[JohnR]

For the first time, I've been looking critically at the quality of the prints I can get from my digital photos. And my realization is that, for the most part, it's not all that good.

Compare the two 1-1 (at 300 dpi) crops scanned from prints below. Which one is from a professional quality printing house?

I'd have to say, to anyone getting prints made from digital photos, even just for family snapshots, do a critical evaluation of a few suppliers, you may find spending a bit more for better quality well worth it.

[AdamM]

There's plenty of variance between print houses.  Amazing amounts!

Try to see what gear the labs have, and how involved they are with the printing process.  The Fuji Frontier machines seem to do the best job, in auto mode. Their software and auto exposure analysis is the best of the bunch.

Better printing houses will hand adjust for exposure and subject failure, giving a better overall yield.  Higher quality labs calibrate their machines more often too.  You pay for that though...

Another thing to note is print archival times.  Fuji paper is pretty linear out to 70+ years of (simulated) aging.  Very little colour change.  Kodak paper is notoriously bad, with strong magenta drifts starting at about 8-10 years, depending on how clean (and how many) wash tanks the prints ran through.   The Fuji Frontier machines have an extra wash tank over many Kodak and Noritsu machines (the three most common).  Even though it says 'archival' on the back of some Kodak paper, it's actually an optimistic statement that differs from reality.

A pro lab in my hometown was getting sued by some pro photographers because their prints were fading in 7-8 years.  A competitors prints weren't, and it all came down to the paper and wash process, with the paper as the major factor.

[PhilNYC]

Where are you getting your prints from?

[JohnR]

The better print was from http://www.c41express.com.au/. I'm going to try a place in Victoria that does "fine art" prints and see how those look as well (for larger sizes).

Adam, interestingly enough, both prints are on the same paper (Fuji Crystal Archive). The better one was a D-Lab 2 machine I think... no idea about the other one but I can go look.

I'm assuming you both agree with me about the two crops above, and which one is better...?

[ooheadsoo]

Uh, which one IS better?  I prefer the bottom, but I can easily see some people liking the top.  Bottom has a much more red flesh tone, more details in the background, and the shading on the forehead comes through a lot better for a more 3d look, whereas the top one looks like some lady who's never seen the sun or has a ton of makeup on.  The higher contrast makes it pop, more, though.

[JohnR]

What do others think? (And why?)

[MarkR7]

I've been using Mpix.com for quite a while, and have been very happy with the quality of the prints I have gotten back.  Not the cheapest, but top notch quality.  

It is important to note that you should try to calibrate your computer monitor brightness, contrast and colors to the samples provided by whomever you choose to use.

I prefer not to have the shop color-fix on my prints, as I will do that myself.

[nathanm]

The bottom is definitely better.  Top one looks wrong\clipped. Bad cyan highlights in the skin, too contrasty.

[ooheadsoo]

But the contrast MAY look "better" at a distance if it were, say...i dunno what I'm talking about.

[JohnR]

nathanm got it. In both cases I asked for no adjustments, so perhaps the increase in contrast /levels is just what the machines do at the supermarket/mall type of places. The pro places will deliver a straight (calibrated) print off your file if that's what you want.

Anyway, so I'm learning...

[Daygloworange]

I guess at first glance, I would have picked the top one as being better, but now that others have mentioned it, the skin tone is better on the bottom photo.

Interesting perspective from Nathanm though.

I'd like to hear more comments from more of the experienced shutterbugs.

Cheers

[RooX]

The bottom is definitely better.  Top one looks wrong\clipped. Bad cyan highlights in the skin, too contrasty.

i would agree with this statemen, but i dont think either are great.. the bottom one's skin tone is off as well i think.  Too much red/magenta, makes skin look flushed and her hair is a bit tinged with red too.

far preferable to the second.

(just realised i typed this looking on my work monitor, uncalibrated, and quite a piss poor monitor in general)