Yup, As of March 30... all the details in post #1 above
I hope this will lay the way for some new products like base ball cards, school packages and proof books and the such some of what millers offers. It will be nice to be able to keep every thing in on house so to speak. It is nice to always se SM and EZ always trying to improve and moving forward it lets us know that you will always be trying to stay up with the biz.
Thanks
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
David,
Interesting you say that. Reds are one of the colors that I was thinking about. Since other colors are based off that as well, you might suspect less saturation there as well. Fuji has always leaned toward saturation, even in cameras. I have some fireworks prints with deep reds that I'll be looking to see how they do. Thanks.
We love Miller's (and Mpix) and respect them greatly. Miller's and Mpix use Kodak papers.
Andy,
Thanks for the earlier answer and I hope the B&W that may be coming is up to the MPIX process for grayscales.. They have an excellent process and paper there. TRUE B&W.... I'll order a couple of 8x10s and see how they look on the new paper.
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.
I'm excited about the move. I prefer Kodak, and REALLY hope they can add Metallic very soon. I also use FullColor and WHCC, and would love it if EZP would follow suit with similar products.
BTW...I'm with Tim on the ability to create "packages". How great would life be then?
[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
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.
Sadly I must say that I am really disappointed by this change...and with no warning too. I very much prefer the fuji over kodak... their color saturation is a lot better. I actually changed to SM from another company bc they had changed to Kodak and I really didn't like the difference in the prints I was seeing. Fuji had a lot more vivid colors and seemed to have a lot more value than Kodak.
If I find that this is the case here too.... well... I moved once.... but I would have to say that I would try to find another print company to use that does have the fuji I prefer.
Sadly I must say that I am really disappointed by this change...and with no warning too. I very much prefer the fuji over kodak... their color saturation is a lot better. I actually changed to SM from another company bc they had changed to Kodak and I really didn't like the difference in the prints I was seeing. Fuji had a lot more vivid colors and seemed to have a lot more value than Kodak.
If I find that this is the case here too.... well... I moved once.... but I would have to say that I would try to find another print company to use that does have the fuji I prefer.
In the end, we didn't have much choice, either I am quite fine with it though. I also think you'll find fewer and fewer Fuji paper options, though they are out there...
In the end, we didn't have much choice, either I am quite fine with it though. I also think you'll find fewer and fewer Fuji paper options, though they are out there...
Do you know WHY Fuji is going out of favor with printers? I thought Kodak was more expensive, etc..? I guess I don't understand the business decision behind the fuji -> kodak decision. Especially since most of the big printers in the country (Mpix, whcc, ezp, etc.) use Kodak.
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.
the proof of the pudding is indeed in the tasting , well, actually it's 'in the eating'; on the other hand the coin is often in the pudding
(as in christmas pudding, where a sixpenny or threepenny bit (piece) was traditionally put)
Do you know WHY Fuji is going out of favor with printers? I thought Kodak was more expensive, etc..? I guess I don't understand the business decision behind the fuji -> kodak decision. Especially since most of the big printers in the country (Mpix, whcc, ezp, etc.) use Kodak.
David
David,
In the end, I'm guessing there is some element of cost, although it sounds like EZP is making a processing change as well, perhaps a part of the Kodak deal.. we'll never know. Kodak has had to remake itself in the digital age, and they are turning some corners. I know for my prints at home I won't use it, preferring the Ilford papers overall. My guess is Fuji was expensive enough that there was a payback in making the move to Kodak for EZP, even if there is a short term expense to get there. I really can't see it being completely the quality of the paper... otherwise they could have gone the opposite way and go higher quailty on the paper used. Just a nickel's worth of cheap guessing.. :-)
Can I ask.. will lustre finish now be available in 40inch prints? At the moment, large size prints are glossy / matte only. I have had comments that glossy is too shiny, and matte is too textured
Can I ask.. will lustre finish now be available in 40inch prints? At the moment, large size prints are glossy / matte only. I have had comments that glossy is too shiny, and matte is too textured
We only have gloss and matte at 30x40.
Funny, I've never heard (nor do I agree) your comments re matte being textured more than lustre....
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.
Mpix/Millers, and WHCC are amongst the worst national labs when it comes to good color. Trust me. They may be very popular, but that's only because most folks have no CLUE what it takes to get good, and accurate color. So PLEASE do NOT compare to those labs. There are some good labs out there that have great color with Kodak paper, but Mpix/Millers and WHCC are not one of them. Saying that a paper must be good if big labs like Millers and WHCC use them and they're such popular labs.. well thats like saying that burgers from McDonalds must be the best because they're the most popular restaurant... know what i mean?
I've personally always preferred Fuji paper, but not because of the color. I prefer them because their paper lasts longer. Its a proven fact.
As far as getting good color, the Kodak paper vs. Fuji paper makes little to no difference. Both papers are more than capable of getting great color. What matters is how you print it, how you profile the paper, and keeping the printing equipment profiled correctly and calibrated correctly. There are labs out there like Burrell who use Kodak paper and do a fantastic job of profiling it and get excellent, top notch color. There are other labs out there that have an absolute terrible profile that results in much less color saturation and terrible reds and yellows (Millers and WHCC are a prime example). I've not tested EZprints myself, but i really should. Though I have a feeling I won't like what I see.
Lustre paper is .7mils thicker than gloss and matte. In addition, Lustre paper is watermarked on the back as follows: "Fuji Professional Paper. If copyright applies, permission to reproduce required."
Funny, I've never heard (nor do I agree) your comments re matte being textured more than lustre....
Oh, I'm not saying that lustre would be any less textured.. I haven't even used lustre yet, just making a guess that it would be less textured... like half way between glossy and matte.
I really need to boldly ask the photographer displaying his prints next to mine what paper / lab he uses. I had thought it must be this magic 'lustre' because it looks way better than my glossy or matte prints (contrast / smoothness / reflection).
There is a local lab that does large prints in lustre, and they use Kodak.. that's why I asked.
So has anyone done the 100 year test in person on their print yet? (badabing!) Sorry, I had to get my April Fools comment in there.
I've been a Fuji Crystal Archive honk for quite a few years and I am like quite a few others here in being tentative towards change. My hope is that the saturation in the Kodak can be as good as the Fuji has produced in my prints.
Has anyone here got any real world experience with this new and upcoming paper that can put me at ease further?
Professional Ancient Smugmug Shutter Geek
Master Of Sushi Noms
Amateur CSS Dork
Has anyone here got any real world experience with this new and upcoming paper that can put me at ease further?
Its not the paper. Its the profile. Profile the paper correctly and you'll get excellent color with plenty of pop and contrast. Profile it poorly and you get flat, undersaturated prints.
That being said, in my experience I've found that around half of all Kodak labs do a poor job of profiling, but the vast majority of Fuji labs do at least a good job of profiling their paper. I'm not sure exactly why it is that way, but it is a trend none the less.
Lustre paper is .7mils thicker than gloss and matte. In addition, Lustre paper is watermarked on the back as follows: "Fuji Professional Paper. If copyright applies, permission to reproduce required."
It will indeed. It will say: "Lustre paper is thicker than gloss and matte. In addition, Lustre paper is watermarked on the back as follows:
Kodak Professional ENDURA Paper
DO NOT COPY
PROFESSIONAL IMAGES ARE
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED
Oh, I'm not saying that lustre would be any less textured.. I haven't even used lustre yet, just making a guess that it would be less textured... like half way between glossy and matte.
Lustre has more texture than matte, at least to me
Mpix/Millers, and WHCC are amongst the worst national labs when it comes to good color. Trust me. They may be very popular, but that's only because most folks have no CLUE what it takes to get good, and accurate color. So PLEASE do NOT compare to those labs.
Hi Stan, I'm not comparing. Our work and our guarantee stands on its' own.
But I can tell you, as a working pro, I deeply respect Millers, Mpix, and WHCC. I really feel you are in the minority here, sorry. I'm sorry you've had bad experience with them, but I and many, many others I know and work with personally have nothing but great results and experience with these guys.
But I can tell you, as a working pro, I deeply respect Millers, Mpix, and WHCC. I really feel you are in the minority here, sorry. I'm sorry you've had bad experience with them, but I and many, many others I know and work with personally have nothing but great results and experience with these guys.
I'm a working pro too. If you're using Millers or WHCC, there is a WORLD of colors that you're not seeing. Their profile is terrible. If you can't see it, I mean no disrespect, but you don't know what you're looking for. I've tested them continuously. I've not had a bad experience with them (i don't know where you came up with that??). This is not a subjective thing. They never "wronged" me. Its a matter of accuracy and inaccuracy. Its not a matter of having a "bad experience", its a matter of labs having consistently bad color.
Trust me that I know how popular those labs are. But that has got NOTHING to do with them producing accurate color and using a good profile. NOTHING. Sadly, the vast majority of pro photogs don't have a clue between a lab that produces great accurate color and one that produces poor, and un-accurate color.
The difference is huge. But if your prints don't tend to have very saturated color to begin with, then you'll probably never notice a difference. Me, I like accurate color and I like color that IS accurate and saturated.
If you really don't believe me, I can show you what I mean. It will take some time and effort on your part (you'll have to send good target test prints to labs and wait till they come back, etc..), but when you're done, you'll be amazed.
You may be just fine and happy with Millers and WHCC, but accurate color they just don't have. You may be happy with them, but you probably have no idea what you're missing. It is what it is.
The problem why most pros don't have a clue is because the majority of prints/subjects out there don't use real saturated color. Any lab can accurately reproduce colors that aren't saturated and aren't very vivid. Those colors are easy. WHCC and Millers will do a fine job with those colors..... but then again so will my neighborhood Target and Wal-Mart photo lab too. What it comes down to is accuracy and rendering when you start pushing the limits of the colorspace and the gamut of the paper. There are tons of colors within the colorspace (sRGB or Adobe98 RGB) that are outside of the gamut of the paper. These colors as well as the colors just on the edge of the gamut of the paper are the most saturated colors you'll see: the deep blues, vibrant greens, strong reds and bright bold yellows. THAT is where you separate the men from the boys and a good profile from a bad one. A good profile will keep reds red and it will keep yellows yellow and the vibrancy will remain. A bad profile will change bold reds to orange and yellows to pale green.
yayyy for metallics!
I'm looking forward to Metallics!! I was hunting for a lab that offers them, but now I don't have to. The samples I've seen really pop. Thanks and may the force be with Smugmug!!
I've used the Endura papers before, and I've always been pleased with the breadth of color and 'pop' on my images. My experience has been with Adorama, not the others mentioned.
I'm really happy that we've made the change... and I really look forward to the availability of the Endura Metallic paper. It doesn't look great with some images, looks terribly 'fakey' or 'stunty' with some. But for images like night shots, Sunrises/Sunsets, and if you shoot specifically for the process, you can get some spectacular results that just make jaws drop!
I'm looking forward to Metallics!! I was hunting for a lab that offers them, but now I don't have to. The samples I've seen really pop. Thanks and may the force be with Smugmug!!
To be clear: the way is *paved* for this but we've made no announcement on it.
Comments
Thanks
for you" and there/ their is no grammar check yet so please forgive me Jesus did.
My Web site:
http://Glory2Jesus4Photography.smugmug.com/
My blog: http://glory2jesus4photography.blogspot.com/
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
David,
Interesting you say that. Reds are one of the colors that I was thinking about. Since other colors are based off that as well, you might suspect less saturation there as well. Fuji has always leaned toward saturation, even in cameras. I have some fireworks prints with deep reds that I'll be looking to see how they do. Thanks.
Jay S.
Andy,
Thanks for the earlier answer and I hope the B&W that may be coming is up to the MPIX process for grayscales.. They have an excellent process and paper there. TRUE B&W.... I'll order a couple of 8x10s and see how they look on the new paper.
Jay S.
BTW...I'm with Tim on the ability to create "packages". How great would life be then?
(I know, I know...just add it to the 'list'!
www.PhotoByLaurie.com
http://clearwaterphotography.smugmug.com/
Shoot an email, Attn: Robin to our help desk, and we'll take care of a sample set!
Smug since 2006
SmugMug Help
PhotoscapeDesign
My Gallery
Kodak paper has too red in the picture and doesn't represent the true color of photographs.
PLEASE do not make this change! Go back to Fuji paper!!!
If I find that this is the case here too.... well... I moved once.... but I would have to say that I would try to find another print company to use that does have the fuji I prefer.
Drake Photography - My Home on the Web
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
David
Twitter: @WolfSnap
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/WolfSnapDesigns
SmugMug & Wordpress Customization - WolfSnap.com | Custom Domains
the proof of the pudding is indeed in the tasting , well, actually it's 'in the eating'; on the other hand the coin is often in the pudding
(as in christmas pudding, where a sixpenny or threepenny bit (piece) was traditionally put)
...pics..
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
I am intrigued by the watermark statement - why "Professional" Images?
Are all images not copyright protected?
David,
In the end, I'm guessing there is some element of cost, although it sounds like EZP is making a processing change as well, perhaps a part of the Kodak deal.. we'll never know. Kodak has had to remake itself in the digital age, and they are turning some corners. I know for my prints at home I won't use it, preferring the Ilford papers overall. My guess is Fuji was expensive enough that there was a payback in making the move to Kodak for EZP, even if there is a short term expense to get there. I really can't see it being completely the quality of the paper... otherwise they could have gone the opposite way and go higher quailty on the paper used. Just a nickel's worth of cheap guessing.. :-)
Jay S.
Wedding Photographer Glasgow | Scotland
SWPP Pet Photographer of the Year 2010
Follow us on Facebook - Click Here
Funny, I've never heard (nor do I agree) your comments re matte being textured more than lustre....
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Mpix/Millers, and WHCC are amongst the worst national labs when it comes to good color. Trust me. They may be very popular, but that's only because most folks have no CLUE what it takes to get good, and accurate color. So PLEASE do NOT compare to those labs. There are some good labs out there that have great color with Kodak paper, but Mpix/Millers and WHCC are not one of them. Saying that a paper must be good if big labs like Millers and WHCC use them and they're such popular labs.. well thats like saying that burgers from McDonalds must be the best because they're the most popular restaurant... know what i mean?
I've personally always preferred Fuji paper, but not because of the color. I prefer them because their paper lasts longer. Its a proven fact.
As far as getting good color, the Kodak paper vs. Fuji paper makes little to no difference. Both papers are more than capable of getting great color. What matters is how you print it, how you profile the paper, and keeping the printing equipment profiled correctly and calibrated correctly. There are labs out there like Burrell who use Kodak paper and do a fantastic job of profiling it and get excellent, top notch color. There are other labs out there that have an absolute terrible profile that results in much less color saturation and terrible reds and yellows (Millers and WHCC are a prime example). I've not tested EZprints myself, but i really should. Though I have a feeling I won't like what I see.
http://www.smugmug.com/help/lustre
or do I need to redirect my website???
this is what it currently says
Lustre paper is .7mils thicker than gloss and matte. In addition, Lustre paper is watermarked on the back as follows: "Fuji Professional Paper. If copyright applies, permission to reproduce required."
Oh, I'm not saying that lustre would be any less textured.. I haven't even used lustre yet, just making a guess that it would be less textured... like half way between glossy and matte.
I really need to boldly ask the photographer displaying his prints next to mine what paper / lab he uses. I had thought it must be this magic 'lustre' because it looks way better than my glossy or matte prints (contrast / smoothness / reflection).
There is a local lab that does large prints in lustre, and they use Kodak.. that's why I asked.
Wedding Photographer Glasgow | Scotland
SWPP Pet Photographer of the Year 2010
Follow us on Facebook - Click Here
I've been a Fuji Crystal Archive honk for quite a few years and I am like quite a few others here in being tentative towards change. My hope is that the saturation in the Kodak can be as good as the Fuji has produced in my prints.
Has anyone here got any real world experience with this new and upcoming paper that can put me at ease further?
Master Of Sushi Noms
Amateur CSS Dork
Its not the paper. Its the profile. Profile the paper correctly and you'll get excellent color with plenty of pop and contrast. Profile it poorly and you get flat, undersaturated prints.
That being said, in my experience I've found that around half of all Kodak labs do a poor job of profiling, but the vast majority of Fuji labs do at least a good job of profiling their paper. I'm not sure exactly why it is that way, but it is a trend none the less.
Kodak Professional ENDURA Paper
DO NOT COPY
PROFESSIONAL IMAGES ARE
COPYRIGHT PROTECTED
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Lustre has more texture than matte, at least to me
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
Hi Stan, I'm not comparing. Our work and our guarantee stands on its' own.
But I can tell you, as a working pro, I deeply respect Millers, Mpix, and WHCC. I really feel you are in the minority here, sorry. I'm sorry you've had bad experience with them, but I and many, many others I know and work with personally have nothing but great results and experience with these guys.
I hope we don't let you down.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
I'm a working pro too. If you're using Millers or WHCC, there is a WORLD of colors that you're not seeing. Their profile is terrible. If you can't see it, I mean no disrespect, but you don't know what you're looking for. I've tested them continuously. I've not had a bad experience with them (i don't know where you came up with that??). This is not a subjective thing. They never "wronged" me. Its a matter of accuracy and inaccuracy. Its not a matter of having a "bad experience", its a matter of labs having consistently bad color.
Trust me that I know how popular those labs are. But that has got NOTHING to do with them producing accurate color and using a good profile. NOTHING. Sadly, the vast majority of pro photogs don't have a clue between a lab that produces great accurate color and one that produces poor, and un-accurate color.
The difference is huge. But if your prints don't tend to have very saturated color to begin with, then you'll probably never notice a difference. Me, I like accurate color and I like color that IS accurate and saturated.
If you really don't believe me, I can show you what I mean. It will take some time and effort on your part (you'll have to send good target test prints to labs and wait till they come back, etc..), but when you're done, you'll be amazed.
You may be just fine and happy with Millers and WHCC, but accurate color they just don't have. You may be happy with them, but you probably have no idea what you're missing. It is what it is.
The problem why most pros don't have a clue is because the majority of prints/subjects out there don't use real saturated color. Any lab can accurately reproduce colors that aren't saturated and aren't very vivid. Those colors are easy. WHCC and Millers will do a fine job with those colors..... but then again so will my neighborhood Target and Wal-Mart photo lab too. What it comes down to is accuracy and rendering when you start pushing the limits of the colorspace and the gamut of the paper. There are tons of colors within the colorspace (sRGB or Adobe98 RGB) that are outside of the gamut of the paper. These colors as well as the colors just on the edge of the gamut of the paper are the most saturated colors you'll see: the deep blues, vibrant greens, strong reds and bright bold yellows. THAT is where you separate the men from the boys and a good profile from a bad one. A good profile will keep reds red and it will keep yellows yellow and the vibrancy will remain. A bad profile will change bold reds to orange and yellows to pale green.
I'm looking forward to Metallics!! I was hunting for a lab that offers them, but now I don't have to. The samples I've seen really pop. Thanks and may the force be with Smugmug!!
I'm really happy that we've made the change... and I really look forward to the availability of the Endura Metallic paper. It doesn't look great with some images, looks terribly 'fakey' or 'stunty' with some. But for images like night shots, Sunrises/Sunsets, and if you shoot specifically for the process, you can get some spectacular results that just make jaws drop!
Kudos to the Team, and thanks for the upgrade.
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter