120 film - printing off Fuji Frontiers.

[RaymondC]

<p>Hi, I am looking at going larger formats some time. Rather than investing in a dedicated scanner, I thought I could use more of my Epson V700 and get prints done at a pro lab who uses a Fuji Frontier, they do have more expensive scanners - CCD and Drum Scans but cost a lot lot more. </p>

<p>If prints are made off a Fuji Frontier machine will I be able to appreciate medium format?</p>

[mtk]

<p>What size prints are you going to make? What is your expectation? I shoot a Mamiya RB 67. With the right film and scanning the sky is the limit with how big you want to go! Plenty of posts and opinions about what size format is "best". I know that your post asks specifically about prints off of the Frontier...I would be more concerned about the lab and/or people operating it properly than the machine itself.<br>

At the prices of MF outfits today risk is minimal for equipment investment to "try out MF"<br>

Have Fun!<br>

Mark</p>

[john_shriver]

<p>Yes, you should be able to get excellent sparkling prints off a Fuji Frontier on Crystal Archive paper from digital files. The laser exposure system has an more than adequate 300 dpi resolution. The only limitation is that Frontiers aren't ICC color managed, they just work in sRGB color space. So you are limited to the colors in the sRGB color space, rather than a larger color space like Adobe RGB. So output your resized files ready to print in sRGB color space, and bring them to the lab asking for no color correction.<br>

Of course, this all assumes you have a monitor calibration system, otherwise you'll never be able to get the colors you want.</p>

[david_henderson]

<p> You are limited in size to about 12" wide max. on most (maybe all?) Frontier machines and it doesn't control colours that well. On top of which you are size or quality constrained through your choice of scanner. In combination this wouldn't be top of my list for getting the most out of a medium format system, and whilst I have competent prints from Frontiers in the past, I reckon I could have got pretty much the same from 35mm given a decent scan. So unless your motive for moving to MF is to save money on a scanner-----</p>

<p>The Frontier is a minilab. Its specification is geared to producing large numbers of relatively small prints in a short time and to be easy to operate in a retail environment. Though the technology and papers used are similar to machines like a Lightjet they are not operated in the same way. Its going to be more hit and miss than a genuine custom print machine. Of course if you want say an 8" sq proof from most of the medium format shots you take its a relatively affordable way of doing that. But if, as you say, you want to see what MF can do, thats not the way forward IMO.</p>

[erie_patsellis]

<p>David,<br>

There are in fact some Frontier operators that can get stunning images. It's far from a hit or miss, as you imply, but requires one to effectively color manage (even though it's in sRGB) and regular calibration and process control. The prints from our Frontier at the studio meets or exceeds the work we have printed out of house, in terms of consistency and color accuracy. How good is it? We print for several local "real" pros up to 10", the limit of the Frontier 370. Since I've been there, we've never had a single reprint due to color errors or poor color on our part. In summary, just like any other tool, the Frontier can produce consistently excellent prints, but is more dependent on good practices than optical printing. I do both, and quite frankly, if the Frontier accepted 16 or 20" wide paper, I'd gladly give up optical printing forever.<br>

Depending on how the frontier is set up, either as a scanner/printer (minilab) or separate scanner/printer connected to a server, or using a PIC computer, makes a big difference. Incidentally, the SP2000 scanner on MF is pretty darn good, far better than many give it credit for. I know of at least one full time portrait/wedding photographer in the Pacific Northwest that uses either a 2000 or 3000 in conjunction with shooting film for the majority of his work. If you employ good color management and strict process control, it's still very cost effective and the final output is as good as it gets.</p>

<p>Poor processing, lack of control strip usage and plotting, or squeezing every last roll out of chemistry, as most minilabs do, will bite you sooner or later. So the choice is really in-house processing or finding a reliable, quality oriented lab that will work with you.</p>

[RaymondC]

<p>Looking at printing 11x15 inches. I want impact in my prints, as Iike to submit them to various competiitions with my camera club. I want tack sharpness, I don't do portraiture but as a comparison I want to see the eyebrow strands.</p>

[verivorax]

<p>SOME Frontier machines (and only at some locations) will have a set of MF masks (645, 6x6, 6x7), a manual carrier, and a larger mirror-diffuser (expensive part!!) for the laser. The rather small Black's I worked at in the late 90s received one of these kits and I made some nice prints right off negatives or positives. <br>

This was on one of the original late 90s Frontier machines with paper-switching, not the hybrid SFA (older optical design with a new laser front-end) from early 2003. However, the user workstations on both were virtually identical and I bet you'll find someone with the full set of parts for MF printing. Worth a try!</p>