image and colour balance that image on two different systems,
I would fully expect that there would be differences in the results.
> I said 9 photographers I knew. You could not be one of the 7 Russell, I
> don't know you.
That is not what I meant, so I will try again.... if 2 out of every 9 have
problems, I am one of the 7 that do not.
> > "Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote:
> "Russell Stewart" <adpotd@no-spam> wrote in message
"Auspics" <just@no-spam> wrote in message:
> > > Digilab has some colour issues with some photographers. <snip>
> >
> > I have never had a colour issue with them at all. I trust that you have
> > calibrated your system to theirs and not just your inkjet? What colour
> > space are you using?
> > snip<
>
> The "Carmen Miranda" image on both photo paper and a PS file is provided
by
> Digilabs to balance out the grey/colour scales in PhotoShop. If PS gives
out
> the colour value they say it should, then pics produced to their colour
and
> grayscale values should be correct from their printer.
A Photoshop file opened on any PC using Photoshop should give the same RGB
values, Adjusting the monitor will only adjust the visual representation of
those colors on screen. The RGB values reported in the "Info" palette will
not alter when the monitors Brightness or Contrast or RGB balance is
altered, nor does it care whether the monitor is a SONY, Samsung or anything
else.
I assume that the image in question is tagged with an ICC profile, eg Adobe
RGB (1998) or ColorMatch etc etc. Again assuming that Photoshop is set to
acknowledge this ICC profile and that you are not converting it to another
Colorspace (sRGB etc etc) when you open it?
> At least 2 wedding
> photographers I know, have trouble getting consistent results from that
lab.
> I guess it's a function of 'scroogeness' that they do not have this
problem
> with Street's, they just want Digilab's prices.
Are these wedding photographers supplying film neg/pos or digital to the lab
in question as a matter of interest?
> So having said that... How do you suppose it works when PS (with a Sony
> monitor) on one system and PS with a Samsung monitor on another in a
> different suburb, can both use the 'Miranda' image to balance their system
> and both output almost identical inkjet prints from the same CFC on the
same
> printer moved between locations without PS having any 'colour profiles'
> installed, just balanced to the 'Carmen' image yet...
I don't understand what it is that you are calibrating with the Miranda
image? You are adjusting your monitor to look like the print? Are you
adjusting the actual digital file in any way?
The same image off the same CFC (Compact Flash Card?) will print the same on
the same printer, that stands to reason. You can achieve this without any
ICC profiles or color profiles - provided you are using the same driver
settings, same paper then the result will be expectedly similar from any
number of PCs, provided no-one alters the actual image.
> The CDs containing the 'test' images sent to the lab from these 2
different
> photographers created on PCs which otherwise produce identical output with
> ink... Come back with a different colour and tonal balance? The burning
> software?
Are we still talking about the exact same file? Not just the "Carmen" shot
or whatever it is, but the exact same file, digital camera, or otherwise?
> Part of the concept of digital photography for a professional is that it
> removes the uncertainty of labs processing film and paper with
unpredictable
> results and puts back in the hands of the photographer, the control that
> would otherwise be lost.
There is still a fair bit of uncertainty with any system that requires you
to adjust a monitor to match a print.
If you want predictable results then setting up some form of /real/ color
workflow is essential IMO. A properly calibrated monitor, ICC profiles for
your output device /and/ different medias for that device, ICC profiles for
your proofing device and the different media that you are using with it, and
if you are using the monitor for soft proofing consistent lighting
conditions. No point using your monitor to "soft proof" your output if the
ambient light is different in the morning to midday to afternoon to
evenings.
> If the labs providing calibration images can't reliably produce results
that
> seem so uncompromisingly easy to achieve with ink and colour laser's...
Give
> me a reason - any reason, to recommend that lab.
What colorspace do you use? What colorspace does your lab recommend? Are
you tagging your images with a color profile?
Printing the same image to the same printer doesn't really tell you much
about the accuracy of the process.
> Just because you personally
> don't have the problem means nothing other than you are either employed
> there or are one of the majority of their clients who have no problems.
If the majority of the clients do not have problems the question begs what
are they doing differently?
> I suppose in the contest of my comments, 2 out of the 9 photographers I
know
> who use the service have had problems... The other 7 do not. One can hope
> that this percentage is not carried out to their entire customer base.
Regards, Ken
I haven't tried either of the labs you mention. But perhaps this info
may be helpful.
I use Camera Action in Melbourne (Frontier machine, printing on
Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper). I output from PS in Adobe '98 colour,
& get exactly what I want. The one thing I could bitch about is their
print trimming.
I don't have any problems with Frontier prints either. Strangely enough
neither do the photographers who got variable results from Digilab either.
JT
"Lionel" <nop@no-spam> wrote in message news:bdp12b$r74$0@no-spam
> I haven't tried either of the labs you mention. But perhaps this info
> may be helpful.
> I use Camera Action in Melbourne (Frontier machine, printing on
> Fujicolor Crystal Archive paper). I output from PS in Adobe '98 colour,
> & get exactly what I want. The one thing I could bitch about is their
> print trimming.
>
Ken...
The Carmen Miranda Calibration print supplied by Digilabs has a grayscale
from 255 to 0 added to it. Otherwise it's the standard Adobe test print.
According to DL, you only need to ensure your monitor's gray scale matches
those in the picture, to get accurate results from their printers. I won't
touch on the God awful skin tones of this print here.
The file they supply has no Profile attached to it. To get near identical
results on the canon inkjet, I set the printer profile and the Adobe profile
to sRGB. The monitors now have reasonable true representation of the actual
colours in pictures from the Digital cameras after I balanced the monitor to
the final print. They can work with the system now and expect to have prints
closely resembling what they saw on the screen.
This whole fiasco came about because one of the guys was moving to digital
and got varying results from different labs he gave the same image to and
none of them were faithful reproductions of what he believed to be the
'right' one. Not only that, but none of the photo prints he got back looked
like the inkjet proofs he's run off on an i320 inkjet.
Some people think method "A" is better than method "B" to get a reasonable
picture on a monitor that actually looks like both the original scene and
the final print. I have in the past paid people to spyder my monitors with
mixed results. The only results I've been satisfied with are the ones I get
from my own procedures.
The only way I know to get a system tuned into a
printer/scanner/camera/monitor myself is to eyeball it and that method
requires a print so you start with what the PC and printer can actually
produce from the input file. Where this comes unstuck is when the printer -
be it a Frontierer or a cheap inkjet - can't produce reliably accurate
prints. I disagree completely with your assertion that starting with the
output and making everything between the camera and the final print fit that
print is somehow uncertain. The only uncertainty is when the print can't be
reproduced identically.
The (less than ideal) solution these guys have now settled on is to proof
their work on a (shared) colour laser printer and supply final prints from
an inkjet. At least the photos are now consistent. One can only hope as they
come to grips with the added burden of modern technology, the labs might
also fit into the scheme of it all. I hope too that the inkjet prints live
up to Canon's claim of colour fastness... But that's another thing.
JT
"Ken Chandler" <news@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3efff89d$0$30820$afc38c87@no-spam
> A Photoshop file opened on any PC using Photoshop should give the same RGB
> values, Adjusting the monitor will only adjust the visual representation
of
> those colors on screen. The RGB values reported in the "Info" palette
will
> not alter when the monitors Brightness or Contrast or RGB balance is
> altered, nor does it care whether the monitor is a SONY, Samsung or
anything
> else.
>
> I assume that the image in question is tagged with an ICC profile, eg
Adobe
> RGB (1998) or ColorMatch etc etc. Again assuming that Photoshop is set to
> acknowledge this ICC profile and that you are not converting it to another
> Colorspace (sRGB etc etc) when you open it?
>
SNIPPED!
> Regards, Ken
>
>