If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Kiosk photos.
Before going to a photo kiosk I PShop all RAW
images, and crop to a 2:3 ratio. I save to jpeg. The quality of the Kiosk prints are mediocre even if I turn off the kiosk's offer to "sharpen" & "auto-adjust" the images. Are these just ink-jet prints & is it possible to get a better quality? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Kiosk photos.
In article , Peter Jason
wrote: Before going to a photo kiosk I PShop all RAW images, and crop to a 2:3 ratio. I save to jpeg. The quality of the Kiosk prints are mediocre even if I turn off the kiosk's offer to "sharpen" & "auto-adjust" the images. no surprise there. it's a kiosk, not a professional photo lab. Are these just ink-jet prints probably, but it could be dyesub. & is it possible to get a better quality? probably. it depends why they are mediocre. if it's the printer, then yes. if it's the photo, then no. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Kiosk photos.
On 12/23/2018 4:54 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
Before going to a photo kiosk I PShop all RAW images, and crop to a 2:3 ratio. I save to jpeg. The quality of the Kiosk prints are mediocre even if I turn off the kiosk's offer to "sharpen" & "auto-adjust" the images. Are these just ink-jet prints & is it possible to get a better quality? Depends on the kiosk. I have success with Costco, provided I use their ICC profile. Try using the correct ICC profile, or try using sRGB. Also a lot of places do not clean the printers, or use cheap ink. -- PeterN |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Kiosk photos.
On 12/23/18 4:54 PM, Peter Jason wrote:
Before going to a photo kiosk I PShop all RAW images, and crop to a 2:3 ratio. I save to jpeg. The quality of the Kiosk prints are mediocre even if I turn off the kiosk's offer to "sharpen" & "auto-adjust" the images. Are these just ink-jet prints & is it possible to get a better quality? It's possible that they are actual "wet" photos- depends on the equipment used. It may be possible to get better quality. First, you need to define what you mean by "mediocre". If the business is regularly checking their equipment and running test prints, then it's a matter of adjusting your images to get the best results from their equipment. If your prints from the kiosk are consistently too light or too dark, or lean toward a particular color, then you need to compensate. Auto-adjust can be fooled if the image has a preponderance of a particular color, or is very light or very dark. Are you certain that your own workflow is correct? Is your monitor giving you exactly what the camera captures? Try photographing an 18% gray card, then comparing the image on screen to the actual card for starters. I could explain how I calibrate my workflow, but since it involves film and a darkroom, it won't apply to you. Except for the gray card. -- Ken Hart |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Kiosk photos.
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: Before going to a photo kiosk I PShop all RAW images, and crop to a 2:3 ratio. I save to jpeg. The quality of the Kiosk prints are mediocre even if I turn off the kiosk's offer to "sharpen" & "auto-adjust" the images. Are these just ink-jet prints & is it possible to get a better quality? It's possible that they are actual "wet" photos- depends on the equipment used. it's not a 'wet photo'. kiosks are inkjet prints, possibly dye sub but that's unlikely. even photo labs who print from film no longer use wet photos for all sorts of reasons, including that digital is faster, less expensive, offers a wider range of adjustments and produces higher quality results. It may be possible to get better quality. First, you need to define what you mean by "mediocre". If the business is regularly checking their equipment and running test prints, then it's a matter of adjusting your images to get the best results from their equipment. except that's a moving target. If your prints from the kiosk are consistently too light or too dark, or lean toward a particular color, then you need to compensate. Auto-adjust can be fooled if the image has a preponderance of a particular color, or is very light or very dark. he said he disabled auto-adjust. Are you certain that your own workflow is correct? Is your monitor giving you exactly what the camera captures? Try photographing an 18% gray card, then comparing the image on screen to the actual card for starters. that won't do anything, other than waste money. the solution is a colour calibrated workflow, however, it will need the profile for the kiosk, which is unlikely to be available. another problem is the kiosk is unlikely to be maintained very well (or at all) so even that won't necessarily solve the problem. the best solution is to not use a kiosk at all, but rather an actual lab who can provide the necessary information (i.e., profiles and/or specific settings), or better yet, adjust to the customer's desires, what a pro lab actually is for. I could explain how I calibrate my workflow, but since it involves film and a darkroom, it won't apply to you. Except for the gray card. not even the grey card applies. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Kiosk photos.
On 23/12/2018 22.54, Peter Jason wrote:
Before going to a photo kiosk I PShop all RAW images, and crop to a 2:3 ratio. I save to jpeg. The quality of the Kiosk prints are mediocre even if I turn off the kiosk's offer to "sharpen" & "auto-adjust" the images. Mediocre in which sense? Grainy? What density have your jpegs, or how may pixels they have and how many centimetres have the print? -- Cheers, Carlos. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Kiosk photos.
On 12/24/18 10:10 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Ken Hart wrote: Before going to a photo kiosk I PShop all RAW images, and crop to a 2:3 ratio. I save to jpeg. The quality of the Kiosk prints are mediocre even if I turn off the kiosk's offer to "sharpen" & "auto-adjust" the images. Are these just ink-jet prints & is it possible to get a better quality? It's possible that they are actual "wet" photos- depends on the equipment used. it's not a 'wet photo'. kiosks are inkjet prints, possibly dye sub but that's unlikely. even photo labs who print from film no longer use wet photos for all sorts of reasons, including that digital is faster, less expensive, offers a wider range of adjustments and produces higher quality results. By the term "wet photo" in this instance, I am referencing a photograph printed by a light-jet type printer, which exposes light-sensitive photograph paper, which is then processed through developer and bleach-fix (and maybe stabilizer if it is washless). Is "kiosk" a brand name for a particular photo printing company? Or if it is a generic term (as I took it to be), then there are many "kiosks", some of which use "wet" system processing. There are one-hour type photo processing machines that scan film negatives while they are still wet. At this point in the workflow, the image is made digital. The image can be adjusted (with a wide range of adjustments that are available for any digital image), and printed onto light-sensitive photo paper. If a lab is developing film, they likely have the capability to run wet printing. C-41 and RA-4 chemistry does not have unique problems. It may be possible to get better quality. First, you need to define what you mean by "mediocre". If the business is regularly checking their equipment and running test prints, then it's a matter of adjusting your images to get the best results from their equipment. except that's a moving target. Why is it a moving target? If a photolab maintains their chemistry within limits, and prints "Shirley" (a standardized color test negative) to establish their baseline exposure on a regular basis, the "target" is for practical purposes, stationary. I don't have a problem maintaining color balance in my darkroom. In fact, it's fairly easy. If your prints from the kiosk are consistently too light or too dark, or lean toward a particular color, then you need to compensate. Auto-adjust can be fooled if the image has a preponderance of a particular color, or is very light or very dark. he said he disabled auto-adjust. I saw that. I mentioned auto-adjust to confirm that it may have been a good idea to disable. Are you certain that your own workflow is correct? Is your monitor giving you exactly what the camera captures? Try photographing an 18% gray card, then comparing the image on screen to the actual card for starters. that won't do anything, other than waste money. But digital is less expensive, according to you. (I dispute the cost issue.) The only expense in photographing a gray card and comparing it to the screen image is the cost of a gray card. There are further techniques, but this is just "for starters". the solution is a colour calibrated workflow, however, it will need the profile for the kiosk, which is unlikely to be available. Or the profile might be readily available. Did you ask? Unless "kiosk" is a brand name for a company whose policy is to not release their profile(s). another problem is the kiosk is unlikely to be maintained very well (or at all) so even that won't necessarily solve the problem. You know that for a fact? Some businesses are run quite well. It's a good method for retaining customers. the best solution is to not use a kiosk at all, but rather an actual lab who can provide the necessary information (i.e., profiles and/or specific settings), or better yet, adjust to the customer's desires, what a pro lab actually is for. I could explain how I calibrate my workflow, but since it involves film and a darkroom, it won't apply to you. Except for the gray card. not even the grey card applies. A gray card is a starting point. It can show density and color balance problems. (Contrast issues would usually need a step wedge.) It is a starting point, hence my "for starters". It might be a good idea for you to avoid speaking in absolutes. The real world is not binary. -- Ken Hart |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Kiosk photos.
In article , Ken Hart
wrote: Before going to a photo kiosk I PShop all RAW images, and crop to a 2:3 ratio. I save to jpeg. The quality of the Kiosk prints are mediocre even if I turn off the kiosk's offer to "sharpen" & "auto-adjust" the images. Are these just ink-jet prints & is it possible to get a better quality? It's possible that they are actual "wet" photos- depends on the equipment used. it's not a 'wet photo'. kiosks are inkjet prints, possibly dye sub but that's unlikely. even photo labs who print from film no longer use wet photos for all sorts of reasons, including that digital is faster, less expensive, offers a wider range of adjustments and produces higher quality results. By the term "wet photo" in this instance, I am referencing a photograph printed by a light-jet type printer, which exposes light-sensitive photograph paper, which is then processed through developer and bleach-fix (and maybe stabilizer if it is washless). i know quite well what a wet photo is. Is "kiosk" a brand name for a particular photo printing company? Or if it is a generic term (as I took it to be), generic term, commonly seen in drugstores such as walgreens, cvs, etc. as well as walmart, costco, etc. examples- on the right, w/the gla https://s3-media2.fl.yelpcdn.com/bphoto/B02DOiO2WYy9Tkc5w7Ggew/o.jpg older version: https://media.gettyimages.com/photos...amily-photos-a t-the-walgreens-photo-kiosk-monday-picture-id94862882 for a small photo lab or on-site use: https://www.fujifilmusa.com/products...al_lab_solutio ns/frontier_s_dx100/index.html then there are many "kiosks", some of which use "wet" system processing. not the ones found in drugstores or many camera stores, for that matter. There are one-hour type photo processing machines that scan film negatives while they are still wet. At this point in the workflow, the image is made digital. The image can be adjusted (with a wide range of adjustments that are available for any digital image), and printed onto light-sensitive photo paper. If a lab is developing film, they likely have the capability to run wet printing. C-41 and RA-4 chemistry does not have unique problems. not relevant to digital. It may be possible to get better quality. First, you need to define what you mean by "mediocre". If the business is regularly checking their equipment and running test prints, then it's a matter of adjusting your images to get the best results from their equipment. except that's a moving target. Why is it a moving target? If a photolab maintains their chemistry within limits, and prints "Shirley" (a standardized color test negative) to establish their baseline exposure on a regular basis, the "target" is for practical purposes, stationary. I don't have a problem maintaining color balance in my darkroom. In fact, it's fairly easy. you're assuming that a kiosk in a drugstore would be regularly tested and calibrated. that is not a good assumption. a rather bad one, in fact. there's a reasonable chance it doesn't even work at all. If your prints from the kiosk are consistently too light or too dark, or lean toward a particular color, then you need to compensate. Auto-adjust can be fooled if the image has a preponderance of a particular color, or is very light or very dark. he said he disabled auto-adjust. I saw that. I mentioned auto-adjust to confirm that it may have been a good idea to disable. generally yes, particularly if one is doing their own adjustments. however, auto-adjust often works quite well, so sometimes it's best to just let technology do its thing. Are you certain that your own workflow is correct? Is your monitor giving you exactly what the camera captures? Try photographing an 18% gray card, then comparing the image on screen to the actual card for starters. that won't do anything, other than waste money. But digital is less expensive, according to you. (I dispute the cost issue.) The only expense in photographing a gray card and comparing it to the screen image is the cost of a gray card. There are further techniques, but this is just "for starters". taking a photo of a grey card and then printing it to hold next to the screen does absolutely nothing for calibrating a digital workflow, thus it's a complete waste of money. printer calibration is done by printing a test chart with numerous colour patches, which is then scanned and analyzed to generate a printer profile. that can be done by the user (with the necessary equipment) or sent to a service company who will then send back a profile. https://www.printocare.com/dashboard...-characterizat ion-printer-with-iphoto.jpg screen calibration is done with a puck and associated software that shows various colours, measures the results and generates a profile. https://www.lumenera.com/media/wysiwyg/images/assets/calibration.gif the solution is a colour calibrated workflow, however, it will need the profile for the kiosk, which is unlikely to be available. Or the profile might be readily available. Did you ask? Unless "kiosk" is a brand name for a company whose policy is to not release their profile(s). i'm not the one in search of profiles. the point is that kiosks are mass market devices deployed in drugstores, not photo labs, and it's unlikely that anyone at a drugstore would know what that even means. another problem is the kiosk is unlikely to be maintained very well (or at all) so even that won't necessarily solve the problem. You know that for a fact? Some businesses are run quite well. It's a good method for retaining customers. the chances that the kiosk in a drugstore is maintained is not very high, other than replacing paper or ink when it runs out. the best solution is to not use a kiosk at all, but rather an actual lab who can provide the necessary information (i.e., profiles and/or specific settings), or better yet, adjust to the customer's desires, what a pro lab actually is for. I could explain how I calibrate my workflow, but since it involves film and a darkroom, it won't apply to you. Except for the gray card. not even the grey card applies. A gray card is a starting point. It can show density and color balance problems. (Contrast issues would usually need a step wedge.) It is a starting point, hence my "for starters". it is of no use in a colour managed workflow. It might be a good idea for you to avoid speaking in absolutes. The real world is not binary. nobody said it was. it would be a good idea for you to try to learn about colour management and digital workflows in general before making irrelevant suggestions. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Kodak kiosk - Picture CD resolution | ps56k | Digital Photography | 1 | January 25th 09 12:36 AM |
FA: Kodak Picturemaker Gen 2 8x10 Photo Kiosk | Steven Endres | Digital Photo Equipment For Sale | 0 | December 31st 07 10:04 PM |
Kodak photo printing kiosk | Tony Belding | Digital Photography | 8 | January 6th 07 07:24 AM |
Help! Photoshop jpg cropping in Kodak Kiosk | alijsyed | Digital Photography | 6 | August 17th 06 10:30 PM |
Kodak Kiosk and Compact Flash | Ron Hunter | Digital Photography | 19 | September 15th 04 02:23 PM |