interview
Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Kodak vs Fuji Frontier

Tags:
  • Photo
  • Kodak
  • Cameras
Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
January 15, 2005 4:32:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Had a few 8X10 prints made from several local labs, no corrections from the
same file. The 2 best were from "Showcase" and the other was "Hunt color
labs" both pro labs in Atlanta. Showcase has a Frontier and Hunt is using a
new kodak machine (not sure what model..). I was amazed at how much sharper
and cleaner the prints from Hunt were. It's very noticable even at normal
viewing distances and even the guy at Hunt was surprised/impressed at how
good his looked compared to the Fuji machine. Anyone else ever compared the
two? Everyone is always bragging about how great the Frontier machines are,
I'm not impressed.
--

Stacey

More about : kodak fuji frontier

Anonymous
January 15, 2005 4:32:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <34rrnpF4c1h3rU1@individual.net>,
Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Had a few 8X10 prints made from several local labs, no corrections from the
> same file. The 2 best were from "Showcase" and the other was "Hunt color
> labs" both pro labs in Atlanta. Showcase has a Frontier and Hunt is using a
> new kodak machine (not sure what model..). I was amazed at how much sharper
> and cleaner the prints from Hunt were. It's very noticable even at normal
> viewing distances and even the guy at Hunt was surprised/impressed at how
> good his looked compared to the Fuji machine. Anyone else ever compared the
> two? Everyone is always bragging about how great the Frontier machines are,
> I'm not impressed.

There's a lot of image processing and machinery between the original RGB
and the film. The quality of a photo depends heavily on how well a
print shop keeps their machinery calibrated.
January 15, 2005 6:24:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

> In article <34rrnpF4c1h3rU1@individual.net>,
> > Everyone is always bragging about how
>> great the Frontier machines are, I'm not impressed.
>
> There's a lot of image processing and machinery between the original RGB
> and the film. The quality of a photo depends heavily on how well a
> print shop keeps their machinery calibrated.

As far as sharpness? I could see color balance issues etc but I can't see
sharpness being a "calibration". And I did try 3 other frontier machines,
Showcase's was the best of them. I guess if I hadn't seen the prints from
this kodak machine I wouldn't know there was something better?

--

Stacey
Related resources
Anonymous
January 15, 2005 5:01:21 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Stacey" <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:34s2a4F4fnsrhU2@individual.net...
> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
>> In article <34rrnpF4c1h3rU1@individual.net>,
>> > Everyone is always bragging about how
>>> great the Frontier machines are, I'm not impressed.
>>
>> There's a lot of image processing and machinery between the
>> original RGB and the film. The quality of a photo depends
>> heavily on how well a print shop keeps their machinery
>> calibrated.
>
> As far as sharpness? I could see color balance issues etc but I
> can't see sharpness being a "calibration". And I did try 3 other
> frontier machines, Showcase's was the best of them. I guess if I
> hadn't seen the prints from this kodak machine I wouldn't know
> there was something better?

I've noticed on the local photostore's Frontier that I sometime use,
that the Red laser was not 100% aligned with the other two. The Kodak
machines are possibly one of the Noritsu line
(http://www.noritsu.com/), and they can (depending on model) print at
300 / 320 / 400 / 500 ppi.

Bart
January 15, 2005 6:55:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Bart van der Wolf wrote:

>
> I've noticed on the local photostore's Frontier that I sometime use,
> that the Red laser was not 100% aligned with the other two. The Kodak
> machines are possibly one of the Noritsu line
> (http://www.noritsu.com/), and they can (depending on model) print at
> 300 / 320 / 400 / 500 ppi.
>

I read somewhere that Kodak was getting AGFA to make some of their machines
to their specs? I'll have to ask this guy more about this next time I'm
over there. I was amazed how much better this machine worked than the
Frontier's that I tried so obviously to me it's worth trying different
places and not to assume they are all equal.
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 16, 2005 1:42:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

No way , you must have mixed the copies...
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 10:33:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Dear Stacey

I´m afraid , you must be the only one that is not impressed with Frontier
printers , and Fujifilm paper , of course the machines have to be properly
calibrated everyday and weekly tested by Fujifilm main lab , besides this
detail, we have the different quality photo papers available for both
printers . I live in a small town with two shops one working with frontier
the other Noritsu . The quality print from Frontier is unbeatable but the
person behind the machine counts , you did no corrections ,it does not mean
the lab did not do them .I think you have to make further testing if you
want to be a little more cientific about the results of your quest. I have
been going for the last 10 yrs to Photokina in Germany ( one of the biggest
photo shows in the world ) and comparing both machines and prints .
Anonymous
January 19, 2005 10:44:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

.... and by the way if we are speaking sharpness... it is possible one Lab
used software like i2eProfessional image editor or other commonly used to
make automatic corrections , one of each is Enhance Sharpness.
.... I'm a Frontier fan ... the software could better.Like for adding logos
etc..but never inferior in print quality.
January 20, 2005 12:32:37 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mont wrote:

> Dear Stacey
>
> I´m afraid , you must be the only one that is not impressed with Frontier
> printers , and Fujifilm paper ,

Then I guess I'll be the only one. They aren't bad but they weren't nearly
as good as the other's results.

> I think you have to make further testing if
> you want to be a little more cientific about the results of your quest.

Tried 5 different fuji machines, guess they were all "out of calibration"?
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 5:14:58 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey wrote:
> Mont wrote:
>
>
>>Dear Stacey
>>
>> I´m afraid , you must be the only one that is not impressed with Frontier
>>printers , and Fujifilm paper ,
>
>
> Then I guess I'll be the only one. They aren't bad but they weren't nearly
> as good as the other's results.
>
>
>>I think you have to make further testing if
>>you want to be a little more cientific about the results of your quest.
>
>
> Tried 5 different fuji machines, guess they were all "out of calibration"?

Possibly. Especially if they were all at stores where some 17 year old
high school student was responsible for running them.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 11:34:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:

>Mont wrote:
>
>> I´m afraid , you must be the only one that is not impressed with Frontier
>> printers , and Fujifilm paper ,
>
>Then I guess I'll be the only one. They aren't bad but they weren't nearly
>as good as the other's results.
>
>> I think you have to make further testing if
>> you want to be a little more cientific about the results of your quest.
>
>Tried 5 different fuji machines, guess they were all "out of calibration"?

Sadly, that is quite likely to be the case.

--
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com
Anonymous
January 20, 2005 6:21:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I've been reading Stacey's post with interest because I've tried 2 different
Walmarts with their Fuji Frontier machines. My digital prints always come out
dark. I've even loaded and used an ICC profile made for the one Walmart's
machine. That didn't work either. I have tried different color spaces and
gammas. The one thing I didn't try is to lighten the image by a stop or a stop
and 1/2.
Lynn
January 20, 2005 11:00:25 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter wrote:


>>
>> Tried 5 different fuji machines, guess they were all "out of
>> calibration"?
>
> Possibly. Especially if they were all at stores where some 17 year old
> high school student was responsible for running them.
>
>

One was a pro lab but still could be the case. Irregardless, I found the lab
I'm going to use and they aren't using a fuji..

--

Stacey
January 20, 2005 11:02:08 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mont wrote:


> No way , you must have mixed the copies..


??? One says fuji on the back of the paper and the other says kodak, would
be kinda tough to mix that up wouldn't it? :-)
--

Stacey
Anonymous
January 21, 2005 12:35:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

I had problems with images not looking as I had fixed them on my computer.
What it came down to was the print machine operator had auto correct turned
on and the machine was trying to fix my prints to what it thought was the
correct exposure. Try asking the operator to make sure any auto correction
is turned off

"LLutton" <llutton@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20050120102118.15478.00000143@mb-m02.aol.com...
> I've been reading Stacey's post with interest because I've tried 2
> different
> Walmarts with their Fuji Frontier machines. My digital prints always come
> out
> dark. I've even loaded and used an ICC profile made for the one Walmart's
> machine. That didn't work either. I have tried different color spaces
> and
> gammas. The one thing I didn't try is to lighten the image by a stop or a
> stop
> and 1/2.
> Lynn
Anonymous
January 23, 2005 12:00:39 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

>I had problems with images not looking as I had fixed them on my computer.
>What it came down to was the print machine operator had auto correct turned
>on and the machine was trying to fix my prints to what it thought was the
>correct exposure. Try asking the operator to make sure any auto correction
>is turned off
>
>"LLutton" <llutton@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20050120102118.15478.00000143@mb-m02.aol.com...
>> I've been reading Stacey's post with interest because I've tried 2
>> different
>> Walmarts with their Fuji Frontier machines. My digital prints always come
>> out
>> dark. I've even loaded and used an ICC profile made for the one Walmart's
>> machine. That didn't work either. I have tried different color spaces
>> and
>> gammas. The one thing I didn't try is to lighten the image by a stop or a
>> stop
>> and 1/2.
>> Lynn

Thanks, I'll try that next time.
Lynn
Anonymous
January 29, 2009 3:26:50 AM

I run a Fuji mini lab we have a frontier 570, I have spent alot of time going round differnt labs and reading alot on the net and if used correctly fuji is definatly the way to go.

Assuming they are run the same way in America as they are here in NZ you will find that fuji stores have 'DPCs' - computers that you put your order through on and then take the reciept to the counter to be printed, these machines I have to say aren't the best. They will always try to auto correct your images and will always try to print in SRGB colour space. However, if you take your flash drive/cd/memory card, to the lab opertor they will be able to print your photos straight from the DI, or the computer that converts your files ready for printing.

From there they will be able to print in SRGB or Adobe RGB according to what profile you are using and that computer wont attempt any auto correct at all. If the operator wishes they can do colour corrections if they want to.

So if you want a decent print from a fuji machine you baisically just need to ask :) 
April 3, 2009 11:01:34 PM

Stacey said:
Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Mont wrote:


> No way , you must have mixed the copies..


??? One says fuji on the back of the paper and the other says kodak, would
be kinda tough to mix that up wouldn't it? :-)
--

Stacey

The printing on the back of the paper is not created by the machine on which the image printing is done. In other words, the Fuji Frontier lab could be using Kodak paper and vice versa. I admit it's a bit unlikely, but possibly worth a second look.
!