Has anybody used Colab for prints of digital images? As far as I can see,
they offer 2 services: CrystalPixPro (more expensive but includes colour
balancing, appraisal, etc) and PrintByNet (prints exactly what you send them
but about half the price).

I've got a load of slides scanned to being about 35MB tif files and have got
the images as near to perfect as I can make them. I want prints up to about
A3 size and good enough to display and possibly exhibit. Is it worth paying
the extra money for the CrystalPixPro service? Has anyone used it and does
it make the images significantly better?

More generally, can somebody recommend other labs to get high quality (i.e.
good enough to display) prints from digital images? And any other tips about
getting images printed in this way?

Many thanks for your help,

David

get the same one done at the size you want from their
expensive and cheaper services
and compare before ordering lots of prints.

eric


"David Hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:7JDcc.157$nl6.123@newsfe1-win...
> Has anybody used Colab for prints of digital images? As
far as I can see,
> they offer 2 services: CrystalPixPro (more expensive but
includes colour
> balancing, appraisal, etc) and PrintByNet (prints exactly
what you send them
> but about half the price).
>
> I've got a load of slides scanned to being about 35MB tif
files and have got
> the images as near to perfect as I can make them. I want
prints up to about
> A3 size and good enough to display and possibly exhibit.
Is it worth paying
> the extra money for the CrystalPixPro service? Has anyone
used it and does
> it make the images significantly better?
>
> More generally, can somebody recommend other labs to get
high quality (i.e.
> good enough to display) prints from digital images? And
any other tips about
> getting images printed in this way?
>
> Many thanks for your help,
>
> David
>
>
>
>

David Hall wrote:

> Has anybody used Colab for prints of digital images? As far as I can see,
> they offer 2 services: CrystalPixPro (more expensive but includes colour
> balancing, appraisal, etc) and PrintByNet (prints exactly what you send them
> but about half the price).
>
> I've got a load of slides scanned to being about 35MB tif files and have got
> the images as near to perfect as I can make them. I want prints up to about
> A3 size and good enough to display and possibly exhibit. Is it worth paying
> the extra money for the CrystalPixPro service? Has anyone used it and does
> it make the images significantly better?
>
> More generally, can somebody recommend other labs to get high quality (i.e.
> good enough to display) prints from digital images? And any other tips about
> getting images printed in this way?
>


Peak (www.peak-imaging.com) offer an excellent service, as do Loxley
Colour in Glasgow (more expensive though since they are mainly a pro
lab) - www.loxleycolour.com

Lab 35 is launching many new services and you can send for a CD with
software to assist getting good results - call 01908 371 516 for a CD
and brochure

Fuji are about to launch a new print-by-net service, and you can expect
to be able to get hold of a CD to 'drive' this from your end around June
this year

There's a lot of competition. Our launch issue of f2 magazine (a new
title which takes over from Freelance Photographer and Master Digital
magazines in June) has ad features booked by Fuji, Peak and Lab 35 all
for the launch issue - unplanned, it's not considered good to have
competing features on the same topic, but as a result, we shall be doing
an additional editorial feature looking at the whole print-by-net, ftp,
disc-by-post business. Philip Chisholm at the University of Teesside,
jointly with several industry entrepreneurs, is driving ahead one
server-based system which labs can lock into and users can log on to - a
sort of 'portal' for customer/lab relationship. Others are competing.

Anyway, it really is hotting up commercially, and there is going to be
substantial 'war of CDs' this summer - look out for them in all the
digital imaging mags, probably in or on the consumer photo mags too. The
race is on to get professional users to pick a particular service for
net image selling (customer orders prints off browser site dedicated to
photographer) and net print ordering (photographer places lab orders,
lab keeps archive of all work, no negs ever go by post) as well as net
printing (photographer sends file physically to lab over net).

All the labs realise that few photographers are going to change their
entire web customer interface once it's set up. Amateur users of course
may order from one source one week and another the next. Even so, this
is where the money is being spent this year. Getting you locked it to a
future method of handling all your printing!

David
www.freelancephotographer.co.uk

On Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:40:37 +0100, "David Hall" <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

>Has anybody used Colab for prints of digital images? As far as I can see,
>they offer 2 services: CrystalPixPro (more expensive but includes colour
>balancing, appraisal, etc) and PrintByNet (prints exactly what you send them
>but about half the price).
>
>I've got a load of slides scanned to being about 35MB tif files and have got
>the images as near to perfect as I can make them. I want prints up to about
>A3 size and good enough to display and possibly exhibit. Is it worth paying
>the extra money for the CrystalPixPro service? Has anyone used it and does
>it make the images significantly better?
>
>More generally, can somebody recommend other labs to get high quality (i.e.
>good enough to display) prints from digital images? And any other tips about
>getting images printed in this way?
>
>Many thanks for your help,

One thing to be careful of is that a number of labs will apply
automatic sharpening. Not good if you've already got your images the
way you want them. So, make sure the lab you choose doesn't do this.

As for recommendations, take a look at Transpacolor
(www.transpacolor.com). I saw a recent comparative test where they
got 99% for image quality

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote ...
>
> As for recommendations, take a look at Transpacolor
> (www.transpacolor.com). I saw a recent comparative test where they
> got 99% for image quality
>
In a magazine where they, no doubt, had a large advertisement prominently
located in close proximity to the review, I would imagine

;^)

--
A Lot Of Good Luck Is Undeserved, But Then So Is A Lot Of Bad Luck

"David Hall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>Has anybody used Colab for prints of digital images? As far as I can see,
>they offer 2 services: CrystalPixPro (more expensive but includes colour
>balancing, appraisal, etc) and PrintByNet (prints exactly what you send them
>but about half the price).
>
>I've got a load of slides scanned to being about 35MB tif files and have got
>the images as near to perfect as I can make them. I want prints up to about
>A3 size and good enough to display and possibly exhibit. Is it worth paying
>the extra money for the CrystalPixPro service? Has anyone used it and does
>it make the images significantly better?
>
>More generally, can somebody recommend other labs to get high quality (i.e.
>good enough to display) prints from digital images?


I have no experience of Colab's digital-to-print services but found
that their cheaper film-to-print service was no better than High
Street minilabs or cheap mail order (Bonusprint, Truprint etc.) but
cost more. Their better service cost even more but still fell short
of the standards I could get for less money elsewhere.

I used many mail order labs before deciding to give all my business to
one local pro lab whose service (quality and speed) was outstanding
and whose prices were well below those of Colab's top price service.
The only mail order lab that I have used that even came close to the
standards of a true professional lab was Peak Imaging, and they were
very good indeed. Quality was excellent and prices reasonable.

On Wed, 7 Apr 2004 05:21:04 +0000 (UTC), "Tony Parkinson"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Hecate" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote ...
>>
>> As for recommendations, take a look at Transpacolor
>> (www.transpacolor.com). I saw a recent comparative test where they
>> got 99% for image quality
>>
>In a magazine where they, no doubt, had a large advertisement prominently
>located in close proximity to the review, I would imagine
>
>;^)

Yes, but... it was a comparative review and Transpacolor with their
half page advert beat out several with full page adverts. So there!
;-)

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui

"Hecate" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote ...
> "Tony Parkinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >"Hecate" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote ...
> >> As for recommendations, take a look at Transpacolor
> >> (www.transpacolor.com). I saw a recent comparative test where they
> >> got 99% for image quality
> >
> >In a magazine where they, no doubt, had a large advertisement prominently
> >located in close proximity to the review, I would imagine
>
> Yes, but... it was a comparative review and Transpacolor with their
> half page advert beat out several with full page adverts. So there!
> ;-)
>
Actually, I've often wondered why Particular Photography magazines don't
just be honest and rate equipment in the reviews according to the following
criteria :-
Features (marks out of 10)
Image Quality (10)
Performance (10)
Handling (10)
Value For Money (10)
Average Advertising Spend (25)
This Month's Advertising Spend (25)
--
Time travel . . . . . . . . . the way to buy a Home Computer that won't be
obsolete in 6 months

"Tony Parkinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>Actually, I've often wondered why Particular Photography magazines don't
>just be honest and rate equipment in the reviews according to the following
>criteria :-
> Features (marks out of 10)
> Image Quality (10)
> Performance (10)
> Handling (10)
> Value For Money (10)
> Average Advertising Spend (25)
> This Month's Advertising Spend (25)


I thought they already did.

;-)

On Thu, 8 Apr 2004 05:26:53 +0000 (UTC), "Tony Parkinson"
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Hecate" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote ...
>> "Tony Parkinson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >"Hecate" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote ...
>> >> As for recommendations, take a look at Transpacolor
>> >> (www.transpacolor.com). I saw a recent comparative test where they
>> >> got 99% for image quality
>> >
>> >In a magazine where they, no doubt, had a large advertisement prominently
>> >located in close proximity to the review, I would imagine
>>
>> Yes, but... it was a comparative review and Transpacolor with their
>> half page advert beat out several with full page adverts. So there!
>> ;-)
>>
>Actually, I've often wondered why Particular Photography magazines don't
>just be honest and rate equipment in the reviews according to the following
>criteria :-
> Features (marks out of 10)
> Image Quality (10)
> Performance (10)
> Handling (10)
> Value For Money (10)
> Average Advertising Spend (25)
> This Month's Advertising Spend (25)

You missed one:

Supply of Free Kit (100)

;-)

--

Hecate
(E-Mail Removed)
veni, vidi, reliqui