Help! Fuji Frontier minilab print posterized!

Alfisti · 11-13-2009, 11:40 AM

Originally posted by jon.partsch

Okay, then what I should do is resample the image to 300dpi (er, ppi) and resend it to the lab?

some "blocky" noise or noise-reduction artifacts are visible in the sky upon very close inspection (this can be seen in the original from camera as well), but these artifacts are not arranged in any kind of horizontal pattern and should not even be perceptible in an 8x10 print, I should think...

Next question: resampling algorithm? CS2 at work is messed up for some reason, so I have to use Gimp or wait to use CS3 at home.

No matter what i do picassa limits my download to just 2mp so i can't see youre original file, hence I cannot determine if the artifacts may be your issue.

Here is what i would do in CS3 .....

- Open original JPG

- Rue that I should have shot RAW

- Select the sky, agressively use noise reduction on the sky only

- Inverse the selction and lift levels on the rest of the image, I find minilabs print VERY flat and lifeless unless you push the file a little.

- Save the selection then remove the selection

- Upscale to 3000*2400

- Open the selection and sharpen the non-sky area a little (you'll need to as you've upressed)

- Save the file, quality 11.

- Send to printer.

**jon.partsch** · 11-13-2009, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by troyz

Okay, now I'm convinced that I cannot diagnose the problem from the Picasa image. Sorry for the confusion.

I'd try sending the original JPEG (no contrast boost or scaling) to the minilab to see if the problem goes away.

Stupid picassa rezied the image automatically.

This link should be the full-size one:

LINK!

Wheatfield · 11-13-2009, 11:51 AM

For practical use, there is no difference between PPI & DPI. A pixel is, after all, just a dot.
OTOH, the file you linked to is 912px × 728px, which isn't enough to make a decent sized 4x5, much less an 8x10.

<Street creds> I've worked as a photo lab technician since 1978 until this past spring, doing both pro and amateur work. Most of it over the past 6 years has been digital imaging</Street creds>

**jon.partsch** · 11-13-2009, 11:57 AM

Originally posted by Alfisti

Here is what i would do in CS3 .....

- Blah, blah, blah

- Send to printer.

Thank you for all your help Alfisti!! I will try this tonight when I get home.

BTW, I really like the elephant pic in your gallery

Alfisti · 11-13-2009, 12:05 PM

I see nothing in terms of artifacts that would be a problem at 8*10.

Alfisti · 11-13-2009, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Wheatfield

For practical use, there is no difference between PPI & DPI. A pixel is, after all, just a dot.
OTOH, the file you linked to is 912px × 728px, which isn't enough to make a decent sized 4x5, much less an 8x10.

There is, as I am betting the OPer went in to properties and set dpi to 300 which does SFA of course.

Theimage is 267 ppi so much larger than picassa would lead one to believe.

stevebrot · 11-13-2009, 03:15 PM

Originally posted by jon.partsch

Stupid picassa rezied the image automatically.

This link should be the full-size one:

LINK!

I see subtle mottling in the sky of this full-sized image but no "posterized" color blocks. It may be that might translate to something more severe when the file is printed, though it is hard to say.

Might this be a color space issue? I had a problem the other day ago when I scanned a slide and saved the scan as TIFF with the adobeRGB color space. If I opened the TIFF in Paint Shop Pro (sRGB), the image looked all grainy and blocky. The same TIFF opened in Lightroom looked just fine as did an image exported to JPEG as sRGB.

Steve

**jon.partsch** · 11-13-2009, 04:32 PM

Originally posted by stevebrot

Might this be a color space issue?
Steve

Thanks Steve,

I will be just that the JPEG I send to the lab in in sRGB - native colorspace of the Fuji Frontier - just to be safe, although in my web search others have said their files in Adobe RGB colorspace came out fine on the Frontier.

Cloggie_UK · 11-13-2009, 05:35 PM

My photolab uses Fuji Frontier printers and the dpi stated for these printers is 254, not 300...

Wheatfield · 11-13-2009, 06:11 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

There is, as I am betting the OPer went in to properties and set dpi to 300 which does SFA of course.

Theimage is 267 ppi so much larger than picassa would lead one to believe.

Perhaps. The new link leads me to a 1600px × 1277 that has had the EXIF stripped so it's hard to say.
I don't know if I'm missing something on the Picassa page or not. It would be much easier if the OP would just tell us what the pixel count of his image really is.
To me, what he posted looks like a small bit depth file that had been expanded, or else a smallish file that had been over upressed by the printer.

As Graphicgr8 explained a while back, the DPI, pixel dimensions and image size form a triad. While the ppi tag doesn't do anything technical to the image (only the pixel count does that), it does make it handy if you want to know what sort of pixel count you need for a specific application.
As an example, lets say we have a printer that outputs at 300dpi and we want to make an 8x10 print.
Doing the math, we find that we need to submit a 2400px x 3000 pixel file to avoid having the printer resize the file for printing.
This is a good thing to pay attention to if you want to be in control of your workflow.

Wheatfield · 11-13-2009, 06:15 PM

Originally posted by Cloggie_UK

My photolab uses Fuji Frontier printers and the dpi stated for these printers is 254, not 300...

Is your Frontier one of the new dry labs? Fuji themselves state that they are printing at 300x600 dpi.

Cloggie_UK · 11-13-2009, 06:20 PM

Not sure but that is the dpi they state you should upload your photos at and I was told that that was the default for Fuji Frontier printers.

Wheatfield · 11-13-2009, 06:25 PM

Originally posted by Cloggie_UK

Not sure but that is the dpi they state you should upload your photos at and I was told that that was the default for Fuji Frontier printers.

Wet labs:

Compare Specifications for Frontier | Fujifilm Global

Stated resolution is 300 x 600

Dry lab:

Frontier DL430 : Specifications | Fujifilm Global

Stated resolution is 720 x 720.

Alfisti · 11-13-2009, 06:45 PM

Originally posted by Cloggie_UK

Not sure but that is the dpi they state you should upload your photos at and I was told that that was the default for Fuji Frontier printers.

It's 300ppi, if you don't submit an image at 300 pixel per inch on each axis IT WILL BE RE-SIZED.

This is the case in North America and Australia at least.

Wheatfield · 11-13-2009, 11:40 PM

Originally posted by Alfisti

It's 300ppi, if you don't submit an image at 300 pixel per inch on each axis IT WILL BE RE-SIZED.

This is the case in North America and Australia at least.

It will be the case with Fuji machines everywhere. They don't make machines specc'ed for individual markets.
I imagine that the lab in question is of the opinion that this amount of upressing gives acceptable results, and the lab gets faster throuput because of smaller files.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Fuji EVIL	wll	Canon, Nikon, Sony, and Other Camera Brands	33	10-02-2010 08:45 AM
Traditional print vs scan & print	rodneysan	Pentax Medium Format	8	05-06-2010 03:33 PM
Mount Fuji	Mila	Monthly Photo Contests	0	04-14-2010 04:21 AM
posterized edges :/	Gooshin	Post Your Photos!	17	07-15-2009 01:33 PM
Fuji Quality II	woof	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	3	02-21-2009 12:54 AM

11-13-2009, 11:40 AM	#16
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Originally posted by jon.partsch Okay, then what I should do is resample the image to 300dpi (er, ppi) and resend it to the lab? some "blocky" noise or noise-reduction artifacts are visible in the sky upon very close inspection (this can be seen in the original from camera as well), but these artifacts are not arranged in any kind of horizontal pattern and should not even be perceptible in an 8x10 print, I should think... Next question: resampling algorithm? CS2 at work is messed up for some reason, so I have to use Gimp or wait to use CS3 at home. No matter what i do picassa limits my download to just 2mp so i can't see youre original file, hence I cannot determine if the artifacts may be your issue. Here is what i would do in CS3 ..... - Open original JPG - Rue that I should have shot RAW - Select the sky, agressively use noise reduction on the sky only - Inverse the selction and lift levels on the rest of the image, I find minilabs print VERY flat and lifeless unless you push the file a little. - Save the selection then remove the selection - Upscale to 3000*2400 - Open the selection and sharpen the non-sky area a little (you'll need to as you've upressed) - Save the file, quality 11. - Send to printer.

11-13-2009, 11:51 AM	#17
jon.partsch Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Northern California Posts: 442 Original Poster	Originally posted by troyz Okay, now I'm convinced that I cannot diagnose the problem from the Picasa image. Sorry for the confusion. I'd try sending the original JPEG (no contrast boost or scaling) to the minilab to see if the problem goes away. Stupid picassa rezied the image automatically. This link should be the full-size one: LINK!

11-13-2009, 11:51 AM	#18
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	For practical use, there is no difference between PPI & DPI. A pixel is, after all, just a dot. OTOH, the file you linked to is 912px × 728px, which isn't enough to make a decent sized 4x5, much less an 8x10. <Street creds> I've worked as a photo lab technician since 1978 until this past spring, doing both pro and amateur work. Most of it over the past 6 years has been digital imaging</Street creds>

11-13-2009, 11:57 AM	#19
jon.partsch Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Northern California Posts: 442 Original Poster	Originally posted by Alfisti Here is what i would do in CS3 ..... - Blah, blah, blah - Send to printer. Thank you for all your help Alfisti!! I will try this tonight when I get home. BTW, I really like the elephant pic in your gallery

11-13-2009, 12:05 PM	#20
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	I see nothing in terms of artifacts that would be a problem at 8*10.

11-13-2009, 12:08 PM	#21
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Originally posted by Wheatfield For practical use, there is no difference between PPI & DPI. A pixel is, after all, just a dot. OTOH, the file you linked to is 912px × 728px, which isn't enough to make a decent sized 4x5, much less an 8x10. There is, as I am betting the OPer went in to properties and set dpi to 300 which does SFA of course. Theimage is 267 ppi so much larger than picassa would lead one to believe.

11-13-2009, 03:15 PM	#22
stevebrot Otis Memorial Pentaxian Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Vancouver (USA) Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 42,007	Originally posted by jon.partsch Stupid picassa rezied the image automatically. This link should be the full-size one: LINK! I see subtle mottling in the sky of this full-sized image but no "posterized" color blocks. It may be that might translate to something more severe when the file is printed, though it is hard to say. Might this be a color space issue? I had a problem the other day ago when I scanned a slide and saved the scan as TIFF with the adobeRGB color space. If I opened the TIFF in Paint Shop Pro (sRGB), the image looked all grainy and blocky. The same TIFF opened in Lightroom looked just fine as did an image exported to JPEG as sRGB. Steve

11-13-2009, 04:32 PM	#23
jon.partsch Site Supporter Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Northern California Posts: 442 Original Poster	Originally posted by stevebrot Might this be a color space issue? Steve Thanks Steve, I will be just that the JPEG I send to the lab in in sRGB - native colorspace of the Fuji Frontier - just to be safe, although in my web search others have said their files in Adobe RGB colorspace came out fine on the Frontier.

11-13-2009, 05:35 PM	#24
Cloggie_UK Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 87	My photolab uses Fuji Frontier printers and the dpi stated for these printers is 254, not 300...

11-13-2009, 06:11 PM	#25
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Alfisti There is, as I am betting the OPer went in to properties and set dpi to 300 which does SFA of course. Theimage is 267 ppi so much larger than picassa would lead one to believe. Perhaps. The new link leads me to a 1600px × 1277 that has had the EXIF stripped so it's hard to say. I don't know if I'm missing something on the Picassa page or not. It would be much easier if the OP would just tell us what the pixel count of his image really is. To me, what he posted looks like a small bit depth file that had been expanded, or else a smallish file that had been over upressed by the printer. As Graphicgr8 explained a while back, the DPI, pixel dimensions and image size form a triad. While the ppi tag doesn't do anything technical to the image (only the pixel count does that), it does make it handy if you want to know what sort of pixel count you need for a specific application. As an example, lets say we have a printer that outputs at 300dpi and we want to make an 8x10 print. Doing the math, we find that we need to submit a 2400px x 3000 pixel file to avoid having the printer resize the file for printing. This is a good thing to pay attention to if you want to be in control of your workflow.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-13-2009, 06:15 PM	#26
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Cloggie_UK My photolab uses Fuji Frontier printers and the dpi stated for these printers is 254, not 300... Is your Frontier one of the new dry labs? Fuji themselves state that they are printing at 300x600 dpi.

11-13-2009, 06:20 PM	#27
Cloggie_UK Forum Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: West Sussex, United Kingdom Photos: Gallery Posts: 87	Not sure but that is the dpi they state you should upload your photos at and I was told that that was the default for Fuji Frontier printers.

11-13-2009, 06:25 PM	#28
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Cloggie_UK Not sure but that is the dpi they state you should upload your photos at and I was told that that was the default for Fuji Frontier printers. Wet labs: Compare Specifications for Frontier \| Fujifilm Global Stated resolution is 300 x 600 Dry lab: Frontier DL430 : Specifications \| Fujifilm Global Stated resolution is 720 x 720.

11-13-2009, 06:45 PM	#29
Alfisti Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Toronto (for now) Posts: 1,748	Originally posted by Cloggie_UK Not sure but that is the dpi they state you should upload your photos at and I was told that that was the default for Fuji Frontier printers. It's 300ppi, if you don't submit an image at 300 pixel per inch on each axis IT WILL BE RE-SIZED. This is the case in North America and Australia at least.

11-13-2009, 11:40 PM	#30
Wheatfield Moderator Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: The wheatfields of Canada Posts: 15,981	Originally posted by Alfisti It's 300ppi, if you don't submit an image at 300 pixel per inch on each axis IT WILL BE RE-SIZED. This is the case in North America and Australia at least. It will be the case with Fuji machines everywhere. They don't make machines specc'ed for individual markets. I imagine that the lab in question is of the opinion that this amount of upressing gives acceptable results, and the lab gets faster throuput because of smaller files.