# Pictures developed at the Pharmacy look horrible!



## Lonnie1212 (Nov 24, 2019)

Hi Folks, 

A few weeks ago I took a few moon pictures.  They came out just fine and they look really nice on Facebook and on the home computer.  Took the flash drive with the jpeg images to a local pharmacy to have prints made.  The attendant brought the prints to me and they were horrible.  They look like cartoon pictures.  They have that painted or animated appearance.  The full silver moon picture looks over exposed on the print.  But on Facebook it looks totally awesome.  I am not sure what to do.  Can anyone make any suggestions?  Could it be the camera settings?

Thank you, 

Lonnie


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 24, 2019)

Find a different lab.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Nov 24, 2019)

480sparky said:


> Find a different lab.



I was hoping you wouldn't say that.  We have lost all our camera shops in Springfield, Illinois.  All we have is Walmart, Walgreens, and CVS pharmacy.  There one camera shop in Peoria, Illinois.  I may be able to contact them.  I might even be willing to email the jpegs to a developer.


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 24, 2019)

Cartoon pictures??  Maybe you;re working with too small of resolution.  What were the size of the picture in bytes and the resolution size that the store worked with?  If the final print was larger than the web posted, and the size of the file is too small, your could be getting those kind of results.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Nov 24, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> Cartoon pictures??  Maybe you;re working with too small of resolution.  What were the size of the picture in bytes and the resolution size that the store worked with?  If the final print was larger than the web posted, and the size of the file is too small, your could be getting those kind of results.



I can show you the information listed on the properties.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 24, 2019)

2061 pixels on the long side is rather small.


----------



## AlanKlein (Nov 24, 2019)

That's about 2.9mb, pretty small.  Why is the image only 2161x1329=2.9mb?  What was the setting in your camera?  what kind of camera?  Model?  Make?

Also you show the file size at 62.1kb.  If the file used to print was that size, it sounds like you may have compressed it too much when you created the jpeg image.  

The other problem especially with exposure is the printer may be set to adjust the exposure automatically.  Since you have a completely dark picture with just a white spot the moon, and no mid range grays, the extreme range may be creating an exposure issue with their machine.  You may have to discuss it with the technician if they know what they're doing and require them to do a manual adjust for that particular shot.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 24, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> That's about 2.9mb, pretty small.  Why is the image only 2161x1329=2.9mb?  ......



m*p*, not m*b*.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Nov 24, 2019)

AlanKlein said:


> That's about 2.9mb, pretty small.  Why is the image only 2161x1329=2.9mb?  What was the setting in your camera?  what kind of camera?  Model?  Make?
> 
> Also you show the file size at 62.1kb.  If the file used to print was that size, it sounds like you may have compressed it too much when you created the jpeg image.
> 
> The other problem especially with exposure is the printer may be set to adjust the exposure automatically.  Since you have a completely dark picture with just a white spot the moon, and no mid range grays, the extreme range may be creating an exposure issue with their machine.  You may have to discuss it with the technician if they know what they're doing and require them to do a manual adjust for that particular shot.



I am using a Nikon D610.  The image size is set to Large 6016 x 4016  24.2 M.  The jpeg compression is set to Optimal quality.  There is also another choice and the is 'Size Priority'.


----------



## 480sparky (Nov 24, 2019)

With a watermark, the image file isn't SOOC.  You've edited somewhere along the line, and saved it as a low-resolution image.


----------



## Derrel (Nov 25, 2019)

When you say cartoon pictures I think I know what you might be referring to. At times some automated machines from both Kodak and Fuji will make a print from the thumbnail of a jpeg, and will create a cartoon-like picture,even though the original photo might have quite a bit of detail. How many images did you have printed, and were they all similarly of the Moon?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 25, 2019)

It would actually be helpful to see the actual print rather than the source file properties list. If the problem is in the prints, then we should see the prints.


----------



## Soocom1 (Nov 25, 2019)

First question: Is the lab using wet printing or is it inkjet printing, screen dye-sublimation? 

Second question: When you handed over the pictures, were they in jpeg format?  it is very possible that the image handed over may have been in a duel format where the jpeg was only a thumbnail.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Nov 25, 2019)

I talked with a photo developer in Peoria, Il. He said I saved the photo too small when I put my signature on it. He asked me to send him the original jpeg from the camera. One that I haven't messed with. I will let him make an 8 × 10 the right way.  I want a picture to hang on the wall.

Thanks guys,

Lonnie


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Nov 25, 2019)

Soocom1 said:


> First question: Is the lab using wet printing or is it inkjet printing, screen dye-sublimation?
> 
> Second question: When you handed over the pictures, were they in jpeg format?  it is very possible that the image handed over may have been in a duel format where the jpeg was only a thumbnail.



Hi Soocom, 

I am not sure what they are using or how they are using it.  The customers pictures come out of a big machine.  Everything is automatic.  I think I heard the photo technician in Peoria mention spraying onto photo paper.


----------



## Lonnie1212 (Nov 25, 2019)

99% of my photos stay on the computer or go on Facebook.  Having prints made on paper is a new and disappointing process.  One thing I will do is not touch the photos in photoshop anymore.  If I want a print made, I will tell the guy at Peoria Camera what I would like to have.  This is a touchy subject.  If a guy spends a lot of time and money on the best camera and lenses, then has has problems printing the pictures.  What is the use of having a good camera and lens?


----------



## Derrel (Nov 25, 2019)

If you go to the store and buy the most expensive meat and the highest-priced wine and the best cheese and the finest in potatoes and brussel sprouts you still have to know how to cook to turn it all into a fine meal. Just having a good camera and a good lens is not all there is to photography. You need to know a few things in order to get the best out of your equipment.

If you want to just shoot and send your photos directly to print, then shoot in jpeg mode with the sharpening set to high, and buy yourself a $150 Hewlett-Packard or Canon photo printer and make 4 by 6 inch prints on pre-cut glossy photo paper. Seriously, this is one way to do it. I have done it. It actually works, and the 4 by 6 in glossy Hewlett-Packard prints are surprisingly good


----------



## Designer (Nov 26, 2019)

Lonnie1212 said:


> 99% of my photos stay on the computer or go on Facebook.  Having prints made on paper is a new and disappointing process.  One thing I will do is not touch the photos in photoshop anymore.  If I want a print made, I will tell the guy at Peoria Camera what I would like to have.  This is a touchy subject.  If a guy spends a lot of time and money on the best camera and lenses, then has has problems printing the pictures.  What is the use of having a good camera and lens?


Welcome to Photography 2.0.  Yes, I sympathize with your frustration.  The fact that you have very little control over the finished product simply adds to your frustration.  

The printers are somewhat "automatic", but the operator still has some input, and that is where finding someone who knows what he is doing will help a lot.

First of all, the file size.  We talked about that already.

Second; most reputable printers will publish a print color profile, which you can download and match on your computer.

Third; the images you view on your computer are backlit, whereas prints are not.  This means the prints will often appear too dark, and probably the wrong colors.

Fourth; the paper.  There is a difference in what paper the printer uses.  

My advice is to send your files (or one anyway) to someplace like Adorama, or some other online printer.  Be sure If the first print is disappointing, call the company and find out what happened.  Or try a different company.  

Good luck!


----------



## Soocom1 (Nov 26, 2019)

Lonnie1212 said:


> 99% of my photos stay on the computer or go on Facebook.  Having prints made on paper is a new and disappointing process.  One thing I will do is not touch the photos in photoshop anymore.  If I want a print made, I will tell the guy at Peoria Camera what I would like to have.  This is a touchy subject.  If a guy spends a lot of time and money on the best camera and lenses, then has has problems printing the pictures.  What is the use of having a good camera and lens?



The dynamics of old school photography still apply.

The primary exception is the wet v. electronic process.  Format size is still relevant as is the various functions of cameras.
But the cell phone industry was deliberate in trying to destroy the photographic business so they could corner it. This is a well known secret that the tech guys tried for years to push.
Good photography is still in the hands of the true artists as much as it is in the realm of those who use charcoal sticks over Corel Pro x8.

But the backlash is exactly within the effect you experienced. You see really nice photos on the computer but not so much on paper because the paper is a physical manifestation of electrons now. Not a reproduction of physical this vs. physical that type thing (silver halide). The tech guys tried to make photography idiot proof and instead is creating a quality monster they cant control and the consumer is getting upset that their iPhone pictures look like garbage beyond 4x6 inches.

Moreover, electronic has backlighting whereas paper does not.
The screen is actually lit up with white light and the image you see is color and grey tones basically replacing the white but still back illuminated making a visual aspect where light is projected to your eyes whereas paper is reflecting light from another source.
For paper, this requires some very specific science to get "white-white" paper to reflect color and grey tones correctly and brightly enough to enjoy.

Dot matrix printers are NOT up to the job, and moreover, most "photo paper" is simply low quality paper with some chemicals added to do two things:
1) Reflect light to a certain point ( look at a bolt of paper and you will see a brightness rating) that is suppose to reflect a specific level of light.
2) Ability to absorbs ink and is designed to hold that ink in place. So there is a quality tradeoff. Plus the age old problem of lignum.

Old school silver paper is reactive to light and is specific to that end. It is manufactured specifically to that point. The end result is far different than the garbage they sell at the office supply stores.
Higher end inkjet photo paper is also typically made of rag not wood. (Cotton rag). And is treated and processed to that end.

So using Derrel's point, not only use of high end food ingredients, but try making a 5 star meal with Red Solo cups, Dixie plates and preparing with Ronco's "Ginsu" knives.


----------

