Heads Up: Paper Switch from Fuji to Kodak

[Andy]

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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]

Originally Posted by Andy

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]

Originally Posted by Andy

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

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

[kwalsh]

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]

Originally Posted by kwalsh

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]

Originally Posted by DJ-S1

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...gevity_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