Photo Processing
 

I suddenly find myself interested in processing prints of my digital photos. In the past I've used my local motophoto but the service and prints have both been fairly lackluster.

PC-mag had an informal review of digital photo processing where they recommended snapfish. I sent in a trial order to snapfish today (10 - 4x6's, 1 - 8x10, and 1 - poster sized). I'll post the results when I get them.

Are there any other shutterbug's out there and if so what are you using to get prints?

We keep meaning to get some printed but haven't. Our plan is to go to Costco. We've heard the quality's good and the price cheap.

My parents have had horrible luck with Costco -- including great big batches of prints with heads totally cut off at the top and big chunks of white space at the bottom. Colors have been way off. Might just be regional variation, but no one in our family gets photos at Costco any more.

Eric could certainly contribute a lot to this thread, having managed a photo center for 12 years, but he is at work. I do know that anytime you have machine processed film you are going to have (generally) less than perfect results. That's why it costs less. When the photos are hand processed by a real person, particularily one with experience and a good eye for color and detail, they will turn out much better. They can detect flaws in lighting, color imbalances (either machine or human error) and even correct damaged photos. It costs more, but if you are interested in the best images possible, it's worth it.

Ofoto.com is Kodak's online photo site where you can order prints. You might check there too if you're going the online route.

I have a photo printer at home that I use when I want prints, but I'm limited to size.

I used to use Seattle Filmworks (now called Photpworks) for all of my film and I know they've expanded their offerings. They always did a really great job with film.

Thanks for the info.

Both Snapfish and Photpworks offer 20 free prints to get you started so I have placed orders with both for comparison. I'll post a review between the two when I receive the photos. Ofoto did not seem to have a free trial.

Nice continuation of my lovely typo. ;)

Doh! That's just me. I never even noticed it was a typo.

Ofoto had a free offer when I signed up. I signed up and put my photos online and they emailed the offer to the email account I registered with them. Of course, I never took advantage of the offer.

I have seen some good results from shutterfly(not mine, other peoples). I print my own prints at home, unless I need larger then 11x14, then I go to the local giant photo processing business and have them print them. Costco supposedly had some of the highest quality printers available, but I guess based on the reviews given in this thread, some of the stores must not care too much about their output.

That's all I got.

See, that's what I heard too. I guess when we finally do get around to doing it, we'll start with a small batch to confirm the quality.

Also on the costco thread, color profiling is very important for any digital photo printing(applies also to the online solutions). The colors you see on your monitor may not be exactly the same colors that end up being printed unless you have your monitor "tuned" and have a color workflow set up. Basically, don't trust that what you see on your monitor is exactly what you will see in your prints unless you have done the work to make sure your monitor colors are accurate. That may be some of the issues with costco printouts, but can't confirm it as I don't know all the individual issues.

The color profile and workflow issue is one of the main reasons that I print my own prints, I have spent a lot of time making sure my monitor and printer colors match. And when I print at an outside vendor, I either make sure to get a test print, or view it on thier monitor(as I am sure that the vendors that I use have a monitor tuning ritual as well) to make sure the colors are accurate.

I use costco. They come out great and I only have to wait an hour for them. :)

I don't take the virgin prints in from the disc though. I always edit/clean up...the ones I want prints of. I love the quality of costco. :).

Partial Results...

My test prints from photoworks were the first to arrive. The quality rocks compared to my local photo shop. I'm still waiting for the prints/poster from snapfish. I also received an email from photoworks offering 30 more free prints. Given that I’m sitting on almost 2,000 shots from Alaska I snapped up that offer. Stay tuned for more updates as events warrant....

I went to the site you posted {photoworks} and their prices are great.

I take both 35mm and digital with an SD card. I also make cd's of my film to manipulate the photos better after.

I have used a lot of different places. Currently, I use Sav-On's 30 minute Kodak processing. I love it because, as was stated, when someone does it by hand it is much better. Well, the ladies there are great and do a fantastic job.

The digital. Well, I don't use theirs as it is .29 a print and Wal-mart is .19.

I had used Costco {East Chula Vista branch} and they did cut the photos, they didn't always come out so great. AND other times with the 35mm prints they would f up and say they hadn't. I remember making a set of 3 prints and two came out crappy and one came out clear. They told me it was my camera??? I had to go down and argue the point, it was about 4 rolls of film. Also, an enlargment I had done looked nothing {color wise} as the original. Does anyone know if this is from being enlarged {35mm} or because of their processing? It was only an 8X10 and it totally turned me off from making more large prints.

But, yesterday we did make an 8X10 enlargment of a print of the Yosemite Falls in winter, at Wal-Mart and it came out crisp and clear.

Thanks for the links on here, this is great information. I have more prints to make up and I think I will try this as the price is the same. If the quality is better, then I need to.

AND a question, since this is a picture thread~ how do you guys print up your Buzz Lightyear photos? I copied them on to a Bitmap and then my SD card and printed them up. Not too clear. Help!!

its them being lazy, if they took the time and made sure the color was adjusted correctly when they made the enlargement, it would have come out fine. On reason I go to stores that specialize in photography, they generally know what they are doing and take the time to do it right and are generally consistent with their output.
Walmart sucks, (just had to say it) :p

But don't be surprised if the next time you use them, you end up with poor results, its the nature of going somewhere where they may or may not know what they are doing.

Ah! So see, that is one reason why I quit Costco. Personally, I felt like they had too much business to care about mine. My pictures are extensions of myself. Yeah, they aren't that great looking either.

Okay, I think I will find that darn negative and make another enlargement. It is of Lake Tahoe and if you know Tahoe you know their sunsets are awesome and this one was especially so.

Yeah, Wal-Mart sucks. I agree. But, then again, as you said, specialty stores can be expensive.

Okay. :confused: Another photo question to you wonderful people:

I do take a lot of pictures. It sounds like you do as well. Is it beneficial, to the end product, to lug around a tripod? Not for every single shot but it seems I have some that I think, Darn it, that really could have been more clear. Just something that went through my head today....

A small tripod is always nice to have. Barring that, you can try a setting the timer, so your depression of the shutter button doesn't shake the camera...

Funny you should ask. I've just started carrying a mini-tripod with me on important outings. It's handy for both my digital camera and my spiffy new camcorder. Very light and easy to carry I used it for a number of shots on my last trip.

In the work that I do with photography, I find a tripod unnecessary. But my work always uses a flash and relatively fast shutter speeds. A tripod would be usefull for low light/slow shutter speed situations(i.e. shooting the castle at DL at night) or extremely close up where minut detail is important(floral photography, extremely close up). 99% of the time, I work hard to make sure that my shutter speed is fast enough to minimize any camera shake.

Oh, and in my opinion, the added expense of the "specialty" shops is generally worth it, especially if you shop around, and find a shop that looks like they know what they are doing, and has decent prices. Most the time these days, for me at least, when I need a job printed outside of my own abilities, the expense of the specialty shop is effectively being paid by someone else anyway(read: my client).

Thanks for your responses about the tripod, peoples.

I do have one of those tiny tripods that you attach to the bottom of the camera. I have only used it so far for taking pictures where I also want to be in them. I never thought of setting it up and taking a picture just for the steadiness.

Are you all talking about a different type of tripod?

Ah, that I had a more elaborate camera. Mine is basic, the nicest thing is that the zoom is pretty good.

Ah, alas alack, I am my own customer Name. {And, I have no other job besides snapping photos and being someone people around here can count on...hopefully...} I have no clients only friends/family whom I love to give prints to and that adds to my costs. This time, though, with the digital prints, I only made doubles of ones that I am giving my son for him personal album

That photoworks, wow. I looked more at what they have to offer. I see they can make canvas pictures. So ironic because on our trip through Big Sur we came across an artists collection of photos of Big Sur and such that they had put on canvas. They were awesome. I said to the Hubster that I had photos that I'd love to see on canvas. Oh man, this can be addicting!!!

I wish we had a specialty shop that did it's own film processing. My local shop implied that they did, but when I requested my slide fil to be processed in c-41 chemistry as if it were regular film and make prints out of it they gave me back slides...processed as slides. i was so mad, because it was a location shoot that I couldn't do again. then they tol me, "oh, we send it out, but we had instructions on it."...yeah...great...

Yeah, it sucks that small towns sometimes don't have enough demand to afford to invest in the equipment to process film in house.

The results of my personal photo test are in.

Just to review, I sent a set of vacation photos off to Snapfish, Photoworks, my local MotoPhoto, and got one from a Canon photo printer

Sitting here with all the photos in front of me, it's easy to pick Photoworks as the clear winner.

The print from photoworks shows the sky as blue, the tundra as green and the mountain as snowy white. The other prints show a bluish-gray sky and faded grass.


Photoworks now carries the prestigious if rather obscure Moonliner Seal of approval!

If you are interested you can view one of my full sized origional test photo online.

My test protocol was that of the average consumer, which is to say lazy. I just took the image file and sent it in. I did not photoshop it or do anything else to pre-enhance the image.


Note the "Moonliner seal of approval" is a registered trademark of, well, err, umm, no one actually.

Moonie, I'm so happy Photoworks worked out. Like I said, I used to use them for ALL of my film processing and loved their quality. I'm glad that to know they've kept up their standards.

That's a nice photo. (can I steal it?)

I Moonliner do hereby grant name non-exclusive rights to use my photograph titled "Wow, I saw the F'n mountain!!!" for any use public or private that floats his boat. :D

lol