The Digital World Vs The Art of Printing

Eirebear

Splitting this from another thread, because i think it is a slightly different discussion.

How many of your print your images, and of those how many of you use a more expensive, "quality" print lab to do so?

I've got to be honest, its only recenlty i have seen the value of a top quality printers, up untill around 6 months ago i was using places like Photobox to get my work printed. Cost was obviously the main factor, and the quality that came from them seemed, to my eye more than acceptable.

However, I used to look at exhibitions, and look at the quality of prints hanging on walls and wonder how they worked.

In the last 6 months i have been using a glasgow based lab called Loxley Colour, and immediately started seeing the benefits, yes theyre more expensive, but the quality is obvious even to the average joe when you sit identical images from Loxley and Photobox side by side.

Is the art of printing lost on the digital world? everyone wants things quicker, easier, faster. Most people nowadays only pay attention to images when backlit on their computer monitor.
I know someone on here is a printer proffesionally, i wonder how he sees these developments?

Fenster

Not at all.

Eirebear

Fenster wrote: »

Not at all.

Dont go into too much detail there fella' i can handle such in depth discussion.

Ok, i'll rephrase the question.

Does the "general public" appreciate a high quality print, and the work which goes into it? Have they ever?
Has the fact that everyone and their dog owns some form of digital camera, and some form of editing software...yet only see those images on a screen changed the way they look at photography, and changed their impressions of the work which goes into it from start to finish?

Fenster

Is the art of printing lost on the digital world?

Not at all.



To the general public? I don't know. My impression has been that regular Janes and Joes don't care all that much.

Rb

Eirebear wrote: »

Dont go into too much detail there fella' i can handle such in depth discussion.

Ok, i'll rephrase the question.

Does the "general public" appreciate a high quality print, and the work which goes into it? Have they ever?
Has the fact that everyone and their dog owns some form of digital camera, and some form of editing software...yet only see those images on a screen changed the way they look at photography, and changed their impressions of the work which goes into it from start to finish?

Well I think the obvious answer is yes, and one can only look at the number of people who've turned to good ol' Uncle Joe to take their wedding pictures these days as "he has a fancy camera" and therefore must be capable of taking professional quality photographs. Saves them paying those con-artist "professionals" don't ya know.

As someone who works in a digital-only minilab I can quite honestly say that no, the public doesn't give a shite about the quality of the photographs they put in for processing. From start (composition) to finish (print) they only care about price and the speed at which they receive their end product. I'll go into work for the weekend from tomorrow, and as per usual I'll have hoardes of clowns questioning how "instant" the service really is when I tell them their order of a few hundred snaps that they'll never look at again will take 10 or 15 minutes to process. "But I thought it was instant" is something often thrown at me when I tell them the wait time.

Many need help using the supposedly self-service kiosks, even though I've literally seen 8 year old kids navigating through to print with ease, and when you ask if they want matte or glossy their only responses are "whichever is best", "which is the cheapest", "what's the most popular".

It's not about quality whatsoever but behind the scenes the same people have delusions that it is about quality. The same people will be found approaching camera sales people and saying "I've €200 to spend on a camera, I want the best I can get for that with the most megapixels and zoomz" and, which makes for easy pickings for those in camera sales. Then they go to print, again believing that they want a quality product, but they go for the cheapest and "quickest" solution they can find.


I'm sure I've rambled on a little, obviously not too eager about work tomorrow

I'm sure it was the same in the days of film though, people just point-click-gone and then try to get the cheapest development in the quickest time, then never looking at the pictures again. It's a very, very lucrative business. I have a few good tips for printing on Fuji minilabs if anyone is thinking of using them, however they directly affect the amount of work the person running the lab has to do so I'd only give it to regulars

Bottom line, average punters don't care about quality but I doubt they ever have, though they'll often claim to the contrary. Actions speak louder than words and all that. I use the minilab in work and the results vary, it can sometimes drag the mid-tone contrast way down but can sometimes produce nice results. I've used photobox before and the quality is ok, I might print a copy of one of the photos from photobox on the work machine and see which is better.

Eirebear

Rb wrote: »

I'm sure it was the same in the days of film though, people just point-click-gone and then try to get the cheapest development in the quickest time, then never looking at the pictures again. It's a very, very lucrative business. I have a few good tips for printing on Fuji minilabs if anyone is thinking of using them, however they directly affect the amount of work the person running the lab has to do so I'd only give it to regulars

This is quite interesting, I only took a real interest in photography by the time digital was really coming into its own, although i did get enjoyment out of looking at pictures etc it was mainly family/holiday snaps.

When i think now about the bags and bags of pictures in my parents attic, and the loads of images that my wife took around about the start of our relationship the only ones that still get brought out and looked at/talked about are the ones where someone took a little more time to make sure they got quality prints (at least in terms of a high street level).
My mrs especially could be quite anal about how she wanted her prints done, Matte, White border etc. and was quite happy to pay a little extra, or wait a little longer to recieve them.

I wonder how many other people, possibly without realising it, actually do this too?
Is it simply about giving people even a little education on the matter? i.e instead of "MEGA FAST ULTRA INSTANT PRINTS 99c!!!!" should the onus of the advertising be on quality? or is it too late for that?

Rb

Eirebear wrote: »

This is quite interesting, I only took a real interest in photography by the time digital was really coming into its own, although i did get enjoyment out of looking at pictures etc it was mainly family/holiday snaps.

When i think now about the bags and bags of pictures in my parents attic, and the loads of images that my wife took around about the start of our relationship the only ones that still get brought out and looked at/talked about are the ones where someone took a little more time to make sure they got quality prints (at least in terms of a high street level).
My mrs especially could be quite anal about how she wanted her prints done, Matte, White border etc. and was quite happy to pay a little extra, or wait a little longer to recieve them.

I wonder how many other people, possibly without realising it, actually do this too?
Is it simply about giving people even a little education on the matter? i.e instead of "MEGA FAST ULTRA INSTANT PRINTS 99c!!!!" should the onus of the advertising be on quality? or is it too late for that?

Ah, it's too late for that I believe It would be ineffective too given that the people seeking these ultra-fast, ultra-cheap prints tend to not really appreciate a "good" photograph. They point-snap and then look at it once, go "Oh that's lovely", back into the folder and away she goes until (generally) one of the people in the photo dies. I kid you not

One of the very best examples of people being more interested in speed and price, than quality, is Redeye. Most, if not all, digital cameras come with some sort of software that will generally include a redeye tool. If not, I'm positive there is free tools available online for it. Nevertheless, there is a redeye tool on self-service kiosks which involves hitting edit->RedEye and then bringing the screen to the eyes in need of repair and hitting "more".

Now, customer will often ask is there a way of getting rid of redeye from their photos, to which I explain how to do it through the kiosk. When they hear that there's about 20 seconds of work involved per photo, they usually bawlk at the thought and question why there isn't a tool to do the lot in batch, or could I not do it through the computers at the desk before it goes through the printer (no). Once they hear that they may have to spend 10 minutes on their photos to obtain a greater quality shot, they just leave it and instead print photos full of red-eye.

Another example is mass-printing in itself. Most customers who print a significant number of prints have never looked at the pictures on their memory cards, a lot don't even know where the card is in the camera and have to be shown, who then go to the machine and press "select all" and print the lot off. Not interested in the quality, not even interested that the kiosks will crop their photos to suit the size/ratio that they've selected, they just print everything off to get it done and again, never look at them again. I've even had scores of people printing huge 18x12 photos who didn't mean to, but they were in such a "rush" that they neglected to notice that they'd chosen that size and as a consequence paid, well, an awful lot more than what they had intended to.

Even a lot of people ordering large prints (above A4 or so) aren't even bothered about what kind of paper is being used, as long as it's done before their "deadline". Minilabs can be extremely good tools to photographers with a bit of knowledge on how to approach the situation, again which I'll explain to any regular here if they're interested.

The best part, for a professional photographer anyway, is that they can arrange prints with a client, run off to a minilab without worry over the quality because at the end of the day, even a lot of those paying a few grand don't notice or particularly care, and all those wedding albums sitting in peoples attics gathering dust, which they paid a premium for, are a testimony to that

stcstc

i must say although my clients are primarly not general public clients

prints are growing for me, in a huge way

but, its not retail general public

i think a big problem with the public is actually inflicted by those kind of mass sell cheap places

the more of that marketing you see, people expect everything to be that price

but i would say kinda keen amateur type photogs are starting to turn away from places like photobox and coming to people like me

but to contradict myself a little, when places like repro35 go down the toilet, that kinda implies the the semi pro and pros are doing something else too

ozymandius

Rb - please share the knowledge. I haven't plucked up enough courage to go to the likes of Steve, instead I will run off prints through Conns/Fuji and some of the resuts are quite disappointing. So much so that I'm nervous about going the next step up. Balanced colour scenes - i.e. lots of every colour - come out fine and match my monitor, but B/W and paler duotone images come out looking quite sick. Yellow/green tint on them. Any way past that?

Covey

ozymandius wrote: »

Rb - please share the knowledge. I haven't plucked up enough courage to go to the likes of Steve, insted I will run off prints through Conns/Fuji and some of the resuts are quite disappointing. So much so that I'm nervous about going the next step up. Balanced colour scenes - i.e. lots of every colour - come out fine and match my monitor, but B/W and paler duotone images come out looking quite sick. Yellow/green tint on them. Any way past that?

Just picked up a B/W print from Steve and all I can say is wow! No tint, and a great range of tones. Super!.

Rb

Tbh, where possible I'd recommend using Steve. The biggest reason is that minilabs, despite the printer costing up to a quarter of a million, is only as good as the staff that keep it. Unfortunately a lot of minilab staff aren't bothered and consequently the machine doesn't get cleaned. Black/white shouldn't be coming out like that at all.

The Fuji machines require daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, half yearly and yearly maintenence which is beyond the effort of most minilab staff from what I've experienced. Where possible (I don't work there full time) I keep our machine as clean as possible and maintain it to a far superior state than most, as confirmed by another member who has been working in the company for over 10 years.

The same can't be said of a lot of staff though and despite the Fuji printers being, quite frankly, amazing machines, if they're dirty and unmaintained it knocks the balance in the machine off which will wreck photos.

So yeah, I'd say contact Steve. I haven't had the chance to use him myself but by all accounts here his service is amazing and if you look at his pricelist, it's very competitive with photolabs for everything 8"x10"+.

DK32

If it helps any I can tell you my experience from today

I called in to meet Steve and to give him a couple of files.
I wanted 1 print and the other printed & framed.

After he had sorted out his other clients, (he was busy putting the finishing touches on 10 frames for a lady) we sat down in his office and viewed the files together on screen. Both images looked almost the same as they did on my own screens, so I was happy they were not too off the mark on colour etc...

We discussed different mount options and I told him the kind of look I had in mind.
Steve had no reservations about giving me his opinion on how best to present them which given his experience on the subject matter, I think it was sound advice. He showed me the kind of frame he would use and gave me the approximate size of the mount etc...

Having been to meet Steve, seeing him at work & seeing the quality of the prints he had there, I am very excited & confident I will be delighted with my stuff when I pick it up next week

My overall opinion is one I believe that has been aired by many here on boards. I immediately had a feeling of being in a professional set up and that I was dealing with someone who puts a great deal of care and attention into the work he produces. I think it's rare these days to walk into any kind of shop & receive that level of interaction & service.

To me as a customer is worth it's weight in gold

CabanSail

When we did the Boards Exhibition last year I think it showed a few people that printing a photograph gives it a whole new dimension. The print has a huge amount more resolution & is also a tangible thing.

Getting the image from camera, processed & then printed is the full journey. There are some images that just will not make the full trip, but it's a shame if none of them do.

I use Steve for nearly all my printing now as you know that he understands the quality required. You can talk to him & get good advice. You can also ask him to preview images to let you know if he sees any obvious problems.

Recently Steve went away on holidays (how dare he?) and I needed some prints done in a hurry. I went to PhotoCare in Abbey St & found them quite helpful too. One tip I found out the hard way was to do with using those kiosks. I had the images I wanted to print in a special directory, but these things are made for Numpties. So there I was with a 16GB USB Key with some 800 images on it & having to wait 15 minutes while it downloaded every bloody photo. The staff there were very helpful though they were more expensive than Steve for the larger prints.

cnocbui

Well I still shoot mostly slide film. When I have a shot I want a really good print of, I send away to a lab to get a Cibachrome print done.

For all other prints I might want, I print them myself on my Canon and get generally better and more consistant quality than using a mini-lab.

Cibachrome still rules.

DaireQuinlan

cnocbui wrote: »

Well I still shoot mostly slide film. When I have a shot I want a really good print of, I send away to a lab to get a Cibachrome print done.

Where do you get them done ? Cost ? From what I've read about it, it's a fairly time consuming process. I'd be tempted to dabble myself but it's also sorta pricey, and the chemicals aren't as benign as I'd like.

stcstc

one of the guys in our camera club has started experimenting with ilfrachrome

its mad mad money per print as the cost of chems and paper etc are very pricey

but they do look good

DaireQuinlan

stcstc wrote: »

one of the guys in our camera club has started experimenting with ilfrachrome

its mad mad money per print as the cost of chems and paper etc are very pricey

but they do look good

OTOH, I've discovered whilst investigating the above, that RA4 stuff is surprisingly cheap. Probably because of its ubiquity. I was looking into shooting 8x10 paper negatives using ilfachrome, but I might mess around instead with RA4 and reversal processing. It's all a matter, apparently, of getting the in-camera filtration right. Bit haphazard.

cnocbui

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Where do you get them done ? Cost ? From what I've read about it, it's a fairly time consuming process. I'd be tempted to dabble myself but it's also sorta pricey, and the chemicals aren't as benign as I'd like.

I get them done by BPD Photech in the UK. Here is their price list:

http://www.bpdphotech.com/P_hand_printing.asp

I had some done by a lab in Dublin once, but went straight back to using these people.