Damien Symonds

No, those shadows are too distinct. Look at how big and soft the shadow are around the nearby feet.

NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! It's 0.32 megapixels. Less than half of a megapixel.

Any lab at all. Even a cheap suburban kiosk should print this ok. I'm flabbergasted that Bay messed this up.

Your file is excellent. Absolutely perfect. This is a lab problem, not yours. There is no reason on earth why this should have printed badly.

Did you read this one?

I'm so sorry for your loss. No it can't, sorry. It's WAY too small.

Not really, no, sorry. You'll be able to get away with it if you use a really light sky.

Can you please send me the exact jpeg file you sent to the lab for printing? https://www.hightail.com/u/BellePhotography Can you elaborate on this? You must NEVER sharpen during editing. Sharpening must only happen on the output file, after flattening and cropping/resizing.

I'm so sorry Clare, I've got nothing. I have no methods for this I'll move it into the general discussion area, in case somebody else has a solution.

No, ignore that nonsense. I don't know why labs persevere with the 120 myth. If previous prints still match just fine, then you got a dodgy print run. Demand a reprint.

First, open the donor image and select a generous chunk around the dog: Then open the base image and paste the dog onto it: Immediately change the layer to a Smart Object, then change its blend mode to "Difference": Ctrl T to get the transform handles. Zoom in as far as needed, and line up the tree branches just above the dog's head as accurately as possible. Then Alt-click on them to set the middle point there, then rotate to line up the grass around the dog's legs also as accurately as possible. In my play, I also found I had to enlarge the dog a tiny bit. Once it's all lined up as accurately as you can, put the blend mode back to Normal, hide the dog completely with a black mask, then paint it in. (I've shown the mask in red view here):

Oh gosh no, just swap the whole dog. This method.

Do you still have some of the older prints handy? If they still match, then you know that your screen/calibration hasn't changed, and you can legitimately begin to suspect a lab mess-up in this recent batch.

Oh boy, these are tough. May I see a closer crop of the area?

Isn't this a moot point? Your lady is missing her legs. She won't possibly work in that scene.

Are you saying you want to put the lady (second link) into the scene (first link)?

Well, heck, troubleshoot both of them, and see which one gets closer. Then, as Christina said, edit on that one.

Gee, that looks way too close up, surely? I only wanted you to just fill the frame with the rug. If you put that behind the basket, it will look incongruous.

No, Lady Photog, you have to stop saying it like this. Your mindset is all wrong. Your prints aren't cooler than your screen. Your prints are what they are. They are set in stone. What you mean is that your screen is warmer than your prints. Please do this.

This is really important. But I need to see the photos to be sure of the best way to manage this.

Can you post a couple of the images here? The actual jpeg files you sent to the lab.

Yes, generally I recommend leaving any monitor sharpness settings at their factory default. You don't want your screen too soft, of course, but too sharp is also a bad thing, for exactly the reason you mentioned.

No no no no no. You must NEVER do it that way. Please show me the two photos.

Your images are huge. They can easily go that big. But I'm worried. The printers should know this.

How very odd. Surely they print stuff this big all the time?