Slashdot Mirror
Making Lab Quality Digital Photos?
photoFinished asks: How do most photo labs produce their digital prints? It seems to me that there should be a machine that uses an LCD to create a virtual negative to expose standard photo paper to, resulting in a standard-type photograph as the end result. However, since just about every CVS, Walgreens and other pharmacy advertises the ability to produce prints from your digital photos, I'm wondering if there's a quality difference between the various stores? I can produce a 4x6 on a $100 name-brand ink jet that appears virtually identical to a lab print when you look at it behind glass, the only difference is a light reduction in the smooth/glossiness you get from a regular print. Does anyone have information on the methods used by the various chain pharmacies produce their prints? I'd hate to think that the $0.40 I'm paying for each 4x6 is actually nothing more then the result of an expensive ink jet printer. Sorry if this is one of those 'you should try google' type of questions, but I couldn't find the answers I was looking for."
You must also be nuts (or desperate) to pay $0.40 for prints. $0.20 is typical for Costco/Sam's club/Wal-Mart Costco is $0.17 Sam's claims to be as low as $0.11
FYI: The Nortisu I usually use at my local Costco recommends preparing digital files at 320 dpi, as that is the printer's native resolution. So you might be able to do higher resolution from a home printer, but it's hard to beat the durability of standard prints.
BMost of these digital print makers do actually use a photographic process. There is no print negitive involved, because the computer can take the regular image and invert the colors easy enough.
It then takes the inverted image and uses colored LEDs to expose the piece of print paper in the size that you have picked.
The reason these machines are called "mini-labs" is they have a full photo lab inside of them. Once the film is exposed by the LEDs it is then developed, fixed, rinsed, and dried all inside that box. Then the final print emerges.
...this is one of those 'you should try Teoma' type of questions.
The answer to your question is 'yes'. You might get ink-jet produced pictures, or optically produced and enlarged prints. It depends on what the lab has for equipment.
And quit spending so much for prints. Try someone else. I've had great results from Clark Color Labs, but they are not the only ones that do good quality cheap prints. Clark charges 11 cents when you get 50 or more 4x6 prints, or 12 cents for less than 50 prints. There's some others that are even cheaper. Check out your local grocery store, Target, etc to see what they charge. 40 cents is too much.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
The technology I hear mentioned most often with reference to authentic prints from digital is "micro light valve array".
I worked a photo shop at one point to pay the bills. Years ago they where already doing this in a Fuji photo machine. All the chemical baths are in one system about the size of a large xerox machine.
You could use a digital copy, which was rare at the time, scan a neg in, or scan a positive in. Did not matter, enlarge, reduce..etc..etc. to photo quality paper. That did and actual photo chemical bath process. It was rather revolutionary to have it in a mall at the time about 13 years ago.
Hell I did all my photo homework on it for 2 years. What took people 20 hours of lab work I could do in 45 seconds. I still think the director of photography might be confused to this day.....
Neck_of_the_Woods
#/usr/local/surf/glassy/overhead
A company called alpine makes one for about $500 (the 1300 model). This is the same technology that wal*mart and wolf/ritz camera and all the internet printing places uses. Here are some links:
m n kjet/Alps_color_inkjet_printer.htmlk ipedia.org/wiki/Dye-sublimation_printer
http://science.howstuffworks.com/question583.ht
http://www.digital-photography.org/alps_color_i
http://en.wi
moox. for a new generation.
The local news station did a story on this recently. They printed some photos at various local stores, and on some home photo printers. They then showed these photos to the public and asked which they liked. Without knowing which was which, people generally chose the home printed ones.
However, as a home photo printer user, I can tell you that I think the paper they use might be different -- more likely to last longer without discoloration. While I have never really had problems on most of my photos, a few did get yellow on the corners. Don't really see that with normal photos. Haven't tried it with in-store digital photos though.
http://www.google.com/profiles/malachid
My exposure to these technologies was on the R&D end, not the business end, and I've since left Kodak.
:-) - HD is for wimps. These systems were replaced by the LED systems.
Most modern minilabs (be they Kodak/Noritsu, Fuji, etc. (a lot of these minilab systems are actually contracted out, but that's another discussion) use digital subsystems with wet front and back ends where appropriate.
Digital images are imported directly through obvious means - bits go in the hole. Silver halide negatives are developed and then scanned and stored locally on the minilab. The digital images are then adjusted through a combination of automated improvements (such as Kodak PerfectTouch) and manual tweaking, depending on the shop you go to and the level of service they offer. Automated only = cheaper. Current systems then use rastered or scanned LEDs in an RGB configuration (Some may also use lasers, but all the ones I've seen were LEDs - they're cheap) to expose the photographic paper, which is developed using traditional wet processes.
In the past, the first digital Kodak minilabs used little 6" CRTs with 4000 lines of resolution (made in New Jersey, I think) to project the images onto the paper. There was talk of stepping that up to 6000 lines, but I don't know if that ever happened. I could be a little off on those numbers - I'm pulling them from memory from years ago. But they certainly ended the NTSC/PAL resolution debate
Note that wholesale photofinishing labs still use traditional optics - for all the grooviness of digital systems, it's hard to beat a massive spinning system of traditional optics churning out thousands of prints an hour (we're talking on the scale of a print a second - fast!)
Most walk-up kiosks use thermal/dye sublimation printing systems, which have excellent print quality and durability, though they're expensive. A mylar donor ribbon coated with CMYK+finisher dyes is heated by a pagewidth linear array of diodes at ~300dpi and pressed against the receiver paper. A separate pass is made for each color. I'm not aware of any minilabs that use dye dub printers because of the speed limitations.
Inkjet technology is starting to penetrate the kiosk market, but there's a lot of maturing to still take place.
Your immediate observations are correct: silver halide photographic paper is more durable and usually glossier, which most consumers associate with quality. Since there are a wide range of inks available on the market (every printer manufacturer has many types of inks), paper manufacturers have and optimization problem in balancing quality/durability/color reproduction/light fastness.
As for the quality between vendors, there certainly are differences - though how much of that is tied to the digital algorithms and how much is tied to the processing hardware these days I'm not sure. I suspect it's much more the former. Your best bet is to find a local shop with well-trained staff that actually knows how to use the minilab, rather than the summer job teenager who doodled pictures of Bevis and Butthead (or Spongebob, or Thundercats, or whatever the kids are into these days) during their training class.
At this stage, throughput is the big technical bottleneck remaining for inkjet technologies to penetrate the kiosk and minilab markets. Ecologically and economically it's a 'no brainer', so all the major players are trying to produce solutions. Kiosks will probably be the first to make the transition. Brother, Sony, and another company that escapes me at the moment (in the UK?) have publicly demonstrated pagewide technologies, and I think Xerox had one operating in their labs before they shut down the inkjet effort a few years back. Some of these demos have been around for years. Someone from the inside needs to write a book about the Kodak-HP joint venture ("Phogenix") in making an inkjet minlab system - but it's probably still a little early, since the technologies the two companies were bringing to the table for the joint venture will appear in future products of their own. There are some entertaining stories involved - classic corporate America.
Thanks. I was totally confused until I read your informative post. I had no idea what he meant. Honest. Thanks again. I'm not kidding. Nice post. Seriously.
For if you don't, you'll buy a decent photo inkjet, that will take up space on your desk, its wall-wart will consume 2-3 plugs worth of space, on which you will print several photos periodically, that is, when the ink hasn't dried up.
Better, buy a cheap HP laser off eBay, have it take up the same space, suck less at B&W, never run out of ink, never clog, and for those pictures you need every once in a while, upload them to ritzcamera.com, and have them MAIL you back the prints in a few days.
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
There's quite a difference between printing your own pictures and having digital pictures developed at a professional lab. Home printed pictures, after less than a year, will start to fade. This will not happen with pics developed at a photolab. If you wish to keep those pictures for archival purposes, get them printed professionaly. As others have stated 0.40$ a picture is way too expensive. I pay 0.15$ CAN a picture at Costco.
It's better to burn out than to fade away
At my local CVS/pharmacy, I believe that they have a inkjet, albeit a high-quality, but still an inkjet, printer in the self-serve kiosk. Once the front cover was removed for some reason, and it looked similar to an HP Deskjet in size/shape/appearance. While I am fairly confident that a Deskjet could not produce that quality, it operated in a similar manner.
Then again, I almost always just use my hp psc 2510 photosmart to print my photos (on glossy paper if the importance warrants it), and I have been very pleased with the results, especially considering that it is not a photo printer per se, and rather a multi-function device.
go to http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/search.asp?query =commercial+printing&page=1&forum=all for more info than you will ever want on printers and printing.
Oh, and I would recomend NOT getting your prints printed at wallmart, costco, sam's club, or any of the other discount places if you care at all about your photos. Use a more pro shop, or spend a couple of years to learn how to print your own...
I know a fair bit about photography, but close to diddly squat about apache.....
I work at a Photo Lab at a grocery store chain in MN. (Cash Wise/Coborns) We use AGFA equipment in all of our stores. We've had good luck with the quality and occasionally even do some 6x45 or 6x7 medium format negs for local pro photographers. The place I work has a D.lab 3. It has a dry-to-dry print time of 2.5 minutes and will turn out an advertised maximum of 1700 prints per hour. It uses a laser just like the Fuji and Noritsu labs and the standard RA-4 paper process. We charge $.24 per digital print everyday except wednesday when they're on special for $.20. It doesn't have to be a Fuji or Noritsu to get good prints, it has to be maintained. The K-Mart next door has an older Noritsu and their quality is horrible, I don't know what they do. We run tests on our papers at least once a day, sometimes a couple times a day.
Add up your costs, its not worth it.
Occam's razor is the blind faith in the natural selection of least resistance and in universal oversimplification. -- EF
I've got pictures in my wallet that were printed almost 8 years ago and they're still fresh. Done on a Lexmark, which I still have.
Insert
Look into an Epson R1800 for inkjet photo printers. It'll set you back $550 but it has a gloss optimizer that'll give it the same protection as regular photo prints.
Working with Fuji and some of the major photo companies, the shortcoming lies in their printers not being able to do full bleed 8x10.
Hope that helps a little.
I think CVS is still exclusively an EK house, so that's probably a thermal printer. They look a lot like an inkjet printer until you pick it up - they're heavy! If you listen to it print, you can tell - since the thermal printer makes 4 passes (I goofed BTW - I think all the printers are CMY+finish coat, no K), you should hear four discrete whines, separated the the sound of the paper being pulled back into the printer. An 8x10 print will take 30-60 seconds, depending on the model of the printer they have in there.
That said, there are other companies putting inkjet kiosks into play now, and HP is certainly a player in the field. You can probably find out just by looking at the branding of the kiosk and a little web homework who's printer is inside.
Use snapfish.com It is as low as 10 cents a print.
As noted by others, self-service kiosks use dye-sublimation and dye-sublimation printers are fairly available as PC peripherals but have very high supplies costs. Minilabs and online services product true photographic prints.
What really frosts me is each new process claims print longevity comparable to each previous process. That is, dye-sub prints are claimed to be "virtually as durable" as true photographic color prints, ink-jets are "comparable to" dye-sub, and so forth. The claims, are of course, exaggerated; each new process is less durable than the one that proceeded it.
And, good grief, traditional photographic color prints are not durable by even ordinary lay standards. "Virtually as durable as a traditional color print" is like saying "virtually as fuel-efficient as a 1950 Cadillac."
Yes, I know that the color prints of the 2000's are better than those of the 1950s.
But. People used to keep black-and-white pictures of their families on desks near windows for decades without visible fading. I have century_ old black-and-white photos "stored" under highly non-archival conditions, in basements, attics, you name it, that look fine. I have 1950s Polaroid photos where someone didn't completely coat them with the Print-Kote and even the uncoated parts are viewable. I have prints I made in a contact printer when I was eleven years old, that didn't get the hypo rinsed out thoroughly, and they are perfectly viewable.
Meanwhile, the color prints held on our refrigerator with magnets have turned greenish in just a couple of years.
And it's not as if it were impossible to make durable color prints, either. As far as I know, carbro prints, available for decades, are very nearly as long-lasting as black-and-white.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
For slightly better quality, better large size prints, and not too much more money, there is mpix.com.
Both of these sights have Mac friendly upload options, and with Adorama, for really big orders, I can send them a disc instead of waiting all day for 300 3 MB files to upload.
Oh, the other cool thing about Adorama, they will send the photos directly to my client, with no invoice in the box so the clients don't see what I am paying -vs- what I am charging! This saves me time, postage, and packaging.
San Francisco Photographers
Of these items though, I don't understand this need by humans to continue seeing the photographic process as something that can only be appreciated in an analog, on-paper format. I would never suggest the others be strictly digital - a painting can have texture and depth, depending on the medium used to render it, a sculpture is inherently tactile, and seeing a sunset in a beautiful environment, breathing the air, hearing the insects/birds - can't currently be replicated.
Photos, though - are flat. One could argue that viewing a photo on paper has a different color dynamic than seeing it on a monitor or from a projector, and I would agree that this is currently the case, but is not likely to be the case forever. I am not saying that artists and aspiring artists shouldn't try to find cameras and printers capable of allowing them to do proofs or better, which they might want to hang in a gallery.
Ordinary photos, though? Why do so many people insist on taking a digital photograph and then having it printed? Perhaps for grandma who might not have an internet connection (though this is becoming more rare over time) - but if you have a digital camera, you likely have a computer, and you have a way to view those images forever, if you so choose.
As long as you create backups of your collection periodically (even negatives can be damaged, and are more difficult to make backups of - especially at home - though labs can do it), you will always have a copy. The digital images can be easily emailed. They can be viewed on a TV (via a media computer or DVD player), they can be uploaded to a website to be viewed anywhere in the world that has internet access. Portable viewing isn't completely here yet (although I have seen on Ebay keychain thumbnail flash-based viewers sold) - but if you have a color pda it is possible, or with a laptop. We also have tablet computers (though for some reason, not as popular). You can't carry around your entire analog photo collection, but this is possible to do with your digital photo collection...
So why the fascination, for the ordinary person, to have paper photos? Ok - maybe if the power goes out, there might be problem - but most people don't break out the photo album on an extended power outage - they tend to be more concerned with the refrigerator and freezer, among other things.
Can anyone tell me why, in our very networked and digital age, why we continue to hang on to these other methods (for ordinary people - not professionals and artists, I can see their needs and wants, and digital isn't there yet for color reproduction or resolution)? When is the ordinary joe going to quit beating his Model-T with a buggy whip to urge it forward?
Reason is the Path to God - Anon
I've been using CostCo for my photo printing since they opened a warehouse near me last year. They also have some features which cater to pro-sumer and pro-level photographers. Here's some of the things I like:
1) Most CostCo warehouses have ICC profiles made and updated frequently. They're available for download at http://drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/. If you do photo post-processing in an ICC-aware app (ie Photoshop) and have a profiled monitor, your colors will match from screen to print.
2) Large prints are also very reasonably priced - $2 for up to 8x12.
3) If you want to do odd sizes for matting, no problem - I can get a 5x5 image printed on an 8x10 sheet and trim and mat it however I want for a particular frame.
Also, CostCo isn't a huge PITA like Wal-Mart is when it comes to good-looking pictures. Wal-Mart will refuse to print a shot that looks "too good", and the lab worker at CostCo will say "Hey, great picture - what camera did you use?".