Why is everyone so against Fuji Frontier CD scans?

[Brit In New York]

Hi Folks,

As a full time professional I enjoy taking pictures on the weekend more than compelling a scanner and PC to talk to one another.

For the past 6 months I've been shooting XP2 and having it processed on Fuji Frontier with index sheet and the dreaded photo CD option.

For online publishing the quality seems more than up to scratch:
http://markdorosz.zenfolio.com/p183590283

If I want a print then I'll go back to the traditional darkroom.

Based on the pics I've shared - what's the benefit of a film scanner for web publishing?

Cheers
Mark

 

[rogue_designer]

For web only publishing - I see nothing wrong with using Frontier scans.

especially if your local shop is doing a decent job of it. It mostly comes down to who's running the machines. So consistent quality can be spotty.

Most of the time, the scan sizes are limited to 4x6" at 300dpi though. So if you'll want prints at anypoint, you'll need a higher quality scan.

 

[bmattock]

That's the key, alright - web only. Even then, my experience with the Fuji scans as provided by one-hour shops has been rather horrible. Just lousy, low-quality, scans - complete with dust, scratches, bad levels, etc, etc.

I don't have to struggle with my scanners too often. Just when I upgrade or install a new OS, basically. Totally worth it to me.

And the amortization made it a lot cheaper for me to buy scanners than to have scanning done. Your results may vary.

 

[dmr]

Most of the time I have a DO/CD done at a place which uses a Frontier 550. The scans are "ok", but definitely don't rate the Charles Atlas Seal Of Approval<tm>.

There's noise in there, and they often clip the highlight detail. Those are my major gripes of wrath!

You can make a perfectly fine 4x6 print from them, or an acceptable 5x7, but anything more and they start looking ratty compared to true high-res scans.

In defense of Frontier, I do prefer the Frontier scans over those at another place I go to which uses a Noritsu. They use some kind of noise filter which sometimes removes texture from stone, bricks, etc.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

The problem isn't "Fuji Frontier CD scans". The problem, when there's one, is always, and forever will be, the operator at the lab.

 

[vha]

The problem isn't "Fuji Frontier CD scans". The problem, when there's one, is always, and forever will be, the operator at the lab.

Yup, been working with the Frontier for some years until recently, and XP-2 on the frontier might work if you scan in a non setup way 🙂

Xp-2 at 400 and jpg gives way too much noise in the black, expose at 200 and that disappears, but then you have the .jpg artifacts,
or should i say compression damages. If the sharpness is standard you see it quite well. . .
My personal settings was bmp export, sharpness one lower than standard, scanner correction off, and all soft in tones and watch the highlights 🙂
No clue what you actually have to pay for such custom scan, but it looks better thou 😉

And a standard operator might not know half of these settings, so enjoy explaining . . .

Frontiers are fun, wish i had the space and finances for one at home :angel:

 

[bmattock]

but definitely don't rate the Charles Atlas Seal Of Approval<tm>.

Frank N. Furter, it's all over...

/S/

Riff

 

[rogue_designer]

And a standard operator might not know half of these settings, so enjoy explaining . . .

aye - I wish it were as simple as providing a custom color profile file. Hand them a jumpdrive with a custom scanning profile built out, and voila!

Alas.

 

[vha]

Simple might be possible if you narrow down the choices, custom is yet more fun, but custom might be also customable to interpret 🙂

Everything is possible for the guy who is not doing the job ..

 

[Wuddy]

I agree that the operator is the most important part in defining scan quality.
All pro labs I know also have Fuji Frontiers, they are just operated differently.

Anyway, your pictures look very nice so if it works for you I wouldn't change a thing. In my opinion you would gain nothing (but pain) by using your own scanner.

It may make a difference if you use traditional b&w films.

Btw. there are several models of Fuji scanners in the Frontier System: the newer SP-2/3000s which have a LED light source and the older SP-1500 which has an halogen lamp and is a lot better at scanning silver based film.

We actually have a pro lab specialized in b&w here which really knows how to operate this scanner and since I've discovered that I stopped scanning with a Nikon Coolscan 8000 because the lab scans are so much better.

I develop myself and bring them the uncut film which is "lab scanned" without correction at about 2000 dpi for 9 €. I also have a contact sheet made, so I know what the negatives really look like and can correct exposure and developement next time if required.

Here is a 100% crop of such a scan from a Trix rated at 3200 and developed in Xtol:

Best regards
Michael

 

[historicist]

I slightly resent paying a fairly high price for scanning film when (if I understand it correctly) the Fuji Frontier machines always scan the film anyway, to make the normal prints.

 

[vha]

I slightly resent paying a fairly high price for scanning film when (if I understand it correctly) the Fuji Frontier machines always scan the film anyway, to make the normal prints.

Agree for the principle, but if you corrects for good scans the prints would not be that nice and visa versa .. and making scans while printing takes longer time, film goes trough the system twice and if more dense negatives you locks the machine for more time. And everyone wants to make money 🙂

 

[bmattock]

I slightly resent paying a fairly high price for scanning film when (if I understand it correctly) the Fuji Frontier machines always scan the film anyway, to make the normal prints.

That's another issue, and one which I would have to respectfully disagree with you about. People who pay for services often think that they are entitled to the work process and not just the finished product.

Let me play the part of the service provider.

If you bring me a roll of film to be processed and prints made, that's what you get. You pay for that service.

If you want scans, that is a separate service. Why? Because I have determined that it is a service that some people want and some people do not, and it has value to the people who want it. So, if you want scans and you pay for that service, I provide them to you.

The fact that I scan your negatives as part of my own internal process is irrelevant. You're not even entitled to know how I do my business - I could draw a curtain over the machine and keep you from even seeing what I am doing if I so chose. You are paying for the product (negs, prints, and/or scan), not what I do to provide those.

 

[aad]

At Walgreens-Develop $2, cd $2, prints not too much.

I've had good and bad results at labs. If it works for you don't sweat what we here think.

 

[historicist]

I understand that I am paying for a service, and that from my point of view it is irrelevant exactly what the provider does to provide this service as long as I receive at as agreed. Nor do I begrudge processors charging a (I presume) high margin on extras like scanning to offset the doubtless low margins that they make from normal processing and prints and pay for what must be a very expensive machine.

But that said, I have to admit to being tight fisted and knowing that scanning is something they do anyway makes it psychologically difficult to hand the money over. Thus I end up in the category of people who choose not to buy this particular service.

Personally, I would much prefer to pay for development and scanning, and no prints. However, in England at least, usually you have to buy the prints full stop, and scanning is an extra which often costs as much or more as developing and printing put together.

 

[bmattock]

But that said, I have to admit to being tight fisted and knowing that scanning is something they do anyway makes it psychologically difficult to hand the money over. Thus I end up in the category of people who choose not to buy this particular service.

I hear you, but if you didn't know what machine they used or how they got from develop -> print -> scan, it presumably wouldn't bother you, since you'd have no knowledge that the scan happened anyway. Ignorance is bliss? 😉😉😉

Personally, I would much prefer to pay for development and scanning, and no prints. However, in England at least, usually you have to buy the prints full stop, and scanning is an extra which often costs as much or more as developing and printing put together.

Most of the one-hour 'drugstores' I've used in the US seem to have a menu-type system. I generally ask only for processing, which is quite cheap. I have ordered processing + scans before, and paid accordingly, no prints. It does tend to confuse the employees, they have to go hunting for a manager to know how to charge for it, but they can at least do it. But that said, I don't go for the store scans anymore - I just don't care for the results.

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

The machine at my local place (photography place, not drugstore) does perfectly good HIREZ scans so long as the operator dials in for maximum size enlargements but no actual prints.

The scans are somewhat time-consuming so we have reached an agreement that she schedules my work to take place during her lunch break, when the machine would otherwise be unused.

She eats lunch while the machine scans by itself.

I'm getting 3300 x 2200 or about that from a 35mm negative.

A roll of 36 DEV and CD, no prints, costs €5 or €6.

For small prints I can print them on an inkjet, or mail them across the praça to her shop for delivery ten minutes later.

For large prints I still have my original negatives for traditional enlarging.

I also have another friend with a printer which can print up to 50cm or 60cm wide on a lot of different media. She can take a good scan and make it big enough for a billboard or the side of a truck.

When I win the lottery I want a Fuji Frontier of my own. Elizabete (the lab owner) says they cost about the same as a mid range Mercedes Benz.

And she should know because she has a Fuji Frontier and she has a Mercedes!

 

[Al Kaplan]

As others have said, a lot depends on who is operating the Fuji. There's one woman at my local Walgreens who's great at it and I try to get her to do mine. That means knowing her hours. She works nights. It also helps to only ask for quick service when you really need one-hour. Most of the time I just tell her to take her time and I'll pick it up tomorrow.

If you get a lot of processing done at Walgreens ask about getting the professional discount. Yup, they have one! Once you're programmed into the computer you'll get it at any Walgreens.

 

[dmr]

I slightly resent paying a fairly high price for scanning film when (if I understand it correctly) the Fuji Frontier machines always scan the film anyway, to make the normal prints.

I look at it like you are paying the couple $$ for the CD, not for the scanning. I know I often b*tch about the quality of the scans, but compared to what it would take for me to scan the whole roll, it's well worth it.

I think Walgreens charges a fair price for this service.

I will, of course, rescan any I want a good presentation-quality print of.

 

[MikeL]

I've had scans made with color and the negative would often come back totally hosed. If you have a good operator at your place you are lucky.