Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Yes the quality is great. I tend to do most of my prints on my Epson 1270 but some I do have printed on the Fuji Frontier. At the Lab I have used the the biggest they do is 10*15 after that the Durst Epsilon (also good but only 254dpi). The results are better than the 1270 and can even stand upto quite serious abuse. As yet I haven't tried a Lightjet but these are better still. I also saw the output from a Pictograph which was also very good. If I was selling the prints (something I have considered) I would be too worried about the durability of the 1270 prints - but they are still pretty good and compare favourably to most of the poor results I have seen from UK film labs. The digital prints seem to be a lot more reliable. The only thing you have to watch with the digital printing labs is that they show perfectly things like grain and posturisation. My Epson hides all but the worst cases due to the way it lays down the ink. Steve - Original Message - From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 9:14 PM Subject: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? > Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. > Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? > Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji > Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. > > I will read your answers with great interest. > > Tomasz Zakrzewski > >
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Actually, I've wondered that, too. Even my little town has a minilab (Agfa). Can't do 22x13.7" AFAIK, but it does respectable 8x10's @ $8 each, and can do 11x14's with little problem (providing the copy is good). Doesn't scan any better than my Acer does, vis a vis shadow detail (higher res, though). Certainly wouldn't recommend it for the pro who wants complete control of his hardcopy, but you can totally retouch a photo and carry it in on CD-RW, and buy a lot of $8 prints before you hit the price of a good photo-printer. Best regards--LRA >From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:14:31 +0200 > >Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. >Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? >Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji >Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. > >I will read your answers with great interest. > >Tomasz Zakrzewski > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Steve wrote: >The only thing you have to watch with the digital printing labs is that >they show perfectly things like grain and posturisation. My Epson hides all >but the worst cases due to the way it lays down the ink. *There's* one very good reason for retaining total control--the lab will do the better print for the same price as the bad one, but you pay for both of them. In your decision, you have to estimate how many of those you're going to have. Good luck. ;-) Having been through this more than several times in a commercial environment, the Total Control approach is more appealing, apart from the initial cost and the learning curve. Best regards--LRA _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
At 10:14 PM 6/28/01 +0200, Tomasz wrote: >Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. >Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? >Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji >Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. > >I will read your answers with great interest. Speaking for myself... because I'm a control freak. I like having complete control of the print. If it's not right, I can do it again. The cost is low enough to allow that. I have used Lightjet (Cymbolics CS-5000) to make some very large prints on occasion, or when a client specifically requests archival output. I've been meaning to give one of the Fuji Pictography machines a try, but never got around to it. rafe b.
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Because the inkjet is at home or at the office and we have to go out to the lab. And because we may not like the first print and can tweak it to print again (and again and again?). And because our color settings within the image, the "numbers", may not work well in the minilab. Maris - Original Message - From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:14 PM Subject: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? | Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. | Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? | Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji | Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. | | I will read your answers with great interest. | | Tomasz Zakrzewski | |
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
I think there are several issues with your approach. The most obvious is availability of the service. After that, there is expense, going into an open loop system requiring more careful color management, loss of control over final print, time spent going between provider and one's business or home. Also, of all the initial outlay expenses, the cheapest is the printer (which is a pretty amazing thing if you think about it). I think silver based digital systems are great when they are required, but they change the work flow considerably. I like having my color printer two feet from my slides, my computer and my scanner. ;-) Art Tomasz Zakrzewski wrote: > Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. > Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? > Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji > Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. > > I will read your answers with great interest. > > Tomasz Zakrzewski
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001 22:04:12 +0100 Steve Greenbank ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > The only thing you have to watch with the digital printing labs is that > they > show perfectly things like grain and posturisation. My Epson hides all > but > the worst cases due to the way it lays down the ink. Don't be too sure the Epson is doing it wrong. My lab has a new Noritsu printer which does gratifyingly colour-accurate output on RA4 paper. However it hallucinates posterisation in skin tones and grain is - argh - increased on some images. Yup, apparently due to our old pal aliasing due to some bad resampling going on within the printer. Look closely and you can see the raster pattern which writes the image to the photographic paper. It's a rather more objectionable than Epson dither as it's regular but uses variable dot size, and you can make out very faint banding. Lab not happy, and it's definitely not my files - it behaves the same with all input. Even with a 50Mb TIFF printed at 7x5". They also have a Kodak dye-sub, which gives no grain nor posterisation, but is soft as a print on blotting paper. I'm still looking... Regards Tony Sleep http://www.halftone.co.uk - Online portfolio & exhibit; + film scanner info & comparisons
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Im using the Fuji lab daily. After scanning my work, putting the tif picture on a cd-r to the customer I send via e-mail a jpg file and get superb cheap ( 25 cent ] 10 x 15 cm copies to give away to they who have participate. The lab profile is almost 100% correct against my scannned pictures. Mikael Risedal Photographer Lund Sweden >From: "Maris V. Lidaka, Sr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Subject: Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? >Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:51:20 -0500 > >Because the inkjet is at home or at the office and we have to go out to the >lab. And because we may not like the first print and can tweak it to print >again (and again and again?). And because our color settings within the >image, the "numbers", may not work well in the minilab. > >Maris > >- Original Message - >From: "Tomasz Zakrzewski" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 3:14 PM >Subject: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? > > >| Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. >| Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? >| Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on >Fuji >| Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. >| >| I will read your answers with great interest. >| >| Tomasz Zakrzewski >| >| > _ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Lynn: I understand that the digital machines will also accept an image that is given to them on a disk and that the machine can make the print from it. Wouldn't this allow you to controll all but the actual print process. You do do all the adjustments in PS, or other similar program, first to get the control. Gordon Lynn Allen wrote: > Steve wrote: > > *There's* one very good reason for retaining total control--the lab will do > the better print for the same price as the bad one, but you pay for both of > them. In your decision, you have to estimate how many of those you're going > to have. Good luck. ;-) > >
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
I have used http://www.photobox.co.uk and found their Fuji Frontier glossy prints (upto 10x15) match my screen even better than my Epson 1270. I later tried A2 matte output for which the use the Durst Epsilon this produced very neutral results but the pictures were very flat. When I complained they were very helpful and immediately reprinted them to more closely match the Frontier output. Apparently they use PC's for the Frontiers and Macs for the Epsilon. The second set of prints were much better. In future they have set up my account to automatically test print on the Frontier and then they will match it on the Epsilon. Now I am pretty confident I can get good accurate digital prints and its backed up with good service - very rare in the UK. As I stated previously you have to be extremely careful about any noise/defects as the lasers don't half highlight them. Do Like: the results the service - I phoned several times before I did anything and they were extremely patient and helpful multiple print discounts on several prints of the same size next day service for Frontier (Royal Mail willing) - apparently upto 5 days Epsilon (matte particularly slow) What I don't like is: they don't seem to just print the file (although to date I have had a pretty good match anyway) if you use upload to their website you have to use jpegs (but 100% isn't too bad) you get a static 50Mb space on their website from which to print - not much if you're printing A2's matte is only available in a few advertised sizes + unadvertised A3,A2,A1 if you mail them a CD they add £5 to your bill Any one tried http://www.peak-imaging.com/ they use a similar set-up but no Macs, but they don't charge for CDs so you can mail them TIFFs. They also do many more print sizes, gloss or matte,slightly cheaper but take longer, only give multiple discounts for the same image same size and were less helpful when I phoned them. Steve - Original Message - From: "Gordon Tassi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 29, 2001 4:07 PM Subject: Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? > Lynn: I understand that the digital machines will also accept an image that is > given to them on a disk and that the machine can make the print from it. > Wouldn't this allow you to controll all but the actual print process. You do do > all the adjustments in PS, or other similar program, first to get the control. > > Gordon > > Lynn Allen wrote: > > > Steve wrote: > > > > *There's* one very good reason for retaining total control--the lab will do > > the better print for the same price as the bad one, but you pay for both of > > them. In your decision, you have to estimate how many of those you're going > > to have. Good luck. ;-) > > > > > >
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Yes, that's the way I've done it in the past. Not a lot, though--only when I want something "slicker" than my own printer will produce. --LRA >From: Gordon Tassi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? >Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2001 11:07:54 -0400 > >Lynn: I understand that the digital machines will also accept an image >that is >given to them on a disk and that the machine can make the print from it. >Wouldn't this allow you to controll all but the actual print process. You >do do >all the adjustments in PS, or other similar program, first to get the >control. > >Gordon > >Lynn Allen wrote: > > > Steve wrote: > > > > *There's* one very good reason for retaining total control--the lab will >do > > the better print for the same price as the bad one, but you pay for both >of > > them. In your decision, you have to estimate how many of those you're >going > > to have. Good luck. ;-) > > > > > _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Because the transistion from digital image to print is non trivial. It's similar to the problems of printing negitives. > Lynn: I understand that the digital machines will also accept an image > that is given to them on a disk and that the machine can make the print > from it. Wouldn't this allow you to controll all but the actual print > process. You do do all the adjustments in PS, or other similar program, > first to get the control. > > Gordon > > Lynn Allen wrote: > > > Steve wrote: > > > > *There's* one very good reason for retaining total control--the lab will > > do the better print for the same price as the bad one, but you pay for > > both of them. In your decision, you have to estimate how many of those > > you're going to have. Good luck. ;-) > > > >
Re: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
I use Frontier prints for my commercial clients who need quantity prints. The requirement is to prepare an output size TIFF file at 300 dpi, and tagged sRGB. My studio system is calibrated using ColorVision PhotoCal and Profiler Pro, and the Frontier prints are practically identical to my 1160 dye on glossy prints from the same files. It's great having Photoshop and color management available for high quality "C" print processes, and Frontier print costs are reasonable. (it's the X-rite DTP-41 that's expensive:) Dave - Original Message - From: Tomasz Zakrzewski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2001 4:14 PM Subject: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs? > Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. > Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? > Great quality, 300dpi, up to 22x13,7", archival quality (especially on Fuji > Crystal Archive Paper) and last but not last photographic paper. > > I will read your answers with great interest. > > Tomasz Zakrzewski > >
filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
Tomasz wrote: >Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. >Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? 1) Availability. I don't know of anywhere near me that has one 2) Cost. I can do A3 prints cheaper on my 1160 3) Detail. I can get more information onto the paper with an inkjet than with a minilab. The printer isn't as limited in the range of values or manipulations that are possible. 4) Control. As others have mentioned, the inkjet allows me to decide how I want the print to be. Otherwise the technician at the lab decides. Having said all that, archival quality on Crystal Archive would be nice. I don't have a CIS and pigmented inks. Rob Rob Geraghty [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://wordweb.com
Re: filmscanners: RE: filmscanners: why not digital minilabs?
> Tomasz wrote: > >Most of you use ink-jet printers for the output of your pictures. > >Why don't you use digital minilabs, like Fuji Frontier? Next question on this topic - Have any of you printing with Epson photo printers resorted to the Frontier printer to get a good B&W print? I have been doing a few restorations and hate being limited to only toned prints, just because my 1270 can't produce a true grayscale image. I'll be buying another system (printer, CFS, hex-tone inks) before too long, but right now I would be willing to take any B&W work out and have it printed. I guess I would like to know how the Frontier or others compare to an Epson print with the same file?? That way I could do all of my tweaking and test prints at home, then take the file to be printed when satisfied with the results. --James Hill
