Kodak vs Fuji Frontier

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
17 answers Last reply
More about kodak fuji frontier
  1. 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.
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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
  5. Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

    No way , you must have mixed the copies...
  6. 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 .
  7. 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.
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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 :)
  17. 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.
Ask a new question

Read More

Photo Kodak Cameras