Help with Ofoto prints and LS 342

[seanspeng]

Hello there,

I am very frustrated that I cannot get good prints from Ofoto from my D30 photos at www.pengrus.com (resized sample).

I only used Pekka's LS 342 for Raw conversion and LS342 's save for Print option. Nothing else. The save for print option set the color profile as AdobeRGB. But the prints I got from ofoto have severe color problems:

1. color is very light.
2. most importantly, the skin color shifted to cold grey. I got this problem even before I use LS 342.

Anyone could tell me the solution?

In great appreciation!

Sean

[slejhamer]

seanspeng wrote:
The save for print option set the color profile as AdobeRGB.

Hi Sean,

I thought it was just my G1 images that had the Ofoto woes. I had the same trouble you describe, and found that the solution (for me) is to use either untagged images or the sRGB profile only. My images saved with the AdobeRGB (or any other) profile were too light or the colors were way off.

I ended up running a test and sent Ofoto the same image processed 15 different ways in PS. My untagged image, with only contrast adjustment and sharpening, had the truest colors.

Still, Ofoto's skintones are "cool" in my opinion, and I find that if I send a very warm-looking image (color midtone adjustment) they come back looking "normal." My Epson printer at home, on the othe hand, gives prints that look almost exactly like what I see on my monitor, so the anomoly seems to be with Ofoto. (And yes, I've carefully calibrated and re-calibrated my monitor, most recently using the GretagMacbeth Color Checker, so I think it's fairly accurate.)

Well, that solution worked for me, but hopefully someone will have a better idea that works for us both.

Cheers,

[Pekka]

With LS 342 I usually recommend saturation +12 or so in the end. Use your eyes and decide what it needs - LS offers you one possible end result, you may improve it with any tools you like.

You can untag the photo (remove color space info) by converting the photo from RGB to LAB and back to RGB.

[seanspeng]

Thanks to Mitch and Pekka for your help on the prints problem with ofoto!

I followed your suggestions and conducted several sets of experiments with ofoto, ezprints, and photoaccess. I am glad and proud to say that I discovered PHOTOACCESS as the winner of the all three highly claimed online printing services.

I sent the following sets of photos to them:
1. LS 342 save for prints
2. Untag as defined by Pekka after running the LS 342 convert and sharpen

3. LS 342 + Digital V by Fred
4. Untaged (after LS 342) + Digital V by Fred.

And the following are my findings:

1. EZprints produced the poorest quality. Bad color (turned some redish light background to bad blue), and noticeable pixel printing. The pictures also appear to be much more dull than ofoto and photoaccess with same sets of files. I really don't understand that some pro photographers even recommend this service. Anyone would find its poor end result with a little extra attention.

2. Ofoto has been my favorite printing service for more than a year. I have been pleased by its "printing" quality. However, I had the skin color problems before and when I called in, the customer representatives told me that I messed up with white balance, etc. I was convinced to believe that it is my fault, because I do not know that much knowledge. Now with the 4 sets of experiments, I discover that ofoto:

a. apply some sort of automatic correction
b. some major color shifts. For example, the green leaf can even turn to yellow-green!!! And even with untag, the skin color is still having problem.

3. The winner is Photoaccess. I did not like this one at all in the beginning because I called three times and could not get a hold of their customer service. And their web display of photos are poor.

However, the 4 sets of prints came back and totally surprised me. Here are what I found:
a. It seems they do not apply some annoying automatic correction. For example, the sets with and without digital V have real difference in color saturation, while ofoto's colors look the same due to some correction applied.

b. The colors produced by photoaccess are very very accurate. The colors that I particularly had problems with ofoto are green and white. I was amazed by the white wedding gown that photoaccess produces! And the green is so accurate too!

c. Details!!! Photoaccess prints have noticeable much better details than ofoto by observing the wedding gown fabric! Both photoaccess and ofoto prints are A LOT sharper than ezprints. But photoaccess has more details AND the colors are clear and do not mess up. For example, the wedding gown color in ofoto's prints shifted to something close to one's skin tone. But photoaccess' colors have strong contrast and do not mixed up with adjacent colors.

With unlimited space and reasonable price, I would certainly move my future printing job to WWW.PHOTOACCESS.COM from ofoto!

Hope this review is helpful for everyone who tries online printing.

[mjordan]

Sean,

I've used EZPrint a number of times and have had good results with them. My first few test prints I sent were on the dark side, but after I calibrated my monitor with a Spyder they looked a lot better. But the colors were pretty accurate. I did as large as 11x14s with EZPrint.

I took a look at PhotoAccess and they only do prints up to 12x18 (except for what they call poster size), although their prices are comparable to a couple of other labs I use.

Hopefully, PhotoAccess will be your lab of choice longer than Ofoto was.

Mike

[seanspeng]

Hi, Mike,

Thanks for sharing your experience with us. I strongly suggest you to give photoaccess a try, comparing the prints from ezprints and photoaccess on same file. You'll be glad that you tried.

I did notice that ezprints' prices are lower than photoaccess. But for regular prints, they are close. But for 20x30, there are big difference. I would go with http://www.jumbogiant.com/. What are the other labs that you used?

Thanks,

[mjordan]

seanspeng wrote:

I did notice that ezprints' prices are lower than photoaccess. But for regular prints, they are close. But for 20x30, there are big difference. I would go with http://www.jumbogiant.com/. What are the other labs that you used?

Thanks,

I have two local labs here in the Portland, OR area that I use. One is a Pro lab that I use for all of my really important stuff. They do a very good job although I think they are a bit slow (3 to 4 days to process film and get back 4x6 proofs) and a bit expensive in some areas. They charge $25 for a roll of 36 exposure print film and 4x6 proofs. The proofs are excellent and I've never had a problem with scracthed or dirty negatives (other than one time with a couple of rolls of black and white that the drying agent left a white line down the length of both rolls). When I use them, I mostly use their FTP upload now since I am digital. That lab is K&K Color Lab in Portland.

The other lab I use the most right now is even closer and I just use them for uploading digital files for printing. They just added the capability to do 12x18, which is $12.49. Their 8x10/8x12 is $2.99. They do excellent work from digital files (I do all the work to them) and I can upload them the night before and pick them up the next day. I'm looking forward to trying a couple of 12x18s there, but I need the right images to go that big. This lab is called Quick Stop Photo and I use the Hillsboro lab.

It doesn't take long for any lab I use to get to know me because I normally shoot dog portraits and mostly a breed that people aren't familiar with (or if they are, they are impressed). So after a couple jobs, they know who I am when I call or come in. And my name does comes in handy once in awhile as well. ;D

I'm always keeping an eye for other labs though, so I'll mark yours down as well. Even if I don't use them, there are always people asking for recomendations on Zuga.net where I spend most of my e-time.

Thanks Sean.

Mike