Labs: Painless Printing from RAWs

I have never ever considered sending a RAW file to a lab for printing. There are a few things to consider here. First, the reason I got out of using film was because my "pro" lab (very highly respected lab in Boston) was printing images not the way I wanted them to look like. I would go back, have them print again, and it would be different, but still not what I wanted. And the prints were very expensive. With digital, when I control everything in Adobe Camera Raw and Photoshop (including the cropping), yes, I output to an 8-bit file, but the image is almost always exactly the way I want it to look like. It's too complex to send a RAW image to a lab, explain your vision for the image and how you want it cropped and expect it to be the way you want it. What if I have dozens of images to print all with different specifications from me? Honestly, I think this is the old school way that you are advocating here and I disagree with it. Creative control in Photoshop is relatively easy to learn and is what is driving the digital revolution. Comparing the old darkroom full-timer with what's possible now is apples to oranges. I just don't get this post.

Certainly a lab can do better with a raw file if they want to accept them.

My philosoply is I am the photographer and I want to decide the exact color, where and how much to burn/dodge, how light or dark the print is to be. Digital allows me to do all these creative things and all the lab has to do is reproduce the file on photopaper exactly as I sent it.

I remember reading years ago a photographer could look over the shoulder of a commercial printer doing your custom print and he would do what you wanted. This cost you a small fortune. Digital allows me the same advantage without the cost.

If you want non creative cookie cutter prints, send JPEGS or TIFFS. Why bother with raw. Of course you need to know how to make good JPEGS in camera. Many think anything can be done with raw to correct photographer errors when in fact the only real thing that can be corrected without loss is white balance.

I frequently review scientific papers that present great research, but lose a lot just in the writeup. I fear this article is in this boat. It is clear you've spent a good amount of time doing some very interesting comparison work, but this article generates more questions than it answers. How about a table to compare the various labs? How come one of the labs (A & I) has no information about the cost or what process they use? How much human involvement did each lab use to produce each image? If there is human judgment involved in going from RAW to paper, how much variation is there even at one particular lab?

More importantly, I'd like to see some insight or opinion into why some labs produced better output -- how much of the difference is a result of the paper they use, vs. the process, vs. the person operating the machines? And, do the differences produce results more suitable for a certain kind of photography compared to another -- all of the test images are essentially portraits.

"Why not simply send the camera file to Kodak, Mpix, or Snapfish? The mass market services accept only JPEG files, which are limited to 8 bits of luminance information: 256 different levels. A modern digital SLR camera captures 14 bits of luminance information or 16,384 levels." <br> 14 bit are "marketing", noise make them useless. raw is anyway 12 bit of good values. 256 values are compressed (gamma correction), so 8 bit are more than enough.

This post puzzles me a bit. What exactly is the purpose of sending RAW files to print labs? Is it because 8 bits are not enough? I understand there are 16 bit formats like PSD or tiff, or even 32 bit EXR files if you shoot HDR. As a complete amateur I know very little about professional printing, so just to put things into perspective for me: how many bits would one need to make full use of the possibilities of paper and ink that are currently available?

Or is the purpose to have someone else do the editing for you? Then how do you test whether they did a good job? Did you give exact and detailed instructions about how you wanted each print to look to both the labs and the panel? I assume you did not pass by the lab with the dog to show what color it has in reality (let alone the hyena!). So how could they know? In other words: was this a test how well the people at the lab can follow your instructions, or a test how well their choices pleased the test panel's?

Interesting, considering that I'm struggling with writing a scientific paper right now and wish someone would write it better than me. Apparently doing the work is different from presenting it well. If the scientific work or a photograph has a strong subject of interest, it will rarely be misinterpreted by the presenter. The presenter's job now becomes simply to remove distractions from the work. These distractions are usually minimal in a well taken photograph anyway. Lately however, I've been pondering on the fact that digital images might have more distractions than those on film, especially slides. Distractions like color balance, greater depth of field and dynamic range can create alternate interpretations of an image. These alternate interpretations can confuse a presenter of the photographer's original intent. No wonder Ansel Adams processed and printed his own negetives of pre-visualized high dymic range images.

I wonder whether most of us are capable of pulling all of the quality out of an image into a final print, using our desktops and software. I'm impressed by the consistent quality of my enlargements from Mpix. Their prints actually look like the original images on my monitor. Their price for doing it right the first time is a fraction of my previous monthly paper and inkjet cartridge costs. And now I'm out in the field more and at the computer less.

What? That's insane - sending digital RAW files to a lab for editing/printing. All I can figure is that whomever authored this article is getting some sort of bump from the labs he or she identified in the article; i.e., embedded advertising. Zero credibility here on my BS meter.

Philip an interesting article but,

I have been working with Photoshop & other image editing softwareﾒs for almost 10 years now and I spend as much time editing as I do photographing for the finished result is a serious matter to me. I am passionate about achieving the best possible outcome and will go to extreme lengths to get them but for a lab assistant it's just a job and in that job, time is money and the hourly quota is the paymaster and must be met otherwise they would soon be out of that said job because sadly they are not paid to be artists but mere image processors/dispatchers. If I was in hurry and I didn't really like the customer or if I dispised them & thought that they were ignorant and wouldn't understand the difference if it jumped up & bit them in the knackers then I probably would go for the lab. If my clients had lots of money would I pay for an exclusive guaranteed service, probably I would offer them the choice of being done by a lab or by my hand.

H

Oh, there will come a day when your desktop, laptop, cell phone computer, or even the in-camera computer itself will do it all. Images will emerge as if a top class lab produced them. The computers will have "intelligence" and will understand ideal standards and departures from that ideal. They will accept detailed verbal commands, even for creative effects. They will even present visual samples of computer-suggested alternative adjustments. Manual over ride of image quality parameters will become ever less needed. Just a matter of time.

In the meantime, the tools we must resort to will hopefully become yet easier and more efficient to work with.

For all the naysayers who say they can do a better job themselves, I ask this question. Have you tried a custom lab like those mentioned in the article? As photographers we should keep an open mind to all the possibilities when it comes to producing an exceptional print!

I took a few of those images, imported them into CS3 and had them ready for printing in less than a minute apiece. That included RAW adjustment, Capture sharpening, cropping, etc. My output is quite good. I have had stuff done that was too large for me to print. I had to make a disk, pay a fortune for the print and my 13x19 of the same image was better than the Lab. Talk about work flow. What is so hard about a RAW conversion, or spending less time than your driving time to pick up the print or waiting in the mail for it. Where were the finished products of your test showing the results from each lab. The article appeared to be hype for some labs. I am not a great photographer, just an average good one who has had his own active photo business. I am telling you, dealing with a labs to get good weddings or other commercial products can be very difficult at times particularly if you have waiting customers on the other side. The photo of the hyena with the bone was not very good to begin with and you are dealing with very high contrast. Even at that it did not take long to get that picture ready for printing, such as it was. You can only sharpen so much, or, restore so much inherent color, or get rid of so much noise without turning the picture into a caricature. From my former life in R&D your observations about variations from lab to lab tells the whole story. Not a very rigorous study, not enough samples, and poor industry standardardization for printing. It is all in the eye of the technician. I will stay at home, thank you, and when I want larger the lab will get a disk that is home processed, and, as I have done before, I will tell them to print my product. Had I authored what you wrote, I would not have been proud of it. It poses more questions than it answers, does not identify assumptions nor defend them and the output is subject to many unknown and and unidentified variables. Oh for the days when Kodachrome came out the same almost every time. Not really. I think creativity begins in ACR. You seem to be telling me that paying over a hundred dollars a print is ok. Not if I am writing the checks.

This Article is written directly for the very wealthy and technologically inept photographer. if you have no clue how to use digital editing software or are so well off and busy that you cant be bothered to work your own prints and can afford to pay the price the author quotes ($50-$100 per print!) then I suppose this article is good stuff.

unfortunately it doesn't do most of us any good because I think digital is so popular because you can control the post processing yourself, and it is very inexpensive. I cant even imagine being willing to pay almost $100 per print just for the luxury of handing over a file and coming back to have it finished for me.

another factor not taking into consideration here is that many photographers (myself included) find what they want during the processing stage, I cannot tell you how many times I have taken a picture and thought I wanted it one way only to move the controls around a little in photoshop and fall in love with what I see.

usually the posts here are very valuable but I honestly think this one was published about 15 years too late to have any practical input.

Very interesting...all the way around. Me, personally, I don't have the equipment to print a 20x30 on a textured paper. I guess most of you have this level of equipment. So many of you are focused on whether or not you can make your own RAW adjustments....but MY question is:

If I am going to have a lab make me a 20x30 print that I can frame, should I send them a JPG or a RAW file?

I learned from the post that I can send a RAW file to these labs and get good quality prints back in large sizes. If there is a rationale for sending them a JPG instead, then please share. But just going on about how proficient you are in PS or how easy raw conversion is are missing the point for those of us that aren't able to print hang-on-the-wall quality 20X30s at home.

All the critiquers of this must have a the luxury of too much time on their hands, wish I was you. Being able to send off a raw file and get back a perfectly processed print is a great tool for the enthusiast and a pro. Maybe not for all occasions but definately a tool one can use. Thanks

I am astonished at the number of negative comments about this article. I found it very useful to know there is an alternative available when I can't make a print larger (or better??) than my own Epson can handle. I will send one of the printers a file and see what they can do.

To the guy who accused the writer of getting a kickback from the labs: What evidence do you have to publicly demean someone that way? (Perhaps I can accuse you of some terrible crime and publish that accusation on the internet!?!) You owe the writer an apology. You can attack the article he wrote, but not his character. That just isn't right.

The negative outcry may stem from the belief that photo.net is targeted to serious photographers who want lots of technical details...so from that point of view, the negativers would be justified in attacking the article, but they certainly are never justified in making personal attacks on the writer without solid evidence.

I found the article useful and hope we see more in the future. I don't need the highly detailed technical data...but I may be in the minority on this.

I have set three jpegs out for enlargement: one from the now defunct Sony website and two to Adorama. In each case the 20"X30" that came back was better than the 11"X14" print I made for comparison. $75-100? Wow! Adorama has a sale now and again for $12.99 per. Otherwise it's $19.99. A bit more for special paper, for which I have yet to see the need. All the pics went through raw on my machine for tweaking and were converted in CS3 to jpegs. Mayhaps I am missing something here, but "happy as a clam" ain't bad.

I am going to question the use of .jpg files. After you have gone to the trouble of taking RAW images why are you saving them as .jpg. Don't you know that .jpg is a lossy format. If you need to convert choose .tif which is all the content of a RAW image but accessible by more software. If your want to do your own printing and enlarge to A3 or larger try using Qimage for Colour or QTR for B&W. Don't print from Photoshop, it's rubbish. Do your editing in PS but print from a print program created for the purpose. The only reason computer users used photoshop was their wasn't anything else available. RIP software is no good for RGB printers. Don't let anyone tell you other wise, they were designed for CMYK printing presses not RGB printers. They are great for job lists etc well Qimage keeps your jobs log as well. Qimage has a algorithm designed for printing with your current printer driver using your raw images. I have Epson R1800, 4800 and 9800 printers and I use QTR and Qimage only.

Honestly, I was shocked to see these prices. I think a frame job could cost about $200 or more for a print of this size, so it could be 300+. I don't think too many sales could be achieved in this market climate at that price point. Even $100 is too high for most of middle America.

An average buyer at a fair or tourist shop isn't going to lay out that kind of money. Now maybe these services are for the ultra-rich. Maybe the quality is so good that people are amazed, but I think I'd have to have the sale locked up before I put that kind of money in a print.

I'm new to the business end of photography, but I have seen a good deal of art. Target price range is $10-25. I can print up on HP Premium Photo Paper 81/2 by 11 at 40cents/sheet. The ink--a huge price problem--might cost that much, so say $1-1.50 per on my HP C5180. Throw on some backing and polypropylene cover for another buck or two and you've got a $5 cost.

Printers can be had for under $500 whose quality is far beyond where it was just 4-5 years ago. I'd be hard pressed to send it in, unless it was so special that I had to do something. And the point about having a technician do it working for an hourly wage is key--I've done digital slide conversion (about 2,000) and putting the extra attention in makes all the difference. I don't batch process, there's a Nikon that does it. They'll charge 29 cents/each, but do no custom processing. Unless the processor knows the original colors like the photographer--very doubtful--recreation will be inferior, whatever the printer quality.

I also think this article is way off base for the vast majority of photographers, both for cost reasons and also for giving up creative control. One beauty of digital is that you have your darkroom in front of you in your computer, and this digital darkroom allows much more control than the real darkroom ever did. That said, I do send my RAW-converted and Photoshop-processed images out for printing, and I'm in the process of learning the art of calibrations/profiles/soft proofing, etc. so the prints come back the way I see the images on my monitor.