Professional Web Applications Themes

Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier - Photography

HAE writes:   If you take your files to a lab and instruct them to print the files as-is, and you've properly prepared the files, what you see on your screen will correspond exactly to what you obtain on paper. There is no need to print the images yourself.   The quality of true wet prints from the Fuji Frontier and other similar printers is noticeably superior to that from ink-jet printers, and the cost is the same or lower. Currently I don't see any reason to print digital files myself, even though I have a nice ink-jet printer. I ...

  1. #1

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    HAE writes:
     

    If you take your files to a lab and instruct them to print the files
    as-is, and you've properly prepared the files, what you see on your
    screen will correspond exactly to what you obtain on paper. There is no
    need to print the images yourself.
     

    The quality of true wet prints from the Fuji Frontier and other similar
    printers is noticeably superior to that from ink-jet printers, and the
    cost is the same or lower.

    Currently I don't see any reason to print digital files myself, even
    though I have a nice ink-jet printer. I get better results at lower
    cost by taking my files to a lab, and it doesn't even take any longer
    than it would to print myself (about an hour at the lab, versus the same
    amount of time sitting next to my ink-jet printer).

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  2. #2

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    In article <com>,
    Mxsmanic <com> wrote:
     
    >
    > If you take your files to a lab and instruct them to print the files
    > as-is, and you've properly prepared the files, what you see on your
    > screen will correspond exactly to what you obtain on paper. There is no
    > need to print the images yourself.

    >
    > The quality of true wet prints from the Fuji Frontier and other similar
    > printers is noticeably superior to that from ink-jet printers, and the
    > cost is the same or lower.
    >
    > Currently I don't see any reason to print digital files myself, even
    > though I have a nice ink-jet printer. I get better results at lower
    > cost by taking my files to a lab, and it doesn't even take any longer
    > than it would to print myself (about an hour at the lab, versus the same
    > amount of time sitting next to my ink-jet printer).[/ref]


    I would have to differ on both statements above. I get superior results
    printing on my Epson 9600 Ultrachrome printer with the Imageprint RIP,
    than I can get on any Fuji Frontier that I have found.

    I also like the fact that with the Ultrachrome pigment Inks the photos
    are near archival in quality.(Depending on choice of paper). The Fuji
    Frontier prints are RA-4 process, just like all minilab prints for the
    last decade prior to the Frontier (Fuji's version of RA-4) and are
    chromogenic dye photo prints, Not even washed, just super-stabilized,
    and have a limited lifespan before fading, particularly if you exhibit
    them. Now, I can back this statement up from personal experience, as I
    have many, many 16x20 color enlargements made by me personally on EP-2
    and RA-4 process in my own lab that were properly washed and dried and
    exhibited behind glass, and after about 10 years they are hopelessly
    faded. And this not even in direct sunlight. I use Frontier prints for
    Proofs only for my professional work.

    Also you are limited to the maximum size the Frontier will produce,
    which is just slightly larger than 8x12. I like to print 20x30 from my
    D100 and Kodak DCS 14n files. The Epson 2200 is the desktop version of
    the 9600, just FYI.

    Gene Mc.
    Gene Guest

  3. #3

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier


    "Mxsmanic" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > If you take your files to a lab and instruct them to print the files
    > as-is, and you've properly prepared the files, what you see on your
    > screen will correspond exactly to what you obtain on paper. There is no
    > need to print the images yourself.[/ref]

    That has decidely not been my experience. Even using the ICM profiles for
    the Fontier, the color match does not come close to what I get with my 2200,
    Epson profiles and calibrated monitor.
     
    >
    > The quality of true wet prints from the Fuji Frontier and other similar
    > printers is noticeably superior to that from ink-jet printers, and the
    > cost is the same or lower.[/ref]

    Again that's not at all my experience. The prints from a professional lab
    using a Frontier are very good (unlike Walmart Frontier prints which are
    junk), however I wouldn't call them better than those from the 2200. Since I
    can control the 2200 output I can consistantly get "better" (more to my
    liking) prints from my 2200. They are quite a bit cheaper too which is nice
    when you're playing around with different effects, although it takes more
    messing around.

    Walmart Frontier prints are cheaper in small sizes, however, they are
    dreadful in my opinion.
     

    You state in another post that you have an Epson 2000, you might want to try
    a 2200, it is quite a bit better than the 2000, although not quite as
    archival.
     


    Ralph Guest

  4. #4

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier


    "Mxsmanic" <com> wrote in message
    news:com... 
    >
    > If you take your files to a lab and instruct them to print the files
    > as-is, and you've properly prepared the files, what you see on your
    > screen will correspond exactly to what you obtain on paper. There is no
    > need to print the images yourself.[/ref]

    That has decidely not been my experience. Even using the ICM profiles for
    the Fontier, the color match does not come close to what I get with my 2200,
    Epson profiles and calibrated monitor.
     
    >
    > The quality of true wet prints from the Fuji Frontier and other similar
    > printers is noticeably superior to that from ink-jet printers, and the
    > cost is the same or lower.[/ref]

    Again that's not at all my experience. The prints from a professional lab
    using a Frontier are very good (unlike Walmart Frontier prints which are
    junk), however I wouldn't call them better than those from the 2200. Since I
    can control the 2200 output I can consistantly get "better" (more to my
    liking) prints from my 2200. They are quite a bit cheaper too which is nice
    when you're playing around with different effects, although it takes more
    messing around.

    Walmart Frontier prints are cheaper in small sizes, however, they are
    dreadful in my opinion.
     

    You state in another post that you have an Epson 2000, you might want to try
    a 2200, it is quite a bit better than the 2000, although not quite as
    archival.
     



    Ralph Guest

  5. #5

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    Ralph writes:
     

    What I like most about the Frontier is that it gives me exactly what I
    see on the screen.
     

    If you control the digital file and the output device has a constant
    calibration, you can get the best possible results that way.
     

    I won't be buying any more printers for color printing for quite some
    time, as the quality is lower and the cost is higher than lab prints.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  6. #6

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    "Mxsmanic" <com> wrote in message
    news:com...
     
     
     
     
     
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     [/ref]
     
     
     

    He didn't say what paper he was using. Fuji Crystal Archive should,

    properly processed and protected, last over 50 years. But lots

    of papers that could be processed in EP-2 and RA-4 won't last

    nearly as long.

    The key question is: does your minilab use FCA, and do they

    process it appropriately? It's my impression that many do, but

    it doesn't hurt to check if it matters.

     [/ref]
     
     
     
     
     
     
     

    The convenience of not babysitting your prints is undeniable, but...

    1. The 2200 has a significantly better gamut than the 2000. In gamut,

    especially on non-glossy papers, the 2000 is clearly inferior

    to chemical prints (or to dye-based inkjet printers from Epson

    or Canon). The 2200 has a more competitive gamut. It's also important

    to compare like papers, since the gamut on matte papers in almost

    any process is inferior (as I'm sure you know, but others may not).

    2. The 2200 and dye-based printers have significantly less metamerism

    (colors shifting dramatically in different viewing light) than the

    2000.

    3. Pigment-based printers (2000 and 2200) show bronzing on super-gloss

    paper, which dye-based and photographic prints do not. Bronzing on the

    2200 is only visible at very oblique angles on bare prints, so for many

    this is of no practical significance. Bronzing means that you see what

    looks like ink sitting on the surface of the paper where light reflects

    off it.

    4. I'm not aware of other characteristics by which an inkjet from a

    current Canon or Epson photo printer other than the 2000 (I don't

    know if it's considered obsolete everywhere or not) necessarily produces

    substantially inferior prints to a Frontier .

    Russell Williams

    not speaking for Adobe Systems


    Russell Guest

  7. #7

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    Were the ICM profiles for the Frontier you used generic, or custom built
    like the ones you can get done through Dry Creek (they have a free profiling
    project for Frontier/Noritsu printers)?

    I had my very first digital minilab 8x12 done on a Noritsu a few weeks ago
    from an old PCD file that I would definitely consider difficult for an
    inkjet (lot's of deep blues and grainy, plus not a very good scan), and it
    was amazing. Reminded me of Cibachrome prints actually, except maybe a bit
    better (lot's of "pop"). And this was just from a local drug store (I guess
    I should mention that the person running the minilab was friendly,
    knowledgeable, and willing to work with me which probably made a
    difference).

    I used to own an Epson Photo 700 a long time ago and have a number of 5x7's
    from it lying around. Unfortunately that printer ended up in the scrap heap
    thanks to thoroughly/permanently clogged heads, another downside to inkjets
    (particularly Epson) if you don't print often enough. I have been
    considering a Canon i9100 for Piezography though, mainly because the heads
    are removable thus making maintenance easier (plus I'd be able to switch
    back and forth easily between color and B&W).

    "Ralph" <net> wrote in message
    news:newsguy.com...

    That has decidely not been my experience. Even using the ICM profiles for
    the Fontier, the color match does not come close to what I get with my 2200,
    Epson profiles and calibrated monitor.


    Katie Guest

  8. #8

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    Russell Williams writes:
     

    It's stamped all over the back of the prints. Not that I'm likely to be
    keeping the photos on my wall for 50 years, anyway.
     

    I'll let someone else drop thousands of dollars on ever-newer printers,
    papers, and inks for now.

    I can get 8x12 Frontier prints for $4 a print from my local lab, in less
    than an hour. Why would I want to spend another thousand dollars for
    another printer, and $60 a pop for twenty sheets of paper, and $60-$80
    per ink cartridge, just so I can spend hours trying to match what I'm
    already getting for $4 from the lab?

    I have better ways to spend my money and time than in goofing around
    with an ink-jet printer. Ink-jet does not offer a quality advantage, it
    does not offer a speed advantage, and it does not offer a price
    advantage. What's left? Geek appeal? No thanks.
     

    It needs an equal or better gamut, a lower price, and greater
    convenience. I don't see any of these.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  9. #9

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    Katie Piecrust writes:
     

    Just make sure the files for the Frontier are sRGB, and you'll be fine.
    The Frontier software assumes sRGB by default (and it does not read
    profile information in the files, so even if your profile is different,
    it will assume sRGB). It may be possible to change that, but I haven't
    been able to find out for sure, and I'm pretty certain that the average
    Frontier operator wouldn't know how to do it, anyway. So sRGB it is.

    If you use Adobe RGB 1998, the prints are a bit less saturated and a bit
    less contrasty, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, depending on what
    you want.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  10. #10

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    On Mon, 21 Jul 2003 02:03:47 +0200, Mxsmanic <com>
    wrote:

     


    You don't see much, mr maniac, because you refuse to
    admit anything that doesn't fit what you already "know"
    is the truth. Mostly your loss, but it es me off that you
    get to spread so much misinformation.

    PS: my cost for an 8x12" print is far lower than yours, and
    I can get it in 2 minutes instead of an hour, without leaving
    my study.

    PPS: you're arguing with Russell Williams, who does in
    fact know what he's talking about -- probably one of the
    most knowledgeable people to post on this or any other
    related forum.


    rafe b.
    http://www.terrapinphoto.com
    Rafe Guest

  11. #11

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    Rafe, don't even bother with this troll: he's clueless. $6 a sheet for
    Epson Premium Semi-Gloss, and $60 a cart...what a hoot!

    Just plonk him like everybody else.


    Flycaster Guest

  12. #12

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    Mxsmanic wrote: 
    >
    > I'm not sure where you find your supplies. A pack of ten sheets of
    > Premium Semigloss paper costs me about $60, and each of the two
    > cartridges required by the 2000P costs about the same, and they are only
    > good for 20 8x12s or so.
    >[/ref]

    It's trivial to beat those prices. A quick scan of
    prices and I found both cartridges and paper less
    than half your price. Try it. But then again, I pay
    US prices. Perhaps that is the problem. You probably
    have substantial VAT in addition to the price. Then
    again, I presume you also pay VAT when you buy your
    prints from a minilab.

    Wes
    W Guest

  13. #13

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier


    "Flycaster" <com> wrote in message
    news:3f1b5cf2$bendcable.com... 

    Apparently you don't live in Paris, where almost everything is at least 30%
    more expensive at the consumer level than in the rest of "old Europe".

    I'm afraid MX is right in his assessment that Inkjet consumables are
    excessively priced in this region. Ink is often more expensive than the
    printer (unless top of the line), so it becomes cheaper to replace the
    printer than to buy ink.
    On the other hand, Minilab prints have on average (!) a much better output
    quality than in I have experienced in the USA, and the prints are cheaper
    and more durable than from an inkjet.

    So the Regional/Global appreciation of output options may differ.

    Bart


    Bart Guest

  14. #14

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    On 21/7/03 4:27 am, "Flycaster" <com> wrote:
     

    How do you know what he wrote then?


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  15. #15

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    On 21/7/03 1:06 am, "Mxsmanic" <com> wrote:
     

    I assume you provide TIFF files? What would be the optimum print resolution
    for files to be printed on the Frontier?


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  16. #16

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    >>On 21/7/03 4:27 am, "Flycaster" <com> wrote: [/ref]

     


    Cause other people keep quoting his nonsense when they offer common sense
    replies. That's the only way I see his silliness, when he's quoted by someone
    else ... wonder why people keep playing his game instead of just kill filing
    him and ignoring him.

    Bill


    Bill Guest

  17. #17

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    On 21/7/03 10:45 pm, "Bill Hilton" <comedy> wrote:
     
    >
    >
    > Cause other people keep quoting his nonsense when they offer common sense
    > replies.[/ref]

    There were no such replies between the times of the two posts on the news
    server I use. Not that it's any big deal, I was just wondering.


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

  18. #18

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    Pat Chaney writes:
     

    I did initially, but I then learned that standard Frontier
    configurations will usually accept at least JPG and TIFF, so I submit
    JPG files prepared specifically for the purpose, because they take up
    less space on my CF card.
     

    Supposedly the native printing resolution is 300 ppi. I've been unable
    to confirm this with anyone, as the owners of the machines don't seem to
    know, and I wouldn't know where to find the information at Fuji (and I'm
    certain that any inquiry directed to Fuji in France would be a waste of
    time).

    In tests I've run, the printer does not quite resolve 300 ppi, so either
    there is a fudge factor or the tests I ran were not running at 300 ppi.
    I believe there is an option to run at 200 ppi. I just don't know what
    the native optical resolution of the system is. But 300 ppi seems to
    give good results.

    --
    Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
    Mxsmanic Guest

  19. #19

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier


    "Pat Chaney" <com> wrote in message
    news:BB42156E.376EA%com...
    SNIP 
    resolution 

    300ppi sharpened TIFF in sRGB, no additional image processing.

    Bart


    Bart Guest

  20. #20

    Default Re: Inkjet vs. Fuji Frontier

    On 21/7/03 11:41 pm, "Mxsmanic" <com> wrote:
     

    Thanks, I suspected around 300ppi but I've never seen it confirmed anywhere
    either. My preference is to try this instead of getting the latest inkjet
    printer too.

    Have you tried B&W prints from the Frontier?


    Pat
    --
    Photos at:
    http://www.shuttercity.com/ShowGallery.cfm?Format=Cell&AcctID=1251

    Pat Guest

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. fuji frontier
    By nunuhulu@hotmail.com in forum Brainstorming Area
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: November 8th, 04:28 PM
  2. Userland Frontier Interoperability
    By Donald Nova in forum ASP.NET Web Services
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 26th, 04:52 PM
  3. Fuji Frontier 340 = Dark & Saturated pictures !!!
    By Shyrah in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: September 29th, 08:28 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: July 14th, 01:03 PM
  5. Fuji Frontier or Noritsu versus desktop printing
    By Chuck Snyder in forum Adobe Photoshop Elements
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: July 6th, 05:21 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139