Advice needed - prof'l printing from film problem/query
Discussion
Long post, sorry...
BACKGROUND:
We've had some photos back (at £££
from our wedding photographer, and they're a different colour to both the preview album we got (4x6" and the proper album (8x10" or 10x12", both of which are spot-on for colour. As were the previous reprints we got for other relatives.
Now he used a film camera, not digital, at the wedding, so everything so-far has come from the negatives. But this last set appear to have been scanned-in somehow (you can see the resolution isn't perfect!), AND they're noticeably more 'orange' (Father-in-Law looks like Dale Winton!) than ALL of the others we've had (4 different printing dates).
We noticed it first-time (resolution and colour) when we went to collect them...so he held onto then and allegedly got a new set done for us...but what we've had looks identical to the old ones...AND they sorted them within a week (visited Sunday, photos initially delivered Monday)...so we're dubious they've replaced them at all.
QUESTION
He's saying that he needs the 'album' (hasn't said which one but other text implies the nice album) back as "the only way for the lab to colour match the ones that you have in your album is to have those prints in front of them - there really is no other way around that - otherwise everyone at the lab would print them differently as they are making many subjective decisions as to what that person sees as the best/right colour"
Now I'm confused by this (and I am just an amateur, but...):-
1) Why has 'the lab' got it right 4x but now can't? Previous prints span >12 months, too...so not time-related.
2) I thought the whole point of expensive cameras, light-meters, etc., was so the PHOTOGRAPHER could get the colour right...if it's that easy for a lab to f*** it up, why bother with all the expensive kit?!?
3) I thought you couldn't affect the colour when printing from film, not without actively intervening?
4) Why has the resolution dropped on these (oh...they're smaller prints than the main album, but worse resolution!)?
I think they're messing us around for some reason, and they're c.40 miles away (so not easy to 'drop the album off', plus they'd then have to take album apart and take/send photos to 'the lab'...not keen on that AT ALL!). Plus it's bloody obvious they're wrong...he even spotted the saturation and the resolution issues last Sunday*!
So...help, please...unfortunately I paid by cheque which was cashed straight away, so no comeback there either (we trusted him by this point...).
Thanks all,
Martin.
BACKGROUND:
We've had some photos back (at £££
from our wedding photographer, and they're a different colour to both the preview album we got (4x6" and the proper album (8x10" or 10x12", both of which are spot-on for colour. As were the previous reprints we got for other relatives.Now he used a film camera, not digital, at the wedding, so everything so-far has come from the negatives. But this last set appear to have been scanned-in somehow (you can see the resolution isn't perfect!), AND they're noticeably more 'orange' (Father-in-Law looks like Dale Winton!) than ALL of the others we've had (4 different printing dates).
We noticed it first-time (resolution and colour) when we went to collect them...so he held onto then and allegedly got a new set done for us...but what we've had looks identical to the old ones...AND they sorted them within a week (visited Sunday, photos initially delivered Monday)...so we're dubious they've replaced them at all.
QUESTION
He's saying that he needs the 'album' (hasn't said which one but other text implies the nice album) back as "the only way for the lab to colour match the ones that you have in your album is to have those prints in front of them - there really is no other way around that - otherwise everyone at the lab would print them differently as they are making many subjective decisions as to what that person sees as the best/right colour"
Now I'm confused by this (and I am just an amateur, but...):-
1) Why has 'the lab' got it right 4x but now can't? Previous prints span >12 months, too...so not time-related.
2) I thought the whole point of expensive cameras, light-meters, etc., was so the PHOTOGRAPHER could get the colour right...if it's that easy for a lab to f*** it up, why bother with all the expensive kit?!?
3) I thought you couldn't affect the colour when printing from film, not without actively intervening?
4) Why has the resolution dropped on these (oh...they're smaller prints than the main album, but worse resolution!)?
I think they're messing us around for some reason, and they're c.40 miles away (so not easy to 'drop the album off', plus they'd then have to take album apart and take/send photos to 'the lab'...not keen on that AT ALL!). Plus it's bloody obvious they're wrong...he even spotted the saturation and the resolution issues last Sunday*!
- He's got a new partner (both senses) and she seems more pushy and less people-y than him...plus she's doing a lot of his admin...and now we have this problem...she suggested there was nothing wrong on Sunday, he spotted it straight away, yet we still get the same errors back...
So...help, please...unfortunately I paid by cheque which was cashed straight away, so no comeback there either (we trusted him by this point...).
Thanks all,
Martin.
d308,
prof. body - will check - good idea!
negs - possibly, but not with old partner as little has changed (he was solo but with assistance from friend before, if that makes sense)...new 'partner' is non-photographer, more business side of things...
My thoughts too...it's the only logical reason why 4 lots of prints are fine and the 5th lot are troublesome twice-over!
Assuming he's still got the original negs, would printing from them give any colour issues?!? If not then I've got him in an 'omission', and can push him to sort it at his cost...
Keep the ideas coming guys...I'm in uncertain territory here and don't want to speak to him again until I'm certain of my ground...I want to keep it pleasant and cordial for as long as possible...
prof. body - will check - good idea!
negs - possibly, but not with old partner as little has changed (he was solo but with assistance from friend before, if that makes sense)...new 'partner' is non-photographer, more business side of things...
poah said:
sounds like he has rescanned them. you can get a nasty colour cast from some negs when scanned incorrectly
My thoughts too...it's the only logical reason why 4 lots of prints are fine and the 5th lot are troublesome twice-over!
Assuming he's still got the original negs, would printing from them give any colour issues?!? If not then I've got him in an 'omission', and can push him to sort it at his cost...
Keep the ideas coming guys...I'm in uncertain territory here and don't want to speak to him again until I'm certain of my ground...I want to keep it pleasant and cordial for as long as possible...
When you print from negatives, you can give a print any colour cast you like, you will find that different people see colours slightly differently, some may prefer warmer prints, some will prefer colder colours. Without a print in front of you to go by, it is not unusual that you will get a reprint back a slightly different colour compared to the original, especially if it has been printed by someone different. It's not even always as simple as inputing the same colour correction as on the original prints(if the lab keeps info like that), because over time different paper batches will need different base corrections which could change the settings used at first. However, this shouldn't be an excuse if the prints you received look 'wrong', they should still be nice, even if they don't match the other sets.
A lot of new machines now scan the negs and output them digitally, rather than an optical print straight from the neg. The advantage with the dig machines is that you can control contrast, and levels, which you can't when printing optically. Personally, when printing from negs, I find that you get better results straight from the negs, assuming that they are well exposed.
Sounds to me like he might be using a different lab for his printing.
A lot of new machines now scan the negs and output them digitally, rather than an optical print straight from the neg. The advantage with the dig machines is that you can control contrast, and levels, which you can't when printing optically. Personally, when printing from negs, I find that you get better results straight from the negs, assuming that they are well exposed.
Sounds to me like he might be using a different lab for his printing.
Edited by .Adam. on Thursday 25th October 17:16
havoc said:
Now I'm confused by this (and I am just an amateur, but...):-
1) Why has 'the lab' got it right 4x but now can't? Previous prints span >12 months, too...so not time-related.
2) I thought the whole point of expensive cameras, light-meters, etc., was so the PHOTOGRAPHER could get the colour right...if it's that easy for a lab to f*** it up, why bother with all the expensive kit?!?
3) I thought you couldn't affect the colour when printing from film, not without actively intervening?
4) Why has the resolution dropped on these (oh...they're smaller prints than the main album, but worse resolution!)?
1: There's no reason why the 'lab' shouldn't get it right every time. This is what professional labs do, and why they're expensive. The only thing that springs to mind is that he's printing them at home somehow.1) Why has 'the lab' got it right 4x but now can't? Previous prints span >12 months, too...so not time-related.
2) I thought the whole point of expensive cameras, light-meters, etc., was so the PHOTOGRAPHER could get the colour right...if it's that easy for a lab to f*** it up, why bother with all the expensive kit?!?
3) I thought you couldn't affect the colour when printing from film, not without actively intervening?
4) Why has the resolution dropped on these (oh...they're smaller prints than the main album, but worse resolution!)?
2: Not necessarily true. The point of the expensive gear is for the quality/resolution/exposure/control that it's possible to get. Colour reproduction when using film depends upon the type of film, so would have been chosen by the photographer for a particular 'look'. It's easy for a lab to get it wrong, but they should be able to correct it easily.
3: Not true. You have to intervene as you put it, to get the colours correct in the first place. Printing on different brands of photopaper makes a significant different to the colours too.
4: Good question. Possibly a: They're now printed from a digital file, and to downsize (cheaply), the software just 'dumps' picture information to make the picture smaller (in practice though, you shouldn't see this with the naked eye). b: They've been scanned on a cheap flat bed scanner by the photographer (or his partner) at home, and re-printed on an inkjet. c: Maybe the negatives (assuming that they're negs and not transparencies) have been re-scanned at lower resolution to get the smaller image size.
My thoughts are that the photographer is doing the printing himself (to save money), and just blaming the 'lab' as an excuse. It could be that they're looking at the images under non-colour corrected light, and thus making the wrong adjustments, but there's no excuse here for a pro lab. It might be that they're thrown the negatives away (as they take up room when archived), but I'd suggest this is unlikely.
YOu're obviously comparing the pictures side by side and seeing a significant difference?
In short, there's no reason at all why they can't reproduce your images that are accurate enough for you not to notice the difference. Keep telling him you're not happy until he does something about it. Pro photographers live by their reputation, so he should bend over backwards to help you out, assuming you're not being unreasonable of course!
Really useful stuff Adam, thanks!
...and it explains why he wants the 'reference' prints. But we're very loath to give him the nice album, as it'll mean him taking it apart, sending the photos off, and putting it back together, which gives 3 opportunities for things to go wrong (and given how he's being I very much doubt if it did go wrong we'd get a 'new' album / 'new' photos as good as the current ones). Plus it'll mean 2x 80-mile round trips at our time/expense to drop the album off and pick it up again.
Only other option is to send him the 4x6 preview shots...and hope they don't go missing. But as they're smaller presumably they'd be less use...
...and I do think he's not printing direct from the negs this time...different (cheaper?) lab maybe now?!?
Very frustrating though...it's like he didn't check this lot before sending them out! (My money is on either her 'checking' them (yeah, right) or them not bothering and sending the same ones out to us a week later)
...and it explains why he wants the 'reference' prints. But we're very loath to give him the nice album, as it'll mean him taking it apart, sending the photos off, and putting it back together, which gives 3 opportunities for things to go wrong (and given how he's being I very much doubt if it did go wrong we'd get a 'new' album / 'new' photos as good as the current ones). Plus it'll mean 2x 80-mile round trips at our time/expense to drop the album off and pick it up again.
Only other option is to send him the 4x6 preview shots...and hope they don't go missing. But as they're smaller presumably they'd be less use...
...and I do think he's not printing direct from the negs this time...different (cheaper?) lab maybe now?!?
Very frustrating though...it's like he didn't check this lot before sending them out! (My money is on either her 'checking' them (yeah, right) or them not bothering and sending the same ones out to us a week later)
As I said, just check the type of paper that the new prints are printed on. Turn the print over and see what is on the back. Is there a manufacturers name? Is there anything printed on the back by a dot matrix printer, e.g a row of numbers like 1234 P5 F13 Y5.0 M-12.5 C34.0 D64.0.
If they are printed at home from a computer, then they are either going to be inkjet prints, or what they call dye-sublimination. If you think they are inkjet, then a way to test them to see if they are(unfortunately this is a bit destructive)is to make it wet. If it is an inkjet then the ink will run(unless you can get waterproof inkjet stuff?), anything else should be fine once you have left it to dry.
A dye-sub print is harder to tell from a normal print, although I have never seen a matt finish dye-sub print, if you look at a glossy dye-sub, on some you almost get a 3-d effect where you can see where each colour layer(normally three colours and a laminate) has been laid down. Dye-sub prints are a heat transfer medium, with a roll of paper and a ribbon, so you get a continuous print, with inkjet it is spots of ink(obviously
)so you don't get a continuous tone, but this may be hard to tell if the prints look
pixellated.
If they are printed at home from a computer, then they are either going to be inkjet prints, or what they call dye-sublimination. If you think they are inkjet, then a way to test them to see if they are(unfortunately this is a bit destructive)is to make it wet. If it is an inkjet then the ink will run(unless you can get waterproof inkjet stuff?), anything else should be fine once you have left it to dry.
A dye-sub print is harder to tell from a normal print, although I have never seen a matt finish dye-sub print, if you look at a glossy dye-sub, on some you almost get a 3-d effect where you can see where each colour layer(normally three colours and a laminate) has been laid down. Dye-sub prints are a heat transfer medium, with a roll of paper and a ribbon, so you get a continuous print, with inkjet it is spots of ink(obviously
)so you don't get a continuous tone, but this may be hard to tell if the prints look pixellated.
The 4x6's we could take out and send to him easy enough...that might be what we end up doing.
The proper album...no, they're layered-in, and he's specifically said if we try "it's at our risk". And we have neither the time or the inclination to take it to him and let him...
Philip - some good stuff there too - just missed your post earlier.
Edit: on a couple of the pics the skin tones look orange even before comparison, you don't need to do a side-by-side...so the lab's not very good, IMHO.
Checked two of the photos - both Fujicolor paper, both have printing on the back - one (worst resolution) gives the lab (Stourport photo centre*), one has an order ref. and is (C) him (worst colour cast...but interestingly the printing is identical to the preview album info).
So I don't think he's trying it on anymore...not in terms of self-printing. May have gone for a cheaper option...that said the difference on a 10x8 is £2.60 digital, £3.29 negative...which when he's charging £14 or £17 (can't recall which) shouldn't be an issue...so maybe he HAS lost the negatives?!? Or maybe the lab have got cheaper, or it's a different lab...the printing on the back could have come from any machine, after all...**
Anyway, thanks to you both, for the ideas and especially the info...
(If I get a chance I might scan-in together and upload, but going away for the weekend...)
The proper album...no, they're layered-in, and he's specifically said if we try "it's at our risk". And we have neither the time or the inclination to take it to him and let him...
Philip - some good stuff there too - just missed your post earlier.
Edit: on a couple of the pics the skin tones look orange even before comparison, you don't need to do a side-by-side...so the lab's not very good, IMHO.
Checked two of the photos - both Fujicolor paper, both have printing on the back - one (worst resolution) gives the lab (Stourport photo centre*), one has an order ref. and is (C) him (worst colour cast...but interestingly the printing is identical to the preview album info).
So I don't think he's trying it on anymore...not in terms of self-printing. May have gone for a cheaper option...that said the difference on a 10x8 is £2.60 digital, £3.29 negative...which when he's charging £14 or £17 (can't recall which) shouldn't be an issue...so maybe he HAS lost the negatives?!? Or maybe the lab have got cheaper, or it's a different lab...the printing on the back could have come from any machine, after all...**
Anyway, thanks to you both, for the ideas and especially the info...
(If I get a chance I might scan-in together and upload, but going away for the weekend...)
- Just checked them on the web. Proper place.
Stourport Photo Centre said:
Colour Matching, is very subjective and rarely 100% accurate. Where you require matching to originals YOU MUST supply the original print. If this is done prints will be matched as close as possible within the constraints of paper and chemicals. In the absence of a sample we will provide a pleasing colour balance
So I suspect it may well be the LAB that is being difficult, not him.- In case you can't tell, I like investigating stuff...just don't like the stress of it being because something's gone wrong!
Edited by havoc on Thursday 25th October 20:39
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff