>>The D-Lab works in the sRGB colour space. If you embed profiles in your files then it may be able to automatically convert from other spaces (Adobe RGB etc). But I'm not sure about that.<
i work in sRGB too, so if the operator sent the files straight through, then the differences are in the calibration on my end. >>Also your end would have to be set up perfectly as well; ie calibrated scanner and monitor. There are always limitations, though. The simple fact that a monitor is emissive (additive) and a print is reflective (subtractive) is a headache in itself. The colour rendition of a print is dependent on the light source under which it is held. Your perception of the colour on that print varies with your brain's "compensation" for ambient conditions.<< they are, but i work in indirect warm florescent lighting. when i evaluate prints though, i use a 50W plant grow light. it's not 5000K, but it is a lot cooler than typical indoor tungsten light. perhaps 3400K. >>The D-Lab uses a continuous tone process so there should be no dot pattern :)<< there is a grain pattern though. with lasers, they could have gone either way. whatever Ritz Camera uses around here has a noticeable dot pattern. >>The D-Lab prints at 400ppi so in theory it should be pretty hard to see the pixels even under a loupe, provided the original file was not resampled (100Mb file for 12x18" 400ppi at 24 bit!).<< my Photoshop files were about 55 megabytes each in 24-bit mode. >>That sounds really strange. I wonder if that could be due to a lack of paper flatness, or even if its due to the laser optics. The distance from the optics to the centre of the print will be less than the distance from the optics to the edge, so it may be related to DOF. The photos on which my prints are based were "bokeh'd" at the edges so I wouldn't have noticed.<< i see this alight softening across the print. the places i am looking are at the details of leaves at different places in the one 12x18 i received. >>My prints show the same thing, but they came off negatives so I would naturally expect a little unsharp masking to make up for the scanning process. I would hope that digital files were not modified by the D-Lab in this way. On the other hand, any halftone process [eg inkjet] will inevitably lose a little edge sharpness.<< i'm comparing to the original digital file after looking at the print 7x10. the edges, especially for dark against a light background, are different. i feel the inkjet print is closer to what i see on the monitor with respect to how soft edges are rendered. >>Did your file have sufficient pixel count to print at 12x18? My prints, which came off negs, also show some pretty bad "bokeh'd" areas and a bit of noise but I assumed that this was due to the scanner which is only 2k x 3k and is designed primarily for speed. In my opinion 2k x 3k is pushing its luck for a 12x18" print.<< 5.5K x 3.8K, a 4000dpi scan of a mounted slide. >>The only thing stopping me from buying an Epson printer is the cost. I won't be making nearly enough prints to justify its purchase: my walls just aren't big enough. If I ever sell prints, I can just pass the lab's printing charge on and its one less process that I have to look after.<< it inflates my prices too much to go outside for high quality printing, and costs add up to build a portfolio that continues to change over time. i also need a large format printer for proofing maps in my cartography business, so that is the main reason i have my 1280 and why i bought my now-dead 1270 a couple of years ago. >>If you really want "right first time" prints from a file then a printer profile would be very helpful for soft-proofing at your end, provided your monitor has also been profiled. However that depends on a D-Lab profile being available, and if it is doing any automatic adjustments then the profile would not be valid (BTW you'd need separate profiles for each type of paper).<< mine is reasonably accurate. i haven't run a hardware calibrator, but i had the foresight to buy a monitor that comes with a color profile and i have run a blackpoint/whitepoint/gamma calibration using that profile as a starting point. i probably could borrow a monitor calibration unit from a friend. for now, i get predictable results from my monitor/printer setup. i know that when i finally replace my monitor, i will try to get a calibration system along with it. this monitor, a NEC 5FG, is just shy of 10 years old and still going strong. the Epson printer drive compensates for the different types of paper made by Epson automatically unless i disable the feature. Herb....
