Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2003/07/04
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Yes It is a type of minilab. They tend to be pretty good, of course, much depends on the operator. You can get prints up to 10x15 from negatives, slides and digital files, and the output can be color, BW or sepia. They print on photographic paper, and you can get matte or glossy. Supposed to be archival to about 60 years. I get most of my prints done this way, from film or digital camera. In case of film, now I usually do the scanning, and submit the files, but I've had them do some pretty nice 8x10's from negatives. Sonny - ----- Original Message ----- From: "tripspud" <tripspud@transbay.net> To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 10:41 AM Subject: Re: [Leica] Fuji Frontier 4R prints lose detail that is in the negatives? > Hi Sonny, > > Ok. I've never made a digital print and I guess the Fuji Frontier > is some kind of digital printer in a drugstore or photoshop? Are these > high quality? > > Cheers, > > Rich Lahrson > Berkeley, California > tripspud@transbay.net > > "(SonC) Sonny Carter" wrote: > > > Rich Lahrson sez: I guess an image like this would become total mush > > when scanned, > > > and attempting to read the writing. > > > > > Gee Rich, > > > > Not trying to be contentious, but I don't know how you could "guess" the > > results of an experiment like that. Actually scanning it, or taking it to a > > Fuji Frontier printer might give an inexpensive answer to the question. > > > > SonC > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "tripspud" <tripspud@transbay.net> > > To: <leica-users@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> > > Sent: Friday, July 04, 2003 9:32 AM > > Subject: Re: [Leica] Fuji Frontier 4R prints lose detail that is in the > > negatives? > > > > > Hi Martin, > > > > > > I'll comment here, since all my prints in the darkroom so far have > > > been 4x6 prints from 35mm black and white negatives in the wet > > > darkroom. > > > > > > One image is of an historic building and in front is a plaque > > explaining > > > about the building. The writing on the plaque is unreadable in the 4x > > > enlargement without a magnifying glass. With a 4x or 7x lupe, it's > > > possible to just barely read the plaque, so the limits of practical > > > resolution has been reached (Agfapan 100, 35mm lens handheld > > > in bright light, careful focus on the sign at f/8. > > > > > > I guess an image like this would become total mush when scanned, > > > and attempting to read the writing. > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > > > > > Rich Lahrson > > > Berkeley, California > > > tripspud@transbay.net > > > > > > Martin Krieger wrote: > > > > > > > I would expect that a 4x print in a reasonable enlarger would retain all > > the > > > > detail visible in the negative with a 10x magnifier and make that detail > > > > easier to see. Yet when I examine 4x prints made in a Fuji Frontier > > digital > > > > system, I seem to be losing detail. I gather that the Frontier digitizes > > the > > > > negative and then prints with a laser onto ordinary photographic paper. > > I > > > > imagine that the scan is insufficiently fine to pick up all the detail > > in > > > > the negative, just enough so that when the print is examined with the > > bare > > > > eye it appears as sharp as one might hope. (Perhaps also, electronic > > > > manipulation, say sharpening, loses some detail?) Hence the 4R print, > > > > examined with a loupe, is inadequate. > > > > > > > > If I understand all of this correctly, optical enlargement with a decent > > > > enlarger, is "inefficient." Lots more detail is retained in the print > > than > > > > can be seen with the naked eye. Digital scanning and enlargement can be > > more > > > > "efficient," putting down just enough detail so that the image feels > > sharp > > > > and complete with the naked eye. This is not necessary, in that a > > digital > > > > system could have all the detail available in the negative, and print it > > out > > > > (at say a real 1000dpi). > > > > > > > > Am I right in my understanding? > > > > > > > > MK > > > > > > > > -- > > > > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > > > -- > > > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > > > -- > > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html > > -- > To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html