Shutterfly wins hands down

[Jerry Stevens]

I've used Ofoto for a while now, but the online service faired poorly in the recent review in the June issue of Macworld, "Turn Pixels Into Prints," comparing 12 online photo services: Club Photo, dotPhoto, eFrames, ImageStation, iPhoto, Kodak Picture Center Online, Ofoto, PhotoAccess, PhotoCenter, PhotoWorks, Shutterfly, and Snapfish. They explored issues of uploading, prepping photos, placing orders, and print quality.

Although PhtoWorks walked away with the worst reward, the reviewers concluded about Ofoto, "the Ofoto-printed photos were among the worst we received. They were remarkably unsaturated and had noticeably red shadows. Tonal ranges in other parts of the photos lacked red, resulting in a cyan cast that produced unappealing, ghoulish flesh tones."

I've uploaded some test images to Shutterfly to compare. Anyone compared these two particularly? Other recommendations or comments?

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[lindyloo]

Jerry,

I'm short on time right now, but I will post more later about a personal comparison test I did between shutterfly, ezprints, photoaccess and walmart.com. I didn't do ofoto because I've read they are geared more towards mac colors and also they have a color correction process that cannot be disabled (someone correct me if I'm wrong).

My shutterfly prints were disappointing. They were crisp, however, they had a yellowish cast to them. I later found out that they use an auto color correction process that I should have disabled upon ordering. They have graciously agreed to reprint those images again, so I'll see what the new batch looks like.

I'm interested in hearing what others have to say, too.

I've used Ofoto for a while now, but the online service faired
poorly in the recent review in the June issue of Macworld, "Turn
Pixels Into Prints," comparing 12 online photo services: Club
Photo, dotPhoto, eFrames, ImageStation, iPhoto, Kodak Picture
Center Online, Ofoto, PhotoAccess, PhotoCenter, PhotoWorks,
Shutterfly, and Snapfish. They explored issues of uploading,
prepping photos, placing orders, and print quality.

Although PhtoWorks walked away with the worst reward, the reviewers
concluded about Ofoto, "the Ofoto-printed photos were among the
worst we received. They were remarkably unsaturated and had
noticeably red shadows. Tonal ranges in other parts of the photos
lacked red, resulting in a cyan cast that produced unappealing,
ghoulish flesh tones."

I've uploaded some test images to Shutterfly to compare. Anyone
compared these two particularly? Other recommendations or comments?

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

--
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Linda (aka Lindy Loo)

New 707 owner, but learning every day...thanks to this forum!

 

[Andrew66681]

Glad to see Macworld did this comparison. I've been surprised more reviews like this haven't been done, as there are some pretty significant differences between online print services. I completely agree with their analysis--they descibed Ofoto's results perfectly. I posted something similar a few weeks ago on another thread...

[I've added a few updates below.]

I've tried a number of online and local services, with some interesting results. To test online services, I sent the same image to 5 or 6 different sites, so that I could compare the prints from each. Worth doing if you have the time--cost is typically not an issue, since most services offer a certain number of free prints upon initial sign-up.

Ofoto is popular, but another STF member was helpful in the past explaining why I get mixed results with them. I avoid Ofoto, since while the quality of their prints is great, they utilize an automatic color-correction process that cannot be disabled. Most other services offer the option of turning this feature "off" when ordering prints. Ofoto assumes it can improve the output if they color-correct, but this means that any work you do to the image, in PhotoShop for instance, can be negated. Also, I've found that their color correction tends to produce very unnatural skin tones.

PhotoAccess, EzPrints, and Printroom all do a better job of reproducing accurate color. Shutterfly is another larger photo processing site similar to Ofoto that offers the option to disable color correction. I like Ofoto's interface, and their free software, but this alone keeps me from ordering prints from them (and ImageStation, who uses them) regularly.

[By the way, I e-mailed ImageStation about this issue, and they responded that an option to turn off color correction will be added soon. I don't know if that means Ofoto will add this option as well or not.]

The best results I've gotten have come from a local pro lab that has a Fuji Frontier printer. They accept all forms of digital media (zip disks, CDs, memory sticks, etc.), and now have an online drop box as well. Their prices are competative and you don't have to pay shipping. I'd highly recommend checking into local high-end labs too. (I'm not talking about a Wolf or Coyote lab--these have been unreliable. But a REAL pro lab will give you stunning results. I use Color Services in Santa Barbara.)

Also, I just noticed that my local Costco is offering prints from digital files (compact flash, SM, and CD) for only $.20 a piece. That price is incredible--less than half of any other service--so I'll be trying them soon.

[I have now tried Costco. Their default proceedure is to also use a color correction process, but they were happy to not do this, upon my request. The results were not as good as the pro lab, but still not bad at all, and the price makes them ideal for large print orders. Costco is finally making the idea of digital photography as an ultimately money-saving method viable.]

 

[Jerry Stevens]

Hey Linda,

Thanks for the very helpful post. I'm sorry I didn't respond sooner. When the thread disappeared to the second or third page with no response, I thought it was dead.

I will be interested in any further observations you might have about print services online. Please update as you have time. Thanks again.

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[Jerry Stevens]

Hey Andrew,

Like I apologized to Linda, I'm sorry for the late response. When the thread disappeared to the second or third page, I thought it was dead and went to some other online activity for a while.

Anyway, your post was MOST helpful. Lots of information and anecdotal experiences with great observations.

I've had good service from Ofoto, but I found out how to compensate in PSE for their autocorrection routine. You're exactly right, lesh tones are really quirky. They also print much darker than I'd like, so I reset the gamma on my Mac to a darker curve so that my eyes would be tricked into seeing what Ofoto processing would result in.

However, all that does take time. I simply assumed others were making adjustments too. You probably are right that a PRO shop would do the job well, but I'm not sure we have one in New Orleans where I live that is really set up with the experience to do the job.

One thing I do like about online processing is the convenience. It was raining cats and dogs last month and I uploaded an entire set from the computer while it stormed. Now that's nice, I must say. I never would have gone outside to run an errand for some pictures. i also like being able to have a set of prints mailed directly to a friend's house. We had some guests into town the other weekend, took them to the Aquarium of the Americas and the Imax theater and all that, and before they got home from the weekend, I had their pictures edited, uploaded, and ordered--and they got them three days later! Again, that's really convenient.

On the other hand, that's just 4x6 family photo stuff--certainly of no critical level of photography. I'm really shopping processing for my 8x10s and larger for my photo journals, albums, and wall hangings for home and office. So I'll continue to follow your comments with interest.

Thanks again.

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[Neil Pearl]

How timely....
See today's C~Net headline (online photo services) at:

http://www.cnet.com/software/0-3227861-8-9797885-1.html?tag=ld

Bottom line, they chose Ofoto over Shutterfly.... Oh well.....

 

[Jerry Stevens]

Bottom line, they chose Ofoto over Shutterfly.... Oh well.....

And I quote: "If you're looking for a photo-management site fit for casual shutterbugs . . ."

Harmmm . . . that's not quite the standard I was shooting for. Their comments indicate they mostly like the software and site--which, actually, I do too. I do think they are a little over-reaching on their adjectives describing Ofoto's printed output. Plus, you cannot turn off their auto-correction software, as you can in Shutterfly--so your own edits in Photoshop are messed up.

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[Jeremy Birn61459]

That review "compares 4 online photo managers" and is done by software reviewers for the category "Software : Graphics : Document management :" - they set out to find "which online photo services were helpful, versatile, and downright fun" --- no mention of how they compared print quality or what they printed. I'd listen to other STF'ers before I'd run with that editor's choice.

-jeremy

Bottom line, they chose Ofoto over Shutterfly.... Oh well.....

And I quote: "If you're looking for a photo-management site fit for
casual shutterbugs . . ."

Harmmm . . . that's not quite the standard I was shooting for.
Their comments indicate they mostly like the software and
site--which, actually, I do too. I do think they are a little
over-reaching on their adjectives describing Ofoto's printed
output. Plus, you cannot turn off their auto-correction software,
as you can in Shutterfly--so your own edits in Photoshop are messed
up.

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

--
Jeremy Birn
http://www.3dRender.com/

 

[Jerry Stevens]

Right, Jeremy. I certainly agree. I noted right away that the entire character of the CNet review was quite different than the more rigorous approach of the reviewers at Macworld, who compared 12 online services in the article I mentioned--no easy bunch to please.

Of course, we all understand that evaluation of photographic output is subjective. Hopefully, though, general ideas about obvious color cast and poorly done flesh tones would be fairly agreeable in the main.

Jerry

 

[Scott B93248]

I've just tried Ofoto, Dotphoto and Photoaccess. Ofoto was the clear winner for me. They had the sharpest images, the best contrast, and the best color saturation. I didn't change anything in Adobe, I just sent them like they came out of the camera. Dotphoto was the loser. There images were terrible. Some were overexposed, and the color was drab. I'm waiting for my Costco results. Thanks Scott

Right, Jeremy. I certainly agree. I noted right away that the
entire character of the CNet review was quite different than the
more rigorous approach of the reviewers at Macworld, who compared
12 online services in the article I mentioned--no easy bunch to
please.

Of course, we all understand that evaluation of photographic output
is subjective. Hopefully, though, general ideas about obvious color
cast and poorly done flesh tones would be fairly agreeable in the
main.

Jerry

 

[Jerry Stevens]

Hey Scott,

Well, you certainly are doing what we all have to do--make comparisons for ourselves. I have been OK with Ofoto. I've made about 20 prints of 8x10 size. I thought they were pretty good, but never compared them to other services, which is what I'm doing now. Shutterfly got my attention due to the Macworld review.

All along, though, I can say that my Ofoto prints I considerd overall a shade duller than what I would have really wanted--especially my flower shots in which the colors of some should just scream at you--but they really don't. I got to where I would modify the images in PSE until I found a routine that would (pretty much) keep color balance but brighten the printed image.

Anyway, happy hunting. I am going to try to find an in town professional processor, as recommended in another post. That will not be as convenient, but may give me that pro edge I think I'm trying to get. I might do online processing for general images to share with family and friends just for the convenience of it and use something else for enlargements.

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[Andrew66681]

Jerry-

Glad my post was helpful. After conducting the comparison test, I was eager to share the results with anyone interested!

I imagine you could get decent results from Ofoto by going through the process you describe--it just frustrates me that Ofoto doesn't offer the simple option to turn color correction off.

Online printing services are convenient--I agree. I still haven't settled on any one solution for every print order. But I can tell you that for important photos, I will ALWAYS use the pro lab. Their prints on matte paper are stunning. I feel like I'm a better photographer when I order prints from them! The place I use made a big deal about getting their new Fuji Frontier printer, which didn't mean anything to me until I saw the results...

As I mentioned, they now use an online drop box, so orders only require one trip to the store, for pick-up. The system they use looks like generic drop box software marketed to labs such as theirs--perhaps others in your area are doing the same thing. I'd be surprised if there weren't some good labs for digital printing in such as photo-rich town as New Orleans.

-Andrew

Hey Andrew,

Like I apologized to Linda, I'm sorry for the late response. When
the thread disappeared to the second or third page, I thought it
was dead and went to some other online activity for a while.

Anyway, your post was MOST helpful. Lots of information and
anecdotal experiences with great observations.

I've had good service from Ofoto, but I found out how to compensate
in PSE for their autocorrection routine. You're exactly right, lesh
tones are really quirky. They also print much darker than I'd like,
so I reset the gamma on my Mac to a darker curve so that my eyes
would be tricked into seeing what Ofoto processing would result in.

However, all that does take time. I simply assumed others were
making adjustments too. You probably are right that a PRO shop
would do the job well, but I'm not sure we have one in New Orleans
where I live that is really set up with the experience to do the
job.

One thing I do like about online processing is the convenience. It
was raining cats and dogs last month and I uploaded an entire set
from the computer while it stormed. Now that's nice, I must say. I
never would have gone outside to run an errand for some pictures. i
also like being able to have a set of prints mailed directly to a
friend's house. We had some guests into town the other weekend,
took them to the Aquarium of the Americas and the Imax theater and
all that, and before they got home from the weekend, I had their
pictures edited, uploaded, and ordered--and they got them three
days later! Again, that's really convenient.

On the other hand, that's just 4x6 family photo stuff--certainly of
no critical level of photography. I'm really shopping processing
for my 8x10s and larger for my photo journals, albums, and wall
hangings for home and office. So I'll continue to follow your
comments with interest.

Thanks again.

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[Robert Sun]

dotPhoto.com provides very bad services, I have to tell you my experience so you will not suffer like I did.

My wife ordered 382 pictures from dotPhoto.com on April 18 after my Italy trip. After one week wait, we finally received the photos, but there were only 130 prints (Besides that, 6 of them were in very bad quality.). My wife called them and left a message in the voice mail, she also sent an email to their support, but she got no response. So she called them again after a few days, finally she talked to their support - Charlene. She asked my wife to order the missing 252 photos again, she will credit them back to her account. So she spent a lot of time checking which photos were missing, then reordered them again. My wife also sent her email asking her to check the new order before shipment, because we really hate to see another mistake. Of course, she never replyed to my wife's email.

Finally, we got the reordered photos on 5/10, but it was 56 photos short again !!!!

My wife called them today, Charlene picked up the phone, my wife explained the problem to her. She answered "according to the shipment weight it should contain the correct number of photos". She refused to send us the missing 56 photos, but saying the only solution is sending her back the whole order, then she will refund the money to us. This is really not a solution to us, how can we choose to ship the photos back to them? We spent many hours to upload all those photos, additional hours to do ordering and re-ordering, calling them and email them many times for their mistakes, plus my mom and my aunt were waiting for those photos to bring back to Taiwan, my friends were also asking for the Italy photos for long time. Now, after 3 weeks of waiting, we finally got most of my trip photos, and the only solution she offered us is to ship them all back for refund instead of correcting their own mistake (to give us my missing photos)....

My wife had a long argument with Charlene, but Charlene's attitude was very bad. My wife asked to talk to Charlene's supervisor, Charlene said she is "the" manager in support, no one else is supervising her. My wife asked to talk to their president, Charlene refused to do it. .... We have never faced such a ridiculous customer support. Now, our only choice is to treat this 56 photos as our own loss. I cannot believe a well known company will choose to steal our 56 photos (It's only $15.00 !!) !

So, my friend, my advice to you - don't deal with dotPhoto.com.
I hate to see other people suffer like I have experienced.

Right, Jeremy. I certainly agree. I noted right away that the
entire character of the CNet review was quite different than the
more rigorous approach of the reviewers at Macworld, who compared
12 online services in the article I mentioned--no easy bunch to
please.

Of course, we all understand that evaluation of photographic output
is subjective. Hopefully, though, general ideas about obvious color
cast and poorly done flesh tones would be fairly agreeable in the
main.

Jerry

 

[Jerry Stevens]

Hi all,

Well, I got my Shutterfly results in the mail, and, I'm sorry to say, I just cannot agree with the reviewers of the article in Macworld mag--the results were definitely disappointing.

I tried processing seven of my best shots which provide the range of color saturation, detail, and shades of gray and white. I submitted two different sets. One set was unedited straight out of the camera to let Shutterfly do their own thing, The other set of the same photos was edited in PSE with my calibrated monitor, submitted to Shutterfly with their own automatic processing routine disabled. I wanted to see the difference in my editing and Shutterfly's.

NEITHER set came out better than the Ofoto prints. Here's what I saw:

(1) DETAIL--Detail is my greatest complaint. For example, I have a Mallard duck shot that is tight and close on the head, with rich color graduated down the neck and fine detail in the feathers. Shutterfly's processing smudged the feather detail to the naked eye. Even my wife (who is execellent at many things but not a trained photographer) caught the difference between the Shutterfly and Ofoto prints on the duck.

(2) COLORS--Ofoto's colors were richer and more true to life. The duck's bill was more the correct golden yellow in the Ofoto print than the daisey yellow of Shutterfly's effort (with both processing routines, theirs or my edited shot).

Other prints showed other distinctions. Anyway, I gave Shutterfly a decent chance, I believe, but I definitely was not persuaded to switch from using Ofoto from the results I got. And I am even more confused by the so positive results that Macworld got that had them pointing to Shutterfly hands down and even denigrating Ofoto prints. We definitely got different results.

For larger prints, though, I will still have to investigate Andrew's suggestion of an in-town pro shop.

Jerry

 

[DavidG91388]

I have gotten terrible and great results at Shutterfly and Ofoto

I found dotPhoto to have best color, but unhappy with softfocus-may try to sharpen photos slightly and test again.-Use Photo sharing at this site-like how their site handles this.

I was very happy with ezprints, but have not ordered multiple times for comparison, has nice specialty and panaromic printing capabilities.

Davidg

 

[Jerry Stevens]

Thanks for the info and feedback, DavidG.

Panorama mode I have not tried at any site. That's a good item to be aware of, because I'm sure at some point some scenes will beg for panorama production. I just have not tried that feature.

When you got unsatisfactory results from both Ofoto and Shutterfly, where they sporadic issues or some consistent issues? Was Ofoto or Shutterfly consistently bad at something, or only sporadic stuff?

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[DavidG91388]

It seems to be that a whole processing lot was a little yellow or blue with both ofoto and shutterfly and in some case white was not white as it should have been.

But there are also specifics(ex. night shots too purple), in that case one may say it is sparadic depending on scene. I prefered Shutterfly over Ofoto for there warmer look to people and everyday shooting- but it is all very subjective and to personal taste and prefernces.

For night sky color dotPhoto had the most accurate colors.

Adoroma in NY just got a new machine to do inhouse processing for 29cents last week, so I will be giving them my next try, not sure if service will be added over web, might be onlt walk-ins.

Thanks for the info and feedback, DavidG.
Panorama mode I have not tried at any site. That's a good item to
be aware of, because I'm sure at some point some scenes will beg
for panorama production. I just have not tried that feature.

When you got unsatisfactory results from both Ofoto and Shutterfly,
where they sporadic issues or some consistent issues? Was Ofoto or
Shutterfly consistently bad at something, or only sporadic stuff?

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[Jerry Stevens]

It seems to be that a whole processing lot was a little yellow or
blue with both ofoto and shutterfly and in some case white was not
white as it should have been.

Wow. That IS strange! Might have been just a bad run. They will redo them if you're not satisfied. I don't think I have ever seen that kind of an effect in any of the orders I've had them do for me. Curious.

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens

 

[Shay Stephens]

I have settled on ofoto right now for the sharpness of the photos. For others who want better output from them due to the darkness difference if you are using a PC try this info:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=2454796
My results now from ofoto or more predictable now.

I have also come to the conclusion that the computer review rags have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to anything photographic. I avoid their advice like the plague that it is.

--
Shay

My Sony F707 Gallery: http://www.shaystephens.com/portfolio.asp

 

[Jerry Stevens]

I have also come to the conclusion that the computer review rags
have no clue what they are talking about when it comes to anything
photographic. I avoid their advice like the plague that it is.

Hi Shay,

I think I have to agree with you. I have had subscriptions to three or four computers mags for about ten years now. Most of the time the reviewers are sharp, knowledgable and tough on the products reviewed. I have found in the main, once allowance has to be made for one's own special needs, that the reviews are good general guidelines.

However, when the digital camera phenomenon came along, I think these guys and gals so conversant with their computer field were stretching themselves to try to get coverage. Often the camera that is recommended has clear defaults, or the service reviewed, as in the online processing that got me going on this thread, simply is contradicted by user experience.

Also, my own experience with Shutterfly vs. Ofoto is similar to yours on the issue of sharpness of image--Ofoto clearly is sharper and more detailed in my opinion with the test images I used. I mean to the naked eye and the casual observer, not under magnification or stuff like that. My wife never missed picking out the Ofoto shot from a lineup of comparison shots radomly mixed in sequence. That helped me to see that I wasn't just trying to "see what you want to see."

Just curious. Have you used a local professional developer, as suggested by Andrew in his posts? Any experience with that side of developing images?

Jerry
--
Gerald L. Stevens