Reading mode: Light Dark

Fuji Frontier Observations

Go to last post
H

Holly

Well-known member
Messages
160
Reaction score
0
Location
US
Let me first preface this by saying that I am in no way an expert on this matter and that for many of the pros in here, this is old news. However, a quick glance throughout several different forums will demonstrate that there is a lot of questions being posed about how to maximize the print quality of the Fuji Frontier and maintain one's image quality/integrity. Having spent much time looking into the colorspacing issues, I have some observations/experiences I would like to share.

Here are some very unscientific observations regarding the Fuji Frontier. I posted a thread several days ago asking about color spacing issues. My wife and I use a D30 and D60 and had some wedding photos that we took printed at a local lab that uses a Frontier. Our experience was that MOST of our images looked underexposed when printed. Immediately we compared the printed images to the images on our screen and the difference was like night and day. Our printed images appeared to be underexposed by 2-3 stops once printed.

The obvious problem: color calibration.

I've spent the past few days researching the matter. I'm in the Orange County area and visited several different labs who all use the Frontier. Interestingly, all technicians had customers who had similar experiences to my own. Yet none had any recommendations on how to remedy the situation. One lab relies on the Fuji-dedicated software to make any automatic tweaks to your image, another on other software, yet another does nothing and takes it straight in off your CD/storage device. Prices for their services ranged too from real cheap to unbelievable prices ($0.75 for a 5x7 at one location, $11.95 at another!!! THEY BOTH USE THE SAME FRONTIER!!)

After researching a bit here on DPReview, I found a link to a website (Pop Photography) promoting a color profile for the Frontier. I downloaded it, installed it, and now my monitor is calibrated with the local lab. Its one of those things that seems so simple and yet so complicated when you are learning how to do it for the first time. Now its a no brainer. I now wonder how I've managed this far without it! (same experience with histograms, masking, etc.)

I use Photoshop 7, and use the proofing tool to compare how the original image would be converted to the color space the Fuji is using. If you wished, you could also define your default color space to be the Fuji profile. But if you ever sent any work elsewhere, you would have to define a new space. Nevertheless, there are multiple ways to approach the matter.

What I've noticed is that images taken in the native D60/D30 color space can be greatly effected in the color conversion process- typically in the darker end of the spectrum. Shadow areas in particular, or black tuxedos, tend to be blacked out entirely upon initial conversion- which would explain the 2-3 stop underexposure of the images we had printed up (the wedding was late evening). Using levels and curves the image can be resurrected quite well, as well as color tweaking, brightness, contrast, etc.

My wife and I have decided to stick with our Sam's lab. They use the same frontier, allow us to tweak images the way WE want them, and they do not apply any changes. I don't know if this is a universal Sam's policy. It now takes a tad more time to process the images, but it seems a worthy sacrifice for great prints from the Frontier at very inexpensive costs (at Sam's, $0.19 for 4x6 versus $0.99 at another local lab using the same Frontier!!!).

Donny

PS- Happy picture taking....and printing!
 
Ok

Images look brighter on a monitor for one MAIN reason... it's not colour caliibration (maybe its light calibration), its that your monitor is EMITTING LIGHT, not REFLECTING LIGHT.

If you have your monitor brightness and contrast whacked right up, your photos will seem nice and bright.

Perhaps colour calibration on monitors accounts for this, but I can't see why people are confused when printouts look darker. Your monitor represents white as a 100% value of light, and black as a total absence of that light. Paper/Ink/Dye printing represents white as a total absence of colour, and black as the heaviest concentration of the darkest colour on the page.

True, with these two facts being so, its funny how we expect our photos to be the same on both even IF we calibrate.

Cheerio - Tim
 
I do a lot of printing on the Fuji Frontier at my local CostCo. Here is my process:

1) Calibrate your monitor
2) Calibrate your monitor
3) One more time, calibrate your monitor

I've gotten quite good at doing with with Adobe Gamma. It just takes some patience and experience to get it right but it can be done.

4) Ideally you should set your images color balance "by the numbers" instead of visually. This eliminates any minor discrepencies due to not getting your monitor just right.

5) Once you get your image the way you want it, save it in sRGB colorspace and either 8-bit TIFF or JPEG at 300 dpi, for whatever print size you are planning on.

6) Take it to the printer and ask them to print it AS IS with NO CORRECTIONS.

If your store's lab technicians keep their Frontier in good shape, clean, calibrated, and with fresh chemicals, then you will get great and very consistent results.
Donny said:
Let me first preface this by saying that I am in no way an expert
on this matter and that for many of the pros in here, this is old
news. However, a quick glance throughout several different forums
will demonstrate that there is a lot of questions being posed about
how to maximize the print quality of the Fuji Frontier and maintain
one's image quality/integrity. Having spent much time looking into
the colorspacing issues, I have some observations/experiences I
would like to share.

Here are some very unscientific observations regarding the Fuji
Frontier. I posted a thread several days ago asking about color
spacing issues. My wife and I use a D30 and D60 and had some
wedding photos that we took printed at a local lab that uses a
Frontier. Our experience was that MOST of our images looked
underexposed when printed. Immediately we compared the printed
images to the images on our screen and the difference was like
night and day. Our printed images appeared to be underexposed by
2-3 stops once printed.

The obvious problem: color calibration.

I've spent the past few days researching the matter. I'm in the
Orange County area and visited several different labs who all use
the Frontier. Interestingly, all technicians had customers who had
similar experiences to my own. Yet none had any recommendations on
how to remedy the situation. One lab relies on the Fuji-dedicated
software to make any automatic tweaks to your image, another on
other software, yet another does nothing and takes it straight in
off your CD/storage device. Prices for their services ranged too
from real cheap to unbelievable prices ($0.75 for a 5x7 at one
location, $11.95 at another!!! THEY BOTH USE THE SAME FRONTIER!!)

After researching a bit here on DPReview, I found a link to a
website (Pop Photography) promoting a color profile for the
Frontier. I downloaded it, installed it, and now my monitor is
calibrated with the local lab. Its one of those things that seems
so simple and yet so complicated when you are learning how to do it
for the first time. Now its a no brainer. I now wonder how I've
managed this far without it! (same experience with histograms,
masking, etc.)

I use Photoshop 7, and use the proofing tool to compare how the
original image would be converted to the color space the Fuji is
using. If you wished, you could also define your default color
space to be the Fuji profile. But if you ever sent any work
elsewhere, you would have to define a new space. Nevertheless,
there are multiple ways to approach the matter.

What I've noticed is that images taken in the native D60/D30 color
space can be greatly effected in the color conversion process-
typically in the darker end of the spectrum. Shadow areas in
particular, or black tuxedos, tend to be blacked out entirely upon
initial conversion- which would explain the 2-3 stop underexposure
of the images we had printed up (the wedding was late evening).
Using levels and curves the image can be resurrected quite well, as
well as color tweaking, brightness, contrast, etc.

My wife and I have decided to stick with our Sam's lab. They use
the same frontier, allow us to tweak images the way WE want them,
and they do not apply any changes. I don't know if this is a
universal Sam's policy. It now takes a tad more time to process
the images, but it seems a worthy sacrifice for great prints from
the Frontier at very inexpensive costs (at Sam's, $0.19 for 4x6
versus $0.99 at another local lab using the same Frontier!!!).

Donny

PS- Happy picture taking....and printing!
Click to expand...
--
---
EOS 1D
EOS D30
400mm f/5.6L
28-90mm (yeah, I know)
 
Donny,

I'm also working to set-up reliable workflow for the Frontier. Not sure if this is close to where you live in Orange County, but David of the Photo Lab at 270 E. 17th St, Costa Mesa just installed a Frontier system. I've dropped off several "test" tif files in the past few days. David's really accomodating and is someone I'll definitely want to work with long term. He seems really intent on offering quality services. I've found output from other Frontier labs vary in quality from one week to another.
Hope this Helps,
--Ned
Newport Beach
6 surfboards and an equal amount of camera equipment
Donny said:
Let me first preface this by saying that I am in no way an expert
on this matter and that for many of the pros in here, this is old
news. However, a quick glance throughout several different forums
will demonstrate that there is a lot of questions being posed about
how to maximize the print quality of the Fuji Frontier and maintain
one's image quality/integrity. Having spent much time looking into
the colorspacing issues, I have some observations/experiences I
would like to share.

Here are some very unscientific observations regarding the Fuji
Frontier. I posted a thread several days ago asking about color
spacing issues. My wife and I use a D30 and D60 and had some
wedding photos that we took printed at a local lab that uses a
Frontier. Our experience was that MOST of our images looked
underexposed when printed. Immediately we compared the printed
images to the images on our screen and the difference was like
night and day. Our printed images appeared to be underexposed by
2-3 stops once printed.

The obvious problem: color calibration.

I've spent the past few days researching the matter. I'm in the
Orange County area and visited several different labs who all use
the Frontier. Interestingly, all technicians had customers who had
similar experiences to my own. Yet none had any recommendations on
how to remedy the situation. One lab relies on the Fuji-dedicated
software to make any automatic tweaks to your image, another on
other software, yet another does nothing and takes it straight in
off your CD/storage device. Prices for their services ranged too
from real cheap to unbelievable prices ($0.75 for a 5x7 at one
location, $11.95 at another!!! THEY BOTH USE THE SAME FRONTIER!!)

After researching a bit here on DPReview, I found a link to a
website (Pop Photography) promoting a color profile for the
Frontier. I downloaded it, installed it, and now my monitor is
calibrated with the local lab. Its one of those things that seems
so simple and yet so complicated when you are learning how to do it
for the first time. Now its a no brainer. I now wonder how I've
managed this far without it! (same experience with histograms,
masking, etc.)

I use Photoshop 7, and use the proofing tool to compare how the
original image would be converted to the color space the Fuji is
using. If you wished, you could also define your default color
space to be the Fuji profile. But if you ever sent any work
elsewhere, you would have to define a new space. Nevertheless,
there are multiple ways to approach the matter.

What I've noticed is that images taken in the native D60/D30 color
space can be greatly effected in the color conversion process-
typically in the darker end of the spectrum. Shadow areas in
particular, or black tuxedos, tend to be blacked out entirely upon
initial conversion- which would explain the 2-3 stop underexposure
of the images we had printed up (the wedding was late evening).
Using levels and curves the image can be resurrected quite well, as
well as color tweaking, brightness, contrast, etc.

My wife and I have decided to stick with our Sam's lab. They use
the same frontier, allow us to tweak images the way WE want them,
and they do not apply any changes. I don't know if this is a
universal Sam's policy. It now takes a tad more time to process
the images, but it seems a worthy sacrifice for great prints from
the Frontier at very inexpensive costs (at Sam's, $0.19 for 4x6
versus $0.99 at another local lab using the same Frontier!!!).

Donny

PS- Happy picture taking....and printing!
Click to expand...
 
http://www.drycreekphoto.com

Nothing generic here, an accurate profile of the same Frontier you plan to use for printing. If your local Frontier hasn't been already profiled (mine had) you can download a kit to start the process. You send your results from the kit to Drycreek Photo, they make the profile for the Frontier, and post it to their site. If you did the leg work, they even send you an email when the profile is available. And all this for free!

You can then use this profile to convert the color space of your image(s) to the Frontier's. I understand it can be done through PS7 via the "soft proofing" process. Dry Creek has step-by-step instructions on thier site. Also, I think the conversion of color space can be done in Qimage Pro by doing a profile to profile conversion. Still trying to confirm this one for sure.

HTH,

Bob
 
Bob D.76685 said:
Also, I think the conversion of color
space can be done in Qimage Pro by doing a profile to profile
conversion. Still trying to confirm this one for sure.
Click to expand...
QImage or any other Icc profile aware application will work just fine. QImage does not have as extensive soft proofing capability as Photoshop, but it still does the job.

-Ethan
 
Bob D. said:
http://www.drycreekphoto.com
Nothing generic here, an accurate profile of the same Frontier you
plan to use for printing. If your local Frontier hasn't been
already profiled (mine had) you can download a kit to start the
process. You send your results from the kit to Drycreek Photo, they
make the profile for the Frontier, and post it to their site. If
you did the leg work, they even send you an email when the profile
is available. And all this for free!
Click to expand...
It's amazing, but I've seen the same question pop up three nights in a row on on how to get the most out of the Fuji Frontier. Here's a link to last nightss thread http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3534809

Not sure what's going on with the search feature, but whatever the case the answer remains the same...visit drycreekphoto.com for some really excellent information.

Ethan Hansen (who I see has replied in this thread) has some very thorough, concise, and easy to understand information on the best way to get the most out of the Fuji Frontier. And as Bob mentions, there are several custom profiles available for download. If there aren't any custom profiles for printers in your area, Ethan has offered to build one...at absolutely no charge. Ethan's site also contains a wealth of good, easy to understand, color management info there as well.

I'm not sure how long he can continue to do this...but for however long and for whatever reason he's decided to graciously perform this kindness, I would think one would definately want take him up on his offer.

Hope this helps,

-Taz
 
I am having exactly the same problem. I had my monitor calibrated to my "pro" lab, Millers of Kansas and also my inkjet printer, a canon S800 and they were always in the ballpark. My first wedding proofing sent to Sam's was awful...very dull, lacking saturation and contrast and definitely dark. I have punched up some of the images..but I don't want to sacrifice quality by overdoing it either. My monitor was set for 50% brightness for my regular work and has to be set from %35 for the frontier files to start to look decent. I can't understand why it is so different than other printers.

Donny,

What is the web address for the calibration software and how do you use it...do you edit normally and then apply the conversion, or do you edit after applying.. Anyway you look at this...its starting to seem like too much work. Any further details would be greatly appreciated...I don't even know how to use "softproofing"
Donny said:
Let me first preface this by saying that I am in no way an expert
on this matter and that for many of the pros in here, this is old
news. However, a quick glance throughout several different forums
will demonstrate that there is a lot of questions being posed about
how to maximize the print quality of the Fuji Frontier and maintain
one's image quality/integrity. Having spent much time looking into
the colorspacing issues, I have some observations/experiences I
would like to share.

Here are some very unscientific observations regarding the Fuji
Frontier. I posted a thread several days ago asking about color
spacing issues. My wife and I use a D30 and D60 and had some
wedding photos that we took printed at a local lab that uses a
Frontier. Our experience was that MOST of our images looked
underexposed when printed. Immediately we compared the printed
images to the images on our screen and the difference was like
night and day. Our printed images appeared to be underexposed by
2-3 stops once printed.

The obvious problem: color calibration.

I've spent the past few days researching the matter. I'm in the
Orange County area and visited several different labs who all use
the Frontier. Interestingly, all technicians had customers who had
similar experiences to my own. Yet none had any recommendations on
how to remedy the situation. One lab relies on the Fuji-dedicated
software to make any automatic tweaks to your image, another on
other software, yet another does nothing and takes it straight in
off your CD/storage device. Prices for their services ranged too
from real cheap to unbelievable prices ($0.75 for a 5x7 at one
location, $11.95 at another!!! THEY BOTH USE THE SAME FRONTIER!!)

After researching a bit here on DPReview, I found a link to a
website (Pop Photography) promoting a color profile for the
Frontier. I downloaded it, installed it, and now my monitor is
calibrated with the local lab. Its one of those things that seems
so simple and yet so complicated when you are learning how to do it
for the first time. Now its a no brainer. I now wonder how I've
managed this far without it! (same experience with histograms,
masking, etc.)

I use Photoshop 7, and use the proofing tool to compare how the
original image would be converted to the color space the Fuji is
using. If you wished, you could also define your default color
space to be the Fuji profile. But if you ever sent any work
elsewhere, you would have to define a new space. Nevertheless,
there are multiple ways to approach the matter.

What I've noticed is that images taken in the native D60/D30 color
space can be greatly effected in the color conversion process-
typically in the darker end of the spectrum. Shadow areas in
particular, or black tuxedos, tend to be blacked out entirely upon
initial conversion- which would explain the 2-3 stop underexposure
of the images we had printed up (the wedding was late evening).
Using levels and curves the image can be resurrected quite well, as
well as color tweaking, brightness, contrast, etc.

My wife and I have decided to stick with our Sam's lab. They use
the same frontier, allow us to tweak images the way WE want them,
and they do not apply any changes. I don't know if this is a
universal Sam's policy. It now takes a tad more time to process
the images, but it seems a worthy sacrifice for great prints from
the Frontier at very inexpensive costs (at Sam's, $0.19 for 4x6
versus $0.99 at another local lab using the same Frontier!!!).

Donny

PS- Happy picture taking....and printing!
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
I agree. Colour calibration of the monitor affects mainly colour and has less to do with the brightness of the photo. One thing that I realized early on was that while the pics looked great on my monitor, they were slightly darker when printed. I came to the conclusion that they were not that bright to begin with and I was seeing a false rendition of them because of monitor brightness. (It's the same when viewing pics on the lcd on the back of the camera, they always look brighter on that tiny screen than reality.) I then went into Photoshop and went to Edit> Color Management and selected the box for "Desaturate Monitor Colors x %" (20% is usually good). Once I did this and then edited the photos (making slight levels and curves adjustments for brightness this time), they then printed out exactly as they had looked on my screen.

Mark
Tim Lozinski said:
Ok

Images look brighter on a monitor for one MAIN reason... it's not
colour caliibration (maybe its light calibration), its that your
monitor is EMITTING LIGHT, not REFLECTING LIGHT.

If you have your monitor brightness and contrast whacked right up,
your photos will seem nice and bright.

Perhaps colour calibration on monitors accounts for this, but I
can't see why people are confused when printouts look darker. Your
monitor represents white as a 100% value of light, and black as a
total absence of that light. Paper/Ink/Dye printing represents
white as a total absence of colour, and black as the heaviest
concentration of the darkest colour on the page.

True, with these two facts being so, its funny how we expect our
photos to be the same on both even IF we calibrate.

Cheerio - Tim
Click to expand...
--
Mark Currier
 
Hi Donny,

The problem your having may be due to your monitor calibration, perhap your brightness is to high. I use photoshop's adobe gamma software calibration for my monitor along with the Srgb profile and my prints from both the of the fuji frontier's I use come out perfect. I had about 600 prints made usually 50-60 at a time and out of all of them I can only think of two images that had a little too much red cast to them. I had them redone for free and they came out good the 2nd time. They have never been too light or dark.

hope this helps
Jack
Donny said:
Let me first preface this by saying that I am in no way an expert
on this matter and that for many of the pros in here, this is old
news. However, a quick glance throughout several different forums
will demonstrate that there is a lot of questions being posed about
how to maximize the print quality of the Fuji Frontier and maintain
one's image quality/integrity. Having spent much time looking into
the colorspacing issues, I have some observations/experiences I
would like to share.

Here are some very unscientific observations regarding the Fuji
Frontier. I posted a thread several days ago asking about color
spacing issues. My wife and I use a D30 and D60 and had some
wedding photos that we took printed at a local lab that uses a
Frontier. Our experience was that MOST of our images looked
underexposed when printed. Immediately we compared the printed
images to the images on our screen and the difference was like
night and day. Our printed images appeared to be underexposed by
2-3 stops once printed.

The obvious problem: color calibration.

I've spent the past few days researching the matter. I'm in the
Orange County area and visited several different labs who all use
the Frontier. Interestingly, all technicians had customers who had
similar experiences to my own. Yet none had any recommendations on
how to remedy the situation. One lab relies on the Fuji-dedicated
software to make any automatic tweaks to your image, another on
other software, yet another does nothing and takes it straight in
off your CD/storage device. Prices for their services ranged too
from real cheap to unbelievable prices ($0.75 for a 5x7 at one
location, $11.95 at another!!! THEY BOTH USE THE SAME FRONTIER!!)

After researching a bit here on DPReview, I found a link to a
website (Pop Photography) promoting a color profile for the
Frontier. I downloaded it, installed it, and now my monitor is
calibrated with the local lab. Its one of those things that seems
so simple and yet so complicated when you are learning how to do it
for the first time. Now its a no brainer. I now wonder how I've
managed this far without it! (same experience with histograms,
masking, etc.)

I use Photoshop 7, and use the proofing tool to compare how the
original image would be converted to the color space the Fuji is
using. If you wished, you could also define your default color
space to be the Fuji profile. But if you ever sent any work
elsewhere, you would have to define a new space. Nevertheless,
there are multiple ways to approach the matter.

What I've noticed is that images taken in the native D60/D30 color
space can be greatly effected in the color conversion process-
typically in the darker end of the spectrum. Shadow areas in
particular, or black tuxedos, tend to be blacked out entirely upon
initial conversion- which would explain the 2-3 stop underexposure
of the images we had printed up (the wedding was late evening).
Using levels and curves the image can be resurrected quite well, as
well as color tweaking, brightness, contrast, etc.

My wife and I have decided to stick with our Sam's lab. They use
the same frontier, allow us to tweak images the way WE want them,
and they do not apply any changes. I don't know if this is a
universal Sam's policy. It now takes a tad more time to process
the images, but it seems a worthy sacrifice for great prints from
the Frontier at very inexpensive costs (at Sam's, $0.19 for 4x6
versus $0.99 at another local lab using the same Frontier!!!).

Donny

PS- Happy picture taking....and printing!
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
 
While I agree with some of these points...I still don't understand why I can make such snappy, lively looking prints on my ink jet printer, but yet the Frontier prints need so much work to look decent.
mark currier said:
Mark
Tim Lozinski said:
Ok

Images look brighter on a monitor for one MAIN reason... it's not
colour caliibration (maybe its light calibration), its that your
monitor is EMITTING LIGHT, not REFLECTING LIGHT.

If you have your monitor brightness and contrast whacked right up,
your photos will seem nice and bright.

Perhaps colour calibration on monitors accounts for this, but I
can't see why people are confused when printouts look darker. Your
monitor represents white as a 100% value of light, and black as a
total absence of that light. Paper/Ink/Dye printing represents
white as a total absence of colour, and black as the heaviest
concentration of the darkest colour on the page.

True, with these two facts being so, its funny how we expect our
photos to be the same on both even IF we calibrate.

Cheerio - Tim
Click to expand...
--
Mark Currier
Click to expand...
--
Andy C
 
Our local Ritz uses the Frontier.

I recently began selling select framed photos and wanted quality, long lasting prints without buying the Epson 2200 or such. The first batch of prints came out very dark. I printed the same on my Epson 785 and took them in for comparison. They then matched the overall brightness of my prints fairly well, including a pink tulip on black background (you can see it in my Nature gallery).

However, they still remarked about how much sharper and better my Qimage. Epson 785 prints looked than their Frontier prints. It was obvious to everyone, but I wanted the durability so I compromised.

A few days later, I took in a shot of a Canada Goose and a Mallard duck. Their inital attempt (even having my prints for a guidline) was very washed out. The clerk took the prints back to the technician and the verdict was that was the best they could do. I mentioned the tulip shot with simliar dark areas, but "that's the best we can do. They will still have the haze" was all I got. I told them they just lost my business.

I'm buying an Epson 2200 as soon as I can find one. Why settle for inferior quality, loss of control, and higher costs per print?
Donny said:
Let me first preface this by saying that I am in no way an expert
on this matter and that for many of the pros in here, this is old
news. However, a quick glance throughout several different forums
will demonstrate that there is a lot of questions being posed about
how to maximize the print quality of the Fuji Frontier and maintain
one's image quality/integrity. Having spent much time looking into
the colorspacing issues, I have some observations/experiences I
would like to share.

Here are some very unscientific observations regarding the Fuji
Frontier. I posted a thread several days ago asking about color
spacing issues. My wife and I use a D30 and D60 and had some
wedding photos that we took printed at a local lab that uses a
Frontier. Our experience was that MOST of our images looked
underexposed when printed. Immediately we compared the printed
images to the images on our screen and the difference was like
night and day. Our printed images appeared to be underexposed by
2-3 stops once printed.

The obvious problem: color calibration.

I've spent the past few days researching the matter. I'm in the
Orange County area and visited several different labs who all use
the Frontier. Interestingly, all technicians had customers who had
similar experiences to my own. Yet none had any recommendations on
how to remedy the situation. One lab relies on the Fuji-dedicated
software to make any automatic tweaks to your image, another on
other software, yet another does nothing and takes it straight in
off your CD/storage device. Prices for their services ranged too
from real cheap to unbelievable prices ($0.75 for a 5x7 at one
location, $11.95 at another!!! THEY BOTH USE THE SAME FRONTIER!!)

After researching a bit here on DPReview, I found a link to a
website (Pop Photography) promoting a color profile for the
Frontier. I downloaded it, installed it, and now my monitor is
calibrated with the local lab. Its one of those things that seems
so simple and yet so complicated when you are learning how to do it
for the first time. Now its a no brainer. I now wonder how I've
managed this far without it! (same experience with histograms,
masking, etc.)

I use Photoshop 7, and use the proofing tool to compare how the
original image would be converted to the color space the Fuji is
using. If you wished, you could also define your default color
space to be the Fuji profile. But if you ever sent any work
elsewhere, you would have to define a new space. Nevertheless,
there are multiple ways to approach the matter.

What I've noticed is that images taken in the native D60/D30 color
space can be greatly effected in the color conversion process-
typically in the darker end of the spectrum. Shadow areas in
particular, or black tuxedos, tend to be blacked out entirely upon
initial conversion- which would explain the 2-3 stop underexposure
of the images we had printed up (the wedding was late evening).
Using levels and curves the image can be resurrected quite well, as
well as color tweaking, brightness, contrast, etc.

My wife and I have decided to stick with our Sam's lab. They use
the same frontier, allow us to tweak images the way WE want them,
and they do not apply any changes. I don't know if this is a
universal Sam's policy. It now takes a tad more time to process
the images, but it seems a worthy sacrifice for great prints from
the Frontier at very inexpensive costs (at Sam's, $0.19 for 4x6
versus $0.99 at another local lab using the same Frontier!!!).

Donny

PS- Happy picture taking....and printing!
Click to expand...
--
D30, two quarters, three dimes, 1 nickel, 7 pennies, and 1 bus transfer

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/
 
Hi Bogie,

I have just opposite problem. I have a heck of a problem getting my pints from my Epson 870 to come out as I see them in Photoshop. I just gave up and started using Walmart & Walgreens' (fuji frontier). I've been using the frontier process for 8 or 9 months and everything comes out pretty much perfect...Or at least the same as what I gave them;). In PS7 I set my monitor to Srgb and print to the same. Also use adobe gamma software. I have found that sending them to the frontier is much cheaper for 4x6 prints, which is most of what I do. about even on 5x7 and the epson is cheaper for 8x10's. Walmart has 4x6 for .26 and it takes them about a week for the free shipping to my local store and Walgreens' 4x6 is .29 for 1 hour service. I have been using the one hour service since it has been available...gotta love that instant gratification:) I thought about trying the fuji profile that a link in this thread talked about, but maybe I'll just leave things as they are with the Srgb...If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
 
Hi Bob,
Using a custom profile for individual frontier printer. Raises a question.

Does the color profile shift each time chemicals/inks are replenished? It would also seem that if it is a chemical process, that as the chemicals neared depleation there could be a colorshift or if ink is used in this process that the ink color would vary slightly from lot to lot.

I would think that a profile from fuji for each family of printers might be more accurate over time.

Just something to think about.

Jack
Bob D. said:
http://www.drycreekphoto.com

Nothing generic here, an accurate profile of the same Frontier you
plan to use for printing. If your local Frontier hasn't been
already profiled (mine had) you can download a kit to start the
process. You send your results from the kit to Drycreek Photo, they
make the profile for the Frontier, and post it to their site. If
you did the leg work, they even send you an email when the profile
is available. And all this for free!

You can then use this profile to convert the color space of your
image(s) to the Frontier's. I understand it can be done through PS7
via the "soft proofing" process. Dry Creek has step-by-step
instructions on thier site. Also, I think the conversion of color
space can be done in Qimage Pro by doing a profile to profile
conversion. Still trying to confirm this one for sure.

HTH,

Bob
Click to expand...
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
 
4X6 & 5X7 are probably cheaper to get done at Walmart or one of the online printers like Shutterfly, which I use for 4X6 prints.

The prints I sell are 8X12 and up. The only reason I went to Ritz was my failure to realize I could get 9X13 paper for my 785 by cutting 13X19 paper into two sheets. Now I need a bigger paper cutter!

For now, though, I print using the 785 on Epson Premium Glossy Photo Paper. That's good for about 10 years under glass. If I use Pictorico Gallerie Glossy, or Epson Archival Matte, they're good for about 25 years. But I want the Epson 2200 for larger prints and even more durability (75 years), as well as cheaper costs. It's just that no one has them in stock, not even Epson.
Jack O'Neill said:
Hi Bogie,
I have just opposite problem. I have a heck of a problem getting my
pints from my Epson 870 to come out as I see them in Photoshop. I
just gave up and started using Walmart & Walgreens' (fuji
frontier). I've been using the frontier process for 8 or 9 months
and everything comes out pretty much perfect...Or at least the same
as what I gave them;). In PS7 I set my monitor to Srgb and print to
the same. Also use adobe gamma software. I have found that sending
them to the frontier is much cheaper for 4x6 prints, which is most
of what I do. about even on 5x7 and the epson is cheaper for
8x10's. Walmart has 4x6 for .26 and it takes them about a week for
the free shipping to my local store and Walgreens' 4x6 is .29 for 1
hour service. I have been using the one hour service since it has
been available...gotta love that instant gratification:) I thought
about trying the fuji profile that a link in this thread talked
about, but maybe I'll just leave things as they are with the
Srgb...If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
Click to expand...
--
D30, two quarters, three dimes, 1 nickel, 7 pennies, and 1 bus transfer

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/
 
Here is a link to a thread containing 2 excellent sources- one of which has already been alluded to in this thread by Ethan. The other is a link to Popular Photography's website. I have found that their profile for the Frontier is right on for my local Sam's.

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=3532651

Has anyone else found all the information submitted in this (and many other like-minded threads) to be very interesting and stimulating?

A thought/question- I have read in this thread and elsewhere that some people have their monitor "calibrated" properly and that perhaps mine is too bright. This perhaps explaining the resulting "dark" print.

My response is that this is unlikely. My wife and I have printed up literally hundreds and hundreds of photos from our local Sam's for ministry, vacation, family, etc. Many of the prints looked flawless. Others looked a bit flat and underexposed. We didn't mind so much because the prints were suitable for the needs that we had. Now that we are using the prints for professional needs, our tastes have become much more critical. Since both of us are very experienced photographers using great equipment (D60/D30, Sony F707, 550EX flashes,L-lenses), I am not inclined to believe that the problem rested with us.

The recent wedding that we just shot made us look into the matter of color profiling as SOO many of the prints were far darker than they should have been. Alas my excitement when I installed the profile from the above sites and used it to compare the images in their original space and then converted to the Fuji profile. When using the Proof tool (selecting the Fuji Profile) you can see the changes, if any. Again, my experience is that areas in an image where there is a shadow or simply dark regions like tuxedos are "blacked out" when converted to the Fuji Profile. Once converted, you then use levels, curves, color balancing, etc. to get the image to the way you want.

What I don't understand is how (unless the space you are using is already calibrated to your local Frontier) you can just send them pics and there NOT be any differences, as many people have mentioned that they do. None of the local Frontiers in Orange/LA County that I have experience with (6 or more) are using sRGB as their color space. As such, images I take that are taken in sRGB or whatever must be converted into whatever colorspace they are using in the lab. Right? And any conversion will produce different results from the original- either slight or significant, depending on the content of the image.

Is my thinking on target? Or am I way off base? I am still learning volumes. Thanks to everyone for sharing their wisdom.

Thanks for the continued input and have a blessed day!

Donny
 
Epson makes no guarantee on the longevity statements, and the tests are based on UV light in lab, based on low light and does not take into account anything else. It all depends on how much you believe in their statements. The ink also has a smaller color gamut.

Alfred
Bogie said:
The prints I sell are 8X12 and up. The only reason I went to Ritz
was my failure to realize I could get 9X13 paper for my 785 by
cutting 13X19 paper into two sheets. Now I need a bigger paper
cutter!

For now, though, I print using the 785 on Epson Premium Glossy
Photo Paper. That's good for about 10 years under glass. If I use
Pictorico Gallerie Glossy, or Epson Archival Matte, they're good
for about 25 years. But I want the Epson 2200 for larger prints
and even more durability (75 years), as well as cheaper costs.
It's just that no one has them in stock, not even Epson.
Jack O'Neill said:
Hi Bogie,
I have just opposite problem. I have a heck of a problem getting my
pints from my Epson 870 to come out as I see them in Photoshop. I
just gave up and started using Walmart & Walgreens' (fuji
frontier). I've been using the frontier process for 8 or 9 months
and everything comes out pretty much perfect...Or at least the same
as what I gave them;). In PS7 I set my monitor to Srgb and print to
the same. Also use adobe gamma software. I have found that sending
them to the frontier is much cheaper for 4x6 prints, which is most
of what I do. about even on 5x7 and the epson is cheaper for
8x10's. Walmart has 4x6 for .26 and it takes them about a week for
the free shipping to my local store and Walgreens' 4x6 is .29 for 1
hour service. I have been using the one hour service since it has
been available...gotta love that instant gratification:) I thought
about trying the fuji profile that a link in this thread talked
about, but maybe I'll just leave things as they are with the
Srgb...If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
Click to expand...
--
D30, two quarters, three dimes, 1 nickel, 7 pennies, and 1 bus
transfer

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/
Click to expand...
 
Many, many pros use Epson printers for prints they sell. If they're good enough for pros, then ...

Besides, independant labs also rate the durability of those inks. Epson has a good rep from what I read.
aevoegels said:
Alfred
Bogie said:
The prints I sell are 8X12 and up. The only reason I went to Ritz
was my failure to realize I could get 9X13 paper for my 785 by
cutting 13X19 paper into two sheets. Now I need a bigger paper
cutter!

For now, though, I print using the 785 on Epson Premium Glossy
Photo Paper. That's good for about 10 years under glass. If I use
Pictorico Gallerie Glossy, or Epson Archival Matte, they're good
for about 25 years. But I want the Epson 2200 for larger prints
and even more durability (75 years), as well as cheaper costs.
It's just that no one has them in stock, not even Epson.
Jack O'Neill said:
Hi Bogie,
I have just opposite problem. I have a heck of a problem getting my
pints from my Epson 870 to come out as I see them in Photoshop. I
just gave up and started using Walmart & Walgreens' (fuji
frontier). I've been using the frontier process for 8 or 9 months
and everything comes out pretty much perfect...Or at least the same
as what I gave them;). In PS7 I set my monitor to Srgb and print to
the same. Also use adobe gamma software. I have found that sending
them to the frontier is much cheaper for 4x6 prints, which is most
of what I do. about even on 5x7 and the epson is cheaper for
8x10's. Walmart has 4x6 for .26 and it takes them about a week for
the free shipping to my local store and Walgreens' 4x6 is .29 for 1
hour service. I have been using the one hour service since it has
been available...gotta love that instant gratification:) I thought
about trying the fuji profile that a link in this thread talked
about, but maybe I'll just leave things as they are with the
Srgb...If it aint broke, don't fix it.

Jack
--
http://www.pbase.com/joneill
Click to expand...
--
D30, two quarters, three dimes, 1 nickel, 7 pennies, and 1 bus
transfer

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
--
D30, two quarters, three dimes, 1 nickel, 7 pennies, and 1 bus transfer

My Galleries: http://home.attbi.com/~keylargographics/
 
Jack O'Neill said:
I would think that a profile from fuji for each family of printers
might be more accurate over time.
Click to expand...
Jack:

I can't recall if Ethan mentions it on his site or not, but according to him (as well as others in the color management field) the Fuji Frontier, once properly set up, is not as prone to "drift" over time as, say, a normal desktop inkjet. I believe it's because there is some special software monitoring or other circuitry that is built into the printer...but I can't recall exactly. Perhaps Ethan may want to jump in with clarifications and/or corrections?

As to your question of "a profile from fuji for each family of printers"...I'm afraid, strictly speaking, there is no such thing. That is, there is no such thing as a "composite" profile. The generic profile that Fuji makes available was made on a single machine and thus represents that devices individual and unique color characteristics. While many of those characteristics are closely shared by that particular model (and indeed will get you fairly close) it will not be as close as a profile made to represent the particular device that you are outputting to.

The very nature of what you are doing when you profile a device into an independent color space is that you are making a software representation of that device's individual and unique color fingerprint. Just as with human fingerprints, no two are exactly alike. Some may be closely similar, but they will not be exact.

To put it another way, the difference between using a generic profile vs. a custom profile is like the difference between buying a suit off the rack vs. having a tailor custom make one. Both will work just fine, and serve the same purpose, it's just that the one that has been custom made (assuming it's been done right) will fit better.

In this case, as generic vs. custom cost the same (i.e., nothing) there is no question that the best choice is to go with something that provides a custom fit.

Hope this helps,

-Taz
 
Hi Taz,

It would be interesting if Ethan could examine his collection of Fuji frontier profiles from around the country and see how much they really do vary from printer to printer. I've used several different frontier systems, using only the Srgb profile from PS7 and have gotten nothing but stellar results that match my monitor exactly.

Jack

http://www.pbase.com/joneill
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top