Canon 10D / Fuji Frontier samples

Here's a sample 4x6 Frontier print I just picked up from my local

Frontier shop. The file was a 'direct to print' from my 10D, and

scaled to 300dpi / 4x6 before submitting. This has become my favorite

method of getting proofs from my 10D, with my Epson only serving duty

when I want that 'artsy' Matte print. Glossy ink-jets are simply too

much a PITA compared to the no-brainer Frontier RA-4 prints for me to

deal with.

 

The quality of the Frontier prints from my 10D is really astounding.

Unlike the common problems with film>print on the Frontier like

excessive pixelation and idiot operators cranking up sharpness to the

firewall, direct prints from my 10D take all that out of the

equation. The images are literally at my full control without dealing

with all the screwball variables with ink-jet or mini-lab film>print.

The disadvantage is that if I get a bad print, I have only myself to

blame. The Frontier (and I assume the well reputed Noritsu) hide

nothing in terms of workflow problems.

 

The prints from this method are typically crisp, stunningly

realistic, and devoid of any coloration or over tones giving away

they are digital ....provided I shoot them correctly of course. The

only real limit I've run into is the native sRGB of Frontier can

cause some issues with really saturated subjects, but it takes a

pretty extreme shot to show the color space wall of the Frontier. If

I'm shooting something that wild I'm generally going to defer to the

lab's LightJet/Fujiflex for an enlargement anyways vs a simple proof.

So, how does the print stack up when given the old loupe test? Well, here's a 1600dpi scan of that same print with a tap of USM. At this extreme magnification I can start to see some pixel aliasing. I should add though that 8x10s and 8x12'x are perfectly pristine.

 

Before we start getting samples of 4000dpi Provia scans, I need to again make it clear I'm making scans from $1.00 mini-lab proofs.

Amazing. What does "direct to print" mean? I'm not familiar with the D10. Do you shoot in RAW and convert to tiff? Shoot in JPEG? Does "direct to print" mean no in-camera or post-camera sharpening? If you open in Photoshop I assume you tell the program not to color manage. What instruction do you give the printer operator when you submit a file? Have you found that scaling the photo to 300dpi 4x6 yourself gives better results than submitting a larger file and letting the printer scale it? What method do you use for scaling? Do you rescale in several small steps or one big step? Thanks

I agree, the Fuji Frontier Rocks.

</p>

 

If you proof your images in the Fronteir color space before you print them you can tweak those super-saturated images so that they look right on the frontier.

</p>

 

My only complaint is that my local drugstore can't (or won't) print 8X12's on their machine. I have to add white borders on the edges of my 3:2 images to make them 8X10 so that they won't get cropped.

 

</p>

Here are some links about the Frontier that I found useful:

</p>

 

<a href = "http://bermangraphics.com/press/frontier.htm">bermangraphics.com/press/frontier.htm</a>

</p>

 

 

<a href = "http://drycreekphoto.com/Frontier/FrontierDatabase.htm">Database of Frontier color profiles at Drycreek photo

</p>

 

<a href ="http://www.popphoto.com/article.asp?section_id=4&article_id=482"> Pop Photo generic profiles for the Fronteir</a>

Well...nothing new for me, but I expect this to be new for many. :-)

 

I agree that automatic RA-4 printing is more convenient than inkjets for proofing. Unfortunately, finding decent labs is not always easy...

I do the same with my Fuji S2. It's such a no-brainer being that I know the sole Frontier

operator at the local Long's, it's less than a mile away, the prints(4x6) are $0.29 ea. -- I

mean, I love my 2200, but this Frontier gig is real tough to beat. Frankly, If I had to pay

$0.50-$0.60 ea., I'd still feel the same way. The fact that it's so cheap and yields such nice

results(9 times out of 10), it's just pure fun going digital.

So guys, what do you do, just download your card and have them print it? Just wondering what's involved and what in camera processing you do (shapening, ect.).

 

thanks

Scott: Are these really $1 prints, our local Noritsu guys are charging 15 to 20 cents depending on how many.

<I>just download your card and have them print it?</i><P>Have to admit I'm too anal about my own work for that for that, and considering I do so much LightJet work I really need to have that potential 'killer' shot to be perfect for reference. If I were dumping whole capture cards I'd also elect to have the lab run corrections vs direct. I really don't do heavy manipulation on my images before FTP'ing them to the lab, but I'm simply too critical about my own stuff to let them go without a tweak here and there.<P>As for the price, what I'm paying is on the high side, but this lab is moderate volume and and pays to keep good staff. They will not let anything bad go out the door regardless of what service I'm paying for, and they keep their equipment well calibrated.

Scott: Don't just tell us it is wonderful. Please tell us how.

 

Do you shoot in RAW and convert to tiff? Shoot in JPEG? Does "direct to print" mean no in-camera or post-camera sharpening? If you open in Photoshop I assume you tell the program not to color manage. What instruction do you give the printer operator when you submit a file? Have you found that scaling the photo to 300dpi 4x6 yourself gives better results than submitting a larger file and letting the printer scale it? What method do you use for scaling? Do you rescale in several small steps or one big step? Thanks

<I>Do you shoot in RAW and convert to tiff? </i><P>I rarely shoot RAW or even Adobe. Only when dealing with subject matter that has high brightness or color range that I know will cause problems in JPEG do I resort to either RAW or Adobe. I have an example if you want to see. I don't need a 5 gallon bucket to hold a gallon of water. I use the 5 gallon bucket only when I need it.<P>

 

<I>Does "direct to print" mean no in-camera or post-camera sharpening?</i><P>Street slang for telling the Frontier not to apply any post corrections or enhancements. I normally shoot with the sharpness cranked to high in my 10D with either the contrast or saturation up one notch and shooting at ISO 100/200 as much as possible. A lot easier shooting this way than post correcting everything simply to get the same results.<P><I>

 

If you open in Photoshop I assume you tell the program not to color manage. <P></i>You can download the Frontier profile from the links provided above and soft proof each shot if you want. I prefer to simply set up a profile on my video card, turn off color management in Photoshop, and work totally on screen with exactly what I'm going to get. I've been doing this since day #1 I started printing to digital RA-4 printers, and it works about as good. Either technique works, but I simply prefer to see on screen what I'm going to get without having to flip back and forth all the time. I've always found the idea of working with a modern monitor at default brightness settings and then think a software table is going to magically convert that for you to be stupid and illogical. To put it bluntly, everything I see on my monitor matches my LightJet and Frontier output exactly. The brightness on my monitor goes to 100. Right now it's at 15. The Frontier profile would allow you see some sRGB gamut issues with soft proofing better than my technique, but I don't shoot sRGB when I know it's goign to be a problem.<P><I>

 

What instruction do you give the printer operator when you submit a file? <P></i>Direct to print.<P><I>Have you found that scaling the photo to 300dpi 4x6 yourself gives better results than submitting a larger file and letting the printer scale it?</i><P>Nope. This lab would actually prefer me to give them the full size file, but I've had trouble with other 'less gifted' Frontier labs that can't handle simple instructions unless the file is sized and scaled perfectly for them.<P></I>

 

<I>What method do you use for scaling? Do you rescale in several small steps or one big step?</i><P>I downscale once, then apply a really conservative 4 radius USM to correct the softness of the interpolation. Oddly, with film scans, the downscale makes them look better because it reduces grain. With digital capture, it makes them look too soft.

Scott,

 

Can you talk a little more about how you set up your monitor profile or point to a reference on how to do that? Your method makes a whole lot of sense to me rather than dinking around with a bunch of different profiles for everything. Thanks.

Regarding price, I too think that $1 is on the high side, but if the lab is dependable and good I'd have no problem paying that - after all I don't print that many shots anyway (only try to print the excellent ones :)

 

I personally find it practical to make these small prints that look good and have them around to show to people - easy and cheap to make so they can take a little touching and easy to carry (I know this could be done with a traditional minilab, but I've never had a traditional minilab do prints that were even close to what can be achieved today.)

 

Sampling has been discussed a bit here, Bill Tuthill has searched the subject and some threads should be found under his name. I've also done my tests and the array of resampling functions in ImageMagick is quite sufficient for my needs. I tend to use a bit of USM for snap regardless whether I resample pics from film or digital, but the sampling algorithm has a huge effect on apparent sharpness. I don't think sharpening after downsampling is necessary in all circumstances, but we're venturing into the "matters of taste" region here...

Scott,

Thanks for the testimonial of your lab and experience.

 

As a Frontier lab owner we have been trying to get this message out to the world for four

years now. I also appreciate your support for your local lab and understanding that their

expertise and commitment to their training and quality control does not come for free.

 

The Frontier does an absolutely fantastic job and is extraordinarily flexible once the

operators have been properly trained on it. The other unmentioned benefit is that most

Frontier labs are printing on Crystal Archive paper.

 

 

BTW new upgrades have enabled us to vastly increase the throughput of the image

processor. As a result we have cut our prices to 29 cents for single 4x6's and 19 cents if

you order doubles. I am not advertising as you won't find my lab easily but what I am

saying is that there are a ton of good local labs working very hard to give top quality at a

good price.

<I>Your method makes a whole lot of sense to me rather than dinking around with a bunch of different profiles for everything.</i><P>That's because it's a more logical method that tries to fix the bigger problem first vs trying to fix a variable by multiplying it by another variable. I personally found the entire monitor/print ICC profiling loop to be vastly over-rated and being utilized outside of what it was intended for anyways when it comes to RA-4 printing.<P>Monitor and print profiling works great - if you're trying to match different monitors within the same brightness/intensity range, or trying to match output between similiar gamut ranges such as one pantone ink to another pantone ink. System profiling doesn't work worth a damn when it comes to trying to match non intensity adjusted monitors to RA-4 papers. This is why we have so many people buying calibration equipment only to find their Frontier and LightJet prints don't look a thing like their screen or softproof.<P>Here's a brutal yet simple explanation. You know that a reflective print doesn't look nearly as vivid, intense, or as life-like as transparency on a light table right? I mean come one, that's an easy one. The reason is that the back lit tranny is displaying a far greater brightness/intensity range than the reflective print due to simple physics. Again, no real rocket science there. Ok, so lets say somebody tries to tell you they can make a reflective print match a transparency by applying an ICC profile loop. You'd laugh in their face, right? And you should, because it's dumb. <P>The problem is that exact same physics are at play when you try to profile a fancy, 500:1 brightness ratio LCD or high tech CRT thas hasn't been significantly adjusted in terms of brightness. What's even more silly is there are "trained professionals" that will tell you to do it anyways. Make sense, and can you see the futility in it?<P>My method is to fix the biggest problem first by making my monitor match the dynamics of the final print medium vs the illogic of thinking a data table (profile) is going ot magically alter the laws of physics. I make a single test print containing a 24step greyscale and a few human subjects with all my system profiling turned off with the Frontier making a 'direct print'. I then look at the resulting print, and use my video card properties to match the contrast and brightness of that test print. I can guarantee you if you do this honestly, you'll find yourself seriously reducing the brightness and contrast of your tube/CRT to match that print. Enough so that your monitor will look outright dim and dull if viewed in a brightly lit room. This is because your fancy new monitor was designed to display 'Lord of the Rings' in a showroom vs matching a reflective print. If I want to watch DVDs or play Halo, I just revert back to the stock profile. Once you get your display under control, and it's not a complete peice of junk, you should find further profling for a Frontier to not be required and all further printing to be really close to what you see.<P>I'm also not trying to shove the entire monitor/print profling industry out the window. Monitor and print profiling does work *after* you've adjusted your monitor to match the dynamics of your reflective medium, and further system profiling allows you to fine tune color differences that the technical printing industry has to have under control. Where I disagree is open loop printing to a Frontier or LightJet is *not* the same thing as monitor to monitor or press to press profiling. I want the device to print what I see on *my* monitor, not what the lab staff sees on *their* monitor. Anybody that disagree with me should note my direct capture uploads and final scans off Frontier proofs are darn near identical and tough to tell apart. Must be something working correctly.

<I> I am saying is that there are a ton of good local labs working very hard to give top quality at a good price.</i><P>At first I never took the Frontier seriously as a professional open loop printer. Not compared to the LightJet at least. Then I began noticing some well run labs were making incredible 8x12's off the thing, but weren't very forthcoming about the process. Seems they were using an external scanner vs the Frontier's adequate but limited dedicated scanner. Now I use the Frontier for everything below 10x15, and at the same time have the option of taking full accountability for my work. This is not a system I'd use for weddings or mixed formal events, but it's wonderfull for a dozen or so shots at a time. The real crime is you can't run Fujiflex through a Frontier, at least as far as I know. <P>I'll send you guys a few 8x10's to print.

I am new to the ideas of color management, but I've been reading Michael Kieran's book _Photoshop Color Correction_ and I'm a little confused by some of Scott's comments on profiling and color management (was also confused by some of Kieran's). That's my disclaimer, so bear with me, please.

 

First, what does "open loop" mean? Also, isn't the point of profiling and calibrating all of your input and output devices so that you can achieve a more predictable and flexible version of your approach, Scott? Meaning, you've hand/eye calibrated your monitor to the point that you feel it matches Frontier output. But, if you'd calibrated your monitor to a known reference, then profiled it, and if you also had a good profile for the Frontier/paper combination you're printing to, wouldn't you accomplish the same with a quick View->Proof Colors? This way, your Lord of the Rings and Halo are unaffected, and you can just as easily soft-proof any printer/paper combination for which you have a profile. If you find yourself using another monitor for whatever reason, then no worries, as long as it's calibrated and profiled. Am I understanding correctly?

 

Calibrating your monitor (whichever way it's done) will not make its gamut identical to the Frontier's, but aren't you in a way doing all of your corrections directly to the Frontier? I thought another idea behind profiling everything was that you could (with a profiled input device, and a calibrated and profiled monitor) do all of your corrections in an output-device independent colorspace, and then save off a 'master' corrected file, so that days or years from now, if you want to output to another device entirely with a completely different gamut, you don't need to do all of your retouching and correction work again.

 

Lastly, don't you need to calibrate and profile your monitor to compenstate for what Kieran calls "nonlinear gray reproduction of the monitor," or is this somehow taken care of in the way you adjust your monitor's setting to match a Frontier print?

 

Hope I didn't derail this thread into a general help-the-newbie-understand-color-management thing, but it seemed like a good time to ask. Thanks,

 

Ben