They arrived with an apology from the local Post. SmugMug was not at fault, nor was EZPrint. They proceeded diligently, but there was a mistake done in the post here.
The prints arrived rolled in a tube and the tube was in… nothing. The parcel was just the tube. Nothing happened and the tube appears strong enough to protect the prints, but all in all it does not give the same impression as the parcel I got from ExposureManager. I thought they used the same lab, but they don’t. Also, there is a prominent SmugMug label on the tube, inviting the customer to contact them in case of problem. As I said before, the customer buys from SmugMug, not from me, and is reminded so.
I had ordered the same prints on the 3 different papers. To my surprise, I actually prefer the glossy one to the luster. There is a bigger surprise: metamerism failure. All three papers show a tint under some lighting.
Under natural light, glossy is neutral, matte is slightly warm and luster is green. Under tungsten, luster is neutral and the other two are pink. I don’t notice anything similar with the EM print on luster. They both use Fuji Frontier printers and both use the same Fuji paper, so I don’t know.
All three prints are from the same file and all three were ordered at the same paper size. They are supposed to print borderless yet one of the three has a white border on one side. Precision appears to be so-so. The problem here is that, unlike ExposureManager, SmugMug does not allow for proper separation between the file used for screen presentation and actual print files. Borderless prints are useless for framing! How can’t they understand that?
All in all, this shows amply that SmugMug can not be a solution to sub-contract orders fulfillment.
Stephane :: Dec.25.2007 ::
Printing, Sales ::
2 Comments »