Online photo printing: a subjective comparison
Discussion
One of the main reasons I chose to purchase my own photo printer was after some poor development work from Jessops a couple of years ago. I wanted to have more control of how my photos were printed as I was pretty sure I could do better than the lab.
Although I've been very pleased with the output from my Canon ip4200 cheap 'n' cheerful photo printer, its not perfect (I am a very fussy git!). I have spent some time tweaking the driver settings and playing with profiles (it doesn't help that my monitor isn't properly calibrated) but its pretty good. Obviously I'm limited in the paper sizes I can use and for large printing jobs its probably easier just to get them developed elsewhere.
So where to go to get the prints developed to a high standard? I've heard Photobox mentioned on these forums before, but that didn't do well in the months Which magazine. It came third behind Bonusprint (1st) and Kodak (2nd). So I thought I would just put together a set of 10 images and send them off to various labs and compare the results (including the same prints from my photo printer).
The labs tested were: Photobox, Bonusprint and Kodak (online).
CostCo (instore).
Canon ip4200, Kirkland photo paper (CostCo own brand), Photoshop Elements, custom driver settings.
The images below were printed on 5x7" gloss paper - this was the chosen compromise between cost yet having a big enough print to examine properly. Its also my favoured 'general' photo size.
I ranked each image from 1 – 5, depending on how that image compared with the 'identical' image from the other labs. I got a friend of mine and the missus to repeat the test. In the end all the scores were added up to give the results of our favourite prints.
Before doing this I was expecting to be searching for the tiniest details by which to separate the prints. That couldn't be further from the truth – for most photos the output between labs was surprisingly different. Each set of photos had distinct strengths and weaknesses.
Here are the results and some comments on each lab's output.
Joint 1st: Bonusprint (17p per print)
Prints had bright and generally accurate colours and were very well exposed. Images were super-sharp... a bit too much so in some cases.
Joint 1st: Canon ip4200
Very bright, vivid colours and very good exposure and skin tones. These prints were slightly softer than all the others and the printer struggles to reproduce very pale tones. Black and white prints are slightly green tinted.
3rd: CostCo (14p per print)
Generally well balance images with accurate colours, exposure, skin tone and detail. Let down by lack of colour saturation.
4th: Kodak (29p per print)
As for CostCo, generally well balance images with colours on the 'warm' side. Images spoiled by fine banding (reminiscent of clogged inkjet nozzles).
5th: Photobox (17p per print)
Colour balance is far too warm, spoiling skin tones among other things. Compounded by underexposure of several prints.
FYI the photos tested were:
I'm afraid I don't have a scanner to show you what the actual prints look like, nor could I be bothered to scan them all in anyway!
I hope that my test is helpful to you
Andreas
Although I've been very pleased with the output from my Canon ip4200 cheap 'n' cheerful photo printer, its not perfect (I am a very fussy git!). I have spent some time tweaking the driver settings and playing with profiles (it doesn't help that my monitor isn't properly calibrated) but its pretty good. Obviously I'm limited in the paper sizes I can use and for large printing jobs its probably easier just to get them developed elsewhere.
So where to go to get the prints developed to a high standard? I've heard Photobox mentioned on these forums before, but that didn't do well in the months Which magazine. It came third behind Bonusprint (1st) and Kodak (2nd). So I thought I would just put together a set of 10 images and send them off to various labs and compare the results (including the same prints from my photo printer).
The labs tested were: Photobox, Bonusprint and Kodak (online).
CostCo (instore).
Canon ip4200, Kirkland photo paper (CostCo own brand), Photoshop Elements, custom driver settings.
The images below were printed on 5x7" gloss paper - this was the chosen compromise between cost yet having a big enough print to examine properly. Its also my favoured 'general' photo size.
I ranked each image from 1 – 5, depending on how that image compared with the 'identical' image from the other labs. I got a friend of mine and the missus to repeat the test. In the end all the scores were added up to give the results of our favourite prints.
Before doing this I was expecting to be searching for the tiniest details by which to separate the prints. That couldn't be further from the truth – for most photos the output between labs was surprisingly different. Each set of photos had distinct strengths and weaknesses.
Here are the results and some comments on each lab's output.
Joint 1st: Bonusprint (17p per print)
Prints had bright and generally accurate colours and were very well exposed. Images were super-sharp... a bit too much so in some cases.
Joint 1st: Canon ip4200
Very bright, vivid colours and very good exposure and skin tones. These prints were slightly softer than all the others and the printer struggles to reproduce very pale tones. Black and white prints are slightly green tinted.
3rd: CostCo (14p per print)
Generally well balance images with accurate colours, exposure, skin tone and detail. Let down by lack of colour saturation.
4th: Kodak (29p per print)
As for CostCo, generally well balance images with colours on the 'warm' side. Images spoiled by fine banding (reminiscent of clogged inkjet nozzles).
5th: Photobox (17p per print)
Colour balance is far too warm, spoiling skin tones among other things. Compounded by underexposure of several prints.
FYI the photos tested were:
I'm afraid I don't have a scanner to show you what the actual prints look like, nor could I be bothered to scan them all in anyway!
I hope that my test is helpful to you
Andreas
EmmaP said:
I'm suprised to hear that you placed Photobox last. I've always been very happy with the results from them. I've always found that they replicate faithfully the colours and density that I see on screen. I do add a lighten curve though - Input>115, Output>140.
Yeah, I'm surprised Photobox came last too, especially after hearing them being recommended on this forum. Which magazine came to a similar conclusion too so its not just me.Out of interest: do you use Photobox for 'normal' photo sizes like 5x7" or just larger pics? Maybe they have different printers for different photo sizes?
Can't help thinking that a more expensive home photo printer than mine, coupled with decent paper, would easily eclipse the output of all the labs I tested.
I've used them for prints ranging from 6 x 4 inches to 30 x 20 inches. I've only ever had one bad batch of prints from them in three years. I expressed my disappointment and they reprinted them free of charge. I am exceptionally fussy when it comes to printing, having done my own for many years.
I'm now considering making a comparison with Bonus Print.
I'm now considering making a comparison with Bonus Print.
DJ_AS said:
Out of interest: do you use Photobox for 'normal' photo sizes like 5x7" or just larger pics? Maybe they have different printers for different photo sizes?
They do have different printers for different sizes. I can't remember where the changeover point is, but the info. is on their site I think (look under Quality Advice iirc). Stuart
For small format work (up to 10"x15"
we print on a number of FujiFilm Frontier 370 and 390 printers. these don't use embedded profiles my prints tend to look like what you get viewed on the net or in windows picture viewer. you can download frontier profiles from fuji website so you can soft proof in photoshop if you want.
For large format work we use a Polielectronica Laserlab. This is a world-class laser-based photographic device which prints onto FujiFilm Professional digital photographic paper at 254 DPI
I've never got anything large from photobox but people who have bought from me have and they have never complained.
most places use the fuji frontiers
we print on a number of FujiFilm Frontier 370 and 390 printers. these don't use embedded profiles my prints tend to look like what you get viewed on the net or in windows picture viewer. you can download frontier profiles from fuji website so you can soft proof in photoshop if you want.For large format work we use a Polielectronica Laserlab. This is a world-class laser-based photographic device which prints onto FujiFilm Professional digital photographic paper at 254 DPI
I've never got anything large from photobox but people who have bought from me have and they have never complained.
most places use the fuji frontiers
EmmaP said:
Actually, thinking about it, the large format prints, typically 30 x 20 inches seem particularly good. A4 and 10 x 8 have been excellent also. Anything smaller than that falls into happy snap territory - nevertheless, still satisfactory.
Same here - I've just had a few large prints done and they've come out very well. At £1.20 for an A4 print, it is pretty good value as well._dobbo_ said:
Quick question, is your display calibrated?
Only using software like Adobe Gamma etc. I also double checked my images on my work monitor that has a 'sRGB' colour setting.Because neither monitor is 'properly' (i.e. hardware) calibrated I mitigated this shortcoming by:
a) the pics were compared to eachother rather than to the monitor (and there are suprisingly big differences between sets from different labs)
b) a couple of calibration/test prints were included rather than just my own pics.
The second set of prints I'm awaiting from Photobox and Kodak contain another three or four calibration / test prints.
DJ_AS said:
_dobbo_ said:
Quick question, is your display calibrated?
Only using software like Adobe Gamma etc. I also double checked my images on my work monitor that has a 'sRGB' colour setting.Because neither monitor is 'properly' (i.e. hardware) calibrated I mitigated this shortcoming by:
a) the pics were compared to eachother rather than to the monitor (and there are suprisingly big differences between sets from different labs)
b) a couple of calibration/test prints were included rather than just my own pics.
The second set of prints I'm awaiting from Photobox and Kodak contain another three or four calibration / test prints.
Turns out that, in fact, my monitor is not at all calibrated. I used Adobe Gamma to get a decent enough calibration some time ago, but since then I updated my graphics card drivers. This, of course, reset everything back to the default settings
So for the last couple of months I have been editing with the wrong monitor settings.
Which also means the images I sent for processing weren't ideal.I've had a quick glance through the prints I had produced by the different labs, and lo and behold, a different pattern emerges. When I've had a chance to go through the images properly I shall repost my findings,
In the meantime, please forgive me and double check your monitor calibration
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff