As a long-time user of WHCC, I was intrigued by Miller’s Printing, especially after hearing about their custom packaging and having positive experiences with their consumer division, MPix, for holiday cards. Eager to explore their professional services, I decided to put Miller’s to the test with their sample prints.
The test consisted of uploading four images, with the promise of receiving eight 8×10 prints back – one set of originals and another with color adjustments. My usual workflow is meticulous: cropping to 8×10, saving as sRGB 8-bit JPG with high quality – standard practice for professional printing. However, the prints I received from Miller’s were far from satisfactory; in fact, I would even describe them as poor.
The most glaring issue was the color accuracy. It’s difficult to pinpoint exactly, but the colors were simply off. The color-adjusted prints, supposedly enhanced by their lab professionals, were even worse. A portrait headshot, for instance, exhibited an unnatural orange skin tone. My black and white test print, which I had intentionally toned slightly towards chocolate, was completely washed out, losing all the intended warmth. Instead, the adjustment process seemed to brighten all four images, resulting in blown-out highlights and an overall color shift towards red.
Normally, I avoid requesting color correction, trusting my calibrated monitor and WHCC’s ability to handle Adobe RGB color space. I aim to submit images that are already color-accurate. Color correction was offered free with Miller’s samples, but this experience has firmly convinced me to never request it.
The stark contrast became even more apparent when I compared these Miller’s prints to prints from WHCC, ordered simultaneously for a client. Both arrived on the same day, and the difference in quality was striking. Upon closer inspection with an 8x loupe, I noticed excessive sharpening in the Miller’s prints, a characteristic absent in the WHCC prints. This unwanted edge sharpening was particularly noticeable around eyes and hair. Interestingly, while detail in skin and water remained intact, the sharpening artifact was still undesirable.
Having heard positive feedback from many photographers who use Miller’s, I am genuinely surprised and disappointed by these test print results. This experience raises concerns about color consistency and the application of sharpening in Miller’s standard printing process compared to alternatives like WHCC.
