X-E1 Disappointing prints.

[Harry S.]

Hi fellows,

Today I spent the day shooting photos at a work event with the X-E1 and 35mm. In use the camera was fantastic and the images on my computer screen are great. I was so excited with the results I quickly edited some pictures and this afternoon had them printed.

The prints pale in comparison to the on-screen files. Quite significant loss of detail and have a flat, lifeless look. Keep in mind they are cheap HP digital kiosk 5x7" prints from Kmart, but still I expected them to be much better than they are. They look not unlike phone-camera output.

Last time I printed images it was with a 5Dmk2, on a Fuji digital kiosk. The same size printed images from the Canon are miles better. Basically speaking the kind of thing I was proud to show people...The pictures today are nice enough to show my work colleagues, but the prints are not. I feel the prints undermine any skill I have with a camera!

So the question is; Is this the fault of the camera or the fault of the printer? I think the pictures from the X-E1 look better on the screen than the 5D. Does the larger sensor in the Canon make for superior prints or are HP digital labs just that lousy?

Harry.

 

[Michiel Fokkema]

Could be user error too. Did you make sure the files for the printer were in sRGB? If they are not the colors will be paler.

 

[Harry S.]

Yes they are sRGB.

 

[sevo]

Poor profile support, or even no support at all if the Kiosk operator has not updated is a common reason why automated prints from a new, somewhat rare camera might not be up to the quality of prints off files that originated on the well-seasoned industry standard from a market leader.

But have them printed on the same printer first - there really is no point in comparing prints from a up-market printer and a bottom line one. HP kiosk printers suck - that is a box with PC and Deskjet inside, arguably a printer brand and type most of us would not even consider for casual home photo printing.

If prints on the Fuji disappoint as well, you might have to talk to the Kiosk operators about a software update (I assume that at least Fuji will support all their own cameras).

 

[Hamfish]

I used to work in a photolab and would see customers bringing in prints from dry labs (K-Mart) and home printing. The photos we printed with a wet lab Fuji Frontier had no comparison to the dry lab prints at all. Colours are deeper and prints will last you 40 years or 80 years if you keep it in a photo album.

Fujifilm Australia (who trained me) told me that K-Mart uses HP dry labs that are pretty lousy but are getting better.

Go to a Fujifilm Wet Lab, prints are better and will last a lifetime of FujiFilm Crystal Archive. Go to Big W and ask when the last time they did the calibration on the 5inch, ask if they can do it before running out your prints.

Let me know if you have any questions!

PS. Fuji Kiosks Displays are not the best so don't worry how it looks on screen.

 

[Harry S.]

Thanks a lot Hamfish, will do that tomorrow!

Kind of worrying at the moment because so far this camera system is infallible for my usage, and this could be a major chink in the armour.

 

[dct]

Poor profile support, or even no support at all if the Kiosk operator has not updated is a common reason why automated prints from a new, somewhat rare camera might not be up to the quality of prints off files that originated on the well-seasoned industry standard from a market leader...

While we are waiting, please enlighten me. I don't get this profiling thing because I prepare print files typically at home, JPEG, with more than enough resolution and some contrast enhancement. At the printing kiosk device (Kodak, Fuji, whatever) I put my USB stick into the device and print them without any further enhancements.
I'm not don't believe a printing device is aware of the originating camera the JPEGs come from. Think if the EXIF data were erased?
My question now: What does this profile of a print device exactly, depending on camera type?

 

[tekst]

Do you have a brother Frank by any chance Harry?

 

[sevo]

I'm not don't believe a printing device is aware of the originating camera the JPEGs come from.

All kiosk systems I am aware of evaluate the Exif data (if present) and try to use them for picture optimization. See the product literature about on the net...

Think if the EXIF data were erased?

You get the plain default...

That is the reason why it is generally recommended to zap the Exif if you print home-photoshopped files on a kiosk printer - the picture has already been edited, and will not benefit from a second automated optimizing run done under the assumption of dealing with an unfiltered original.

 

[bobbyrab]

While we are waiting, please enlighten me. I don't get this profiling thing because I prepare print files typically at home, JPEG, with more than enough resolution and some contrast enhancement. At the printing kiosk device (Kodak, Fuji, whatever) I put my USB stick into the device and print them without any further enhancements.
I'm not don't believe a printing device is aware of the originating camera the JPEGs come from. Think if the EXIF data were erased?
My question now: What does this profile of a print device exactly, depending on camera type?

I think you're right, all these printers are working from an sRGB jpeg, the printer does not make any adjustment for camera brand, that's why you balance your files on a colour calibrated screen, if the printer is properly calibrated then the image should be close to your screen view.

 

[Harry S.]

Do you have a brother Frank by any chance Harry?

Yeah I do!

 

[jsrockit]

I've made beautiful 20x30" prints from the X-Pro1, so it is not the cameras fault.

 

[gavinlg]

Ahh... at 5x7 and not taking depth of field into account, you would probably have a difficult time telling the difference between a shot from an iPhone 5 and a 5d mkII in sunny conditions TBH. At that print size just about everything looks good. So it is definitely something to do with the actual printer.

FWIW my x-pro1 prints about the same as my 5d III at big sizes.

 

[Bob Wilson]

It's the printer or something to do with monitor calibration, not the camera. Guaranteed. If you can make the file look great on your screen, you can make it look great in a print. Buy yourself a printer and calibrate your workflow. I use X-E1's and an X100s and get great prints that match the image on my screen, but only because I control the process from start to finish.

 

[Tony Bramley]

If you are thinking of serious printing then you should do the following:
Calibrate your monitor regularly (monthly). Print using print/paper profiles (this will not happen in high st printers). If you are not sure about calibration and profiling, before you get disappointing with your X-E1, I strongly recommend you take a file to a pro lab to be printed. Following this learn about profiling, all X users should be doing the above to get the best from these HQ cameras & lenses. Also shoot RGB as it has a wider colour gamet.

Some info here for you: http://www.pureprofiles.com/What-Is-A-Printer-Profile.aspx

High st printers are not that worried for your average 'punter'. This clip from UK gadget show shows how different all the consumer printers are and worth watching for 10 mins to prove the point:
http://gadgetshow.channel5.com/gadget-show/videos/other/online-photo-printing

Believe me, they are not professional printers and all will vary over time. Use a pro lab for you special stuff or get calibrating and profile with a good printer of your own. You can have a profile made up for £15 online and emailed to you.

 

[NicoM]

Sounds like a printing error. I've made a lot of prints with the X-E1 and they've turned out great!

 

[Range-rover]

I had the same problem when I did a job for someone and did the prints at
a neighborhood Kiosk and they came out pretty bad and it was with a Canon
5D as well. So I got myself a Canon Printer and I have no problems since.

Range

 

[honozooloo]

Harry, sorry to hear about the disappointing results. But as you describe your situation, at least to me there seem to be too many variables at play here to pin this issue down to just one cause, let alone to attribute your results to the XE-1.

Did you process your Fuji-printed shots and your HP-printed shots in exactly the same way? If not then it could be a factor. The kiosk's maintenance (or lack thereof) is another. Did you use the same lens? What about your chosen aperture (more or less DOF or "pop")? The paper could be another factor. And the list goes on and on.

I doubt your experiences have anything to do with your camera, based on my own experiences with the X system. My X Pro has produced excellent results up to 11x14 (it can print bigger but that's the biggest I've gone so far), and has also gone into print in magazine layouts (offset printing) up to full-page with excellent output. I've also been quite pleased with the one high-res giclee I've produced at 11x14 inches. The output was so good that I've put a freeze on my Canon upgrades (you're sexy but I don't need you, 5D MKIII...) because my X Pro has convinced me that my money would be better spent on the X system the next few years.

But that's off-subject. In general, kiosk prints aren't much better than what you can expect from a halfway decent inkjet at home these days. IMHO the only advantage kiosks offer is lower cost and speed. As others have mentioned, wet prints are always gonna kick dry print ass. Calibration definitely matters, and kiosks are often neglected/not calibrated. Spending a few extra bucks on a higher-quality printing process pays dividends on your finished product.