Print Quality

Peter,
I have ordered one of my prints recently on metal. I was very pleased with the quality and color. It was an intense, saturated sunset and the color was the same as what I see on my monitor. I want to order an acrylic and canvas to compare how the print looks on different mediums.

Peter, Just curious are you seeing banding on some of the prints?

Epson commercial printers are universally the best. At least as far as I know they are.

David, there was not banding on the prints as I would hope a lab would not send out a print with banding.

Kathy, Thanks and I think really saturated photos might hold up better. I have a metal print ordered right now as love my prints on metal so will see how the color compares.

Color is very subjective. I seldom get a color image from anyone that I consider good including FAA. That is not to say that FAA is not good, just that artists have something quite in mind when we create our images. We would have to work side by side with the printer and approve or disapprove of the image.

What amuses me (and pleases me) is that my Epson Printer Artisan (amateur) prints out really good 4x6 images on Epson high gloss paper.

I've had only good results with FAA prints; in fact, I originally joined FAA because I'd seen their prints in someone else's home and was impressed with the quality. The five samples I ordered were lovely, with colors as I expected.

Overall, I know that vividly and over-saturated colored images printed on Matte paper are sometimes a letdown, no matter who's doing the printing. I'd love to see FAA's default paper choice be 'semi-matte' which, imo, provides truer color. Unfortunately, I've noticed most of my buyers have gone with the default choice of Matte, though I've had no returns.

@RFG - High gloss or ultra gloss is my personal choice, too, for pure aesthetics. Gloss almost never disappoints . . . though it can be tricky to light and hang, especially with larger pieces.

I calibrate all my monitors, but also own a large format inkjet printer. It's never exact, and no matter what, to get vibrant results I have to print - make adjustments - print - make adjustments - and so on.

Prints are not backlit. And furthermore, different media will have dramatically different saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc. A glossy metal print will have more saturation and higher contrast than a matte paper print for instance. The lighting in the room also has a big impact.

If you want the best quality control, you'll have to make final adjustments based on the prints, not the on-screen image.

It gets even trickier with web images. My print files are in Adobe RGB (wider color gamut), and it looks to me like web images on FAA are sRGB (almost all web images are due to very little browser support for Adobe RGB). So on FAA, they look less vibrant than the print due to this automatic conversion during upload. On my own website, I just add some saturation to the sRGB images to represent how the print will look. I actually plan to convert the print files to sRGB and make adjustments just so they look correct on here. But again, I'll have to base the final adjustments on actual prints.

I've never calibrated my monitor, other than lowering the brightness a little, and the one I bought was pretty much spot on. It may have been slightly darker, but that might be because I am comparing the brightness to a monitor to a print. It's no big deal either way.

Another note is many popular print labs use software that makes automatic final adjustments to saturation and contrast before printing. That may be why they looked better, prints from FAA or a lab like Simply Color Lab may be a closer representation of your actual print file, who knows

You're on the money, James!

The issue of 'backlit' vs. 'real world viewing' is one of my ongoing concerns of selling prints online. Many civilians don't even realize that's an issue, until they're holding the print in their hand.

Also, as you mentioned, media plays a large part. There's a reason Peter Lik goes for acrylic face-mounting and ultra-glossy paper.

I've ordered quite a few prints from here and I have my monitor calibrated using dedicated hardware/software for it, and I get very accurate prints.

I've ordered matte canvas before, and it didn't complement the photo I chose very much. However I ordered a large matte canvas print of another photo, and I'd say it complemented it quite well. So the medium definitely matters based on the particular image.

And as mentioned, viewing on a computer (backlit) vs viewing a print (reflective) is a whole different ballgame. One thing that hasn't been mentioned though (unless I missed it) is how you light a print. They shouldn't be placed on a wall in a room with dark paint with low light. When I view a print in the right light it really looks awesome and accurate. When its viewed in so so light, it ruins it for me.

Lighting is important, but I hang art for many of my local buyers and know it's something they don't usually bother with on their own.

The room lighting becomes their artwork lighting . . . which is why I always ask if they'd like me to come and install -- it's a great chance to educate buyers on things like placement and lighting.

Ryan never even thought about how dark wall paint would cause less lighting bouncing around the room, thus a less illuminated print, but you're 100% correct. Science!

I don't think color on a print is subjective as that's why proofing is normally necessary is to get the print accurate. Most know that completely matching a print to your monitor is most likely impossible but you can get pretty darn close. I've had considerable experience and education in color and color printing and do find myself being quite critical but that worked to my advantage in my photo career. To compare the print to monitor you do need to view in the proper light which is basically 5000k. From there you could alter the print color according to the environment it will displayed in. As far as RBG to sRBG James you might like to go to this site and read as it's quite interesting and basically takes RBG out of the question. http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/adobe-rgb.htm. Again, the labs I use request sRBG and I have prints up to 60" made. Color is damn accurate and only reprint if density isn't correct. The FAA print I recieved is OK on density but not color and if I were a client buying this print I would have a problem with that and I myself have a problem with it as it represents my work.

Sorry about that, Peter -- we veered a bit from your OP.

I agree that color is critical, and should pass scrutiny. Like I said, I've had no problems with that in any FAA print; I ordered samples early on, to be sure that I wanted to offer my (usually very colorful) work here. I've bypassed a few other sites that didn't meet my print needs.

Have you been in touch with Support, yet?

Not yet as with as many people who are on FAA I thought I'd see what others such as yourself have experienced. Will wait and see what my metal print looks like as have had great success with that with other labs.

Great article, thanks! It does describe the problem I have here. Converting adobe RGB to sRGB then displaying online makes it look dull.

However, I disagree with his statement that printers can't produce the extra colors in adobe RGB. The last 2 generation epson and canon printers have inks that can reach outside the sRGB gamut. I only have a few designs with vibrant color. Subtle difference, but on these I can't make the color quite as vibrant with sRGB on a Canon iPF8300.

But it's not enough to matter. SRGB is a very wide gamut, much better than CMYK. I'm going to convert them just so they look accurate on FAA.

Which print did you order? And on what substrate?

I ordered a color picture of mine. Color and everything was perfect.

That's great Marilyn what monitor and calibration equipment do you use.

I have bought several products just to see if the work was any good. Everything I have bought has been perfect: note cards, canvas, phone covers and paper prints.

The real test and verification of the quality is the fact that I have a lower rate of returns then of any of 12 sites I sell on.

It don't get any better then that.

I will chime in here,, I too have had issues,,the problem is that we do not have the ICC profile that FAA uses. I used color munki to calibrate the monitor and have created my own custom printer profiles specific to a brand and type of paper. And this is more accurate than the canned profiles you get from the manufacture.. The only thing more precise would be if FAA used a RIP when they print.. But even still the only way to get what you see out of the monitor to the printer is have the ICC profile for output to the printers that FAA uses. Many people will get extremely close just uploading without calibration etc,, but they are the lucky ones.. You and I are unfortunate that we have this problem.

Thanks Floyd, in that your experience with FAA printing is "perfect" can you share how you calibrate your monitor and also the type of equipment and software you are using. This would be most helpful to those here on FAA who are having prints returned in that they are not printing as nice as they are seen on our pages. Thanks again Floyd.

I'll ante up my favorite calibration tool. I use it twice a month, and it's all I've used for the last several years. Before that, I used hardware Calibration (Spyder) -- but I actually prefer the 'by eye' results I get with Calibrize.

http://www.calibrize.com/

You really do not need the ICC. The printer said to me that we print to your data. What you load is what is printed and that it is down to calibration if the images are not as seen on your screen when printed.

I recently ordered 10 prints of my own work and I am very happy with them. Everything I have ever ordered from here has been great quality.

I have ordered 3 prints of my work...1 canvas, 1 metal and 1 acrylic from FAA. I felt the color on all three was very good and matched the paper prints I have gotten from another reputable lab as well as what I see on my main computer as well as an I pad I also use for reference. I was very happy!

Matt

I thank all of you that have given thought and answered my question. I sent the same file of the image that FAA had printed and I was disappointed in to one of the labs I use quite often. The difference In the print was night and day and matched much more closely to my monitor. Perhaps it's just that I'm more critical which I am in that in all my years of shooting I wasn't happy with the pro labs processing my E-6 film and thus put in my own processor to better control the color and density in my transparencies. I was shooting everything from 35mmm to 8X10 for clients and they were critical too. Again, thanks for all your responses and will have a discussion here with those powers at FAA as do think for me there is a problem which is why I've always liked to see any prints sent to clients.

Just a final thought here on print quality as I did submit to FAA my concern that their print quality did not match the pro lab quality of two other labs I use. To date which has been about two weeks I've heard nothing which to me is not a good as just want there to be some kind of quality control which gives all artists on FAA the peace of mind that someone who buys the print is going to get what the artist envisioned. Up until I started FAA I had my images printed and sent to me and then I sent to the client which gave me total contol over the final print making sure it was up to my standards. With digital, labs are getting a lot better which is why printing costs have come down significantly so when you do calibrate a screen properly and save you file properly you're going to get consistent output from a good lab. I'm just a bit disappointed that FAA has not chosen to address my concern. Will do some more tests with them and just return if not satisfied.

Peter, I've raised this issue before with FAA. I have never received what I consider to be a satisfactory response.

I have personally experienced a discernible color phasing shift, sometimes several degrees between print runs from the same exact uploaded image printed within a few months of one another. Of three prints of the same uploaded image, none of them were reasonably close to being the same to each other.

One of the prints was very close to the color phasing of the original image as compared to my calibrated monitor...but the second run of the same uploaded image, the hue was quite a bit off. The third run comported with neither of the previous. Interestingly when I print these images on my own Epson printer...they are all very close to the monitor image...and to each other.

I suspect that a client who does not have a calibrated monitor who orders a print directly from FAA would be none the wiser. Never had a comeback of a direct customer purchase because of color phasing issues from FAA...doesn't mean it isn't happening as I expect many of the prints that the artist never sees are of flawed color fidelity.

Theoretically, if the production methodology quality control is tight, this should never occur. Which leads me to believe that there are some issues in the print production chain which does not surprise me since FAA is essentially the equivalent to a 1 hr photo in the world of digital printing. You get what you pay for.

But in defense of FAA, one really should not expect rigorous quality control...at these prices. And I don't know of any other online print house that offers a 30 day no questions asked guarantee...so you do have recourse.

Frankly...without proof prints including test strips, it's a crap shoot.
For the kind of expectation you have expressed, you'll probably have to have it done by a custom print house...

For the images that I feel quality...luminance, saturation and color fidelity is critical, I have delivered to me...then if acceptable repack and deliver to the customer. By the way, let us not forget the care in packing and the shipping container, to me at least, is a very important value-added service, especially for very large prints.

Best of luck.

Cheers,
~mak

Well stated and I do agree and am here as believe FAA is a great venue for all whether private parties or businesses to get great art at a reasonalble price. Digital printing over conventional printing has taken leaps and bounds with regards to consistency due to the fact that a comuputer controlls the ink process and it's no longer an enlarger and photo sensitive paper. Conventional photo printing paper much like transparency films changes with batches and so prints done weeks or months apart must be rebalanced. Not true now with computers and ink based systems. Certainly we must expect some varience but there must be a tolerance which is acceptable and yes I'm sure many recieving prints from FAA don't have balanced monitors and also don't compare the print to the monitor. My question to FAA which they haven't answer is how do they assure us that the labs being used are maintaining a reasonable quality control level. Aspen Creek is a lab which puts out great prints at a very reasonable price and has been quite consistent with prints matching my monitor quite nicely. If I want to be exact I go to West Coast Imaging which is more expensive but great outputs. Regarding FAA, thay have great control over a lab printing all images from FAA as the volume has to be immense seeing what's sold daily. I know I'm critical which is what made my photography business successful and will get a few more test prints and if they are not to my satisfaction I will move on to sell elsewhere but do like the convenience of FAA.