Response from QOOP (updated with comparison images)

I got a response from QOOP about the perceived problems with my order. Be sure to see the newer entry about this issue.

Here's what I had written:

I just recived the photo book I ordered last week, and I am a bit disappointed in the image quality. A lot of the details that appear in the original images I uploaded to flickr are simply not visible, and overall the images appear pixellated. One example of this is a "macro" phtograph of a grasshopper, which was a 1200x2400 pixel image when I uploaded it.

I am a non-Pro user of flickr. If I use QOOP+flickr to order a photo book, are the images used the "1024 px" version or the original full-resolution version I uploaded?

I consulted your FAQ, but I did not see an answer to this question. I assumed that this limitation would be mentioned up front if it existed.

My order number was XXXXXXXXXX.

And here is the reply I got from QOOP:

From: "Bill Murray" <>
To: <>
Cc: <>
Subject: RE: QOOP Support Request


We are very sorry for the experience you had with our product.

We do use the original photos and I looked at your files and they should have printed well. We are printing at 600 dpi on the highest end printer that is made.

The only thing I can think of is that perhaps we had a QC issue on that press that day (and with the person checking quality as well).

I will credit your credit card - the order will be free.

And if you are willing I would like to reprint it and send you another print and have your feedback on whether it prints better.

- Bill

I haven't yet decided what I'll do next. To me, the visual evidence of comparing the uploaded image to the flickr "1024 px" image to the printed image made a pretty solid case, but QOOP says I'm barking up the wrong tree there.

Here is a comparison of the original image, the flickr "1024 px" image, and a photograph of the image printed by QOOP. It is a very small area of the grasshopper photo, from the base of the wings. In the flickr "1024 px" image, the bright vertical traits are about 1px wide, while in the original image they're several pixels wide. In the qoop photo, I see a stairstep effect that matches the "1024 px" image, but which is not in the original.

Entry first conceived on 3 October 2005, 23:28 UTC, last modified on 15 January 2012, 3:46 UTC
Website Copyright © 2004-2024 Jeff Epler