From: Andrew Hamilton on
On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 18:32:21 -0400, Tim Okergit <to(a)notme.com> wrote:


>
>This ate all profits in a cinch. This color stuff was wedding
>photography. The competition was fierce and the margins low. I couldn't
>afford prints at $10 and some wedding photography places had their own
>labs that provided excellent quality. I had to quit.

Thanks to inexpensive, high quality digital cameras, everyone has an
"Uncle Bob" who will do the family weddings for "free." I know a few
pros who would tell their kids to find another line of work, and some
of them have bailed out. Can't make any money these days. Customers
expect perfection but won't pay for it.

>
>I won't be doing professional photography anymore, but I know, you know?
>Bad quality would send me into a tantrum I can't describe. If labs
>provide bad quality, I better set up my process, losing a few sheets
>doing so, and then have first quality prints every time.
>

>If you try printing a picture whose color, exposure, contrast, focus are
>wrong, there is no way if will possibly come out OK on paper. Otherwise,
>what can go wrong?

As long as you have a complete color managed workflow, with a
calibrated monitor, printer, etc., you should be OK. "As long as ..."
From: Andrew Hamilton on
On 27 Jul 2010 02:16:59 GMT, Warren Block <wblock(a)wonkity.com> wrote:

>
>Come to think of it, the forums at dpreview.com ought to have someone
>with serious photo print experience and recommendations.


Ugh. Flamer central!