Heads Up: Paper Switch from Fuji to Kodak

Andy

[imgl]http://www.smugmug.com/photos/270152774_e8XAQ-S.jpg[/imgl]Hi everyone, a bit of news! On March 30, 2008, our Lab Partner, EZPrints, will be changing the paper that is used to make your prints. They'll be switching from Fuji Crystal Archive to Kodak's Endura and Edge papers.

Over the last several months, SmugMug and the EZPrints Technical Team have been working closely with Kodak Engineers to ensure that we exceed the quality that you've depended on for years. We have also performed operational tests to ensure we have no service disruptions at the lab. We're confident that you'll be getting the same high quality prints that you've been accustomed to, and that we continue to guarantee, unconditionally.

You won't have to do anything at all, in your workflow, or with your sites or your pricing.

OK so what are the new papers?

We still have Glossy, Matte, and Lustre. And our prices aren't changing. Kodak Glossy and Matte will be printed on Kodak Edge, and Kodak Lustre will be printed on Kodak Supra Endura.

What are the Specs and Characteristics?

Glossy: printed on coated paper with a very smooth, shiny reflective surface. Glossy finishes have a high-contrast appearance and look slick to the touch when not under glass. This finish has an excellent dynamic range and color - slightly more "pop" than the matte paper, though less noticeable once framed. Photos will have a shiny finish, colors will be vibrant, and images will be crisp and sharp.

Matte: matte finishes have a very smooth, non-glare surface. Matte finishes have a lower-contrast when printed and are often used to enhance the texture of a print. Fingerprint and smudge resistant, and works very well with black and white photos. Much less glare than with glossy.

Lustre: lustre is our premier paper offering, and is considered more of a professional-grade paper. Lustre has a slight gloss with a subtle, often pearl-like texture. Lustre paper has a deeper color-saturation than matte, has a higher contrast and is thicker than consumer paper.

What is the watermark? Lustre paper is watermarked on the back as follows:

Kodak Professional ENDURA Paper
DO NOT COPY
PROFESSIONAL IMAGES ARE
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED

Edge Paper has on the back, the Kodak Logo.

All prints will have an EZPrints control number on the back of them. And backprinting (on sizes up to 10") if you are a pro, and if you choose it.

Is There a New Soft-Proofing Profile?
Yup, get it here. It's essentially the same profile as before, updated by EZPrints to work with the new papers, to get the same great results you are used to. Help on Soft-Proofing.

What About Longevity? KODAK Endura (Lustre) and Edge (Glossy, Matte) papers are designed to last for generations. KODAK's tested light-keeping is equivalent to 100+ years before noticeable fading occurs in a typical home display, and over 200 years in dark storage.

I love details and Tech Specs - where are they? You bet. Download the pdfs, here on our wiki.

I wanna see it! Sure. Shoot an email, Attn: Robin to our help desk, after April 1st, and we'll take care of a sample set!

What about the future? We are looking hard at metallic papers as well, and the switch to Kodak would allow for this as well. More to come on this, as we know it.

We're sending a news item out to SmugMug subscribers (you!) tonight, pointing to this info thread. And over the next few days we'll get our help pages updated, and our wiki documentation as well. Holler here in this thread, with any questions that you have, we'd love to hear 'em.

DrDavid

Why the change? I've been happy with the Fuji paper... My understanding is that the Kodak's Endura lack the pop of Fuji, as well as a smaller gammut. Is that not the case with Supra Endura?

When do you expect to release the new ICC profiles for soft-proofing?

And.. I run my photos through i2e using the EZPrints icc profile before uploading. Is that going to cause a problem when I print the photos after April 1?

David

Andy

DrDavid wrote:

Why the change? I've been happy with the Fuji paper... My understanding is that the Kodak's Endura lack the pop of Fuji, as well as a smaller gammut. Is that not the case with Supra Endura?

It's our opinion you won't see any such difference. I haven't seen anything remotely like what you are speaking about, regarding pop and saturation. I'm quite happy about this change, actually, as many really well respected labs are using this paper already... Mpix, Miller's, WHCC.

When do you expect to release the new ICC profiles for soft-proofing?

As of right now, EZPrints-2007.ICC is the current profile. If it changes, we'll let you all know.

And.. I run my photos through i2e using the EZPrints icc profile before uploading. Is that going to cause a problem when I print the photos after April 1?

David

You'll be printing true color, and you shouldn't see any difference from what you're used to.

DrDavid

Andy wrote:

It's our opinion you won't see any such difference. I haven't seen anything remotely like what you are speaking about, regarding pop and saturation. I'm quite happy about this change, actually, as many really well respected labs are using this paper already... Mpix, Miller's, WHCC.

It's just interesting that they're switching to kodak. My understanding is that Kodak is more expensive to use... Anyways, I guess the proof is in the pudding as they say. If SM and EZ can deliver good prints on Kodak, PLUS we get Metallic & true B&W (please?), then I guess it's a good thing (tm).

As of right now, EZPrints-2007.ICC is the current profile. If it changes, we'll let you all know.
You'll be printing true color, and you shouldn't see any difference from what you're used to.

Cool. Thanks for the info

David

claudermilk

Andy wrote:

What is the watermark? Lustre paper is watermarked on the back as follows:

Kodak Professional ENDURA Paper
DO NOT COPY
PROFESSIONAL IMAGES ARE
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED

clapthumb Very cool. I like that "feature." Every little bit helps.

kwalsh

Kodak is a FRAUD...
Just so you are aware, and I know that smugmug has always done their utmost to be the best corporate citizens around, you might want to remove your 100+ year claim from this post and any marketing material. If you've spent anytime around longevity issues you'll know that Kodak is outright fraudulent with regards to their longevity testing. They always have been and as they've moved into the new printing technologies they've been even worse about it.

Kodak, flat out, bar none, absolutely period is inferior to Fuji and most anyone else in longevity. Go look at their data, they use way lower light levels and illumination times than every single other manufacturer. When tested independently using the accepted standard they've always failed to live up to the competition. All the other manufacturers have agreed on standard illumination figures for light-fastness testing. Kodak has always come up with their own BS ones so they can make false claims about their products. I doubt smugmug wants to participate in such corporate behavior.

For more details on print longevity and Kodak's long track record of fraud check out the tests and articles at:

http://www.wilhelm-research.com/

That said, the new paper may actually be quite excellent and very suitable for smugmug's customers. I'm just saying don't throw around that 100+ year line because it is a lie.

Ken

EDIT: For any reading the first time, responses below indicate this will be a silver halide process. This means that while a 100+ year claim might be true or false, it should still be a very stable process and in all likelyhood very comprable to the current printing process being used.

swintonphoto

I think this is great news. I actually prefer the Kodak papers to the Fuji papers. I was hesitant to switch to smugmug (ezprints) because I have had a preference for the Kodak papers for years. GOOD MOVE! All is well for me!

Andy

kwalsh wrote:

Just so you are aware,...

Hi Ken, thanks for the heads up, we'll surely look into it.

DJ-S1

This 2004 article sums it up, I think.

DrDavid

DJ-S1 wrote:

This 2004 article sums it up, I think.

Does that article still apply 4 years later?

I found an article written by Kodak, that disputes the above article. An interesting read, but, since it is written by Kodak themselves, needs to be taken with a grain of salt... http://www.kodak.com/eknec/documents/18/0900688a8033da18/Photograph_Longevity_FAQ.pdf

There was one interesting piece in the article... They say that the 450lux experiments aren't as long (duration wise) as Kodak's 120lux experiments (that they say will run for up to 2 years). So, they're fading the images over a longer period of time, but with a less intense light. Since the original article was prepared by a testing company, I'm wondering if THEY too have a vested interest in showing that Kodak isn't using "their" special method... Anyways.... Just a few thoughts..

David

scwalter

DJ-S1 wrote:

This 2004 article sums it up, I think.

That seems specific to inkjet prints, which I'm pretty sure is not what is used by EZ Prints.

scwalter

Andy wrote:

They'll be switching from Fuji Crystal Archive to Kodak's Endura and Edge papers.

I certainly think a change of this magnitude is worthy of an email to all customers (especially pros) and also a homepage banner BEFORE it actually happens.

-Scott

Dr. Know

Good morning all,

I understand that there is a bit of confusion regarding the archival quality of Kodak papers, and after reading the .pdf posted earlier this week, I too am suspect of that particular paper type. Ink Jet photographic papers are still on the block from an archival perspective, and although we are launching some new poster stock products this summer, we are going to coat / laminate them to ensure that there is a basis for an archival claim. With this said, the papers we are using from Kodak are siliver halide, which is a traditional photographic print that uses chemicals to expose the paper. This is also known as wet processing, AgX or RA 4 processing.

We at EZ Prints continue to explore the realm of dry processing and will only bring the highest levels of quality, including archival features, to the Smugmug customer. If we suspect a definciency in any area we will take measures, such as lamination, to ensure that the products we sell and promote are of a professional level.

Thanks for this information. It is valuable to understand how claims are made, especially with new methods of production.

Andy

scwalter wrote:

I certainly think a change of this magnitude is worthy of an email to all customers (especially pros) and also a homepage banner BEFORE it actually happens.

-Scott

The message to our customers is queued.

Andy

Got this from David @ EZP

I have read this discussion for years and we need to be sure we are not getting inkjet materials in the mix. Something I can say is that Endura has more silver in the paper, higher Dmax point and is used in almost all Pro labs for high end wedding or portrait work. Another point is that the prints have to be processed in chemicals that are properly replenished and washed, which ours is. The Endura Supra has maintained the highest quality and largest gamut of any of the papers we are or have been using.

DavidEgolf

Fuji to Kodak Paper Change

Andy wrote:

Got this from David @ EZP

Thanks Andy. We have been working hard here at EZPrints to implement this change from Fuji paper to Kodak and no smallest detail have been ignored. We are striving to be the highest quality professional lab with high volume production capabilities. These two attributes sometimes seem as though they conflict but in our case we have been only adding the best of the best equipment and improving every procedure we utilize to move work seamlessly through the laboratory. We would love to share any details that you or anyone have questions on as we used to do in the old days where everything was done face to face over the counter. I have been in the Photofinishing business now 32 years and everyday is exciting with new advancements in business and technology. The paper change will position us to offer higher quality and additional new products that are not only state-of-the-art but have a very high "coolness" factor. I hope everyone enjoys their products as much as we enjoy producing them.

David Egolf

marlinspike

DrDavid wrote:

Anyways, I guess the proof is in the pudding as they say.

Actually, the sayng is the proof of the pudding is in the tasting. I think I'm the only person who knows ths though, so I do my part to spread the word.

kwalsh

Glad to hear it is a silver process. And I didn't mean to give the impression that the change to Kodak is necessarily a bad thing. I just wanted to give a heads up to be careful with passing along any sort of longevity numbers from Kodak, they have a very VERY bad track record in the industry for truth in advertising in this regard.

If it is a silver process and as the guys at EZP pointed out the chemistry is done carefully they should be very stable prints when displayed properly. Maybe not 100+ years, or maybe so, but should be plenty long enough. I'm sure EZP isn't making the change lightly and know what they are doing!

Ken

Theresa K

I think this is GREAT!
My only complaint from customers was the lack of variety in papers from Smugmug/EZprints. I can't wait until you guys get metallics!

poleinajeep

Theresa K wrote:

My only complaint from customers was the lack of variety in papers from Smugmug/EZprints. I can't wait until you guys get metallics!

we at work did a little comparo between Mpix and EZPrints and EZP came out on top (because of what at the time i thought was the superior paper). lustre paper looked way better than metallic (metallics should only be used for very specific purposes).

im not against the change, i just hope its for the better as i was overly impressed with the Fuji lustre finish.

im anxious and eager to try it out and hopefully the color and blacks are as rich as before...

Andy

poleinajeep wrote:

we at work did a little comparo between Mpix and EZPrints and EZP came out on top (because of what at the time i thought was the superior paper). lustre paper looked way better than metallic (metallics should only be used for very specific purposes).

im not against the change, i just hope its for the better as i was overly impressed with the Fuji lustre finish.

im anxious and eager to try it out and hopefully the color and blacks are as rich as before...

Remember, we don't have Metallic yet. Kodak Lustre is, to me, identical to Fuji Lustre. Put a dozen prints on a table, side by side, and you won't tell the difference.

MichaelKirk

Link to how to update our print profiles?
Andy,
It's been quite a while since I updated the EZ prints print proof profile.
Can you point me to a link with instructions of how to update my print profile in CS3.

I looked around and could not find it.

Thanks,
Michael

Andy

MichaelKirk wrote:

Andy,
It's been quite a while since I updated the EZ prints print proof profile.
Can you point me to a link with instructions of how to update my print profile in CS3.

I looked around and could not find it.

Thanks,
Michael

There's a link in my post #1 of this thread, to here:

http://dgrin.smugmug.com/gallery/1123524

achambers

DrDavid wrote:

Since the original article was prepared by a testing company, I'm wondering if THEY too have a vested interest in showing that Kodak isn't using "their" special method... Anyways.... Just a few thoughts..

Dr. David,

My day job is in an engineering laboratory where I perform validation testing. I test automotive electronics. While every manufacturer has their own standards these standards are based on international (ISO) standards. The manufacturers may add to the standards to make them more rigorous but not subtract from them to make them easier (and still say their product complies.)

There does seem to be a standard test:
ISO 18909:2006 Photography -- Processed photographic colour films and paper prints -- Methods for measuring image stability

Matthew Saville

How about a true B&W paper? Yet again, I feel like we're playing around with something that ain't broken, while other long-hoped-for things are yet to come. B&W paper! Metallic! MOUNTED prints like WHCC offers!

=Matt=

EDIT: In other news, I've been with Smugmug for four years now, and things HAVE come a long way, I'll grant!

Andy

Matthew Saville wrote:

How about a true B&W paper? Yet again, I feel like we're playing around with something that ain't broken, while other long-hoped-for things are yet to come. B&W paper! Metallic! MOUNTED prints like WHCC offers!

=Matt=

EDIT: In other news, I've been with Smugmug for four years now, and things HAVE come a long way, I'll grant!

Matthew, we love EZP, it was their business decision to make this change, we helped and made sure that you guys wouldn't be affected except for the better in our estimation. It paves the way for more things, metallic paper, true bw, yes.

timgangloff

I am glad for the switch. I simply prefer the Kodak papers and do look forward to adding more choices like metallic. Now, get busy on the package deal ability and you'll have me sold.

Jay_S

So is EZP using Kodak now?
Andy,

So if I read it right, the change should be in effect now? I have a couple of Lustre 8x10s on Fuji that haven't seen any light that I'll compare side by side. No sense in passing judgement until we can see it for ourselves. That said, I have to say my preference has been for Fuji.. Colors are richer and deeper in most comparisons, but again, I won't know until I see them side by side. I don't want to place an order though until I know the Kodak is in play. Thanks.

Jay S.

DrDavid

I soft proofed between the 2007 EZ profile and the 2008 EZ profile. I could see a difference in how it showed red. Definately not as saturated as the Fuji on the red--although, I can't say I disliked the less saturated look. I did notice it was a slightly warmer temperature though, but again, I can't honestly say that I didn't like the warmer skin tone. I'm looking forward to a print sample (especially a print sample of the Smugmug calibration print), so I can really compare apples-to-apples

David

Jay_S wrote:

Andy,

So if I read it right, the change should be in effect now? I have a couple of Lustre 8x10s on Fuji that haven't seen any light that I'll compare side by side. No sense in passing judgement until we can see it for ourselves. That said, I have to say my preference has been for Fuji.. Colors are richer and deeper in most comparisons, but again, I won't know until I see them side by side. I don't want to place an order though until I know the Kodak is in play. Thanks.

Jay S.

Andy

Jay_S wrote:

Andy,

So if I read it right, the change should be in effect now? I have a couple of Lustre 8x10s on Fuji that haven't seen any light that I'll compare side by side. No sense in passing judgement until we can see it for ourselves. That said, I have to say my preference has been for Fuji.. Colors are richer and deeper in most comparisons, but again, I won't know until I see them side by side. I don't want to place an order though until I know the Kodak is in play. Thanks.

Jay S.

Yup, As of March 30... all the details in post #1 above

CaliforniaNativeSun

April Fool's! (right???)

Andy wrote:

Yup, As of March 30... all the details in post #1 above

If the quality is similar to what the folks at Miller's are using, I am very excited about trying something new through SmugMug.

I can only imagine that such a large business decision wasn't that easy-- lucky YOU!