Where to print my 8x10s? Experiences with Ritz, Costco, an..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I have about 30 8X10 photos that I need to print for a wedding album.
The image size is 3000 X 2400 pixels. I used Photoshop to create these
images and some have text. I had some printed out at Ritz Camera,
Costco, and also on my photo printer. With Costco, I like the color
and their matte finish option. However, the text and some images were
pixelated and did not have sharp lines. With Ritz, the color had a
slightly bluish tint and only came in glossy prints. The images and
text however with these prints were very sharp. The images on my injet
printer were very sharp and color was superb. However, I don't think
the injets would do seeing as though this would be an archive that
would stand the test of time as well as the elements (a lot of fingers,
moisture, etc.).

Can somebody tell me why the images are not as clear at Costco vs.
Ritz? Does it have anything to do with the matte vs. glossy finish?
Or is it they're processing techniques? I used a jpeg format for all
the prints. But it doesn't make sense to me why one lab would come out
better than the other in terms of resolution (correct term?). Also,
are there any suggestions as to other places to go? I have tried
shutterfly for 4x6s but have never tried any larger. What do you
think? Thanks for the help.

Harold

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<haroldact@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108923525.988999.77500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I have about 30 8X10 photos that I need to print for a wedding album.
> The image size is 3000 X 2400 pixels. I used Photoshop to create these
> images and some have text. I had some printed out at Ritz Camera,
> Costco, and also on my photo printer. With Costco, I like the color
> and their matte finish option. However, the text and some images were
> pixelated and did not have sharp lines. With Ritz, the color had a
> slightly bluish tint and only came in glossy prints. The images and
> text however with these prints were very sharp. The images on my injet
> printer were very sharp and color was superb. However, I don't think
> the injets would do seeing as though this would be an archive that
> would stand the test of time as well as the elements (a lot of fingers,
> moisture, etc.).
>
> Can somebody tell me why the images are not as clear at Costco vs.
> Ritz? Does it have anything to do with the matte vs. glossy finish?
> Or is it they're processing techniques? I used a jpeg format for all
> the prints. But it doesn't make sense to me why one lab would come out
> better than the other in terms of resolution (correct term?). Also,
> are there any suggestions as to other places to go? I have tried
> shutterfly for 4x6s but have never tried any larger. What do you
> think? Thanks for the help.
>
> Harold

I think it has partly to do with what you see on your monitor and what you
get, vs somebody else seeing something in their equipment and getting
something completely different. If you could stand over their shoulder you
could probably get the same results, but you can't. This is why so many of
us setup darkrooms and made our own prints way back when. It was the only
way to get what "we" wanted.

BTW, some printers, inks and papers do have good archival qualities, but
it's expensive and slow compared to letting somebody else do it. My
understanding is that if you match the printer to the ink to the paper (all
the same brand) archival properties are very good, some manufacturers more
than others.

 

[Bob]

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

haroldact@yahoo.com wrote:

> better than the other in terms of resolution (correct term?). Also,
> are there any suggestions as to other places to go? I have tried
> shutterfly for 4x6s but have never tried any larger. What do you
> think? Thanks for the help.
>

I've been very pleased in all respects with the 8x10 prints I've had
done at Wal-Mart.

As to the differences Costco V. Ritz > How much difference was there in
the text? It could be that the seemingly pixelated text was just
rendered sharper and the Ritz blurred out the pixels. Or maybe Ritz has
better printers. Or maybe their drivers are set up better.

As far as archival goes, color isn't. Some color can be, but not any of
the options we're discussing. You can improve the longevity by putting
the prints into an archival album that includes plastic covers (to keep
the fingers off!)

Bob