"chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn"
wrote in message
news:1gnjtuk.162vu6n18xxk1sN%this_address_is_for_s ...
Mxsmanic wrote:

[]
Newbies in digital photography rapidly discover that the only way to get
nice prints is to take the digital photos to a lab. So-called digital
cameras only simplify the taking of pictures; they do not provide better
pictures, and they certainly do not make it possible to replace photo
labs for getting quality prints.

Not just digital cameras. We still use a regular camera, so we have the
film developed. We use a mail order company which is very reasonable,
and we're always happy with the quality. However, if I try to scan a
photo, it usually looks fine on the computer screen, and is fine for
emailing, web, etc., but always looks disappointing when printed out,
even on larger paper. It's a shame, because especially for enlarged
images, it _would_ actually be cheaper for me to print them myself, as
you can buy good quality photographic paper quite cheaply here.

I've had a look at the results on different printers in shops,
especially ones that gear themselves specifically towards printing
direct from camera, and the quality doesn't seem much better.

I've tried tweaking different settings, touching up the images- just
doesn't look very good in comparison to the original print.

Mass labs will never give high-quality prints, whether digial or chemical.
Custom printers' product will always be superior.

If you want high-quality prints, the answer today is the same as it always
was: go to a professional lab, or do it yourself.



--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk