This is interesting, John. I'm in the middle of experimenting with where I
get prints made at the moment. My first attempt was just last week.
C.H. Ling has often said that he gets great prints from the Fuji Frontier
digital system, so I recently sent two different jobs to a local shop that's
using it. I decided to try it primarily because the traditional lab's output
for enlargements tends to be uneven, making it difficult to accurately
predict what to instruct them to achieve the desired results. The Frontier
samples that the shop had were quite good; the booklet illustrated a variety
of exposure "challenges" with both traditional and Frontier output.
The first job I had done was just a run of developing + 4x6 prints. Film was
Kodak Portra 800 with a variety of exposures on it. The 4x6 prints are
mostly *better*, to my eye, than I would have expected from an optical
processor. I recognize this isn't the best test (Porta 800 is going to be
grainy to start with) but I was more interested in how the machine handled
highlights and overall color. Color was handled very well indeed, IMO.
Highlight and shadow detail perhaps less so, it appears that I may be losing
some of the detail in the brightest portions of a frame. I'll have to
compare them with scans.
The second job was an 8x10 direct from a slide. In fact, it's the shot I
used in TOPE 11. Slide was E100S and the result is very good. I wouldn't
call this an "Exhibition quality" shot by any means, but once again, I
believe this to be a better result than I've had with the local lab for
enlargements of this type.
There are a number of other factors that are weighing into trying this out,
beyond the digital processing:
1. I can specify any of a number of paper finishes.
2. I can specify white border, black border or edge-to-edge print format, as
well as a large variety of digital "effects" should I suddenly get crazy.
3. Turn-around time for most enlargements, regardless of whether the source
is negative, slide or file, is only 24 hours. I can get a "rush print" of
any size done in 1 hour at a slight additional charge. Turn around time on a
prints at the optical lab varies: 3 days, typically for print form a
negative, one week (i.e. 7 days) for a print from a slide.
4. I can work directly with lab personnel if I want special things done (the
optical lab is a "send-it-out" service).
5. I can provide negative, slide or TIFF file for processing.
6. Should I be so inclined I can have text and other overlay included (i.e.
for business cards, calendar promo, etc, etc.).
7. Price for enlargements is 250f the price from the traditional lab. Most
all of the above services are at no additional charge.
My next job with them will likely be a scanned and pre-processed file via
TIFF. I may also go so far as to have 4x6 reprints done of some of the key
images on the Portra roll via a standard optical machine for comparison
purposes.
While I don't think I'll be getting 4x6 prints routinely made (something I
already don't do) I do believe I'll be shifting to this lab for
enlargements. If I get good enough to be doing the sort of custom work
you're currently doing, I may have to re-think things and try some
additional experiments, but for the kind of work I'm doing, it looks as if
Frontier output is going to be adequate, and maybe even better than what
I've been getting at present.
---
Scott Gomez
-----Original Message-----
From: John A. Lind [mailto:jlind@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
Subject: [OM] KPP aka Qualex aka Kodalux "Perfect Touch"
Well sports fans . . . Qualex will *never* process another roll of my
C-41! They have unleashed a new printing process called "Perfect Touch"
which scans the negatives and makes digital prints from them.
Semi-rant follows about an utterly clueless Kodak:
I saw the three sets of example prints they gave the photo staff at the
local Meijer store to show people how great this new process is. All three
were classic severe direct sun backlighting with subject (or at least their
faces) in complete shade. They looked worse than terrible! I get less
"grain" from Fuji Press 1600 printed optically and suspect they are using
marginal resolution in the scans. Color gradation across of skintones
across smooth skin was, well, simply not there. It was noticeably
harsh. I suspect over-sharpening in combination with lack of sufficient
scan resolution. In addition they are touting "more vibrant color" which
translated to too much punched up saturation in their samples. One set
showed a scene on brightly lit snow with the subject(s) facing away from
the sun. At least the "before" sample (unmodified one) showed some texture
in the snow. The "after" print that had been butchered by PerfectTouch
blew out the snow to pure white and left ZERO detail in it.
<snip>
-- John
< This message was delivered via the Olympus Mailing List >
< For questions, mailto:owner-olympus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx >
< Web Page: http://Zuiko.sls.bc.ca/swright/olympuslist.html >
|