Printing Options in Canada

[CanadianLongbowman]

Hello all,

I tested matte photo prints from several services—Shutterfly, Walmart, and London Drugs—and was disappointed by the quality from Shutterfly and Walmart compared to London Drugs, despite claims of high quality. I sent full-resolution photos to all three, and London Drugs delivered sharp prints with good contrast and colors, though very slightly warm and red-toned (though I actually think this is the limitation of what I'm seeing on my screen, and the intensity of the red only shows up under incandescent light). Shutterfly and Walmart prints are washed out, possibly due to lower contrast from their matte paper, but are also blurry by comparison.

The downside is cost: London Drugs charges $0.55 per print for orders over 50, so 100 prints cost $55+, compared to Shutterfly’s ~$29. I contacted Shutterfly’s customer service and a typical 2025 response -- a somewhat lobotomized conversation asking for my mother's maiden name and my addresses for the last 25 years, all while not knowing what their website even says.

Questions:

• Could the poor quality be due to downsampling? Are there specific resolutions that yield better results? Shutterfly’s site vaguely suggests “best quality available” but claims 1024x768 is sufficient for 4x6 prints (demonstrably untrue, as higher resolutions yield more detailed prints).
• Is Black’s Photography a better option? I’d rather avoid more trial-and-error with shipping delays and would rather ensure I have some better ideas before proceeding.

Thanks!

 

[Rich42]

Based on your experience with Shutterfly, apart from, but including the print results, ditch them!

The usual advice about resolution is 300 ppi in each dimension. ( Although somewhat less is tolerable, 300 ppi is ultra “safe” as a specification. So, for a 4x6 print, that’s 1200x1800 ppi.

If your images are not blurry at your end, they should absolutely not be so in the prints. Stop using any service that delivers images like that. Washed out prints are simply substandard.

Are you correctly using a printer ICC profiles? From the printer service?

I have had excellent experience with Bay Photo. But they are not a “bargain shop.”

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[CanadianLongbowman]

Based on your experience with Shutterfly, apart from, but including the print results, ditch them!

The usual advice about resolution is 300 ppi in each dimension. ( Although somewhat less is tolerable, 300 ppi is ultra “safe” as a specification. So, for a 4x6 print, that’s 1200x1800 ppi.

If your images are not blurry at your end, they should absolutely not be so in the prints. Stop using any service that delivers images like that. Washed out prints are simply substandard.

Are you correctly using a printer ICC profiles? From the printer service?

I have had excellent experience with Bay Photo. But they are not a “bargain shop.”

I'm not sure, the print services don't give me options for various profiles? Mind expanding? I output full-res JPEG to sRGB if that's what you mean, none of these consumer print services offer other options (they do take PNGs but I'm doubtful that results in better print quality).

You're right about 300ppi, but some third party testing has found sharper results with higher resolution even in small prints, so long as the printer is capable it doesn't seem like a bad thing, but I'm not sure now with WalMart and Shutterfly results.

Precisely the same exported images came out fantastic from LD (not their gloss photos though, those were oversaturated).

Will check out Bay. I'm fine paying for quality prints when I need them, but twice the price is steep for commonly printed 4x6's.

 

[Rich42]

Based on your experience with Shutterfly, apart from, but including the print results, ditch them!

The usual advice about resolution is 300 ppi in each dimension. ( Although somewhat less is tolerable, 300 ppi is ultra “safe” as a specification. So, for a 4x6 print, that’s 1200x1800 ppi.

If your images are not blurry at your end, they should absolutely not be so in the prints. Stop using any service that delivers images like that. Washed out prints are simply substandard.

Are you correctly using a printer ICC profiles? From the printer service?

I have had excellent experience with Bay Photo. But they are not a “bargain shop.”

I'm not sure, the print services don't give me options for various profiles? Mind expanding? I output full-res JPEG to sRGB if that's what you mean, none of these consumer print services offer other options (they do take PNGs but I'm doubtful that results in better print quality).

If your monitor is properly calibrated (emphasis on properly) converting to sRGB from whatever space you image is in or assigning sRGB if your image has no assigned profile will be adequate. Emphasis on adequate. You’ll lose color gamut compared to a color space like AdobeRGB.

Its very important to properly calibrate your monitor for evaluation of any image - going to your printer or one remote at a printing service.

More resolution than 300 ppi is very unlikely to give any increased quality. But as you said, it won’t cause any problems other than increased image size.

Bay Photo will provide a profile which will allow your color editing software to generate a soft proof if it is capable of that function. It’s the profile they will print with.

Your experiences with Walmart and Shutterfly are enough for you to stop considering them as a resource. They are providing worse than “Drug Store” quality prints to non critical customers.

You're right about 300ppi, but some third party testing has found sharper results with higher resolution even in small prints, so long as the printer is capable it doesn't seem like a bad thing, but I'm not sure now with WalMart and Shutterfly results.

Precisely the same exported images came out fantastic from LD (not their gloss photos though, those were oversaturated).

Will check out Bay. I'm fine paying for quality prints when I need them, but twice the price is steep for commonly printed 4x6's.

 

[CanadianLongbowman]

Based on your experience with Shutterfly, apart from, but including the print results, ditch them!

The usual advice about resolution is 300 ppi in each dimension. ( Although somewhat less is tolerable, 300 ppi is ultra “safe” as a specification. So, for a 4x6 print, that’s 1200x1800 ppi.

If your images are not blurry at your end, they should absolutely not be so in the prints. Stop using any service that delivers images like that. Washed out prints are simply substandard.

Are you correctly using a printer ICC profiles? From the printer service?

I have had excellent experience with Bay Photo. But they are not a “bargain shop.”

I'm not sure, the print services don't give me options for various profiles? Mind expanding? I output full-res JPEG to sRGB if that's what you mean, none of these consumer print services offer other options (they do take PNGs but I'm doubtful that results in better print quality).

If your monitor is properly calibrated (emphasis on properly) converting to sRGB from whatever space you image is in or assigning sRGB if your image has no assigned profile will be adequate. Emphasis on adequate. You’ll lose color gamut compared to a color space like AdobeRGB.

Its very important to properly calibrate your monitor for evaluation of any image - going to your printer or one remote at a printing service.

Agreed. Might be worth calibrating this monitor again as it is old, but I'm also in desperate need of upgrading.

More resolution than 300 ppi is very unlikely to give any increased quality. But as you said, it won’t cause any problems other than increased image size.

Bay Photo will provide a profile which will allow your color editing software to generate a soft proof if it is capable of that function. It’s the profile they will print with.

Didn't realize this was a thing, thanks for the info! New to printing so will investigate.

Your experiences with Walmart and Shutterfly are enough for you to stop considering them as a resource. They are providing worse than “Drug Store” quality prints to non critical customers.

Unfortunately my $400 home printer and some Staples photo paper gets me relatively close to what Shuttefly and WalMart output, so I agree.

 

[Rich42]

Based on your experience with Shutterfly, apart from, but including the print results, ditch them!

The usual advice about resolution is 300 ppi in each dimension. ( Although somewhat less is tolerable, 300 ppi is ultra “safe” as a specification. So, for a 4x6 print, that’s 1200x1800 ppi.

If your images are not blurry at your end, they should absolutely not be so in the prints. Stop using any service that delivers images like that. Washed out prints are simply substandard.

Are you correctly using a printer ICC profiles? From the printer service?

I have had excellent experience with Bay Photo. But they are not a “bargain shop.”

I'm not sure, the print services don't give me options for various profiles? Mind expanding? I output full-res JPEG to sRGB if that's what you mean, none of these consumer print services offer other options (they do take PNGs but I'm doubtful that results in better print quality).

If your monitor is properly calibrated (emphasis on properly) converting to sRGB from whatever space you image is in or assigning sRGB if your image has no assigned profile will be adequate. Emphasis on adequate. You’ll lose color gamut compared to a color space like AdobeRGB.

Its very important to properly calibrate your monitor for evaluation of any image - going to your printer or one remote at a printing service.

Agreed. Might be worth calibrating this monitor again as it is old, but I'm also in desperate need of upgrading.

More resolution than 300 ppi is very unlikely to give any increased quality. But as you said, it won’t cause any problems other than increased image size.

Bay Photo will provide a profile which will allow your color editing software to generate a soft proof if it is capable of that function. It’s the profile they will print with.

Didn't realize this was a thing, thanks for the info! New to printing so will investigate.

Your experiences with Walmart and Shutterfly are enough for you to stop considering them as a resource. They are providing worse than “Drug Store” quality prints to non critical customers.

Unfortunately my $400 home printer and some Staples photo paper gets me relatively close to what Shuttefly and WalMart output, so I agree.

What printer do you have? Modern, inexpensive photo printers are very good.

If it’s a decent machine, it and a decent ( not expensive) quality paper can produce very good to excellent images.

High-quality, predictable printing is not magic or rocket science. It’s a straight-forward, repeatable process involving reasonably easy calibrating, profiling and adhering to the straight-forward principles of color science/color management. It is not hard or a scam as some have claimed.

Bay Photo is strictly color managed. Walmart , others are not. Hence the outcomes.

Yes, monitor and printer profiles are involved. Piece of cake! For all available papers, profiles are available readily. Although if your printer is not a supported model, a custom profile can be generated.

You probably don’t need new gear. But I would never dissuade anyone from that pleasure!

I and others here can walk you through the process if you have the patience. It’ll take a series of messages (and you’ll get multiple opinions!)

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[CanadianLongbowman]

What printer do you have? Modern, inexpensive photo printers are very good.

If it’s a decent machine, it and a decent ( not expensive) quality paper can produce very good to excellent images.

High-quality, predictable printing is not magic or rocket science. It’s a straight-forward, repeatable process involving reasonably easy calibrating, profiling and adhering to the straight-forward principles of color science/color management. It is not hard or a scam as some have claimed.

Bay Photo is strictly color managed. Walmart , others are not. Hence the outcomes.

Yes, monitor and printer profiles are involved. Piece of cake! For all available papers, profiles are available readily. Although if your printer is not a supported model, a custom profile can be generated.

You probably don’t need new gear. But I would never dissuade anyone from that pleasure!

I and others here can walk you through the process if you have the patience. It’ll take a series of messages (and you’ll get multiple opinions!)

I wouldn't even call it a photo printer, it's just an Epson 2800 series. I've tried it and results were okay. If you mean another type of printer I'd certainly be open to purchasing one as I'm sure I'd offset it relatively quickly.

Would be happy to get comparable or superior results to Wal-Mart at home, so if you have the time and are willing I'm all ears!

 

[plantdoc]

Not familiar with your printer, but I find the best, easy results start with using the printer brand photo paper and software that recognizes the printer and provides various options. Yes, I know there are other brands of photo papers, ICC printer/paper profiles but that is a step up. I find that my epson cp1500 little dye sub printer and canon mg7???? Inkjet easily produce pics that closely match the screen on my iPhone or camera lcd screen without changing any color information or settings and cropping and printing directly from the iPhone to the 2x3 crop. Skin tones vary slightly but I think it’s the due to the dye sub vs ink set. In the US the canon dye is about $150 and prints about 30-35 cents. Without the trump tax you may do better.

greg

 

[Rich42]

What printer do you have? Modern, inexpensive photo printers are very good.

If it’s a decent machine, it and a decent ( not expensive) quality paper can produce very good to excellent images.

High-quality, predictable printing is not magic or rocket science. It’s a straight-forward, repeatable process involving reasonably easy calibrating, profiling and adhering to the straight-forward principles of color science/color management. It is not hard or a scam as some have claimed.

Bay Photo is strictly color managed. Walmart , others are not. Hence the outcomes.

Yes, monitor and printer profiles are involved. Piece of cake! For all available papers, profiles are available readily. Although if your printer is not a supported model, a custom profile can be generated.

You probably don’t need new gear. But I would never dissuade anyone from that pleasure!

I and others here can walk you through the process if you have the patience. It’ll take a series of messages (and you’ll get multiple opinions!)

I wouldn't even call it a photo printer, it's just an Epson 2800 series. I've tried it and results were okay. If you mean another type of printer I'd certainly be open to purchasing one as I'm sure I'd offset it relatively quickly.

Would be happy to get comparable or superior results to Wal-Mart at home, so if you have the time and are willing I'm all ears!

Yeah, that Epson model is not a photo printer and is definitely not up to the task.

I used to be very familiar with the Epson lines. Not so much now. The lowest priced Canon photo printer is the 200S. It’s about $550 (USD).

I have its predecessor, an old Pro 100 which is capable of fully professional, gallery-quality prints which it produces all the time. The 200S is an upgrade from that.

These are dye ink types, very suited to glossy or semi glossy paper. I suspect you will prefer those types, or maybe a luster type.

I only print on matte paper. Paper preference is a whole other (huge) discussion. It’s an entirely personal thing. There is no right or wrong. No best or worst.

Printer prices go up from that price level. I can’t really advise on that topic. Not familiar enough with different ones. Others here are much better on that subject than I.

Only you can decide on the appropriateness of the expense.

I agree with Plantdoc’s recommendation to use a printer manufacturer’s papers and printer ICC profiles with their printer (at first). It simplifies things. Other papers are as good or better and can be tried after “getting your feet wet.”

Ask as many questions as you want. No limit. People here are eager to engage in discussion and express opinions!

The only dumb question is the one you don’t ask.

What computer system (Mac or PC) do you use, and what monitor?

--
Rich
"That's like, just your opinion, man." ;-)

 

[CanadianLongbowman]

Yeah, that Epson model is not a photo printer and is definitely not up to the task.

I used to be very familiar with the Epson lines. Not so much now. The lowest priced Canon photo printer is the 200S. It’s about $550 (USD).

I'm happy to upgrade if I don't have to utilize LD anymore. Will have to run some numbers but ink/dye costs will also somewhat dictate.

I have its predecessor, an old Pro 100 which is capable of fully professional, gallery-quality prints which it produces all the time. The 200S is an upgrade from that.

These are dye ink types, very suited to glossy or semi glossy paper. I suspect you will prefer those types, or maybe a luster type.

I prefer matte, as do most people I print for. Easier to display without glare I suppose. Not sure why I prefer matte, ends up being a bit closer to what I see on screen.

I only print on matte paper. Paper preference is a whole other (huge) discussion. It’s an entirely personal thing. There is no right or wrong. No best or worst.

Printer prices go up from that price level. I can’t really advise on that topic. Not familiar enough with different ones. Others here are much better on that subject than I.

Only you can decide on the appropriateness of the expense.

I agree with Plantdoc’s recommendation to use a printer manufacturer’s papers and printer ICC profiles with their printer (at first). It simplifies things. Other papers are as good or better and can be tried after “getting your feet wet.”

Ask as many questions as you want. No limit. People here are eager to engage in discussion and express opinions!

The only dumb question is the one you don’t ask.

What computer system (Mac or PC) do you use, and what monitor?

PC, and just a cheap older LG monitor but it gets me close enough to prints for it to be usable. I'll likely be upgrading to an Asus Proart or perhaps a Dell, I need to do some more research though as colour gamut and the inability to discern highlights are my main drawbacks on this monitor, the latter being the biggest problem (my photos end up darker than they need to be).

 

[Rich42]

Yeah, that Epson model is not a photo printer and is definitely not up to the task.

I used to be very familiar with the Epson lines. Not so much now. The lowest priced Canon photo printer is the 200S. It’s about $550 (USD).

I'm happy to upgrade if I don't have to utilize LD anymore. Will have to run some numbers but ink/dye costs will also somewhat dictate.

The "New Purchase" cost of a 13 x 19 printer are its cost, the cost of at least a full set of inks (other than the primer set that comes with the printer), at least 3 boxes of 13x19" paper, 50 sheets each. Most people consider the cost of the printer, only.

Less than that is somewhat naive.

I have its predecessor, an old Pro 100 which is capable of fully professional, gallery-quality prints which it produces all the time. The 200S is an upgrade from that.

These are dye ink types, very suited to glossy or semi glossy paper. I suspect you will prefer those types, or maybe a luster type.

I prefer matte, as do most people I print for. Easier to display without glare I suppose. Not sure why I prefer matte, ends up being a bit closer to what I see on screen.

Many recommend pigment inks on matte paper. That would mean a 300 series Canon. But I love the results of dye ink on Canon Photo Paper Pro Premium Matte (PM101), Epson Hot Press Bright and Hot Press Natural, Epson Cold Press Bright and Natural.

I only print on matte paper. Paper preference is a whole other (huge) discussion. It’s an entirely personal thing. There is no right or wrong. No best or worst.

Printer prices go up from that price level. I can’t really advise on that topic. Not familiar enough with different ones. Others here are much better on that subject than I.

Only you can decide on the appropriateness of the expense.

I agree with Plantdoc’s recommendation to use a printer manufacturer’s papers and printer ICC profiles with their printer (at first). It simplifies things. Other papers are as good or better and can be tried after “getting your feet wet.”

Ask as many questions as you want. No limit. People here are eager to engage in discussion and express opinions!

The only dumb question is the one you don’t ask.

What computer system (Mac or PC) do you use, and what monitor?

PC, and just a cheap older LG monitor but it gets me close enough to prints for it to be usable.

What photo editing software do you use? The Graphics Arts/Printing Industry standardized on Macs in the early 90s and that is the only system I have used. Macs' ability to handle Color Management and Graphics Arts requirements have been unequaled for decades.

I'm not here to bash Windows systems, they are far more capable than they have ever been, but I could never tolerate the hoops they make one jump through and the remaining obstacles in Graphics Arts matters. It's just personal.

Those who choose to use Windows are every bit as entitled to do that as I am to use Macs.

But I must assert that Color Management is significantly better integrated into the Mac OS than it is in Windows. Hell, it is a bedrock, integral part of the DNA of the Mac OS, while it is still peripheral to Windows.

I'm not here to try to convince you to use Mac, But if you showed any inclining to do that, I wouldn't be bashful in hustling you along.

You'll chose what you want. Either works. No one can ever tell the system used from the final image's appearance.

I hope others here give you advice about Windows monitors for photo printing.

I'll likely be upgrading to an Asus Proart or perhaps a Dell, I need to do some more research though as colour gamut and the inability to discern highlights are my main drawbacks on this monitor, the latter being the biggest problem (my photos end up darker than they need to be).

There may be nothing wrong with your monitor, once you get it properly calibrated and profiled.

Dark prints are the single most common complaint from those learning printing and color management. It's nothing but the consequence of using an overly bright monitor for evaluation of the image's appearance. We normally view images at brightness levels impossible for prints to provide. Everything on the internet looks better that way. Monitors are light sources (direct light). Prints display images via reflected light.

Once one learns to turn down monitor brightness for image editing just prior to printing, the "dark print" problem is over.

Lots to learn, but no black magic, all perfectly logical and very satisfying when acquired. As is any skill.