Frontier Prints vs Photo Inkjet

[david_lau3]

How do you compare the prints from Fuji Frontier vs photo ink-jet

(Epson/Canon/HP)?

 

I find the color from the inkjet much more brillant and saturated

than the Frontier print.

 

I have my monitor calibrated and is able to simulate the dull color

of the Frontier print by using soft proof in PS with the icc profile

from Dry Creek for Frontier. When I get back the print, the color

is exactly as dull as I see on the soft proof screen.

 

However, the Epson print is much more brillant on soft proof screen

as well as on the print.

[albert lui]

I don't know if this helps, but have you tried sending an sRGB file straight to the Frontier? That is, without converting to the printer profile. This approach works well enough for me, though it may not for some folks.

[johndc]

Which paper are you using in the Frontier?

[lex_jenkins]

Frontier... dull? Something's wrong. Mine are plenty colorful. They just don't have the gamut of the better traditional prints or the best inkjet prints.

[david_lau3]

Thanks for all the answers so far.

 

- I never try sRGB, but will give it a go

 

- The shop uses Fuji Crystal Archival Paper

 

- The color turns dull once I selected "Paper White" option on the PS soft proof screen with the Froniter icc profile. The interesting part is not just it becomes dull on screen, I also got similar result on print as well i.e. I get what I see on the soft proof screen

 

For those who got bright and brillant color from Frontier, could you share how you prepare your image for printing? Have you tried PS soft proof and do you see siginificant difference? Many thanks.

[steve_unsworth1]

David, I just convert to sRGB, the prints look fine.

[david_lau3]

Steve, do you mean you have just tried to print a sRGB image on a Frontier machine and the print comes out fine? Or you just did a soft proof of sRBG in PS without actully printing on Frontier?

 

For the later I also found no significant difference between the original (in Adobe RBG) and the soft proof of sRBG on screen. What I haven't done is to actually print sRBG image on Frontier. I will try tomorrow and report the result.

[robert_martin5]

When I send an image to a Fuji Frontier I size the image to the final print size using 300dpi, convert to sRGB profile, and generally save as a high quality JPG. I upload the image to WalMart.com and specify to pick up at a local store - prints are ready in one hour and are very close match to my calibrated monitor.

 

I understand the Fuji Frontier printer needs sRGB profile. I do not softproof my images.

[vatovec]

Convert to sRGB and then try the soft proof. If it becomes dull again You have the wrong profile.

For me it works good when I convert to sRGB, (i don`t soft proof) just send them the file.

[sc21]

The files I sent to Shutterfly, whether starting as JPEGs or RAWs convered to sRGB (my working space), came out very well. Used them for about a year.

 

Then I got my i960, and while some test prints showed almost exactly the same 4x6s - just a touch color difference - when I sent an 8x10 file of a lily pad - white flower on green pads on black water - the yellow center of the flower was totally washed out pale on the Shutterfly prints, while the same file printed on my i960 showed brilliant yellow.

 

Because of that (which may have just been an error that day, or from their own hard-to-disable adjustments), I haven't sent them any prints since.

 

I'll probably still send to them for 4x6's (especially once I get off dial-up) to give to family and friends for the permanance, but no more large prints from them.

[eric_konieczny]

From what I have gather from the labs that use Frontier and Noritsu printers it is best to do all editing on your own, like curves, contrast, etc, then crop it to the exact size you want and then add a border if you want it printed with a border or without. I don't like leaving any guessowkr to the technician running the machine. The software in the Frontier and Nortis, does all conversions to output, no need to convert.

 

If it is for a quick job with tons of pics for proofs , I will send a jpg to print. if not my they allow all of these JPEG, TIFF, TGA, PCX, BMP, PSD, and PNG.

[mike_lepp1]

While the color gamut may not be as large as inkjets, which I can hardly tell in use, the frontiers does MUCH better color (or bw) gradients. Especially with portraits and B&Ws. I haven't seen an inkjet print that can match the gradiation from the main to fill side like the frontiers (or the dursk the lab I use has too). Of course, the frontiers prints are more rubust in terms of handling.

 

I don't get dull prints either, but I'm using a local pro lab that keeps their equipment very well calibrated.

 

I'm also not a big fan of epson profiles. So take the softproofing with a grain of salt using them. I've seen them not show gamut warnings that every other paper profile show and then ultimately end up different on the print. I've been using red river papers and their profiles now.

[scott_eaton]

<I>I haven't seen an inkjet print that can match the gradiation from the main to fill side like the frontiers </i><P>Big reason I stopped using ink-jets for portraits. It's also a big reason that cotton based art papers are so popular - they help break up this problem.<P>I have yet to see a "dull" Frontier print from my submitted files either. The Canon's and Epson's I've played with when they have their gamut pushed really hard on glossy paper tend to produce high color areas that look like they were cut out and glued to the paper with an X-acto knife. Then again this might be what David is looking for.

[jsbc]

Yes, the color is dull - After this is the purpose of soft-proofing, making the image on screen as close as it would be on a reflective medium. If your monitor is a super-contrasty LCD and you are viewing it in a dark place, the difference is even more dramatic.

 

However, note that the file itself should be in sRGB, rather than Adobe RGB, or any of the wider gamut. A wrong profile would have account for this.

[jsbc]

BY THE WAY, the whole point of Softproofing is not just to see how the image would look on paper. You should adjust the softproof by tweaking contrast, saturation, hues etc so that the softproof looks good and no longer muddy.

 

You should do this on a file designated for printing instead of the original file that is saved for archival purpose.

[david_lau3]

Johnny, I understand soft proofing and expect to see difference. However I do not expect to see such a big difference. The color (especially red) is so dull that regardless of how I adjust the image, it cannot be adjusted back to the original, or even close.

 

I am not using sRGB as the profile but the profile for Frontier from the Dry Creek website. I have also tried the profile for Frontier from the Popular Photography website. Both deliver same result. The interesting part is the soft proof on screen actually matches with the final print I got back from Frontier. Therefore I think the profile is correct.

 

However I am willing to try using sRGB as profile. I have redone the image. The difference in soft proof is close to nil this time. I have sent it to Frontier and will get back tonight. Hope to see good news.

[lex_jenkins]

I just use one of the standard sRGB options. My Nikon D2H has two options and they vary only slightly in overall bias. Nikon says one is intended for people pictures and the other for landscapes. Whatever. I choose what looks right to me.

 

Frontier machines actually have their own color profile that doesn't quite match sRGB, but it's close enough that I've had no complaints.

 

However I could see having problems with Frontier proofs from films with lower saturation and contrast, or a digital file using Adobe RGB. My NEF files in Adobe RGB look very soft and muted onscreen compared with sRGB so I suspect they'll need careful attention to deliver good prints.

[jsbc]

David:

 

The file and workspace shoudl be in sRGB, and the softproof can be one fo the Dry Creek profiles. Notice that there are variations between different Frontier machines. You can also get the machine specific icc profile from your Frontier operator.

 

Yes, I have to toy with each image - contrast (using levels) and saturation are usually muted. I think Scott Eaton in the past has said he worded better with a dim monitor. Anyway, the translation is never 100% - for instance my blue skies have a habit of turning magneta on Frontier prints. So I have to deliberate increase the cyan in the skies. I have talked about this in one of my earlier threads.

 

Nevertheless, it is possible to obtain a reasonably contrasty and brilliant prints. OK, it is not as nice as the scan as displayed on the monitor, which in turn lacks the subtleties of the slide. But without these comparisons, my colleagues believe they are quite nice prints. So for most purpose, it is a satisfactory route (I still prefer film when it comes to flesh tones, but landscapes are OK).

[sjmurray]

I use a professional lab that requires Frontier images to be prepared as sRGB, level 10 jpg, 8 bit color, and sized to the desired print size and paper size (canvas size), ready to print. I get back exactly what I see on my monitor, even with the black and white images. I don't see any dullness, or magenta hue in the sky. I think probably labs can vary in consistency. I belive the one I use, White House Custom Color in St. Paul, MN is excellent.

[larrybc]

If you're seeing dull colours on your calibrated monitor AND get the same results on the Frontier, why don't you adjust your image to your liking? Presumably, it'll come out the same way on the Frontier.

 

For snapshots, I generally boost colour saturation by about 15% and do a local contrast enhancement.

 

 

Larry

[lex_jenkins]

It occurs to me now that after having some Frontier prints made from my CF card via a Wal-wart kiosk, the problem may be insufficient access to tweaking and twiddling adjustments.

 

Unlike the Kodak print station (dye-something?), the Frontier kiosk offered practically nothing in the way of color controls, bright/contrast, sharpening, not even auto enhancement.

 

I made 4x6 prints from the same image files on both kiosks. The only difference was I punched "auto enhancement" for the Kodak kiosk. Its prints were significantly better: more vivid color saturation (without going overboard); better contrast without sacrificing highlight detail; better sharpness.

 

I also made 8x10 enlargements on the Kodak kiosk of the same two image files. This time I didn't use auto enhancement. The prints were very close to the Frontier 4x6's, altho' the reds were slightly different.

 

At least for my D2H hi-rez JPEGs set to sRGB (1), using my custom curve and "normal" sharpening in camera, the Kodak kiosk and auto enhancement provides better results.

 

Just as well. I don't like the crappy sorta pearl/matte finish paper Wal-wart uses for the Frontier machine. It should either be matte/satin or gloss. Pearl finishes just ruin fine detail.