Guide: Achieve better print quality from your digital captures.

Consider this a Christmas gift to my fellow Olympus using friends.

I was almost ready to reply to another post where someone expressed being unsatisfied with the print results from their lab. Then it occurred to me. I have put a lot of time and effort into understanding how to achieve proper color calibration and good print results over the last 10+ years, so why not share my knowledge with the rest of you! I really hope this helps many to achieve better print results from your files in 2009 and beyond!

A little background on myself: My passion for this subject takes me back 10+ years to my college days when I was studying animation, illustration, and multi-media. So I am quite comfortable in the digital space with hardware and with photoshop and the concepts behind what makes digital tick on a visual/creative level. Even though my career path took me in a much different path than my original degree, it's very much still a passion of mine today. I just recently (July 08) got semi-serious with photography, and my first ever D-SLR purchase, so I am certainly not the best photographer on here, still learning the basics of that art, but this isn't pertaining to being a better photographer anyway.

The 10 Rules: (Sorry, but there is no "simple" 20 word response to proper print matching)

1. 1: You must first be certain that what you are viewing on screen is accurate if you want to compare it to the finished result of your lab (or photo printer). If you edit your photos in an inaccurate environment you are bound for disaster come print time regardless if you print at home or in a lab. This is #1 because if you are not absolutely certain you are viewing photos on your monitor with color accuracy then statements like: My lab/printer bites because the prints do not match what I saw on screen is immediately a moot point.

1. 2: If you choose to print in a lab, as I prefer, you must be careful in your choice of photo labs. I love that many of you choose local labs, but if you are using target, walgreens, cvs, walmart, costco, sams, or anywhere that might hire people to run their lab based on how cheaply they will work then don't be expecting perfection or consistency. The good news is that you can find proper labs online or often times locally that charge similar prices compared to these other labs and offer superior results. They are often run by professionals with a passion for photography and a deep understanding of the equipment they operate.

1. 3: Understand the requirements of your lab and provide files which meet these requirements. For example both mpix and adoramapix request that you provide 8-bit SRGB color space files (typically jpeg or tiff) preferably with 300dpi for the best quality of the print size you order. ASK your lab these questions, if the person can't answer with confidence it's time to find a different lab (see #2 about lowest wage workers). As a side note, getting close to 300 dpi is usually not a problem to provide from our 10MP sensors all the way up to 11x14 prints, of course depending greatly on how much you cropped the original image as well... actually you should expect wonderful results as low as 150dpi in most circumstances. To properly up-size a photo I recommend careful consideration of the method you choose. It's really not recommended if you shoot jpeg, but for RAW shooters you can upsize quite successfully with something like the photoshop plugin "genuine fractals".

1. 4: Many labs either manually or through automated software algorithms "optimize" your submitted files to look "great" on paper. This includes many of the automated steps you can already do yourself in photoshop, lightroom, or other editing software like auto contrast/color/tone/white balance etc. This is usually a great option for someone wanting to take the jpeg files directly out of camera to the lab and have them processed.. but that's not the type of person who is going to complain that the print doesn't match what they see on screen. If you are like me, I spend lots of time making certain my photos have the look I want, and am confident through careful calibration and setup that my lcd monitor is showing accurate results. Many of these "quick" labs you have locally do not offer the option to send the file to the printer untouched by these optimizations, or do not hire staff with the knowledge to do so, you will need to ask if it's an option. If it's not then it's very much possible after all your careful work that your file will be modified for what you intended and the print results with not match what's on screen! Find a lab that knows how to send your files untouched through the printer with confidence. Again, online labs like mpix and adoramapix offer the option during the order process to request no optimization be done.

1. 5: Proper pro-quality photo labs will have available, for your use, color profiles for their printers/paper that should help you see what your image results will look like on paper. This is done through a process called "soft proofing" and photoshop makes it fairly easy to do, and many other photo editors can soft proof as well. I am not going to get into details on the process, but you can google soft proofing to find out more. I have had mixed results with soft proofing myself. I have found that properly calibrating to the srgb environment is usually good enough.. which leads to the next rule.

See Part 2 for the additional rules..

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/

1. 6: Photo paper (be it ink jet or pro lab silver-halide exposed) can't match the brightness/luminance of your typical monitor out of box. It is suggested that that you set the luminance of your monitor to between 110-130 cd/m2 to get a decent print match when comparing prints viewed under a proper photo light box to those on screen. The catch is most people have the brightness level of their monitor WAY too HIGH. My monitor I think shipped with a 50 brightness setting, but to achieve the correct luminance level on my monitor I had to lower that to 9-10. Many or your more expensive hardware calibration devices can measure and report this luminance level for you, but my huey pro does not. I found a forum online where someone with a more expensive eye one device and the same model monitor as myself measured that setting brightness to 9 or 10 gave proper results and have been happy with this setting. It's also much easier on my eyes as a result!

1. 7: Proper environment lighting is also important. You do not want light from a window or lamps hitting your screen directly and causing unneeded glare. I personally find that indirect lighting is the best and prefer to back-light my monitor with a small desk lamp running a 6500k (daylight white balance) compact florescent bulb. This light comes very close to the light you would receive from a window and is the same color temperature at which you should calibrate your display (6500k).

1. 8: Shoot and learn how to properly process RAW, because memory and drive space is cheap. For your most critical work you owe it to yourself to have the original RAW file to work with, because 100% of the original captures' dynamic range, color, and resolution is housed in this file. You always lose some of this data in the jpeg conversion. It's like shooting film, getting your prints made at a local lab, then throwing away your negatives! Now with digital you don't have all the complexities of properly storing film negatives. Modern Olympus cameras also utilize compression technology on the RAW files and on my E-520 they average about 8-9MB a piece, not much more than the average 6MB for each high quality/fine jpeg out of the same camera.

1. 9: Work in a wide color space and lossless format right up until the final print output. I personally utilize lightroom and photoshop for most of my work and use the ProPhoto RGB 16-bit color space exclusively while all editing is done. This is performed on the original RAW file or the TIFF format, because editing while in 8-bit jpeg causes each edit/save you make to the file a little more loss of quality since jpeg is not a lossless format. Therefore you are automatically at a disadvantage if you just shoot jpeg. Only at the very end of the process when I want output for print or web viewing do I save a copy as SRGB 8-bit jpeg. This ensures non-destruction of image quality.

1. 10: Stop pixel peeping! Seriously it's so stress inducing and pointless in many regards. I am one of the most picky/perfectionist type persons I know when it comes to getting things "perfect", but some of the pixel peeping on this forum takes my obsession for perfection to a level that would cause any sane person mental harm! I recommend if you have a file on your screen that you are intending to print at 8x10 that your zoom to the proper % on screen to see the file at that size (Have a ruler handy to verify). This is the very best way to determine how it's going to look in print, and isn't print the ultimate result? because even web output is much smaller than 100% zoom. That imperfection that you see at 100% zoom that keeps you loosing sleep at night probably will not even be noticeable if you just scale back the zoom level to a real-world output level.. so why again are you stressing over it?

Please see Part 3 as this continues..

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/

Now, if you have gotten this far you might be wondering how do I choose a proper monitor for my photo needs? Let me say this, your choices are limited depending on your budget. My 24" choice (HP LP2475w) represents a pretty high cost vs performance value in the 24" size catagory, but panels like mine based on IPS technology are both expensive and hard to find. PVA panel technology is a good second choice, but TN based panels should NEVER ever be used for any type of semi-serious photo work, just shifting your head an inch up/down left/right can cause serious shifts in color and contrast on screen. These TN panels make great gaming monitors because if the high refresh rates/low latency. MOST monitors are TN based, and typically you can tell if the panel is TN based quickly by just finding the view angle in the specs of the monitor. TN panels typically have a view angle of 160 degrees, while IPS/PVA offers typically 178 degrees. Try searching for the monitor of interest in either http://www.flatpanels.dk/panels.php or http://www.tftcentral.co.uk search database to determine the panel type.

Top pro-level lcd's designed for color accurate work ship with their own color calibration hardware, but I can't afford $2000+ for a monitor. I recommend you check out your options for hardware calibration like huey pro, spyder, eye one devices if like me you are on a budget.

Almost all laptop screens are TN based and very poor for accuracy in proofing your work for print. It's probably best to have a proper calibrated external monitor to do your color critical work on.

I prefer my prints to be exposed on real silver-halide based color or b&w papers as opposed to inkjet. It's a personal preference, but I could never see myself offering a client something printed injet (if I ever get good enough to have someone pay me for a print!) You simply can't beat the quality and longevity of professional silver-halide based photo paper like Kodak Supra Endura when properly exposed using quality chemicals and properly calibrated laser-based exposure printers (like the Durst Lambda or Theta series). Inkjets offer excellent quality, but even the best epson printers and papers can't match a "real" print especially if you compare them side by side 50 years from now. Fine art papers and prints are a different story, those lend themselves well to pro-level inkjet technology. You need to find a quality photo lab that understands their equipment, color calibrates their equipment several times a day and works in a fully color managed environment. I recommend for regular users like myself a lab like mpix or adoramapix for best results.

I might also mention as I end this, that I would recommend you also spend time learning about proper sharpening techniques for your digital files, because there are very different methods to properly sharpen a photo based on personal taste and intended output such as print vs screen viewing. But that could be an entire subject on it's own. I want to scream when I hear people complain about the "soft" results they get from a E-520/420. I would much rather have that soft/anti-aliased result out of camera that lends itself much better to post process sharpening than the aliased mess you get as an output with some digital cameras.

I guess this has probably been way more long winded then I ever intended, but I really hope it helps many to get better print results. I'm sure there are things I forgot to add, but it really isn't a "simple" answer and takes quite a bit of knowledge of many different aspects to achieve the very best results. I will try my best as time allows to answer questions/add clarification in subsequent posts here.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/

--
Tim
'I haven't been everywhere, but it's on my list.'
E3/E410/7-14/12-60/50-200/50/EC-14/C8080
http://www.flickr.com/photos/timskis6/

Dale, thanks for sharing your knowledge with us!

--
'When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at
his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it.
Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two,
and I know it was not that blow that did it,
but all that had gone before.'
-- Jacob Riis (1849 - 1914)

Stay Well,
Pete K.

I do use the Main Fuji LAB on Oahu Hawaii ... and use Kings Photo for Kodak Endura.
That being said, I do use Costco for a lot of things ...
Because it is fast and cheap.

I will even do print samples at Costco , to better illistrate "how" I want a Kodak Endura 16x20 competiton print to be printed. (something I learned is a must do, just recently lol)

• Key (said by the OP), is hardware Monitor Calibration ... imho, this cannot be said enough. You cannot seriously control your print without regular Monitor Calibrations.

Also good to Calibrate and use Monitor in the same light (I do it, in almost darkness).

• Second imho ... Print to a LAB that you can Print to the SAME Printer all the time and Print with NO Adjustments. Then, this offsite printer becomes the same as any of your on site printers. (but, you get to use an Expensive and Updated printer .. in most cases) ... I have also found that it is cheaper to do , say at Costco. (vs having inks go bad, cleaning using more ink , and tips getting clogged).

fyi: Costco "will" let you print with "NO Adjustments" ... and will let you print to a specific Printer at your local Costco (they put you on a LIST, if you are a regualr printer there). My preferance at Costco is there newer Noritsu 3411 , which you can download the custom printer profile for them on there web site.

The 12x18 at $2.99 is cheap and let's you see all the detail ... and if I upload the file to the web site, I can jump in my car,drive down and most of the time not beat the print.

• IF, you print with no adjustments , and to the same printer ... & have a calibrated monitor ... Your output from Lightroom v2 (to JPG) with output print sharpening (normal) ON ... will be very, very close if not dead on. and all you have to do is tweak from there, just as you would a printer on your desk.

(soft proof in PS might not even be nessasary , I don't)

HG

--

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

Love f2 Oly lens wide open ... 14-35mm f2, & a 50mm f2+1.4TC is my fav. combo on two 'IS' oly bodys.

Thanks for this. I am familiar with much of it, but there is quite a bit that I had not heard. I know many will find this extremely helpful!
Billy
http://www.wcgreen.net
--
'Talent does what it can. Genius does what it must.'

E-3, HLD-4 grip, BlackRapid Strap, 35-100mm f2, FL-50, Lowepro
350 Fastpack, Lowepro Toploader 75, MacBook Pro 17', Coming Soon: 14-35mm f2

I'm bookmarking this !!
--
Roel Hendrickx
--
UK (+abroad) Olympus Photo Safari Group ( http://www.ukphotosafari.org/ )

E-3 user field report from Tunisian Sahara: http://www.biofos.com/ukpsg/roel.html

Good quality, useful information which can be utilised by anyone on the forum who needs it.

Thanks very much for posting, I learned quite a bit and just at a time when I've bought a new monitor and calibration kit. Perfect timing.

All the best for 2009 ....
--
Ingrid

If the grass is greener on the other side of the fence ....
WATER YOUR OWN LAWN !!!
http://ingridmatschke.smugmug.com

HG does indeed bring up a good point that I want to address before I unintentionally offend anyone and their choice of print lab or someone that works at a print lab. Costco does indeed easily allow prints to be sent straight through with no adjustments, also allows you to pick the specific printer you want, and readily provides profiles for all of the printers they use at each location. The point is, monitor calibration comes first, then if you find a local lab that provides consistent results from your monitor to print, that's a big plus, regardless of who they are! Local also offers immense convenience over mail order and if they screw up it's easier to have them reprinted locally.

Maybe it's just me, but I would also like to note, that I find the results I get from labs that utilize Kodak Endura vs Fuji Crystal Archive or equivalent papers offer a better quality to my eyes in color and also in the quality feel of the paper, again maybe it's just me or the labs I have experienced. You can get 4x6 prints on Kodak Endura Lustre finish paper for 0.19 a print online... that's not much more than the cheapest of the 4x6 options that typically utilize cheaper papers for those prices. I also find the look of lustre finish rivals the richness of a glossy print while offering the advantage of a matte print in reduction of reflection and fingerprint resistance.. a best of both worlds so to speak.

I mentioned PVA type panels above, I also wanted to add that it also includes MVA panel types in that "group", but I forgot to list it specifically. Basically anything but TN and you are doing good, with IPS being the 'ultimate' for photo work.

When calibrating a monitor, it is also crucial that you allow the panel to warm up fully before you do so. To be safe I recommend 15-20 minutes of use before you calibrate. the newest LED based back lighting LCD displays are almost instant 'on' and do not really require a warm-up period, but I would still give one a few minutes to warm up just to be safe. The same advice would go in regards to working with files on your monitor, allow a sufficient warm up period before making any critical color decisions.

Also a wise decision to not calibrate in a brightly lit room, doesn't need to be completely dark, but low indirect lighting for sure, turn out the lights for this step if possible and reduce the chance of outside lighting from influencing the calibration. When working at the monitor it's still probably best to work with a low level indirect lighting to reduce eye strain vs working in complete darkness.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/

Deeply appreciated. Thanks, Dale, one of my best Christmas gifts.

This was very informative.
Your efforts are deeply appreciated.

I'm glad you enjoyed this! Hope it helps in the future.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/

Gidday Dale

Thanks for the info, and even more so for the time it takes to put this sort of thing together so that the knowledge you have is not lost.

As others have already said, a much-appreciated 'Christmas gift' from you to us.

Like other aspects of the digital workflow, colour management is a nightmare for most of us! Probably why Blatner & Fraser devote so much of "Real World Adobe Photoshop CS" to this matter. Just a bit easier to read your thoughts than about 600 of the 957 pages of the latter ...

I am currently (as I type this, open in a Word document) working on a digital workflow document about file management. I did a lot of the basic stuff a couple of months ago, and then got side-tracked ... The original is on my web site, below.

Reading up on the suggested workflow by the author of FastStone Viewer caused me to go back to my rough draft. While what he has suggested is OK, it can get messy if used as suggested.

I have now changed my folder naming conventions so that they will collate correctly and properly, and also accommodate multiple users and camera bodies; changed my file naming convention by adding the camera model to the front of every image file and a few other minor things. Of course, this entailed changing everything on my three external HDDs as well to save deleting my backups ( ... NOoo ... ) and re-backing up. So this part of the exercise took several days.

Of course, I am having trouble confining what I am writing to just the digital workflow topic (not like your precise distillation of printing ... ), so have strayed into memory cards and other OT things. I will probably break the document up later into more bite-sized chunks.

Wish me luck! AND thanks again for your gift to us all. I will convert it all to a PDF file when I have finished this. Good work, and I wouldn't want to lose it if the DPR servers have a glitch like the January 2008 "black hole"!

--
Regards, john from Melbourne, Australia.
-- -- --

The Camera doth not make the Man (or Woman) ...
Perhaps being kind to cats, dogs & children does ...

Gallery: http://canopuscomputing.com.au/gallery2/main.php

Hints & Tips (temporary link, as under construction): http://canopuscomputing.com.au/index.php?p=1_9



Bird Control Officers on active service.

Member of UK (and abroad) Photo Safari Group

Dale, great and useful thread ....

Dale Treadway wrote:
The point

Dale Treadway said:

is, monitor calibration comes first, then if you find a local lab
that provides consistent results from your monitor to print, that's a
big plus, regardless of who they are! Local also offers immense
convenience over mail order and if they screw up it's easier to have
them reprinted locally.

Click to expand...

There is many benifits to "local" ... the closer the better.

When, you can Upload to there web site and drive right over ... it's like having the printer on your Desk.

The benifits of a "good" lab diminish ... IF and only IF , you print with NO ADJUSTMENTS.

"Then" the KEY is ... if you like the Printers output and paper ... and IF they maintain the printer correctly.

imho, because of the Costco's volume .. you might veiw it as a positive or a negative. From what I hear , they maintain there printers as often as anyone (they can afford to ... and sometimes that is what it comes down to).

and IF you choose there newest printer ... Noritsu 3411 for my location ... your results will be very consistant.

and for me "consistancy" is the most important, as important (if not more) than the small differances in IQ that might turn up between LABS. (and that clients might not notice) ... IF, again ... you are contolling the print (with NO ADJ)

• the huge differances I see, is due to LAB human error. Or maybe the software they are using. (and allowing the LAB to do your adjustments)

Dale Treadway said:

Maybe it's just me, but I would also like to note, that I find the
results I get from labs that utilize Kodak Endura vs Fuji Crystal
Archive or equivalent papers offer a better quality to my eyes in
color and also in the quality feel of the paper, again maybe it's
just me or the labs I have experienced. You can get 4x6 prints on
Kodak Endura Lustre finish paper for 0.19 a print online

Click to expand...

Ok, you are not going to see me crit Kodak Endura lol .... It's great!

but, Costco prints for 0.13 Fuji paper (6 cents diff each) thats almost a 50% increase from the Costco price. and that adds up quickly.
Then, if there is any Shipping Costs ... Differances, the gap gets wider.

fyi: I have printed Costco on-line as little as one(1) 4x6 ... as a test print. Not, sure if doing that is benificial with on-line/mail to LABS.

and When it is mounted (or 4x6) the IQ diffeances get smaller.

imho, the differances are FAR greater between a Costco Print (no adj) and one done on your desktop Printer.

... that's

Dale Treadway said:

not much more than the cheapest of the 4x6 options that typically
utilize cheaper papers for those prices. I also find the look of
lustre finish rivals the richness of a glossy print while offering
the advantage of a matte print in reduction of reflection and
fingerprint resistance.. a best of both worlds so to speak.

Click to expand...

Totally agree on the lustre benifits.

But, if you are into "Bright" Colors ... with max sharpness ... Glossy is the way to go. imho

I found it curious ... in a print competition , some of the more experianced photographers printed in "Gloss" Kodak Endura for Bright , Detailed images. I remember thinking, what is going on here?

When it is not under glass ... and you want max bright colors and sharpness ... I think Gloss is the way to go ... along with Lightrooms v2 export Output "Gloss" sharpening.

Please keep in mind I am talking 12x18 prints.

Dale Treadway said:

When calibrating a monitor, it is also crucial that you allow the
panel to warm up fully before you do so. To be safe I recommend 15-20
minutes of use before you calibrate.

Click to expand...

Great point ....

Dale Treadway said:

Also a wise decision to not calibrate in a brightly lit room, doesn't
need to be completely dark, but low indirect lighting for sure, turn
out the lights for this step if possible and reduce the chance of
outside lighting from influencing the calibration. When working at
the monitor it's still probably best to work with a low level
indirect lighting to reduce eye strain vs working in complete
darkness.

Click to expand...

Another good point ...

imho, Whatever light you use to edit images (preferably not tooo bright) ... is what you should Calibrate your monitor in ... imho.

Dale great contribution ... that is what I love about the DPR!
HG

--

Please feel free to criticize, make suggestions, and edit any of my photos & re-post, to help show me 'the way'. * I am trying to Elevate the Level of my 'Snap Shots'

Love f2 Oly lens wide open ... 14-35mm f2, & a 50mm f2+1.4TC is my fav. combo on two 'IS' oly bodys.

It is really useful and has convinced me that spending $900-$1000 on a photo printer is not the best idea when I can probably get better results using a local place (I have been using photobucket printing and trying and failing with my HP inkjet... three colors and black just don't work)... Now to find that local place... ;-)

Hawaii-geek said:

Dale, great and useful thread ....

• the huge differances I see, is due to LAB human error. Or maybe the

software they are using. (and allowing the LAB to do your
adjustments)

Click to expand...

I would not argue here, in a situation where you know that the equipment is properly maintained and adjusted to spec, then you can typically side step any other issues by requesting no adjustments be made to your files.

Hawaii-geek said:

but, Costco prints for 0.13 Fuji paper (6 cents diff each) thats
almost a 50% increase from the Costco price. and that adds up quickly.
Then, if there is any Shipping Costs ... Differances, the gap gets
wider.

Click to expand...

I get the impression you probably base some type of income off of your photography, however I do not. I typically like to order in larger batches, and seldom if ever print 4x6, because photos that are only worthy of a 4x6 to me personally are not worth the wasted space and are better served in an online gallery. I am also based in the continental US, so shipping charges to ship my larger orders can often equal the savings in not paying local taxes. If I were based in HI, believe me the additional shipping costs would also sway me local LOL.

Hawaii-geek said:

Totally agree on the lustre benifits.
But, if you are into "Bright" Colors ... with max sharpness ...
Glossy is the way to go. imho
I found it curious ... in a print competition , some of the more
experianced photographers printed in "Gloss" Kodak Endura for Bright
, Detailed images. I remember thinking, what is going on here?

Click to expand...

Agree, glossy is certainly the king for color pop and sharpness, but then again it's something a normal person/client probably would not notice. In a competition with critical judges and trained eyes, it could make all the difference. It's also a nightmare for fingerprints and reflections, therefore lustre for me offers a nice happy medium. I also love love love the silk surface my online lab offers for printing wallet sized prints, it's perfect for this type of highly handled print. I get a lot of compliments on this type of paper, it's a pity so few labs offer it.

Hawaii-geek said:

Lightrooms v2 export Output "Gloss" sharpening.

Click to expand...

I won't argue there, LR 2's output sharpening is much improved, I personally enjoy the added control of the photoshop plugin Nik Sharpener Pro for my most critical work.

Hawaii-geek said:

Please keep in mind I am talking 12x18 prints.

Click to expand...

Not certain why you would choose a print size that is a perfect no crop option for 2/3 sensors, but I find 11x14 to be much better suited to our 4/3 sensors and must more common to find frames and mats for.

Hawaii-geek said:

imho, Whatever light you use to edit images (preferably not tooo
bright) ... is what you should Calibrate your monitor in ... imho.

Click to expand...

I would agree in a situation where your hardware calibration device did not also include an ambient light sensor, as my huey pro does. It's much less of an issue with changes in ambient lighting as the device makes adjustments to your display if lighting changes.

Hawaii-geek said:

Dale great contribution ... that is what I love about the DPR!
HG

Click to expand...

Thank you, I am hoping it helps many here! It's not exactly easy to just know some of these things without a lot of time, research and trial and error.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/

lloyd007 said:

It is really useful and has convinced me that spending $900-$1000 on
a photo printer is not the best idea when I can probably get better
results using a local place (I have been using photobucket printing
and trying and failing with my HP inkjet... three colors and black
just don't work)... Now to find that local place... ;-)

Click to expand...

I read your previous thread regarding print quality dissatisfaction. Please just remember that you can't rightfully measure monitor to print accuracy unless you first have a monitor of spec and panel type that can be properly hardware calibrated to within acceptable guidelines. Until then you can't be confident enough to send your prints through with no corrections at the lab, and you will never be certain if it was your error or the lab's error.

If you were using photobucket printing that might have been the issue within itself. I don't get the impression that many people critical of accuracy would be utilizing that service. I see that they either allow you to pick up locally via target (great lab for the point and shoot person I am sure) or online via QOOP (which I have no experience with) but either option is probably applying rather random adjustments to your files before print.

This brings up another point, no matter how expensive the hardware calibration devices you throw at some monitors they will never be able to be calibrated accurately. TN based panels are pure rubbish for this type of work, and not all IPS/PVA/MVA based panels are created equally. It will take a bit of research to find the best ones. I recommend seeking out reviews from others who utilize the monitor you are interested in for color critical work. BTW, almost if not all 22" panels are TN based, so don't even waste your time. 20, 24 and 30" offers the best choices, but the cheaper ones are almost always TN based. It's not going to be cheap to feel confident in the color accuracy on your screen, and it's up to each individual to determine if the cost is worth it to them. Unfortunately if you are not willing to absorb the cost of this crucial step, the other steps are of little use.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/daletreadway/

--
Pino

Thanks a lot.
Happy holidays.

--
Preview before post,
Something I forget the most.