Stupid question regarding photo paper quality

[lordfly]

I don't print out many photos, I'll admit; I'm more of a digital guy. My house is already filled with painting and artwork, it's not like I'm able to cram any more frames anywhere.

While perusing a Professional Photographer's magazine, I saw a lot of ads for professional photo printing, and it got me thinking: what, exactly, is the qualitative difference between a "professional" print made by some lab you send away for (obstinately for clients), and the same prints being shot out of a Walmart? Our local Walmart has a Fujifilm dry lab (a DL410, yes, I'm that nosy and that big of a dork), and from what I could tell the prints looked really good. Are "professional" prints sent off to a top lab really any different?

I'm just wondering; if I ever to decide to get into photography as a side business, it would be nice to be able to explain to clients what the difference is between getting them printed at Wallyworld or Costco compared to having me get them printed for them from some superduper lab.

 

[Derrel]

"(obstinately for clients)"

Do you mean ostensibly for clients???

 

[lordfly]

Theoretically. Spelling and vocabulary used to be my strong suit in high school. Damn you, internet and spell check!

 

[Big Mike]

I'm sure there are plenty of reasons why a good pro lab is better than Walmart...but, as they say, a picture is worth 1000 words.

Send a variety of images into Walmart and into one or more pro labs. Then compare the results for yourself.

 

[KmH]

Not all paper are achival.

That means a photo made on non-archival paper won't be looking so good 75 years from now.

There are 2 main types of photograpic paper: chromogenic and inkjet.

A chromogenic print has 3 main light sensitive dye layers - cyan, magenta, and yellow—that together form a full color image. The paper is exposed to red, green, and blue light. The light sensitive material in each layer is a silver halide emulsion. The paper is then run through a couple of chemicals to develope the print (RA-4 chemistry).
Today, the major lines of professional chromogenic print paper are Kodak Endura and Fujifilm Crystal Archive.

Then there is inkjet, which in the fine art print world is called Giclée ("zhee-clay" ), a French word that means "nozzle", or more specifically "gicler", meaning "to spray, squirt, or spurt".

Giclée as a fine art term has come to be associated with prints using fade-resistant, archival inks (pigment based, as well as newer solvent based inks), archival substrates, and the inkjet printers that use them.

Not all inkjet printers or inks are created equal.

 

[Quinton Weeks]

I like Red River Paper in Dallas,Tx

 

[clanthar]

The paper is the most critical factor.

KmH identified a really critical factor if you're going to sell a print.

If it's color and it's not a ruby, emerald, saphire, etc. then it's fading. Some the fastest fading color known to modern humanity is color photographs. See WIR: Wilhelm Imaging Research

Let's start with the legacy (darkroom) stuff. That stuff is still heavily used in the photo finishing business because it's so cheap. Kodak and/or Fuji materials (KmH identified them above) will fade noticeably in between 25 - 50 years given how carefully they're processed and displayed. (Fuji's use of the term "archive" in the name of their product is one of the more outrageous in-your-face lies in the photo business.) Photos that originate from digital cameras are printed at Walmart and your pro-lab on these materials because the paper is so cheap.

All of these papers are what the industry calls RC paper. RC stands for resin coated. In other words a paper core is coated with plastic and the light-sensitive emulsion is then layered on the plastic. (My opinion: all plastics are ugly and so the various surfaces of these papers are ugly.)

So at Walmart and your pro-lab you are most likely to get a print on ugly paper that will fade before your customer forgets who they bought it from. (The pro-lab is likely to wash and process the print better and so it won't fade quite as quickly.)

A paradox exists in the all-digital printing business. Inkjet and dye-sub printers are both better and worse when it comes to fading than earlier chemical (darkroom) materials.

Here it's an issue of both the paper and the dyes/inks that are used. Those little Kodak desktop dye-sub printers they sell at Worst Buy make prints that fade so fast it's only a slight exaggeration to say you can put one on the wall, pull up a chair, pop a beer and watch it go.

On the other hand professional caliber inkjet printers used with fade resistant inks in combination with a good paper can produce prints that we now expect will last 100 plus years (see WIR above).

As an added bonus, high quality inkjet papers are available in a dozen plus different surfaces that are not based on a plastic substrate and are in fact quite lovely. Get your wallet out.

Check out some of the paper sources on the web:
Canson Infinity - Welcome to the Canson Infinity Online Resource!
Hahnemühle FineArt - The Art of Expression since 1584
Museo - Fine Art Digital Inkjet Paper by InteliCoat Technologies
Blog - Moab by Legion Paper
Legion Paper - Fine Art Paper - By Brand - Somerset

Joe

 

[lordfly]

So at Walmart and your pro-lab you are most likely to get a print on ugly paper that will fade before your customer forgets who they bought it from. (The pro-lab is likely to wash and process the print better and so it won't fade quite as quickly.)

Rather informative, thanks. So what you're saying is, having people pay extra for the privilege of having it sent out to some professional printing place isn't really worth it for their wedding/birthday/engagement photos?

I'd rather just hand them a high-quality digital copy of their prints along with a copyright release form on a CD and send them on their way. They can get it printed on super-laser-mounted-megacoated-sublimated-trinitrons if they want.

 

[KmH]

But they'll proabably print them on their el cheapo, bargan basement recycled ink, home all-in-one injet printer, on bargan basement copy paper, and blame you because the prints looks like ****.

It's not called a copyright release - unless you are intending to give up all ownership rights to the photo you made. Rather, the legal term is 'use license', though some use the term print or reproduction release.

 

[lordfly]

But they'll proabably print them on their el cheapo, bargan basement recycled ink, home all-in-one injet printer, on bargan basement copy paper, and blame you because the prints looks like ****.

It's not called a copyright release - unless you are intending to give up all ownership rights to the photo you made. Rather, the legal term is 'use license', though some use the term print or reproduction release.

Ah, also good to know. The wonks behind the counter at Wallyworld called it a copyright release form. Shows you how much I know about this stuff.