Best approach for small archival photo prints with consistent color and layout control

Question

I want to print a few hundred personal and family photographs, mostly in small sizes like 6x4 or 7x5, for albums or storage boxes. The images are a mix of digital files and scans from 35mm negatives. My priorities are high image quality, consistent and reliable results, long print life, and control over cropping, borders, and final layout.

I’ve had poor results from both consumer labs and a home inkjet printer: automatic cropping, unpleasant skin tones, and banding/clogging issues after printer disuse. I’m less interested in specific brands than in choosing the right printing technology and workflow. Should I use a photo lab or print at home, and which print process is best if I want archival-quality results and a consistent workflow?

user75526 · Answer

Color Calibration and Color Profiles

The poor results you note are likely the result of not using a color calibrated workflow. To obtain consistent results, you should color calibrate your output devices at home and use a print service for which color correction profiles are available. Dry Creek Photo maintains a database of ICC profiles for print services located around the world.

Chromogenic Prints

Photographic paper technologies date back to the 1800s with color, chromogenic prints (c-prints), being developed in the 1940s.

Services that provide c-prints usually indicate the use of a recognizable photographic paper, such as Fujifilm Crystal Archive.
Some people feel that c-prints, which embed color dyes in layers of gelatin, are not as vibrant as competing technologies (particularly inkjet) that place dyes or pigments on the surface of the paper.
The archival properties of c-prints vs competing technologies is controversial. However, because the technology is over seven-decades old, it has been time tested to provide good results lasting many decades in appropriate storage conditions. (By examining prints produced at different times, you can see how the technology has improved.)

Inkjet

Basic inkjet technology dates back to the 1950s. However, it was not viable for general use until the late 1980s.

Up through until at least the mid-2000s, when I last used the technology, inkjet prints were notorious for their poor archival properties. Color shifts and fading, which would take decades on c-prints, occurred within a year, in the same storage conditions.
While the technology does continue to be developed and improved, any truly new developments (since the mid-2000s) have had only about a decade of real-world testing. I am generally skeptical of claims regarding the archival properties of inkjet prints. Such claims are not new and did not previously stop inkjet prints from degrading quickly.
Archival quality requires the use of special inks and papers. With c-prints, all of the required archival materials are packaged together at the time of manufacturing.
Services that produce inkjet prints are often vague about the specific inks and materials they use, so archival quality often cannot be determined ahead of time.
Inkjet printers are sold to people who hope to make DIY prints at home with lower cost and higher quality than bona fide photo papers. While it is possible, in principle, for inkjet prints to have the same archival quality as c-prints (by using inks and papers of similar quality), doing so typically costs more than simply obtaining a c-print from a lab.

Dye-Sublimation

Although, I have not personally used dye-sub printers, I do have a few dye-sub prints from Christmas. So far they seem to be doing better than inkjet prints from a decade ago would have. I suppose I should hang several prints produced with different technologies by a window to see how they fare.

Apparently, dye-sublimation printers do have a better reputation for resistance to fading and color shifts. Some dye-sub printers finish with a clear coat that improves the longevity of the print. (See Quora: Is dye sublimation printing archival?)