Olympus-OM
[Top] [All Lists]

[OM] Now Millers

Subject: [OM] Now Millers
From: AG Schnozz <agschnozz@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 09:24:48 -0700 (PDT)
> Interesting comments but after starting the first paragraph I
> was convinced it was going to be a rant against Miller's.  I
> think the quality and consistency has deteriorated.  They're
> apparently doing alright by you.

Yup. No issues so far.  One thing that might be helping is that
when I send my images in, my skintones are already nearly
perfect. With personal work, I request no further color/density
adjustments, but with most portraiture I pay to have the
color/density adjustments done as they tend to maximize the
capability of the printer/paper a little more.  They are the
experts and it's a pretty safe assumption that their monitors
are a bit more calibrated to the printed output than mine is.
However, I've gotten a handwritten note on the checkoff sheet
that said "no image adjustments required".

I really hate stating the obvious, but it must be the camera. ;)

One thing that MUST be taken into account and what so many
people don't understand--Millers prints slightly larger than the
final print size.  With very rare exception, I find it much
better to let Millers scale the image than me.  For example, if
I uprezz my image for an 11x14 (at 300dpi), their RIP and laser
enlargers will actually scale it slightly larger and then
everything is trimmed. You will lose a bit of the edges of the
image.  Except for fine-art stuff where I'm specifically trying
to control something, I find it far better to just send them the
native file (edited of course for zits and moles) and let them
scale it to all of my print sizes.

BTW, with the fine-art stuff, if I need a print where there is a
large white or black border, I create the image file with that
border built in. To give them something to trim with, I place
corner markings (or a thin line) around the outer edge of my
border.  Must be my graphic arts training coming in here.

I've only had one issue with Millers and that was primarily
user-error on my part.  I've had nothing but consistent results
with them and their turn-around time is awesome.

What I'm guessing here is that when a place prints several
million pictures a year that something is going to get screwed
up once in a while.  On the various lists and forums you always
hear about the screwups, but rarely about the over 99% which are
done correctly.  I used to work in a lab way back in the dark
ages and more recently had my own B&W lab operation.  I've never
seen any place as consistant as Millers has been for me.

We've been "house"-hunting for almost a year now.  Space in the
new digs is going to be EXTREMELY tight.  I'd love to get a new
wide-format printer, but where in the world would I place it? 
In the end, would my printed output be consistant enough and
inexpensive enough to justify not outsourcing to Millers? 
Outsourcing has been working well for me this year and I'm
having a hard time getting the numbers to make sense any other
way.  I'm thinking I'm better off putting my money into new
cameras and lenses than a high-end printer.  My per-piece cost
of a 20x30" print is about a quarter of what Millers charges me,
but I'd have to sell a ton of those in a year to justify the
investment.  Also, by outsourcing, my costs are always going be
be a percentage of sales. If something isn't selling, my costs
go way down.  If it is selling extremely well, then quantity
discounts start to kick in and my per-piece cost decreases as
well.

No easy answers, though.

AG

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

==============================================
List usage info:     http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies:        olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>
Sponsored by Tako
Impressum | Datenschutz