Is there any point....?

[chip]

....... in owning expensive equipment but buying inferior canvases/prints as the finished product (economical in price AND particularly quality)?

Many photographers on here have spend hundreds, if not thousands of pounds on camera equipment, capture some fabulous images yet (some) scrimp bigtime on displaying their masterpiece, which at the end of the day, the only part that everybody else sees and hopefully admires!

It just doesn't make sense to me.

In this thread Canvas £19.99 there are plenty admitting that the quality is not good enough for 'customers' but for the sake of saving a few quid they are prepared hang a print in their own home that is 'poorly finished', 'not correctly colour balanced', 'not stretched tight enough'.

I just do not understand the logic of buying the best equipment you can afford but spending less than a takeaway meal for two (in my house anyway!), and clearly compromising on quality, for something they should be admiring for years. :shrug:

"Enjoy the quality long after you have forgotten the price"

Chris.

 

[Ady N]

You would be surprised at the sloppy artwork (and lack of foresight re print) supplied for a lot of high profile music CD's. Quadratones, tiny white out text within a 4 colour area, crazy pantone choices & material choices. Shedloads spent on artwork/design and then stick it on some re-cycled crap to save a few grand. Designers need to spend some time in a print shop before coming up with some of the stuff they think up - gloss UV on Tauro offset material - WTF.

Rant over.

 

[coldpenguin]

Well, I have purchased two of those canvases, at 16"x24".
I have also placed an order (at the same time as the last one I got from the above), with another supplier, this is 12"x12", but is costing almost the same as the two above did in total.
If I hadn't seen the thread on the 'quality issues' of the £20 ones, then I wouldn't have been dissappointed with what I have received.

The colours look good to me. They seem to match the monitor. Perhaps a little darker, but I cannot be sure that that is not due to my monitor being uncalibrated (I have issues with some places like snapfish, but not others which are arguably much better quality, I have done manual calibration of the monitor).
The frame is wood, kinda what I expected.
The canvas is taught, but not a drum. Not sure what I expected here, I thought paintings were loose-ish, so wasn't surprised/dissappointed.
There is no tape on the back covering the staples. I don't care about this.
There is no lacquer/coating on the canvas, I wasn't expecting one.

The only thing that I would have been surprised at, was the finish on the corners. But looking at it after receiving it, I couldn't see any better way of doing it. To be honest, the ones with cut corners look a little strange to me. Once it is on the wall (both are up now), I cannot see the corner, due to the picture getting in the way.

I can't say what the canvas which is costing twice as much, and is less than half the size is like, it hasn't arrived yet.

I want to weigh up whether 4 times the cost per sq inch is really worth it once the new canvas pictures arrive.

Once it does arrive, I am wondering whether it could really be good enough to justify the extra cost to me. I don't ever see me being allowed to put up an A1 or A0 size photo in my house (SWMBO). I may not be able to put up many more pictures anyway, so cheaper ones which I can swap in and out as my mood changes might be the way to go.

The caveat on that:
To me, I am still trying to work out how good a quality the picture needs to be, in order to be big. I have now had in total 3 images made up bigger than A4 (what I can print myself), and at £20 these seem to be a pretty nice way of finding out. Effectively this is an A2 poster, for £20

 

[coldpenguin]

Ok, so got the 'expensive' canvas today.
Certainly don't think it was worth 4x the price per sq inch.

The taughtness of the canvas, appears to be about the same, maybe a little tighter, but certainly not drum tight. The fact that it is less than half the size of the others probably helps here.
It was meant to be laquered, it certainly smelt a little higher octane that the other two, and it felt a little tacky, but the finish is still as matte as the previous two (I can't see any difference in finish).
The grain seems to be similar (certainly apart from the others, I cannot tell a difference).
The colour reproduction appears to be the same, if maybe a little lighter (different images, and I did make a note asking if the darkness could be checked).
The corners are still folded, but in this case, the triangle fold is on the inside rather than the outside. Slightly better presentation there.
The back does have tape on it (which was somehow stuck to the bubble-wrap. No tape on the cheaper ones.
The expensive canvas was supplied with two eyes, and a piece of cord already attached, the cheapy had a wall bracket you could screw on yourself.

The packaging was a lot of bubble-wrap, with some brown paper around it for the expensive canvas. For the cheap canvases, it was a single cover of bubble-wrap, with what appeared to be a custom fitted corrugated cardboard package around it.

All in all, for saving the extra cost, I prefer the hanging arrangement of the cheapies, I 'feel' they were more suitably packaged (probably didn't make much difference in the long run, expect someone did manage to put their finger through the more expensive one's packaging). I can add paper tape to the back of the canvas myself should I wish.
The only major visible difference is the corners. On the expensive canvas, the triangle is inside the fold, on the cheap ones it is outside. Neither were cut and folded. Up close, this means the more expensive one looks slightly better (although bulgy), but when on the wall, I can see neither of the corners.

The time difference in the order delivery doesn't matter much to me.
So all in all, I suspect I will be going with the cheaper ones, as I can get a higher quantity, and the quality currently on the wall is indifferent. (maybe it will fade in 6 months, if so, I'll post back)

 

[snappingsam]

The best advice for anyone who prints is to get a profiling device such as a Spyder3, Colour Munki or Gretag/x-rite eye-one.

Also, if budget allows, buy a good monitor - Eizo, LaCie etc.

You'll get the biggest improvment in your files from the first.....

Then you'll be able to send your work to labs without needing colour correction - and you'll gain the cost of the profiler back in savings...

 

[Elli]

Thanks for that ColdPenguin. Lots of detailed info, has definately made me think about trying the cheaper ones now.

Chris, whilst I do agree with much of what you say, on our house at the moment it's a case of cheap canvas or no canvas! I get bored so easily too...

David, I'm now the proud owner of a sypder3, can't believe the difference it's made and am kicking myself for not getting one sooner!

 

[coldpenguin]

I decided to give a canvas as a gift this year. As I cannot be sure that the recipient would like it, I decided to get a 12x12" from snapmad.
If anything, they have come back taughter than the 'expensive' canvas, which was 3x the price including postage (for the same size).

 

[lensworx]

I would be careful about going too cheap. I had my brothers girlfriend phone me just before Christmas asking if I could put a canvas together for her, I thought she meant get it printed. When she turned up at the door with a package that contained a frame and the rolled up canvas I nearly died. I managed to get it sorted as best I could and she will be coming to me in future for any surprise prints she wants doing but I could not believe my eyes.

 

[MC_Stoo]

Finally!... someone who realises the true value of QUALITY over COST

I do canvas prints and have often had to justify the costs in producing a quality product that lasts years rather than banging out something cheap that will fade/warp/sag in a matter of weeks.

For an image that matters, cheap canvas prints are false economy.

 

[coldpenguin]

Finally!... someone who realises the true value of QUALITY over COST

I do canvas prints and have often had to justify the costs in producing a quality product that lasts years rather than banging out something cheap that will fade/warp/sag in a matter of weeks.

For an image that matters, cheap canvas prints are false economy.

But cost is not necessarily an indication of quality. The snapmad canvases are supplied built. I think I know the company which supplied the canvases as 'kit form' like lensworx' post, and they were more expensive than snapmad.

2 months in, and under a direct spot light, still no visible fading, warping or sagging on the snapmad canvas. 2 months isn't that long, but more than a couple of weeks. Ok, so it may not last 50 years, but if I move house, they may not be put back up anyway.

I don't think that I purchased a canvas off you, and am not trying to claim you items are over-priced for the quality.
The snapmad canvases are not of a bad quality. Ok, so you don't get the tape covering the joins on the back, and there is a small url on the back for snapmad. BUT, you buy a canvas primarily for looking at the front IMO.

 

[POAH]

cost does not = quality. take mercedes for starters lol


fact is canvas is fairly cheap to print and make - the canvas I have on my wall cost me less than £5 to make (16x10) and they more than acceptable.

if the image matters don't bother with a canvas as they are **** lol I only have them on the wall cause of the wife

Finally!... someone who realises the true value of QUALITY over COST

I do canvas prints and have often had to justify the costs in producing a quality product that lasts years rather than banging out something cheap that will fade/warp/sag in a matter of weeks.

For an image that matters, cheap canvas prints are false economy.

 

[snapalot]

There is a massive difference in the type of canvas used for printing.
We print quite a lot on canvas and depending on the job use different material.

The mainstream stuff is polyester canvas which most companies now buy from China as it's ten times cheaper than buying it here. We do use it occasionally but mostly use 100%premium cotton canvas and the difference is a like a Graphistudio album compared to an Albeli photobook.

At the end of the day though you only get what you pay for and at £19.99 you should expect to be at the lower end of the market.

 

[srichards]

What looks good now might look awful in a year though. If you've splashed out on some expensive artwork and it is looking faded in a year or two you wouldn't be very impressed.

Has anyone investigated the durability of the canvas prints? It has been done a few times with printer inks and such like which is how the storm started over prints from inkjets fading within no time.

 

[POAH]

polyester canvases are normally light weight (under 300gsm). The canvas I use is a cotton base 380gsm weight. The advantage of the lightweight poly(cotton)ester canvases is that they make it easy to stretch and give nice neat corners. The important part if the coating, if thats poor then the print won't last as long wither its printed on polyester or cotton canvas.

If I did a 16x10 canvas print for £20 I'd make a profit of £15 thats a pretty good mark up.

If I put a canvas up on the wall and you viewed it from a normal distance you'd not be able to tell what it was made of.

the places in shopping centres that give you a print in a hour use polycotton and charge a fortune - price does not mean quality

There is a massive difference in the type of canvas used for printing.
We print quite a lot on canvas and depending on the job use different material.

The mainstream stuff is polyester canvas which most companies now buy from China as it's ten times cheaper than buying it here. We do use it occasionally but mostly use 100%premium cotton canvas and the difference is a like a Graphistudio album compared to an Albeli photobook.

At the end of the day though you only get what you pay for and at £19.99 you should expect to be at the lower end of the market.

 

[coldpenguin]

What looks good now might look awful in a year though.

That is possible.

If you've splashed out on some expensive artwork and it is looking faded in a year or two you wouldn't be very impressed.

However, I am possibly coming at this from a different point of view of the businesses here. This is my own 'piece', and it wasn't what I would call 'expensive'. To me, having one of my pictures, presented on my own wall at A2 size (in what is a quite impressive manner, being a 3d piece), is not something that I would have done at £50, just as a test. However, these two pictures, at £20 a pop, are great.

They look great now.

If they look awful in 2 years time, maybe I won't be so happy.

However, if they still look good in 2 years time, then I will be happy.


In two years, I will probably (hopefully) have another photo (that is as) nice enough to put up and swap with these two.

Has anyone investigated the durability of the canvas prints? It has been done a few times with printer inks and such like which is how the storm started over prints from inkjets fading within no time.

I did think about leaving a small corner of paper over one of the corners, but then decided I would rather just enjoy the picture.

My take on this, is just because they are 'cheap', doesn't mean that they have necessarily scrimped any more on some of the important items. (I don't care about tape on the back for example). So long as it looks good for 2 years, I may not notice that it has faded a little, so long as it fades consistently, your eyes can sometimes make up the rest.

The quality of these items appear to be OK.
The canvas appears to be a slightly different weave to the 4x per sq" costing canvas I bought from a 'reputable' (read expensive) company.
What is to say that the raw materials here didn't cost the same, and they are instead making a much larger profit.

 

[gman]

cost does not = quality. take mercedes for starters lol

I'll second and third that! The MD's s-class is a pile of crap and when it's not literally falling apart it's stuck in the garage!


I have to agree with the OP especially after my own recent experiences. I think that in general you do tend to get what you pay for.

 

[Ralphmyster]

I sent some test images to a guy who prints high spec banners. who said his printer cost nearly 20k. His printer is HUGE 4ft, but his prints came back darker.I got a colourmunki set a profile up. and sure enough after I had they were a very close match. So really dose in matter, what the cost is if your monitor is not given you a true colour then your wasting your money anyway.

 

[cambsno]

I'll second and third that! The MD's s-class is a pile of crap and when it's not literally falling apart it's stuck in the garage!


I have to agree with the OP especially after my own recent experiences. I think that in general you do tend to get what you pay for.

I had one a few years ago - c class - couldn't fault it.

I think cost gives a good indication of quality. In most things cheaper will not be as good. Think about cameras, TVs, Cars (Audi, Merc, BMW are all better than Fiat, Renault and Ford - have had them all), furniture, clothes... the more you spend, the better the quality.

 

[gman]

I had one a few years ago - c class - couldn't fault it..

If you couldn't fault it why get rid of it?

I think cost gives a good indication of quality....the more you spend, the better the quality.

lol, I'll hold you to that

 

[POAH]

you have to define better - BMW have had some real engine problems in the last 10 years while FIAT have been making some of the most reliable and inovative engine. badges also make things more expensive, look at the platform development that has been used in car manufacture and lets not forget how expensive land rovers are lol

I had one a few years ago - c class - couldn't fault it.

I think cost gives a good indication of quality. In most things cheaper will not be as good. Think about cameras, TVs, Cars (Audi, Merc, BMW are all better than Fiat, Renault and Ford - have had them all), furniture, clothes... the more you spend, the better the quality.