Comparison: Kodak Metallic Prints vs Fuji Crystal Archive

[torvaterra]

I recently ordered some prints and chose to use metallic paper for the first time. I tried to research the difference and while there was applause for metallic, there weren't many comparison reviews. So I figured Id try to help out with my experience.

Im going to be comparing Kodak Professional Endura Metallic Paper to Fuji Crystal Archive Paper.

Impression:

At first glance there is a definite difference to the prints. The whites on the Metallic glow with a silvery hue. Greens are very rich and seem to pop out. No detail was lost. The overall effect is dimensional, very alluring.

However, the prints are much darker than one would expect. The colors also seem to be "cooler" if that makes sense. I printed several 8x10 and a few 20x30 and the effect of the Metallic paper worked better on the larger prints. The extra surface area really made a difference.

The Fuji paper has colors that are very true to the original image. The image is what I expected and while it lacks the "pop" of the Metallic, it isnt as dark. Id worry that darker prints would be lost on the Metallic paper whereas they would be fine on the Fuji. Therefore, the Fuji holds its own as being trustworthy. One downside though is that because the Fuji paper is very glossy, the glare at certain angles is extremely strong.

Conclusion:

I will continue to use and recommend the Kodak Metallic paper for large prints where darkness isnt an issue. The Fuji paper is still the average, tried and true, regular print. The gloss is a slight issue for me but the image quality in regards to brightness/darkness makes it my choice for smaller prints.

Images:

I had some trouble capturing the Metallic paper in a way to show its qualities well. All of the images are basically straight out of the camera, cropped and posted.

The smaller print is the Kodak Metallic, larger print is on Fuji Crystal.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv223/torvaterra/pumaprints.jpg

You can see how the Fuji gets a glare at angles.

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv223/torvaterra/showglare.jpg


__________________________________________

http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv223/torvaterra/lgpleoprint.jpg

Metallic: This large print came out stunning. My picture of it does it no justice.



http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv223/torvaterra/smcheetahprintframed.jpg

Metallic: This Cheetah image came out good as well, it has a nice glow to it in real life.



http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv223/torvaterra/smpumaprintframed.jpg

Metallic: This Puma image came out a little bit too dark.



http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv223/torvaterra/smtigerprintframed.jpg

Metallic: Tiger also glows beautifully!

[Scottes]

Interesting.

Out of curiosity, did you happen to form an opinion about what kind of subject matter works with metallic, and when it doesn't?

I've printed a few metallics - one worked, the others didn't. A pic of my gold cat looked great. The night scene and the landscape not so much. I'm not sure why one works and the others don't.

The large print leaning against the hood of the car - I can only imagine how nice this looks in real life. This seems like a shot that would work well on metallic paper. The "dark" puma does not look like it would look great on metallic, darkness aside. The shot doesn't have a large color range, nor details that would benefit from metallic (like the spots on the first shot, or a tiger's stripes).


This is a guess: It seems to me that metallic works best on shots with contrasty spots of color (again, think tiger stripes) rather than shots with subtle hue changes (like the dark puma).

Any opinions on my hypothesis?

[torvaterra]

I do agree with you, it seems that images that rely on a gradient to establish contrast, rather than stark changes in color and darkness, dont have enough punch. Where the metallic seems to work best is when the luminosity of the silver white and the pure black can play against each other.

Detail also seems to help. The individual whiskers and hairs of that larger print stand out, in a good way. Hmm, Im trying to think of the words to describe it. Its kind of like a holographic trading card. But with less rainbow effect and more pop to contrasting tonal ranges. Then add fine detail and its like the icing on the cake.

Another thought, it might have something to do with how some images dont work well as black and white. They just fall flat.

Thank you for your response and ideas. :)

[torvaterra]

The Puma on Fuji Crystal is a bit older I got it from Shutterfly.com. I think it was about $11 for that print. The metallic prints were all on sale from Adorama.com. Sale prices were:

Adorama Photo Prints - Finish Options: Metallic, Crop, Borderless

22 / 8X10 Prints 22 1.19 26.18
3 / 20X30 Prints 3 14.95 44.85


The frames are from all over the place Im not sure! I tend to buy frames whenever I see a nice one and just collect them. :lol:

[Karl Johnston]

Wow those are good prices !

[torvaterra]

They still have the 20x30 on sale for $14.95. Im debating ordering some more. They are $26.95 reg priced. I dont know how long they will be on sale, it doesnt say: http://www.adoramapix.com/PriceList.aspx

The 8x10 are back at regular price already. I think it was called the "Dads and Grads" sale.