On Monday, January 7th we will begin a conversion of our photographic paper to Fuji’s Professional paper.
With our customers and our own high standards in mind, we completed extensive testing over the past several months of Fuji’s paper to ensure its quality and performance. We are pleased with the results and hope you will be too.
FAQs
How will this affect my images?
Our production team has worked diligently on this conversion. The good news is that this change will have a minimal effect on your prints.
Can I get samples of the new paper?
Yes, you may request one regular and one Lustre Coated Fuji E-Surface sample each by clicking here and choosing “Fuji E-Surface Replacement Prints.”
Will you convert the Kodak Metallic paper to Fuji Pearl paper?
Yes, that change will happen sometime in February. We will post an official date to the blog as soon as we have it finalized.
Do I need to make any changes to calibrate my monitor for the new paper?
No, the profiles you currently use will work with the new paper.
Will MpixPro and Mpix convert to Fuji?
Yes, both will convert shortly after Miller’s. We will post an official date to the blog as soon as we have it finalized.
Will the Sports and Events division also convert to Fuji?
Yes, the conversion for our Sports & Events division is estimated to occur on January 16th. We will post an official date to the blog as soon as we have it finalized.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact customer service by phone at 1-800-835-0603 or by email at [email protected].
sherijohnson wrote:
what are your thoughts about this conversion? I normally only print metallic prints with them and have always loved them.
Same here = I am concerned because I have previously tried both and found the Kodak a better product. The Kodak had more "pop" to my old eyes. Personally, in side by side tests, I found the Kodak product to have a unique reflective quality, much more to my liking.
sherijohnson wrote:
what are your thoughts about this conversion? I normally only print metallic prints with them and have always loved them.
I owned a lab for 20 years and we have tried ALL the papers. From Kodak to Agfa to Konica to Fuji to Mitsubishi.
They are all different but our preferences were for Agfa, Fuji and Kodak in that order.
Agfa went bust so that is off the table.
Between Kodak and Fuji the differences are a matter of taste. When we would switch between the two only those clients who printed a lot of images of the same type would notice the difference.
Fuji was cooler with better blue skies and foliage. Also a touch more apparent contrast due to deeper blacks. paper base was cooler. They also claim greater longevity than anyone else but that is subject to too many variables to go to the bank on.
Kodak was natively warmer colors were nice with an emphasis on the reds being warmer.
When one adjusts files to optimize printing on a particular paper one usually eliminates a lot of the differences between the papers. This is far different than when we printed optically. A profile takes into account the color characteristics of the paper and chemistry (the effects of which nobody seems to be aware of) and normalizes them thus eliminating much of the differences.
Although you have to keep in mind that the paper base will still remain unchanged.
Two observations:
1.Most clients will not see the difference.Heck, most photographers probably won't as Fuji has gotten warmer over the years.
2.The switch is probably motivated by Kodak's bankruptcy and the planned re-organization. Kodak is historically poorly managed with a culture disdainful of its dealers that morphed into confusion and paralysis when it dawned on them that they were being eclipsed by the rest of the world. In recent years they took all their cues from non-industry experts on Wall St. that pushed them further into irrelevancy and tinier margins.
Sorry for the rant but Kodak had it all and lost it through hubris and the meddling of "modern financial management".
I've always felt that Fuji papers are thinner than Kodak. I haven't compared the look of prints between the two, but it would be interesting to see if there is a discernable difference.
All the manufacturers slimmed down their papers over the years. Kodak came out with papers that had significantly thicker bases.
While they were great to hold customers did not want to pay for it.
IIR they even slimmed down the premium papers to get the cost down but cheap is the word that rules consumers in the photo department. When you are running a million square feet a year or more a couple of cents per square foot really adds up.
If you are handling a lot of 4x6 prints maybe that will make a difference but larger prints will get kinked quickly by the typical rough handling of the consumer. Most seem to give a print a big shake like they are reading the newspaper.
Prints go in frames or albums if you are handling them as objects they will be in the trash in no time irrespective of the printing substrate.
"A profile takes into account the color characteristics of the paper and chemistry (the effects of which nobody seems to be aware of) and normalizes them thus eliminating much of the differences. Although you have to keep in mind that the paper base will still remain unchanged."
When I was making a lot of lab prints at the lab I used to use in Culver City, they would periodically change from Fuji to Kodak and back, depending on who gave them the best pricing. I made my own custom profiles every time they switched, but I also made sure that they had just run a control strip and their chemistry was optimal as well. The point of the variability of the chemistry is a very good one. My personal preference was for the Kodak papers. I like the color of the white better, but, to be honest, it's almost impossible to tell the difference unless you hold two prints side by side. Look at them independently and it just won't matter.
Once that lab stopped processing film and I got my own large format printer, there was never a reason to go back there.
