online printing (price comparison)

[Anthony Ward]

Hi Oleg - I see the term "nt" often but have no idea what it means - can you enlighten me , please? Thanks. Anthony

To all who what to order prints online well here's my
scoop............I went to
: http://www.ezprints.com/ezdirect/products.asp?Type=Print

uploaded my Jepg file and less the a week later WOW my picture came
back to me and I was amazed how fast they where and more important
what a great job EZprints did! I had them do a 16X20 print from my
Nikon CP5700 my jepg file was under 3MB it was a wedding picture
and I was blown away. So I will use EZprints again they do
wonderful work! And you too will see how good they are have fun
all..............Lamont :> )

 

[Oleg K]

it means that there's no text in the body of the message - subject only

 

[Oleg K]

As usually, the updated list:

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~okikin/printprice/onlineprinting.htm

keep sending me links, guys - it helps all of us

 

[Lamont E. Earles]

....nt

No I dont work for them but I am as you can see very very happy with them. I am a Optician, been doing it for over 32 years I now work for Walmart Vison here in NW ohio!

 

[Anthony Ward]

it means that there's no text in the body of the message - subject
only

 

[Anthony Ward]

Hi Oleg - it looks good! Any way to have a column for shipping, as a low headline price can be changed with a big shipping charge? Anthony

As usually, the updated list:

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~okikin/printprice/onlineprinting.htm

keep sending me links, guys - it helps all of us

 

[Oleg K]

I had shipping initially, but i removed it later. The reasons are

1) the shipping charges are almost the same in all companies

2) the shipping charges depend on the volume of the package, so i would neen many columns and it would get way too messy.

3) many websites (around 50% actually) don't show shipping charges until you actualy check out, and that's too much pain for me to go through all these websites to figure it out.

As usually, the updated list:

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~okikin/printprice/onlineprinting.htm

keep sending me links, guys - it helps all of us

 

[Anthony Ward]

1) the shipping charges are almost the same in all companies
2) the shipping charges depend on the volume of the package, so i
would neen many columns and it would get way too messy.
3) many websites (around 50% actually) don't show shipping charges
until you actualy check out, and that's too much pain for me to go
through all these websites to figure it out.

As usually, the updated list:

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~okikin/printprice/onlineprinting.htm

keep sending me links, guys - it helps all of us

 

[Wayne Larmon]

I had shipping initially, but i removed it later. The reasons are

1) the shipping charges are almost the same in all companies
2) the shipping charges depend on the volume of the package, so i
would neen many columns and it would get way too messy.
3) many websites (around 50% actually) don't show shipping charges
until you actualy check out, and that's too much pain for me to go
through all these websites to figure it out.

Than how about requesting that people submit to you any companies that have abnormally high shipping charges and you add that to the comments field? Otherwise, assume that shipping+handling is in the $1.99-$3.99 range? (But even this range is significant, if you want to have a small order processed.)

Wayne Larmon

As usually, the updated list:

http://phobos.ramapo.edu/~okikin/printprice/onlineprinting.htm

keep sending me links, guys - it helps all of us

 

[Wayne Larmon]

The place the automatic correction algorithms fall on their face,
as do those by Fuji and Noritsu, is when they are presented with an
already correct image. This is particularly true if a photographer
used creative lighting or Photoshop techniques to acheive a desired
effect.

Yes! This is where I am now. After having a bunch of orders auto-processed by several companies, I have a big stack of perfectly processed snapshots (i.e, bell shaped histogram) that have no need of being printed beyond 4x6, and a somewhat smaller stack of washed out, faded (or too dark) sunrise/sunset type pictures (saddle shaped histrogram, or worse) that I would like to pay to have printed at a large size. But I can't get printed the way they should, no matter how I tweak then (on my hardware calibrated monitor) before sending them in.

The way to nail your customer's expectations is to provide good
profiles for each paper stock you run. This will allow customers
to adjust images on their (calibrated!) monitors to their
satisfaction. If they use a program such as Photoshop, Picture
Window, Corel Draw, or QImage that includes soft proofing tools,
they can get a remarkably good indication of how the final print
will appear. Instead of sending you a generic sRGB image and
hoping for the best, they can tune the image to extract the maximum
quality your printer is capable of generating.

This is the second bottleneck. Photoshop users are covered because color managed workflows are documented all over the place (starting with your drycreekphoto.com site) I can't find a workflow documented for any of the others.

I have downloaded the demo versions of both QIMage and Picture Window Pro, but haven't been able to figure out what to do. And I'm not sure if this is a workable workflow anyway. Elements-> QiMage-> on-line service upload program is unwieldy at best.

Picture Window Pro might be workable, but it is enough different from Elements/PSP that I am used to that it is a big learning curve. And the forums are not exactly overflowing with Picture Window Pro hints and tips.

Am I overlooking something? Or just being abnormally picky here? (i.e., "Shut up and get Photoshop like the rest of us.")

Wayne Larmon

 

[Oleg K]

yes, we can do that. just post the info in this thread

Than how about requesting that people submit to you any companies
that have abnormally high shipping charges and you add that to the
comments field? Otherwise, assume that shipping+handling is in
the $1.99-$3.99 range? (But even this range is significant, if you
want to have a small order processed.)

Wayne Larmon

 

[Ethan Hansen]

This is the second bottleneck. Photoshop users are covered because
color managed workflows are documented all over the place (starting
with your drycreekphoto.com site) I can't find a workflow
documented for any of the others.

Agreed. If you use Corel Draw or Macromedia Freehand (does anyone still use that?), Real World Color Management has exhaustive treatises on how to get reasonable color out. The problem is that these programs both operate under the assumption that the only printer you would need to convert a file for is a CMYK press. Profile conversions for RGB devices are difficult to say thee least.

I have downloaded the demo versions of both QIMage and Picture
Window Pro, but haven't been able to figure out what to do. And
I'm not sure if this is a workable workflow anyway. Elements->
QiMage-> on-line service upload program is unwieldy at best.

I do not use QImage often enough to do anything other than swear at it, look through the on-line help and "learn by example" sections. and perhaps figure out how to do what I am after. These efforts are usually when I am trying to see if QImage is capable of performing a specific task or checking out a new feature that is garnering rave reviews.

In an ideal world, someone with far more QImage experience (and free time) than I would write up a detailed step by step tutorial with screen shots on how to soft proof to a printer profile, and save the images to a file. I have muddled through the process to verify that it could be done, but the result was neither elegant nor was the process conducive to continued sobriety. There is certain to be a better way that what I found by going through the help files. At some point in the distant future I may take a SWAG at putting something together, but don't hold your breath.

Picture Window Pro might be workable, but it is enough different
from Elements/PSP that I am used to that it is a big learning
curve. And the forums are not exactly overflowing with Picture
Window Pro hints and tips.

I downloaded the demo version of PWP and played with it just long enough to see that using profiles and some level of soft proofing was possible. The demo long since died, and again, any workflow wou;ld greatly benefit from someone wiht more than five minute's experience writing it.

Am I overlooking something? Or just being abnormally picky here?
(i.e., "Shut up and get Photoshop like the rest of us.")

Hey Wayne! Shut up! Actually, please don't. I have been using Photoshop since version 2.something, and am reasonably well versed in its quirks. When I started, Photoshop was the only game in town. The competition is much better now, particularly if you do not need access to all the esoteric tools Photoshop provides. Having the tools available and having them be readily useable are two different things. Imagine trying to learn Photoshop from the User's guide and on-line help. They are useful, but you would spend far too long trying to figure out how to do the most basic tasks.

A large part of this is documentation, preferably written by someone other than the author of the program. I don't want to pick on QImage, but it provides a good example. Each time I confront its screen, I shake my head. When I finally figure out how to do something simple, the logic becomes clear. Many times I appreciate the elegant, albeit non-intuitive, method that Mike Chaney uses to complete various tasks. Many things are far faster to do in QImage than in Photoshop, but clicking on an otherwise unassuming text string in a dialog box is not the first, second, or even third approach that comes to mind.

The problem is the non-intuitive part. For either first time users or folks such as myself who fire up QImage once every few months, it is not particularly easy to accomplish anything other than raising your blood pressure. A manual written by someone who appeciated just how quirky and confusing the interface was would go a long way.

--
Ethan Hansen
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

 

[Wayne Larmon]

This is the second bottleneck. Photoshop users are covered because
color managed workflows are documented all over the place (starting
with your drycreekphoto.com site) I can't find a workflow
documented for any of the others.

Agreed. If you use Corel Draw or Macromedia Freehand (does anyone
still use that?), Real World Color Management has exhaustive
treatises on how to get reasonable color out. The problem is that
these programs both operate under the assumption that the only
printer you would need to convert a file for is a CMYK press.
Profile conversions for RGB devices are difficult to say thee least.

I have downloaded the demo versions of both QIMage and Picture
Window Pro, but haven't been able to figure out what to do. And
I'm not sure if this is a workable workflow anyway. Elements->
QiMage-> on-line service upload program is unwieldy at best.

I do not use QImage often enough to do anything other than swear at
it, look through the on-line help and "learn by example" sections.
and perhaps figure out how to do what I am after. These efforts
are usually when I am trying to see if QImage is capable of
performing a specific task or checking out a new feature that is
garnering rave reviews.

In an ideal world, someone with far more QImage experience (and
free time) than I would write up a detailed step by step tutorial
with screen shots on how to soft proof to a printer profile, and
save the images to a file. I have muddled through the process to
verify that it could be done, but the result was neither elegant
nor was the process conducive to continued sobriety. There is
certain to be a better way that what I found by going through the
help files. At some point in the distant future I may take a SWAG
at putting something together, but don't hold your breath.

Picture Window Pro might be workable, but it is enough different
from Elements/PSP that I am used to that it is a big learning
curve. And the forums are not exactly overflowing with Picture
Window Pro hints and tips.

I downloaded the demo version of PWP and played with it just long
enough to see that using profiles and some level of soft proofing
was possible. The demo long since died, and again, any workflow
wou;ld greatly benefit from someone wiht more than five minute's
experience writing it.

Am I overlooking something? Or just being abnormally picky here?
(i.e., "Shut up and get Photoshop like the rest of us.")

Hey Wayne! Shut up! Actually, please don't. I have been using
Photoshop since version 2.something, and am reasonably well versed
in its quirks. When I started, Photoshop was the only game in
town. The competition is much better now, particularly if you do
not need access to all the esoteric tools Photoshop provides.
Having the tools available and having them be readily useable are
two different things. Imagine trying to learn Photoshop from the
User's guide and on-line help. They are useful, but you would
spend far too long trying to figure out how to do the most basic
tasks.

A large part of this is documentation, preferably written by
someone other than the author of the program. I don't want to
pick on QImage, but it provides a good example. Each time I
confront its screen, I shake my head. When I finally figure out
how to do something simple, the logic becomes clear. Many times I
appreciate the elegant, albeit non-intuitive, method that Mike
Chaney uses to complete various tasks. Many things are far faster
to do in QImage than in Photoshop, but clicking on an otherwise
unassuming text string in a dialog box is not the first, second, or
even third approach that comes to mind.

The problem is the non-intuitive part. For either first time users
or folks such as myself who fire up QImage once every few months,
it is not particularly easy to accomplish anything other than
raising your blood pressure. A manual written by someone who
appeciated just how quirky and confusing the interface was would go
a long way.

--
Ethan Hansen
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

 

[jerpat]

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/QimagePro2003.pdf

I have downloaded the demo versions of both QIMage and Picture
Window Pro, but haven't been able to figure out what to do. And
I'm not sure if this is a workable workflow anyway. Elements->
QiMage-> on-line service upload program is unwieldy at best.

I do not use QImage often enough to do anything other than swear at
it, look through the on-line help and "learn by example" sections.
and perhaps figure out how to do what I am after. These efforts
are usually when I am trying to see if QImage is capable of
performing a specific task or checking out a new feature that is
garnering rave reviews.

In an ideal world, someone with far more QImage experience (and
free time) than I would write up a detailed step by step tutorial
with screen shots on how to soft proof to a printer profile, and
save the images to a file.
Ethan Hansen
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

 

[Ethan Hansen]

http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage/QimagePro2003.pdf

Yep, I've seen that. It is some number of revisions behind the times, with no mention of new and improved features such as soft proofing. I'll admit to my ignorance and unfamiliarity with QImage. Here's the most basic workflow I would like to document:

1: Soft proof a series of images to a particular printer profile. Toggle between Relative Colorimetric and Perceptual rendering to see which looks best for each image.

2: Convert these images to the printer profile, using the desired rendering intent for each one.

3: Save the converted files with no additional cropping, sharpening, red-eye reduction, resiing, etc. The files should not have the printer profile embedded.

I am sure this is possible with QImage. I've even done it before. How, I do not know. After looking through both the PDF and help again this morning I am no closer to figuring out how to do this simple task again.

Learn by example #20 shows how to select a printer profile. Example 28 is not what is needed - the images need to actually be converted rather than tagged.

The help file contains soft proofing information. Is the only way to set the rendering intent used a global one (right click on the Prtr ICC string, select rendering intent?). Can the rendering intent be changed on a per image basis?

Etc., etc., etc. We still haven't converted and saved the images. Print to file?

--
Ethan Hansen
http://www.drycreekphoto.com/

 

[Jonathan Orford]

In between matt and glossy. A kind of sheen!

Anthony,

Hope to see a couple of options in the future.

Pearl and matt photos.
White borders.
Thanks

 

[Anthony Ward]

Hmmm! We are definitely going to do Matt in the near future - but Pearl would take some convincing! Anthony

Anthony,

Hope to see a couple of options in the future.

Pearl and matt photos.
White borders.
Thanks

 

[Munman169678]

I believe that the prices from pephoto.com for 11x14, 12x18, 16x20, 20x24, and 20x30 sizes are by far the lowest to be found.

Does anyone have experience with their quality (paper, print quality) and delivery?

I am interested in some of these sizes, but the prices are almost too good to be true.

--
Have a nice day