Online photo printing review – part 3

The finalists: SmugMug, Snapfish, and Adorama Pix

Last month I got the prints from the photo printing sites reviewed and I liked both the ones from Snapfish and SmugMug, which lead me to do a final round between those two.
Remember that SmugMug transitioned papers from Fuji to Kodak and my second batch from Snapfish was not as good as the first one.

I have received the prints, but also got to talk to the reps from Adorama Pix and they want me to try again (which I did) using their operator-based manual color correction option.

I used the excellent plugin BorderFX for Aperture to generate the 4×6” pictures at 300 dpi, using a sharpness setting of 0.4 and several white border settings (the thickest I tried was 50 which was adequate, 55 would have been better).

Results

The prints from Snapfish came very fast, they were sent and processed on a Wednesday and arrived two days later (on Friday). Great turn around. The ones from Smugmug, issued on the same day as the ones from Snapfish, took two days to get processed and an additional week to arrive.

Snapfish:

This last batch from Snapfish were pretty decent this time; the sharpness settings from the plugin were good, and color-wise there was a tendency for the yellows to have more luminance than they should, but the effect was pleasant. Interestingly the shadows on people’s faces were lifted (brighter) yet the overall black level of the pictures was great.

Smugmug:

The prints from Smugmug were printed on Kodak paper, and I didn’t like how thin the paper feels. This is not the Royal Gold Kodak paper that Adorama Pix uses, which has a very nice weight to it. The colors matched the color profile preview on the computer (which is good to see how colors are going to shift) and my previous comments still stand: accurate colors yet the blacks are muddy, giving a low contrast to the pictures. The prints from Snapfish, although not as accurate, popped nicely due to very good blacks. The one I did print on Lustre (Kodak Endura) did have a very nice contrast compared to the glossy version, and was sharper. The paper has a proper weight too, so even though a bit more expensive (21 cents vs. 19 cents), I think it is the way to go.

Smugmug update:

I decided to go ahead and print 50 pictures using Smugmug’s lustre paper and the results are fantastic. The depth and saturation are great, and the color shifts (some de-saturatation on the oranges and reds) match the profile perfectly, making great previews of what you are going to get before printing.

AdoramaPix:

I did receive the first batch of pictures from AdoramaPix, which were glossy with color corrections done by them. The results are much better than the first time where I selected no color corrections; they are pleasing although maybe lacking a bit of contrast.  The second batch in the order was with Lustre paper and that one didn’t get processed, probably because of an exception.

Final Conclusions

The best so far is Smugmug’s lustre prints – excellent, accurate, colors; consistent and with good color profiles. This is the best solution if you want to have control over the whole printing process. If you don’t have a Smugmug account for online pictures (annual fee) you could go through their printing lab directly, which is EzPrints.
(Personal benefit section: if you want to join Smugmug, you could use my referral and save yourself $5 on the first year – just use the coupon code: 8gdwavv5aQlxA  - I will get a credit too) 

Conversely, I do not recommend Smugmug’s glossy prints -  they feel cheap (thin paper) and look flat.

AdoramaPix should be ideal if you want somebody to fine-tune the colors of your pictures (select ‘color-correction’).  I do think that their glossy print lack a bit of contrast though (maybe better with lustre?).

You might be happy with Snapfish - you are not going to get the most accurate colors, there might be variability (sometimes too much), but they are very cheap and the prints have a good dynamic range. 

 

Online photo printing review – part 2

Comparing Adorama, Apple, Costco, Mpix, SmugMug, and Snapfish

Part 1 of this review dealt with the web ordering experience and pricing. In this second part I examine the received print quality, based on this criteria:

• Colors: color casts on people’s faces, and accuracy against my monitor’s representation.
• Consistency
• Paper quality
• Shipping: time to arrive and quality of the shipping materials.

The first batch of photo printing sites consisted of Costco (local), Mpix, Apple, and Smugmug.

Costco

The operator seemed to ignore my instructions once again (unlike the other submissions, these files had been converted to the printer profile for this Costco location, and I was trying to tell them to print on the correct Noritsu printer). Not sure if the instructions would have made a difference but the results, colorwise, were pretty poor this time, with some strong yellow color shifts making people and the overall picture look unnatural. Once again I see a tendency for the prints to be dark. The Fuji Crystal Archive paper is nice, the white borders are done correctly (by shrinking the image) – I just wish they got the colors right like they once did.

 

Mpix

I got the pictures delivered in exactly one week; the cardboard envelope seemed OK as far as integrity, although inside the pictures were not presented that well (just a simple envelope). In any case the glossy pictures I requested were printed on Kodad Professional Endura paper, which is not really glossy, more like luster. I was quite disappointed with the output, with some yellow color casts on people’s faces (not as bad a Costco’s), but even worse, several pictures had obvious banding on them! I could not believe I paid so much for the prints (29 cents each) to get these results. It could be the occasional bad batch, but after the poor web experience and printed results, I’m not going to try again.

Apple (via Kodad EasyShare)

The prints came a day after the ones from Mpix (one week and one day since submitted). The presentation was nice, the photos were printed on Kodak PerfectTouch paper, which does not have the same thickness as Fuji’s Crystal Archive, but is fine nonetheless. All the prints lacked contrast, looking rather dull. Anyway, I was not expecting too much and I did not get that much at the end.

Smugmug (part 1)

Well, after a two week wait the prints appeared to be missing in action. Bummer.

So after the first batch I ended-up with no good prints. In the second batch I tried AdoramaPix and Snapfish.

AdoramaPix

The prints arrived pretty fast, in three days, in an impressive cardboard box, with the three submitted jobs very nicely wrapped separately and each backed with a piece of cardboard. No wonder shipping was $4.95!

The regular glossy prints were done on Kodak Royal Paper, which appears to have a thickness close to the Fuji Crystal Archive. I was happy to see the white borders done right (I did like their web site a lot). The colors were OK, but maybe not the best of the bunch; some pictures were a bit cool (more bluish than yellowish), and the oranges were not great, but what I found odd was that the few I had also printed in luster were way warmer than the glossy versions.

I had a couple printed on Endura Metallic finish and they looked very different (in a good way). This is finish I want to experiment a bit more on.

So AdoramaPix did a good job but did not totally convince me with their colors (specially seeing the difference between glossy and luster). I would not write them off (maybe their operator-based color correction is good), but the high shipping rate makes it hard to do much experimenting with.

Snapfish

The Snapfish prints came on the same day as the ones from Adorama (so about three days), but with the flimsiest packaging of all. When I first saw the prints, I was shocked – these were by far the cheapest yet the colors looked great, with no color shifts on people’s faces! And they were printed on Fuji Crystal Archive, which has been my favorite paper for a long time.

The prints had the requested white borders, but then I realized the borders had been masked onto the picture (thus discarding some of the picure area, and in some cases cutting-off important stuff). The prints also were a bit too light overall (giving a slight desaturation effect), and some of the oranges (like on pumpkins) could be better. Still, the border and brightness were things I could compensate myself, and I was very excited to finally see prints they were very close to what my monitor was showing. I immediately sent a second job with an array of gamma (brightness) and border variations to see if I could hit the right combination.

Smugmug (via EzPrints) (part 2)

Three weeks after I submitted the order my Smugmug pictures arrrived! They took forever, but after looking at the prints I realized they were quite good. Actually, very good. So I started comparing them to the Snapfish prints and against my computer, and I realized two things:

• The prints appear to have been sharpened; they look like the sharpened ones I submitted to the other places. If this is true, it’s great! No need to have two versions, one for web, and another for printing.
• Update: subsequent prints did not appear to have automatic sharpening, so I am not sure what happened with the first set. 
• The printer profile from EzPrints gives a very close preview of what the prints will look like. This is great too.

As far as colors, the oranges came-out good; Smugmug was the best at dealing with the picture above (rusty chain and metal), which has a tough gammut to reproduce. People’s faces looked quite good, maybe some of the Snapsish were better but then again they were less dense, so less prone to saturation. Some of the blacks were more muddy than the ones from Snapfish, but overall I think Smugmug might be better.

And the winner is…

Well, it is between Snapfish and Smugmug. AdoramaPix was not bad, but I see better results in these other two. Out of the fifteen photos, I liked 7 better on Smugmug, 5 on Snapfish, and 3 were a draw. So it’s pretty close.

The second Snapfish order arrived (the one where I experimented with different brightness levels and my own borders). Unfortunately the whole set was warmer (yellowish) and darker than the first one, making my tests overshoot the gamma compensation. There goes consistency.

As for Smugmug, a few days after receiving the prints they announced a change from Fuji paper over to Kodak. Arrgh!

So I’m going to do a run-off test to check-out how the Smugmug prints look with the Kodak paper (and also try to do my own white borders), and I might give Snapfish another chance. Hope Smugmug does not take three weeks again!

Online photo printing review – part 1

Comparing Adorama, Apple, Costco, Mpix, SmugMug, and Snapfish.

As I mentioned on my previous post, I decided to try-out some online photo printing services to see if I could get better results than the ones I’ve been getting at the local Costco.

In this first part of the review I will summarize my experience with the ordering process, including what print options the different web sites have and the pricing for the basic sizes. This is what I look-out for:

• Cropping: I do not like cropping-out the pictures to make them fit (your photos might not have the same aspect ratio as the paper they are printed on), and I’d rather have some borders on either top/bottom or left/right than lose some of my precious capture!
• Borders: I like white borders on my prints, it looks nice and avoids some fingerprint marks.
• Glossy paper: I prefer glossy since it gives the pictures a lot of depth. Luster (the paper with the grainy texture) is considered more expensive, but I don’t like it that much. Matte is good for framing, but I do that printing myself.
• No color adjustments: I have a profiled monitor, and I want my prints to be as close as possible to what I see, so no automatic color corrections for me, please.
• Profiles: this is a great way to preview how the pictures will look once printed. It’s not going to magically make the pictures good, but you can see how some tonalities will end-up.
• Pricing: well, it just adds up.

I picked 15 pictures with a variety of scenarios, and then proceeded to use the printing services in this chronological order (helps me remember):

Costco: the incumbent

I usually do not use the Costco online service for my prints, but instead I go there myself to upload the pictures, pay, and pick-them up (I did use the online service once but the results were worse for some reason). I use some Photoshop actions to re-size, sharpen, and convert the photos to the corresponding printer profile found in Dry Creek Photo. Pricing is quite good:

• 4×6: $0.17
• 5×7: $0.39
• 8×10: $1.49

Mpix

I read good things about Mpix a while back, so I wanted to try it. Printer profiles are available if you ask them via email, but didn’t request them for this trial.

The web site experience was not very good, actually. Found it slow and clunky. The only option for dealing with photos that don’t fit the correct print format is cropping; you can select which area will be cropped, but cannot specify not to crop. No border options are available, but color correction can be disabled.

I wanted to try their metallic paper but could not figure out how to do it within the same order. Pricing for individual prints is quite steep:

• 4×6: $0.29
• 5×7: $0.99
• 8×10: $1.99
• Shipping: $2.50 for my 16 picture order.

So all in all a disappointing online experience; hopefully the prints will be good.

Apple (via Kodak Easyshare)

Next I wanted to try-out the built-in print service of Aperture 2.0 to see how things turn-out. This should be the same conduit as with iPhoto. So I selected the test pictures, right-clicked and selected ‘Order Prints’, filled-out the form with how many I wanted per size, and voila! This was super-easy.

Unfortunately there are no options but paper size. Pricing was not bad though:

• 4×6: $0.12
• 5×7: $0.49
• 8×10: $1.99
• Shipping: $2.49.

Summary: easy to use but no options.

Smugmug (via EzPrints)

I use Smugmug to post my pictures online and do enjoy their site. I never tried their print services, mainly because I want to sharpen my pictures before printing, but this would not look good for web display. In any case, I just uploaded the test pictures (unsharpened) to a gallery and proceeded to order.

The ordering process was very nicely done; you can easily select the size, paper type, whether to crop or not, and whether to do automatic color correction or not. The only thing missing is borders. Profiles can be found in the forums.

The prints get a bit expensive at larger sizes but the common ones are reasonable:

• 4×6: $0.19
• 5×7: $0.99
• 8×10: $2.99
• Shipping: $2.95

Overall the nicest web experience of all the places tested.

AdoramaPix

I’ve used Adorama in the past to order photo equipment, and their photo printing service is nicely done, with many options available. Profiles for their different papers are readily downloadable, and you can have multiple jobs per order (to select different paper types, for example).

Borders are available, as well as no-cropping options (‘full frame’); Adorama can optionally color correct your pictures (by a human, apparently), and there are several different ways of tagging the backside of the print (for example, with the job name).

Pricing is very good, and I used the initial 25 free pictures offer by also trying out the luster and metallic finishes.

• 4×6: $0.15
• 5×7: $0.35
• 8×10: $1.99
• Shipping: $4.95!

I did like all the options that the Adorama site gives you. Well done.

Snapfish

Snapfish claims to have very low cost prints, and I was intrigued since some online review rated them highly for quality. The site looked familiar since it is the same front-end that Costco uses for their online prints. Options are straightforward (glossy or matte paper) and I was happy to see several kind of borders available (white, black, and white torn).

Pricing is very low for the 4×6” size, and you get 20 free prints the first time you sign-up:

• 4×6: $0.09
• 5×7: $0.79
• 8×10: $2.99
• Shipping: $1.97

Remember that shipping rates could vary depending on the print job quantity (like with Snapfish) .

In the next article I’ll discuss the quality of the prints received.

Printing your digital photos

A few years ago, in 2003, I purchased an Epson Stylus Photo 2200, capable of 13×19” prints, to print my slide scans and the pictures from my first digicam (a Canon S400). I spent a lot of time figuring how to use Photoshop and trying to match the monitor output to the prints. I got a hardware monitor calibration puck, wasted a lot of ink, and tried different papers. It was a great learning experience, but at the end of the day it was just too much work to print a bunch of 4×6” photos, and only worth it for large prints.

There were also quality issues; the Epson 2200 had problems with glossy prints in the light areas (‘bronzing’), something which could be minimized with different papers but not totally eliminated. Then there was the paper itself, many times not as nice and heavy as the regular prints you would get with film processing.

If I had such a hard-time getting decent results with my digital prints, what would the casual user do? Print the occasional photo with their desktop printer and not care much of the usually dismal output? Or just be lazy and keep all the pictures around in the computer, with a high probability of being lost forever after a hard-drive crash?

I then discovered that the local Costco would print your digital files on these huge Noritsu printers onto Fuji Crystal Archive, the same photographic paper I loved from the film days. The prints were affordable, you could get free printer profiles from Dry Creek Photo, and you could get them with white borders too (which is my preference). So the digital print dilemma was solved.

Or was it? After several years of printing at Costco I have gotten a bit disappointed. My computer setup is quite nice, with a Eizo ColorEdge CE210W monitor that is calibrated from the factory and has a super easy calibration procedure. I manage my pictures with Photoshop and understand the basics of a color managed workflow. I do output sharpening before sending the pictures to print (something that everybody should do, otherwise they look soft). Yet my photos from Costco are a hit and miss thing. Colors sometimes do not match, and other times I think the printers are doing automatic corrections, even though the operators tell me they do not. A common theme is that the prints tend to be too dark.

So I decided to try a few online print services to see how they stack-up. This will be the subject of my next posts.

The Nissan GT-R does it again!

The Nissan GT-R trounces the competition at Buttonwillow’s famous Time Attack configuration!

When the car was announced with a weight of 3800 lbs I did not think it would make much of a showing compared to lighter-weight beasts like the Corvette Z06 and the 911 GT3. I was not very sure about the styling either until I saw it at the LA Autoshow, where it really made an impression, and I was surprised at the aerodynamic work under the car.

Then the comparisons started getting published in Europe and Japan, and it looked like it was fast. OK, so it could beat a 911 Turbo, and also a 911 GT3 on a cold track. How about the Z06?

Well, Road and Track Magazine’s comparison at ButtonWillow configuration 13 (‘Time Attack’) clocked the GT-R at 1:56.9, more than 5 seconds faster than the Corvette Z06 and the 911 Porsche Turbo! This is really, really, impressive for a street car which is not even running race tires.

My time six months ago at the same track was 2:24, not very fast, but decent for my first time in this configuration (and of course, with worn-out front tires!). Some of the better guys would do around 2:05’s, and prepared cars with great drivers dip below 2:00.

So how can a 3800 lbs car put such impressive numbers? Hard to say. Hopefully my friend will purchase one in a couple of years and we’ll find out. Maybe it’s not as fun as a raw, little electronically managed, rear-wheel drive car like the GT3; maybe over a bunch of laps the extra weight will make the tires suffer; but for now, thumbs up.