So a problem I am trying to solve. I get my living by taking

Have you thought of just going to other guys or telling them about the issue and that either they fix it or you won't come again?

1000€ plus the expenses in paper and ink seems like a pretty big investment, make numbers first because those things have a limited live, just like any other machine, and depending on how much you earn with those prints maybe you won't even pay for it before it breaks.

>>2903819
>1000 euromonies on a printer
you're going to have shit quality.
Professional printers have far better equipment.

>>2903853
This is my fourth lab I'm trying. There always seems to be something, if it's not the image quality it's the lack of interest in trying to fix shit. I have had seriously cold images (not good, they are underwater photos and are cold already), problems with contrast and so on. Skin tones needs to be good, as always, and this seems to be a problem for labs. Funny thing was, in one they had it off when we compared their print with their screen. Talk about pride in their work!

But yeah, I'm not sure if it will be an economical gain, I'm prepared to pay a little to ease my life a bit.
It seems like I will have approx 500 customers this year, if it goes on like this, I'm looking for about a thousand which should yield about one half of my needed income and keep it at that.

Now this is frustrating as it seems like I have to find another lab. And no, the one I use will run my images in a standard setup, he uses ye olde school chemistry, not a printer, so I'm maybe not that keen on talking about this with the lab, again...

But so far it seems like there are no printers that also print on the backside, except for the BIG ones and that is way overkill for my needs, at the moment with 500 customers I expect to print maybe 600-650 15x20 images, in centimetres.

>>2903897
>you're going to have shit quality.

Kay. I believe I'll have acceptable quality. But again, this IS 4chan where nothing satisfies the pixel peeper by the keyboard!

>>2903819
>but now I am comparing the latest prints and they are quite far from my calibrated version on screen!
How much have you looked into color spaces?

And while your screen is calibrated, is your setup calibrated to your printer?

Short version:
There are three different color spaces you have to deal with here:
1) colors encoded in file.
2) colors displayed on your screen.
3) colors printed.

Just because you set up 1 and 2 does not mean in any way that 3 will match. To get the colors you want in 3, you have to set up 1 and 2 to match the specific printer you're dealing with. Moving from additive to subtractive color mixing is always a bitch.

The "easiest" way I've found to deal with this is for me to just calibrate my monitor for web display, then study the fuck out of a bunch of test prints to see how those differ. I then process differently for print than I do for display (actually have an action made for it so it's painless after determining the differences). Takes a bit more visualization, but I get consistent, expected results.

>>2904751
>How much have you looked into color spaces?

I have indeed dwelled in this mysticism, and claim to understand quite a bit of it.
I don't sell just prints, they are actually an addition to the digital ones so I'm actually selling files, not prints. But the prints are needed!

So I have three monitors, on calibrated and two uncalibrated for the view that the customer gets.
Now the print needs to be reasonably close to the calibrated version (which it isn't now) and needs to be acceptable close to this "generic monitor" that I have several of in use. So in my naïvety I believe that if I can take control of the process myself I will get more expexted results.

But the problem is still the fact that I can't print a hundred prints without some identifier on them. And that needs printing on the backside which is the REAL problem before I can move on on this quest.