Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: narikin on November 04, 2010, 07:47:36 am
-
Imageprint 8 is a LOT of money for people with bigger printers. My cost would be over $3000 for the two machines I have
(yes, to my shock you have to pay extra if you own two machines, like a 3880 for sheets and a 9900 for large prints/rolls)
I appreciate the recent review, and it seems valuable - but other opinions please - is it really worth the $2500 for a 9900 owner to get it? or any element of 'huh?' - to the end result. I do not run a printing bureau, so am not interested in the nesting/compositing aspects of owning a RIP, its all about quality, and this is a lot of money for maybe the teeniest difference?
Compared to Qimage, its a shocking price jump - any one ever compare the final output of these two?
Compared to Atkinson profiles - still noticeably better? they both are generic profiles after all - not your particular machine.
-
You're asking an unanswerable question. At least for anyone to answer except yourself with your own eyes.
At the high end of any technology the price / performance curve gets very flat. It takes large amounts of money to extract small amounts of improvement. This is the case with medium format vs 35mm, and between RIPs and other printer drivers.
Is there a difference? Yes. Is the difference one that is worth the expenditure? Only you can answer that since it's your eyes and your money.
My understanding is that you can get a free trial of Imageprint. Do so and draw your own conclusions.
Michael
-
Image-quality wise, I have found IP prints to be second to none. Price and user-friendliness wise, well, that is a different story.
As Michael quite rightly points out, it really is about your own needs, and whether you perceive any difference in the prints and whether that difference is significant enough to justify the cost.
-
Both companies have demo versions. Check them against one another on paper you know and with the best profiles available. Select low and high resolution images to test the up- and downsampling.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
Think about it in terms of automotive performance; Look at the enormous amounts of money it takes to shave
.01 second in the 1/4 mile, is it worth it to you? Probably not if you aren't earning a living from it. I would be curious
if the differences with Imageprint are that noticeable if the prints aren't side by side? (2 cars drag racing it's easy to
tell who won and it's a tangible result). I think it's a lot easier to determine which print is the nicer of the two if they
are next to each other, but what if they are viewed in different rooms, would the conclusions be the same?
-
I would be curious if the differences with Imageprint are that noticeable if the prints aren't side by side? I think it's a lot easier to determine which print is the nicer of the two if they are next to each other, but what if they are viewed in different rooms, would the conclusions be the same?
very true!
-
Unfortunately, the Windows demo of ImagePrint will not actually print.
It should always be kept in mind that anyone who has bought ImagePrint will have a strong psychological motivation to see prints made with it as better. Otherwise, they have just wasted a big chunk of money! This is not to fault anyone, it's just the way humans work.
It should be pointed out that QImage is not really a RIP because it prints thru the standard printer driver and does not control the printer directly. How much difference that makes, I don't know.
-
Unfortunately, the Windows demo of ImagePrint will not actually print.
exactly... and as Qimage is ONLY Windows,then you cannot compare without buying Imageprint.
very much agree about human nature, but maybe someone out there had it, thought it ok, but not worth further $ when they changed printers?
It would cost over $3900 for me with an 11880 and 9900! Gasp... and I'm not even bothering with the 3880 on my desktop.
-
You would think . . .
That messrs Epson must have a team of software engineers whose sole function is to develop and write printer drivers. And that it would be very much in their interests to ship the very best possible drivers with their printers, rather than leave it to a third-party to come up with a superior product. And if a third party did just this, then you might suppose that Epson would investigate that product and figure out just what was better about it, and incorporate that into their own drivers. Or buy them out.
But perhaps I am just being a little too trusting . . .
John
-
You would think . . .
And though... We don't live in a perfect world, do we?
http://www.custom-digital.com/2008/09/bw-print-quality/
Epson ABW mode doesn't seems that optimal.
There are also some elements of comparison in Markus Zuber's review of ImagePrint (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/imageprint8.shtml).
It is also said in it that there is a 30 days money back guarantee for testing purposes.
And if you ask me, I'm not for neither against RIPs, at the contrary. ;)
-
John,
Epson works with third party vendors (EFI, ColorBurst and others) to offer features and color management that are not available in Epson drivers. Of course, there is a cost for this upgrade. I have not done side-by-side testing with these RIPs, but they should offer more control of color management than the standard driver. Your point is well taken, but in order for Epson to incorporate these features into their drivers the price of the printers would be higher and the benefits may be lost on 80% of the printer owners. For those who need these features, it may be a better marketing decision for Epson to stay out of the RIP development business.
One benefit of buying the RIP as an upgrade through Epson is that support should be more seamless. Should be. :)
-
It is also said in it that there is a 30 days money back guarantee for testing purposes.
...after a 15% restocking fee. and both ways shipping. thats over $400 in many cases.
seems like a lot to find out you don't care for the product.
-
exactly... and as Qimage is ONLY Windows,then you cannot compare without buying Imageprint.
It would cost over $3900 for me with an 11880 and 9900! Gasp... and I'm not even bothering with the 3880 on my desktop.
Well, you could start with the Qimage Ultimate Demo, drive them all three and wonder what you are missing in image quality and features after that experience. Next I don't think the 90 $ of a real version will still be a hole in your pocket when you decide to go for the 3900 $ option six months later. The other way around however .......
Is your custom profile creation system already optimal? I would invest on that side first.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Is your custom profile creation system already optimal? I would invest on that side first.
And that is one of the strengths with ImagePrint, all the excellent profiles provided. The cost of creating custom profiles for different printing papers soon adds up to the cost of the RIP for the smaller Epson printers.
-
You may want to read MR's review of the 9900. There are some blunt comments regarding rips. I own a 9900 and have used ImagePrint in the past on a 7600. I am perfectly happy with the stock Epson Driver and would not consider the ImagePrint rip even at $500.00. I also find that the profiles provided by various paper manufacturers are as good or better than any profile I can make using PM5.
-
How exactly are the ImagePrint profiles so much better? I use the canned Epson profiles to print to a 4880 (with soft-proofing, of course) and the screen-print match is exceptionally good. What could a "better" profile possibly do?
There's a whole lot of snake oil and hooey being spread around regarding profiles and color management. It really is not that difficult, and there's no need for exotic and grossly overpriced tools. Too many photographers look to gadgets and software to improve their images, thinking that technical perfection can overcome aesthetic weakness.
-
You guys can do what you like - but let me tell you that i absolutely LOVE the Imageprint 8 RIP. I had a light version for my 2200 which was not so good - but when i purchased my 3880 i hemmed and hawed and took the plunge for the full blown new version. The dude at Vistek thought i was out of my mind when I told him that i was considering a RIP however my first print with the RIP sold me.
There is way more beautiful graduation in colour and I have gorgeous saturation. My Black and whites are perfectly neutral (if i want them to be) and stunning. I can also print neutral black and white along with colorized areas.
I would never go back to printing with the supplied manufacturer's profiles. And the beauty is paper to paper the printing is consistent - of course excepting the differences for the papers themselves.
-
How exactly are the ImagePrint profiles so much better? I use the canned Epson profiles to print to a 4880 (with soft-proofing, of course) and the screen-print match is exceptionally good.
And you only print on Epson papers? There is a whole bunch of really excellent papers out there that you should try.
What could a "better" profile possibly do?
You might have to see for yourself to understand.
-
I also print on Ilford Gold Fiber Silk and Museo Rag and a couple of others and the manufacturer profiles are equally good.
-
How exactly are the ImagePrint profiles so much better? I use the canned Epson profiles to print to a 4880 (with soft-proofing, of course) and the screen-print match is exceptionally good. What could a "better" profile possibly do?
Because the ImagePrint profiles are made for, hmm, ImagePrint only. One have to understand that IP is a printing system,
complete with its own color management, ink laydown, dithering, nesting, scaling, layout, queuing etc. And that whole system is unbeatable compared to the driver. Both in performance and cost ;D
-
ImagePrint is unbeatable as to price? Do tell <g>!
But, you misunderstood my question. When I asked how IP profiles are better, I was asking how the resulting prints are better. To be honest, I have never tried the program, but for such an expensive product I have yet to see any believable or objective information about why it is worth the money. Plus, I find the company's pricing to be grotesquely high and rather offensive in requiring a new purchase when you upgrade your printer. It would cost me $895 for my Epson 4880, and then if I upgrade to a 24" printer I would have to buy a whole new version for $1495?!?! I could see - barely - limiting the program to one printer at a time, but this licensing scheme seems like a real money grab. And, to be honest, when a company treats their (potential) customers this way, they can go jump in the lake as far as I am concerned.
-
RIPs were at one time priced $5000 or more. These prices are somewhat reasonable in comparison. Of course, this was in the time when 36" inkjet printers were selling for $15000 also, and did not come with drivers.
-
ImagePrint is unbeatable as to price? Do tell <g>!
But, you misunderstood my question. When I asked how IP profiles are better, I was asking how the resulting prints are better. To be honest, I have never tried the program, but for such an expensive product I have yet to see any believable or objective information about why it is worth the money. Plus, I find the company's pricing to be grotesquely high and rather offensive in requiring a new purchase when you upgrade your printer. It would cost me $895 for my Epson 4880, and then if I upgrade to a 24" printer I would have to buy a whole new version for $1495?!?! I could see - barely - limiting the program to one printer at a time, but this licensing scheme seems like a real money grab. And, to be honest, when a company treats their (potential) customers this way, they can go jump in the lake as far as I am concerned.
And you misunderstood my comparison; that "quality and price" both are higher for that system then the OEM system.
Better prints? Different prints, I would say. But that is just one of many good reasons for using a RIP like IP.
About pricing; what's the cost for an own profiling system, e.g. EyeOne Pro with ProfileMaker?
What's the cost for custom made profiles, say, for ten different papers?
/Sven
-
And you misunderstood my comparison; that "quality and price" both are higher for that system then the OEM system.
Better prints? Different prints, I would say. But that is just one of many good reasons for using a RIP like IP.
About pricing; what's the cost for an own profiling system, e.g. EyeOne Pro with ProfileMaker?
What's the cost for custom made profiles, say, for ten different papers?
/Sven
Investing in an optimal profile creation solution can be done at different costs. It keeps its value longer + no restrictions on how many printers you make profiles for or the number of profiles. That can not be said of the IP purchase or buying custom made profiles. If there's more time than money available a nice solution can be an Eye One Basic + ArgyllCMS. The purchase of the Spectroproofer for the 9900 + suitable software is an option but I do not know whether that covers profile creation for the other printers like possible with the HP Z models. If the Spectroproofer exports CGAT files ArgyllCMS is an option too.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
The OEM printsystem vs ImagePrint RIP:
Mark Dubovoy's printing article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/in_search_of_the_ultimate_inkjet_print.shtml) on LL
"When I began to make prints, I frankly did not know what to expect. State of the art inkjet printers have gotten so good, that I very much doubted anyone could exceed the quality of something like the Epson 9900 with my custom settings and my custom profiles. I was wrong. The prints made using Imageprint 8 are better.
As to how much better they are, really depends on the particular image. In some images, the difference is quite subtle and it may take a couple of minutes of observing the prints side by side to really see it. Interestingly, once you see it, it somehow gets imbedded in your brain. If you re-shuffle the prints and look at them again, you can now pick the better prints instantly."
-
This is beginning to lapse into the discussion we had several months ago about being able to detect the difference in two prints from across the room. I don't doubt that as Swen has noted Imageprint has some definite positives and has to be regarded as a total printing system when evaluating the cost benefit. That being said, we ultimately get back to subjective judgment about print quality. Mark says he can pick out the Imageprint image from the Epson driver image; I don't doubt that. We are caught in the same conundrum that high-end audio equipment is in; there is no reliable way to objectively measure discernible differences. If one finds value in a product, good, but for the large number of us who look at photography as an avocation and enjoy the occasional sales that it brings cost tends to be a barrier to products such as this.
-
About five years ago some of the more well-heeled photogs in my area were touting IP as the greatest thing since sliced bread especially for bw. Since 90% of my printing was bw at that time I wanted to do a comparison since I was printing with a Quadtone RIP and thinking I had excellent results. I made a print and took the image file and print over to a friends to do the same with IP. No one, out of several professionals, could tell the difference. That killed it for me.
However I must admit the profiles which come with IP8 have me interested and I would love to demo the software, but not being able to print from a demo is a deal killer as my monitor isn't all that great.
-
"When I began to make prints, I frankly did not know what to expect. State of the art inkjet printers have gotten so good, that I very much doubted anyone could exceed the quality of something like the Epson 9900 with my custom settings and my custom profiles. I was wrong. The prints made using Imageprint 8 are better.
As to how much better they are, really depends on the particular image. In some images, the difference is quite subtle and it may take a couple of minutes of observing the prints side by side to really see it. Interestingly, once you see it, it somehow gets imbedded in your brain. If you re-shuffle the prints and look at them again, you can now pick the better prints instantly."
I did read that article.
1/ He picked a profile from the paper manufacturer's website for the Epson driver solution.
2/ In the reviewer's opinion IP's dithering weaving while more coarse is considered better as it translates detail better but there's no reference to what the image resolution has been. For that matter it could well be the resampling (up/down?) of IP that shows its better quality than the application (which one?) or driver delivered in both examples: the detail in the dark blue shadows and the wimpers detail contrast/sharpness.
3/ It still isn't an IP print versus Qimage print test, which could say something about the resampling quality.
4/ I think good profiling is a key aspect. IP does that well but it isn't the only solution that does that well. There are several good programs that deliver excellent RGB-device ICC profiles. If no exotic materials are used the (Epson) media presets will provide enough choices to build custom ICC profiles on that cover photographer's needs.
5/ Several IP features mentioned in the review are also available in Qimage. Photoshop and even Lightroom are not really the standard to compare application printing features with. Qimage has a similar Canvas Wrap feature, cheap PS plug-ins exist with even more wrap choices. Nesting, smart sharpening, print filters on the fly, proof print crops, etc etc it is a long list of features that Qimage has.
100/ As I recommended let Narikin test the two (or more) applications and let him decide what is the best or what suits him the best. Someone else suggested that right away after the request and he was right, nobody can replace your eyes, brain, expectations in cases like this one.
In my opinion the LL reviews in the past on profiling, printing, scanners were of a better quality than what I have seen here recently. For example Gerard Kingma's articles on Gamutvision and several profile creation programs were far more interesting. The discussion on the articles too.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
After reading that topic I took a sheet of Epson PLPP, PGPP and I did a quick test of IP against Qimage+standard Epson ICC. I don't know what might go wrong, but the result is awful - B&W is not neutral (L*a*b 70,-2.5,-5!!!), colors are desaturated, screening coarser. I can't find any interpolation & sharpening options, the UI is not intuitive and lacks many of countless functionalities from Qimage.
I belive it's a matter of my ignorance, but frankly - my initial impressions are so bad, that I wouldn't even consider using it if it was for free.
-
the result is awful - B&W is not neutral (L*a*b 70,-2.5,-5!!!), colors are desaturated
Excuse my ignorance - it was a matter of a profile calculated to some weird illuminant (F3), that was initially installed with the program. I downloaded the DAY profile and everything seem to be better. I still much prefer the standard Epson profile color rendering - IP profile has a problem with blue that turns violet and red that turns orange (L*a*b vs CIECAM02?) - but apart from that it's quite ok.
-
A big issue is whether you are printing from a Mac or a PC. If a PC I cannot offer an opinion but if you are printing from a Mac then IP is a definite improvement on the native drivers. Every Mac upgrade seems to bring its new printing problems. Whether it is the need to find and use drivers embedded in the OS or overcome contentions in the software when producing profile targets. For my own purposes (landscape and architecture) IP solved all of these problems in one fell swoop. I get very high quality and most importantly consistent results from both my 3880 and my 7900 printers - consistent between printers and from print to print -and I do not have to waste hours and hours generating new profiles and setting up the OS/driver combinations. IP bypasses all of the OS and application drives so there is no issue with colour management contention coming from the OS or the application.
In addition I do not use any Epson papers as I favour Hahnemuehle PhotoRag smooth and Canson Baryta Photographique so the Epson profiles are really of no use to me. The IP profiles for these papers work very well indeed.
Yes it is expensive to buy but it is a one-off cost and compared to the aggregate cost of quality papers and inks, not to mention the high cost of digital MF and lenses, I think it is affordable.
-
I think this is the problem: There are a lot of people out there who don't need a RIP for the old print-shop reason, they are not nesting up multiple prints, or running giant stitched panoramas or photo murals - they simply want maximum quality out of their machines... and anyone smart and well informed (i.e. most people on this forum) is getting close to that - perhaps 95-97% of what is possible. Factory profiles are a LOT better than they used to be...
For some who must have those last extra 1 or 2%, they might benefit from the Imageprint system + profiles. A few super nerdy others - professional profile builders, color scientists, people like Bill Atkinson, can probably get there themselves.
Then there is the question whether any normal person can really see a difference in a 97% good and a 98% good print! (setting aside if its worth ~$2500 for a 9900 for that)
Why not 100%? Well for all the hubris, these are still canned profiles, made for your TYPE of machine by Imageprint, but not YOUR machine. And even if you pay even more $ to get Imageprint make them for YOUR machine, its only good for that batch of ink, as the next cart may have a tiny shift in ink density from what you profiled, or they settled a bit, or the paper manufacturers coating shifted a tiny amount... so 100% is out of reach, 95-99% is the best we can hope for.
That said, grasping for perfection is human nature, and thank goodness for all of those out there who strive to push this medium forward. We stand on their shoulders with gratitude.
-
I think this is the problem: There are a lot of people out there who don't need a RIP for the old print-shop reason, they are not nesting up multiple prints, or running giant stitched panoramas or photo murals - they simply want maximum quality out of their machines... and anyone smart and well informed (i.e. most people on this forum) is getting close to that - perhaps 95-97% of what is possible. Factory profiles are a LOT better than they used to be...
For some who must have those last extra 1 or 2%, they might benefit from the Imageprint system + profiles. A few super nerdy others - professional profile builders, color scientists, people like Bill Atkinson, can probably get there themselves.
Then there is the question whether any normal person can really see a difference in a 97% good and a 98% good print! (setting aside if its worth ~$2500 for a 9900 for that)
Why not 100%? Well for all the hubris, these are still canned profiles, made for your TYPE of machine by Imageprint, but not YOUR machine. And even if you pay even more $ to get Imageprint make them for YOUR machine, its only good for that batch of ink, as the next cart may have a tiny shift in ink density from what you profiled, or they settled a bit, or the paper manufacturers coating shifted a tiny amount... so 100% is out of reach, 95-99% is the best we can hope for.
Amen!
-
A big issue is whether you are printing from a Mac or a PC. If a PC I cannot offer an opinion but if you are printing from a Mac then IP is a definite improvement on the native drivers. Every Mac upgrade seems to bring its new printing problems. Whether it is the need to find and use drivers embedded in the OS or overcome contentions in the software when producing profile targets. For my own purposes (landscape and architecture) IP solved all of these problems in one fell swoop. I get very high quality and most importantly consistent results from both my 3880 and my 7900 printers - consistent between printers and from print to print -and I do not have to waste hours and hours generating new profiles and setting up the OS/driver combinations. IP bypasses all of the OS and application drives so there is no issue with colour management contention coming from the OS or the application.
In addition I do not use any Epson papers as I favour Hahnemuehle PhotoRag smooth and Canson Baryta Photographique so the Epson profiles are really of no use to me. The IP profiles for these papers work very well indeed.
Yes it is expensive to buy but it is a one-off cost and compared to the aggregate cost of quality papers and inks, not to mention the high cost of digital MF and lenses, I think it is affordable.
I agree completely and I print via PCs.
-
Ok, so Mac printing is broken. That we all know.
As to whether Imageprint is really better than a *functioning* properly profiled native driver, I have my doubts. But then there is no profiled printing on the Mac these days.
For the record, the best results you can get from your Epson if you are not a genius you will get by switching Photoshop to "Printer Manages Color" and supplying an Adobe RGB or sRGB file and telling the printer driver which. Anything else on the Mac is broken, these days, in spite of what Andrew or Jeff may tell you.
Edmund
I agree completely and I print via PCs.
-
For the record, the best results you can get from your Epson if you are not a genius you will get by switching Photoshop to "Printer Manages Color" and supplying an Adobe RGB or sRGB file and telling the printer driver which. Anything else on the Mac is broken, these days, in spite of what Andrew or Jeff may tell you.
Yes, it's amazing. Fortunately Qimage seems to run well on a Mac under "Parallels". Suddenly nesting, quality upsampling, multiple sizes of a single file, etc., is unleashed for a very modest price (even if one also needs to buy Parallels).
Cheers,
Bart
-
For the record, the best results you can get from your Epson if you are not a genius you will get by switching Photoshop to "Printer Manages Color" and supplying an Adobe RGB or sRGB file and telling the printer driver which. Anything else on the Mac is broken, these days, in spite of what Andrew or Jeff may tell you.
Edmund
I have to admit that I've had no success yet taming the beastly combination of PSCS5 and Snow Leopard. Odd behavior indeed. It seems like it works, sort of, but not really. Alas, Photoshop used to be the color managed workflow I could always count on. Now in an ironic twist, it's Indesign with Snow Leopard that gives me predictable color management. Maybe the Indesign team and the Photoshop team at Adobe should compare notes to figure out what the PS team broke (or didn't get fixed) with Snow leopard!
cheers,
Mark
http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com
-
For the record, the best results you can get from your Epson if you are not a genius you will get by switching Photoshop to "Printer Manages Color" and supplying an Adobe RGB or sRGB file and telling the printer driver which. Anything else on the Mac is broken, these days, in spite of what Andrew or Jeff may tell you.
You trying to be provocative or do you really NOT have a friggin' clue?
I have no problem printing from either LR 3 or PS CS5 on Mac running 10.6.4. Yes, I use the Eric Chan work-around to print targets...(not that I have to re-profile Epson papers mind you, just non-Epson papers).
So, Edmund, you need some help printing?
You could hire me (well, naw, you couldn't afford me cause I would charge so much to put up with your pissant attitude)
-
You could hire me (well, naw, you couldn't afford me cause I would charge so much to put up with your pissant attitude)
Alternatively, one could hire me (for a more decent fee), and get a useful answer, regardless of attitude ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Alternatively, one could hire me (for a more decent fee), and get a useful answer, regardless of attitude ...
Ah...so you don't have any issues printing from Mac 10.6.4 either?
Funny, I got the impression you're a Win 7 user...
-
Ah...so you don't have any issues printing from Mac 10.6.4 either?
Funny, I got the impression you're a Win 7 user...
Correct, you've been analysing my background?
No need, I could have told you when asked, Win 7 Ultimate 64-bits to be specific, ... , which doesn't mean I don't have a working knowledge of the Mac platform. Strike two. And I've chosen Windows over Mac for non-snob-ish reasons.
Cheers,
Bart
-
...which doesn't mean I don't have a working knowledge of the Mac platform. Strike two.
Uh huh..so does that mean you HAVE actually printed out to a variety of large format printers via the Epson print driver and Photoshop CS5/LR 3 and Snow Leopard?
"Knowledge" ain't quite the same as actual experience...
(just saying...)
-
""Knowledge" ain't quite the same as actual experience..."
Knowledge can come from reading a book, speaking to a person in the know, etc. or actual experience
You might have knowledge of something without experience but you certainly can have knowledge
from actually doing it yourself, just saying..................................
There's no doubt printing is easier with a PC today (I use both), MACs have their issues, more than
just printing, but that's another subject.
I believe what you meant to say is Reading about it isn't the same as actually doing it, but maybe I'm wrong.
-
""Knowledge" ain't quite the same as actual experience..."
Knowledge can come from reading a book, speaking to a person in the know, etc. or actual experience
Correct, experience, augmented by the aforementioned ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
Correct, experience, augmented by the aforementioned ...
So, you've personally printed out to Epson large format printers with current drivers compatible with Snow Leopard using Photoshop CS5 and/or Lightroom 3?
Just want to be perfectly clear...
-
Not that I didn't expect this topic would end in a Windows versus OS-X debate. Too many ingredients in the thread for that.
I don't think the color management flaws in the use of Adobe/Apple/driver combinations should be judged just on the issue of target printing, there have been CM problems with every Apple OS change.
http://osdir.com/ml/colorsync-users/2009-10/msg00010.html
more recent on Color in Safari:
http://osdir.com/ml/colorsync-users/2010-10/msg00017.html
Discussed on the Apple Colorsync maling list. True Edmund was there too but he wasn't alone in the observation that the Mac had a reputation to loose as a graphics machine. An opinion you will not only find in the linked threads but in more threads recently.
There is also a long Apple history of failing printer driver support. In that light one can understand the popularity of ImagePrint in Mac circles. Imageprint's support of the Epson 7900/9900 was a long wait too as I understand it, possibly acceptable for Mac users in view of OS-X CM flaws but no Windows user had to wait to drive its new Epson. As written in this thread there are good alternatives on Windows, Qimage (not a RIP) and most RIPs are Windows native, and I mean all the 32/64 bit versions of XP up to 7. A more paranoia reader of this thread could wonder whether IP's Windows Demo is deliberately not working or shows the lack of Colorbyte's interest for the Windows market. Much harder to compete there.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
So, you've personally printed out to Epson large format printers with current drivers compatible with Snow Leopard using Photoshop CS5 and/or Lightroom 3?
Just want to be perfectly clear...
The answer is no, I didn't push the button myself recently.
Hope that solves the anxiety this seems to have caused.
Okay, back to the topic of how much of a difference there is between IP and QImage, rather than the differences between Win and Mac or between Photoshop and Lightroom 3 ...
Cheers,
Bart
-
I have spent the entire day sitting at my Mac Pro, 9880 and 7800 printers (also have a 7900 but Imageprint 7 isn't compatible with that printer). I have been printing to all these printers through Lighroom 3 printer module ever since Lightroom 3 was released and I use the "canned "profiles. I had printed through Imageprint 7 for many years but decided, for various reasons to print through Lightroom 3 (when it was released) instead.
Anyway, After reading this thread I decided to make a concerted close comparison of identical files printed through Lightroom and canned profiles and imageprint custom profiles on both my 7800 and 9880 printers using Epson Exhibition Fiber and Epson Hot Press Bright. I have stared at the prints in all sorts of light and under some magnification. My prints from Lightroom/Epson driver and Imageprint) have been virtually identical or so close it's splitting hairs. Just my 2 cents. Eleanor
-
Eleanor,
Thanks for your efforts and also for sharing your findings!
Best regards
Erik
I have spent the entire day sitting at my Mac Pro, 9880 and 7800 printers (also have a 7900 but Imageprint 7 isn't compatible with that printer). I have been printing to all these printers through Lighroom 3 printer module ever since Lightroom 3 was released and I use the "canned "profiles. I had printed through Imageprint 7 for many years but decided, for various reasons to print through Lightroom 3 (when it was released) instead.
Anyway, After reading this thread I decided to make a concerted close comparison of identical files printed through Lightroom and canned profiles and imageprint custom profiles on both my 7800 and 9880 printers using Epson Exhibition Fiber and Epson Hot Press Bright. I have stared at the prints in all sorts of light and under some magnification. My prints from Lightroom/Epson driver and Imageprint) have been virtually identical or so close it's splitting hairs. Just my 2 cents. Eleanor
-
Eric another thing I might mention...the advanced black and white in the epson driver is second to none in my opinion....the toning is gorgeous and far superior to Imagrprint toning in the warm spectrum in my opinion. That's one reason I began printing through LR3 along with the print layout capabilities.
Eleanor
Eleanor,
Thanks for your efforts and also for sharing your findings!
Best regards
Erik
-
Eric another thing I might mention...the advanced black and white in the epson driver is second to none in my opinion....the toning is gorgeous and far superior to Imagrprint toning in the warm spectrum in my opinion. That's one reason I began printing through LR3 along with the print layout capabilities.
Eleanor
How do you make a split tone with ABW?
/Sven
-
How do you make a split tone with ABW?
/Sven
Sven
You can't. The toning Eleanor was referring to is an all-over warm or cool tone that you can apply in the ABW panel. To do split tone you have to print as an RGB colour image via ICM. However, on good paper (like Harman Glossy FB Al warmtone) a slightly warm ABW print looks remarkably similar to a conventional split tone, with similar slightly cool shadows and warm highlights.
John
-
John, I know.....my question was sort of ironic, because I've never seen any more effective toning-tool than ImagePrint's on "true" bw. Not the RGB way.
/Sven
-
John, I know.....my question was sort of ironic, because I've never seen any more effective toning-tool than ImagePrint's on "true" bw. Not the RGB way.
/Sven
Sven
Sorry I missed the irony. However, I would very much respect Eleanor's opinion, and if she prefers Epson's ABW to ImagePrint then I would certainly take notice of that viewpoint.
John
-
Of course I respect her opinion, but I don't agree and think she is wrong. I have been involved with LFP in more than ten years
and working with IP since 2003, and still can't find any "better" b/w solution. And I have tested nearly all of them.
Isn't the thread "ImagePrint vs QImage vs Mac vs Win vs printdriver +abw"?
Which is the best?
/Sven
-
The HP Z3100/Z3200 toning tools in B&W mode are not bad either. Highlight, midtone, shadows split if needed. I prefer the RGB route though: similar use of monochrome inks with the Z models in color and B&W mode, preview that is telling more, a file that is archived with the split tones so you do not have to save the toner settings (which is possible though in the driver as a printing shortcut).
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Always so nice, Jeff. Maybe these bugs will bite certain people and not others, just like the bedbugs in your guesthouse ;D
Edmund
You trying to be provocative or do you really NOT have a friggin' clue?
I have no problem printing from either LR 3 or PS CS5 on Mac running 10.6.4. Yes, I use the Eric Chan work-around to print targets...(not that I have to re-profile Epson papers mind you, just non-Epson papers).
So, Edmund, you need some help printing?
You could hire me (well, naw, you couldn't afford me cause I would charge so much to put up with your pissant attitude)
-
The edge of a custom RIP (e.g., ImagePrint) generally comes not from the ICC color profiles, but from the substitute ink mixing algorithms and the way the ink droplets are placed (in other words, the mechanics of the process). Of course, the profiles have to be solid to realize the benefits.
To be really clear: There are some (many) types of images where you're going to see minimal difference. Once you start pushing gamut boundaries on a particular surface type, that's when differences (e.g., graininess or lack thereof as you progress from one hue to another) tend to be more apparent, and even then sometimes only on close inspection. I think this is an indication of how good the makers' own drivers have become.
-
Sven, Here,s my thinking about about the toning in Imagrprint....I used their toning for many many years and, I COULD BE WRONG....but... It was my understanding the the original toning choice for inks for WARM tones avoided using a lot of yellow ink . I was never able to get the warm tones I prefer because of lack of yellow ink usage. Metamerism, while in the past it was a major concern, is a non issue in the inks today with yellow ink..... In Lightroom 3 using advanced black and white toning choices...ie...15/30, their canned warm and sepia settings and other custom settings if mine, I can get the warm tones I like...simple as that.. Eleanor
How do you make a split tone with ABW?
/Sven
-
I think that a lot of folks around here take little account of the fact that it is a perfectly reasonable and legitimate choice to prefer one thing over another thing, even when our preference is demonstrably technically inferior, simply because we like it. For example, I really like the look of pictures from my old CZ 60mm lens, even though its MTF charts are grim. And I have tried the B/W output from HP printers, but hated it, because to me it just looked very clinical and somehow plastic. So I can quite see that someone might prefer the Epson ABW output to ImagePrint, even though IP might be technically superior.
John
-
In the world of art, does "technically superior" even matter? There's way too much emphasis on the technical, and let's face it, the technical aspects of photography are neither particularly interesting nor really challenging.
I had a refreshing experience the other day - I was showing some photos to friend who is an excellent painter. She had some very helpful and interesting things to say about the images, their composition and lighting. Never once did she ask about my equipment or software, nor did she press her nose to the print to squint at the sharpness.
-
Metamerism, while in the past it was a major concern, is a non issue in the inks today with yellow ink..... Eleanor
That's true, but the yellow ink will lower the display rating for your b/w prints.
/Sven
-
Svan, I simply don't care if my toned prints using Adv. B&W in the Epson driver have a "slightly" lower display rating than those toned prints made through Imageprint. It's a non issue for me. Eleanor
That's true, but the yellow ink will lower the display rating for your b/w prints.
/Sven
-
I get good results from Gutenprint, except for some remaining gamut issues. I really don't know how they get those reds out of the native 3880 drivers.
Edmund
The edge of a custom RIP (e.g., ImagePrint) generally comes not from the ICC color profiles, but from the substitute ink mixing algorithms and the way the ink droplets are placed (in other words, the mechanics of the process). Of course, the profiles have to be solid to realize the benefits.
To be really clear: There are some (many) types of images where you're going to see minimal difference. Once you start pushing gamut boundaries on a particular surface type, that's when differences (e.g., graininess or lack thereof as you progress from one hue to another) tend to be more apparent, and even then sometimes only on close inspection. I think this is an indication of how good the makers' own drivers have become.
-
When will people learn that what they see with their eyes isn't necessarily what another person sees with his/her?
Telling a person what they see with product X is better than product Y is ridiculous, it's like telling me which car seat
feels better to my ass!
"Beauty is in the EYE of the BEHOLDER"
-
It’s true that people don’t always see the same, but when an app like ImagePrint is considered inferior to the standard print driver, especially with canned profiles, one has to start wondering whether they actually have used Imageprint and compared for themselves or if they just reject the RIP because it costs too much.
-
It’s true that people don’t always see the same, but when an app like ImagePrint is considered inferior to the standard print driver, especially with canned profiles, one has to start wondering whether they actually have used Imageprint and compared for themselves or if they just reject the RIP because it costs too much.
So what's wrong with canned profiles - especially when the Epson is linearized with ColorBase?
-
When will people learn that what they see with their eyes isn't necessarily what another person sees with his/her?
Telling a person what they see with product X is better than product Y is ridiculous, it's like telling me which car seat
feels better to my ass!
"Beauty is in the EYE of the BEHOLDER"
Wow....who dares to continue now?
I thought this was a forum to discuss and solve printing problems.
/Sven
-
So what's wrong with canned profiles - especially when the Epson is linearized with ColorBase?
There is nothing wrong with canned profiles per se, but lots of them are still not as good as custom made profiles. For someone who is making their own custom profiles this is not even a question. ImagePrint profiles are also “canned”, but they are really good for all the different papers I have tried, and that’s more than I can say of most other canned profiles, even though I acknowledge that Epson’s canned profiles are good nowadays.
-
Agree, there are some really really off the wall bad canned profiles from different paper manufacturers but these days I only use a very small number of papers and the Epson profiles are really good and many times they will work exceptionally well on my non epson papers. eleanor
There is nothing wrong with canned profiles per se, but lots of them are still not as good as custom made profiles. For someone who is making their own custom profiles this is not even a question. ImagePrint profiles are also “canned”, but they are really good for all the different papers I have tried, and that’s more than I can say of most other canned profiles, even though I acknowledge that Epson’s canned profiles are good nowadays.
-
The edge of a custom RIP (e.g., ImagePrint) generally comes not from the ICC color profiles, but from the substitute ink mixing algorithms and the way the ink droplets are placed (in other words, the mechanics of the process). Of course, the profiles have to be solid to realize the benefits.
Absolutely! In fact, when I was using ImagePrint, I preferred profiles I built compared to profiles they built, especially with respect to blues. I don’t know if things have changed in the past couple years, but the IP profiles were exhibiting a tendency for blues to shift magenta, a somewhat common issue. In just this regard, the color output I got from the Epson driver using a even a canned profile was better than the IP canned profiles. The big difference was the ink delivery, dither etc.
-
I don’t know if things have changed in the past couple years, but the IP profiles were exhibiting a tendency for blues to shift magenta, a somewhat common issue.
That's exactly the same thing I observed when I had tested the latest IP. Blues shift to violet, and reds shit to orange, so appearently nothing changed.
-
Well, everything is relative according to Einstein. If we all agree that ImagePrint profiles are canned, how come it’s a surprise that custom made ImagePrint profiles are even better? It just proves what I said before, that custom made profiles are better than canned profiles in general!
-
That's exactly the same thing I observed when I had tested the latest IP. Blues shift to violet, and reds shit to orange, so appearently nothing changed.
If you mean the famous "blue-turns-purple,red-turns-orange"-problem? Which in fact depends on the curved radius in the CIE
color model. Nowadays I only see that in some cmyk-workflows, e.g. in magazines. Never in my IP workflow.
So my last reply in this topic;
I suggest that we all gather together and print the same file (Ansel Adams?) and send it to a jury to judge ;)
/Sven
-
If we all agree that ImagePrint profiles are canned, how come it’s a surprise that custom made ImagePrint profiles are even better? It just proves what I said before, that custom made profiles are better than canned profiles in general!
But one canned profile using one print “engine” is superior to the other IMHO and experience and the superior canned profile wasn’t IPs.
-
Well, everything is relative according to Einstein. If we all agree that ImagePrint profiles are canned, how come it’s a surprise that custom made ImagePrint profiles are even better? It just proves what I said before, that custom made profiles are better than canned profiles in general!
If you mean the famous "blue-turns-purple,red-turns-orange"-problem? Which in fact depends on the curved radius in the CIE
color model. Nowadays I only see that in some cmyk-workflows, e.g. in magazines. Never in my IP workflow.
I did a simple test and printed Bill Atkinson's test image on my 7880 using IP (OS-X) and Qimage+Epson canned profiles (Windows). So it's not a matter of canned vs custom profiles, but rather a matter of L*a*b vs CIECAM02. The effect is quite obvious.
-
But one canned profile using one print “engine” is superior to the other IMHO and experience and the superior canned profile wasn’t IPs.
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here Andrew, do you mean that you consider Epson’s print driver with Epson canned profiles, superior to ImagePrint and their supplied profiles?
-
Oh my gosh! After more than six years, I have been upgraded from Newbie to Jr member! Great! Another six years and I will hopefully become a real member! ;D
-
I’m not sure I understand what you mean here Andrew, do you mean that you consider Epson’s print driver with Epson canned profiles, superior to ImagePrint and their supplied profiles?
In terms of solely color, yes. That is, the Epson canned profiles don’t exhibit this blue to magenta shift that I see in the IP canned profiles. I don’t like my skies magenta <g>
-
Couldn't let the topic fade away.
I did a hardcore test on a Epson canned profile vs the same for ImagePrint.
And I presume that QImage would behave similar to the Epson profile test.
Printer Epson 9900
Paper Epson SemiGloss
Absolute Colorimetric rendering intent for both.
Printed then a 16 patch strip, which is built in Measure Tool.
The criteria is set like this:
DeltaE Average
Under 3, good. Under 6 acceptable
DeltaE Worst
Under 6, good. Under 9 acceptable
And the winner is..........both.
The results are excellent. It became the apple & pears decision.
Epson profile:
DeltaE Average 1.43
DeltaE Worst 2.57
(worst, a yellow patch)
ImagePrint profile:
DeltaE Average 1.33
DeltaE Worst 2.78
(worst patch: a black, which is blacker(!) than the actual L value)
A red patch was equal on both, no orange.
A blue was DeltaE 0.8 more correct in the Epson profile compared to the ImagePrint profile, and I would absolutely not call that "a purple shift"
Tomorrow I will do the same test with custom made profiles.
/Sven
-
Hi,
Sorry, what is Measure Tool? I presume it belongs to some toolset?
Best regards
Erik
Printed then a 16 patch strip, which is built in Measure Tool.
The criteria is set like this:
Tomorrow I will do the same test with custom made profiles.
/Sven
-
Given that there is such a thing as male color blindness, I assume that all comments such as "a tendency for blues to shift magenta" are based on hardware tests, not just eyesight.
-
Given that there is such a thing as male color blindness, I assume that all comments such as "a tendency for blues to shift magenta" are based on hardware tests, not just eyesight.
Would hardware in the sense of two prints made with different profiles and viewed next to one another, under the same lamp and with one set of eyes be enough ?
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
Hi,
Sorry, what is Measure Tool? I presume it belongs to some toolset?
Best regards
Erik
It´s a module in the Profile Maker package. By X-Rite.
And will be replaced / added with the new i1 Profiler software, soon to be released.
/Sven
-
I had a Epson 4800 and took a chance and spent the money on IP. It was expensive but the combination of the work flow and what I considered to be improved quality made me pleased with the purchase. The acid test was when I upgraded to a Epson11880. The IP price was huge. I sold the 4800 with the RIP and purchased a new IP rip for the 11880. I guess that says something for me putting my money where my mouth is.
One of my issues not using the RIP was getting profiles from the various paper manufactures and they were all different. I would get a print just the way I like it on one paper then want to see it on another paper and the prints would be totally different. The problem is different manufacturers make profiles differently and with IP the profiles are all made in pretty much the same way.
As to the quality it contains a large subjective element but I like the quality way ahead of what I get from epson.
Ease of use and repeatability and an end to struggling with settings ended for me with IP.
-
I really got confused the other day with all the discussions about Imageprint and people like Andrew claiming that the Epson print driver with canned profiles, print as good as or better than ImagePrint.
I haven’t used the Epson print driver for my Epson Stylus Pro 3800 for a long time and I started to think that something must have changed, new print driver software, new Epson profiles or just the fact that the printer manufacturers’ software now has catched up with the RIP suppliers. I just have to try for myself.
I made the prints using a modified Bill Atkinson test image you can find at Outback Photo:
http://www.jirvana.com/printer_tests/PrinterEvaluationImage_V002.zip
I have used this image many times before when I have compared papers and profiles and I’m familiar with it and I know what to look for.
The only Epson inkjet paper I have available is Epson Enhanced Matte, and since so many seems to agree that Epson profiles are good, I chose to use this paper. I first printed through Lightroom, using the canned Epson profile and then I printed through ImagePrint and compared both printouts under my Solux lamp. I got even more confused.
I printed the test image again on Innova White Gloss and Harman Gloss with its standard profiles and ImagePrint profiles and the results were the same. I also printed some of my own images with standard sharpening applied in LR, just to make sure it was correct what I saw.
The printouts from Imageprint is consistently sharper with more details, better micro contrast and however I try, I cannot find any obvious color shifts towards purple or red towards orange. The sky through the arch in the test image has a slight magenta shift, so don’t get confused by that.
This test has cost me some papers and ink, but to my eyes there is definitely not a chance in the world that Epson’s print driver with Epson canned profiles beats Imageprint. At least not for my printer model 3800.
Maybe the newest Epson printers have much improved drivers and profiles, I don’t know. I hope so, otherwise I really don’t understand why so many here are bashing a product that anyone taking the time to compare, easily can see for themselves is better.
-
The sky through the arch in the test image has a slight magenta shift, so don’t get confused by that.
Its not supposed to, its supposed to be blue, and if you see a magenta shift, well bingo, you’re seeing the shift (which in large part, is a Lab issue). That’s primarily why that image is in this test suite.
What even better test images for seeing the shift? There are these (at a price but well worth it):
http://www.roman16.com/en/
-
Its not supposed to, its supposed to be blue, and if you see a magenta shift, well bingo, you’re seeing the shift
You must be kidding?
The sky in the arch is in ProPhotoRGB: 116, 108, 240. That is quite a magenta shift in blue in the FILE.
/Sven
-
Its not supposed to, its supposed to be blue, and if you see a magenta shift, well bingo, you’re seeing the shift (which in large part, is a Lab issue). That’s primarily why that image is in this test suite.
That blue in the arch is really on the edge. I have some test prints hanging here with that reference image. Starting from ProPhoto and sRGB, Ilford IGSPP11 printed on the Z3200 with Qimage Studio about a year ago. Perceptual rendering of the Ilford profile, a HP Color Center made profile, a HP APS made profile. The last shows slightly more magenta there with ProPhoto. All show it more in sRGB and the APS again most. I used another gradients target of Atkinson with the circles and it was clear that APS didn't handle the blue-purple-magenta as nice. It was a reason for me to avoid APS after that. But I'm sure that many wouldn't object or even see that difference.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
The printouts from Imageprint is consistently sharper with more details, better micro contrast and however I try, I cannot find any obvious color shifts towards purple or red towards orange. The sky through the arch in the test image has a slight magenta shift, so don’t get confused by that.
The thread subject has Qimage as a reference. What kind of resampling and sharpening IP does under the hood compared to what Lightroom does has to be considered too.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
You must be kidding?
The sky in the arch is in ProPhotoRGB: 116, 108, 240. That is quite a magenta shift in blue in the FILE.
The original(?) Bill Atkinson's "Lab Test Image.tif", is in LAB colorspace, if I'm not mistaken. Could the conversion to ProPhotoRGB have introduced a shift to magenta? Your RGB values for Red and Green are significantly lower and overall a bit darker than the ones I get (121,114,246) in the secondary readout of the Lab file version. Conversions from Lab to RGB are prone to this magenta.
Cheers,
Bart
-
As has already been mentioned, obviously the canned IP profiles are built with a specific batch of paper and a specific ink set. I've seen some pretty substantial paper variance form time to time, but what about ink sets? Do they age, and does Epson (or any other manufacturer) make any claims about variance from batch to batch?
Guess I'm wondering if custom profiling, no matter which printing solution you use, is going to outweigh the mechanical advantages (ink laydown, dithering, etc.) that IP offers? (I know, I know, it's up to me to figure this out, but I'm hoping someone knows about the ink variance part of the equation.)
Thanks,
Geoff
-
The original(?) Bill Atkinson's "Lab Test Image.tif", is in LAB colorspace, if I'm not mistaken.
You are indeed correct and when you read that data in that space (and the sampling values play a role, I used 5x5) show ProPhoto at:137/138/255. If you also examine the blue areas of the yellow flower image, they too produce very similar ratio: 118/119/214 in ProPhoto. The Lab value ratio’s back this up too. And the soft proof in Lab, at least on this end on an NEC 3090 doesn’t appear at all magenta! Again, the reason Bill placed this image into the test suite is because its prone to shift magenta which is not desired.
-
That blue in the arch is really on the edge.
Yes it is, but its blue. The clouds and sky below, that’s a different story. Bill didn’t pop this in to the test suite with anything less than Bill’s keen eye for color and keen mind towards color management!
-
I'm currently testing my new 9900 with ImagePrint 8.0 versus the Epson Driver and available profiles. I've used ImagePrint since I had a pair of 7600s (one PhotoBlack, one MatteBlack) to a 9800 using the ImagePrint PhatteBlack solution.
Years ago I worked with Bill Atkinson's profiles on the 7600, as well as some custom profiles built by Chromix. Inability to get good results on Canvas or Somerset Velvet with the 7600 driver led me to invest in ImagePrint. It was a godsend at the time, as was the ImagePrint PhatteBlack offering with the 9800.
My general observation is that the ImagePrint color engine and profiles like to warm things up a bit versus other profiles (kind of like putting a camera in "portrait" mode). Makes skin tones nice, but over the years I've regularly had to battle a magenta/red shift in the blues.
My main media are Epson Canvas Satin (formerly PremierArt Water Resistant Canvas for Epson), Somerset Velvet for Epson, Crane Museo Silver Rag, Epson Enhanced Matte, Epson Luster & Semimatte.
Now, with the 9900, I'm in a frustrating quandry. ImagePrint 8.0 has a new color engine and of course a new set of stock profiles. They've added a contrast boost that's absolutely killing me. Even simulating old profiles and adjusting their shadow slider is barely getting me to acceptable looking test prints. I use test images from Fuji, Andrew, Lindbloom, and a collection of my own images. With ImagePrint 8.0 and the 9900, I'm battling the loss of shadow detail, which I've never had to do with ImagePrint before.
But the Epson 9900 Driver with their supplied profiles presents a whole different set of problems. Enhanced Matte and Luster have washed out skin tones, Canvas Satin has yellow cast, overall too light, and a significant red/magenta shift in blues compared to the enhanced matte and luster. They don't provide a profile for their own Somerset Velvet. It's a mess from my point of view.
For consistency across media, ImagePrint, even with the contrast problems, is still looking much better than the available profiles for the Epson Driver.
But here's what I don't know... say I buy the new X-Rite i1/PhotoPro, build and edit my own profiles, or have Andrew or Chromix (or Chen, InkJetArt, BookSmart, etc.) build profiles for me, or get existing profiles from the Chromix or BookSmart libraries, will I be able to get the consistency across media and overall quality that I get with ImagePrint? What tool would I use to do subtle edits to these profiles? Would Colorburst Pro or EFI Colorproof XF be better for me?
Working on figuring out the answers.
-
Those of us with high-end spectros, color expertise and good eyes, can consistently get "their color" with the native drivers, if necessary by adjusting ink densities for new papers and making 5000-patch profiles. However I am willing to bet that Joe User with a Mac cannot get a decent profiled print out of Photoshop anymore, so I can understand that his frustration will lead him to Imageprint, or another RIP, which earn money by being stable and providing decent profiles.
Telling Joe User that it is "his fault" when prints come out too dark or too light also doesn't exactly help. Apart from RIPS, the whole industry model seems to be built around pointing a finger at someone else -Apple? Epson? Adobe? Xrite? and saying that it's their fault, and in the last instance getting an "expert" on payroll to explain to the user he is an idiot.
Edmund
I had a Epson 4800 and took a chance and spent the money on IP. It was expensive but the combination of the work flow and what I considered to be improved quality made me pleased with the purchase. The acid test was when I upgraded to a Epson11880. The IP price was huge. I sold the 4800 with the RIP and purchased a new IP rip for the 11880. I guess that says something for me putting my money where my mouth is.
One of my issues not using the RIP was getting profiles from the various paper manufactures and they were all different. I would get a print just the way I like it on one paper then want to see it on another paper and the prints would be totally different. The problem is different manufacturers make profiles differently and with IP the profiles are all made in pretty much the same way.
As to the quality it contains a large subjective element but I like the quality way ahead of what I get from epson.
Ease of use and repeatability and an end to struggling with settings ended for me with IP.
-
I am willing to bet that Joe User with a Mac cannot get a decent profiled print out of Photoshop anymore, so I can understand that his frustration will lead him to Imageprint, or another RIP, which earn money by being stable and providing decent profiles.
The large number of users of just Epson and Canon printers who do not use either custom profiles or a 3rd party RIP would probably serve to prove you wrong.
Telling Joe User that it is "his fault" when prints come out too dark or too light also doesn't exactly help.
If they didn’t calibrate their displays properly, used the wrong driver, media settings or profiles, then yes, you can indeed blame them, it is their fault.
-
The large number of users of just Epson and Canon printers who do not use either custom profiles or a 3rd party RIP would probably serve to prove you wrong.
Quite a few other of these use the Photoshop.Epson "Printer Manages Colors" pipeline which works beautifully for Joe User, but doesn't quite count as profiled printing. Among the guys I met at Photokina, quite a few agreed they couldn't make printing work anymore.
If they didn’t calibrate their displays properly, used the wrong driver, media settings or profiles, then yes, you can indeed blame them, it is their fault.
You and I each have $20K in color equipment. You've written a book on the stuff, I've designed measurement hardware and written software that drives it. In other words, when we look at a setting, we know what it does or at least we think we know what it means. And in fact it is our job to get things right. When things don't work we have the patience to troubleshoot, and alternative components to substitute in the workflow. .
So far I've met just one guy who seems to be able to follow instructions which he does NOT understand. He seems to be a 75 year old pharmacist, and I guess people used to trust him with their lives.
I would suggest that Jane User would profit from having systems that self-calibrate because experience indicates that present color management won't work for her.
Edmund
-
Quite a few other of these use the Photoshop.Epson "Printer Manages Colors" pipeline which works beautifully for Joe User, but doesn't quite count as profiled printing.
Indeed, making your argument even less salient.
-
Indeed, making your argument even less salient.
I get a lot of emails every day offering me help to make my arguments more salient ;D
Edmund
-
The thread subject has Qimage as a reference. What kind of resampling and sharpening IP does under the hood compared to what Lightroom does has to be considered too.
ImagePrint uses bicubic and it does not apply any sharpening.
-
ImagePrint uses bicubic and it does not apply any sharpening.
Based on that information I can only conclude that Lightroom blurs the image. Not likely I think.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
Mark Dubovoy's interesting article condemned me to more than a weeks worth of tests comparing IP and Epson prints.
For this evaluation I'm using IP6.1 with Ilford GFS on my R2400. Having spoken to Colorbyte support I understand that the print engine for 6.1 on the R2400 is the same as that for IP 8. Indeed they advised me that, from a purely colour management perspective, there would be no advantage upgrading to IP8 (for an R2400).
On the Epson side I'm using a custom made profile (i1 iSIS D50 with UV cut) with LR3.2 on a PC. With IP - the RF3 profile on the lossless tif image exported from LR. Both with perceptual intents.
Here are my observations.
I agree with with Andrew. IP gives me a magenta shift in some blues. In extreme cases it can be quite severe and prone to microbanding.
I agree with BradFunhouser. I prefer the skin tones IP produces. I find all Epson profiles ever so slightly yellow - clearly visible in skin tones.
I agree with much of what Mark Dubovoy says, particularly about the "slightly purer whites". But I very much disagree with him about IP's coarser dithering - I much prefer Epson's rendering - perhaps if I my prints were bigger, IP's dots wouldn't be so visible. Mark says "more accurate blue tones". I would say different blues sometimes blacker, particularly on Baryta papers, and sometimes more magenta.
With the Epson driver, one strength of my custom profile v the generic profile is that it improves shadow detail markedly. Even so IP gives me still slightly better shadow detail. This is only with perceptual intent. For me, with this paper, printing with IP using a relative intent destroys shadow detail and greatly reduces Dmax. When printing With a relative intent even the generic Ilford profile give much better Dmax and shadow detail than IP.
With the advent of IP7 Colorbyte produced a completely new set of profiles called DCM. For colour work I believe these are backwardly compatible with previous versions - it is only in monochrome work that the DCM modifications are embedded in their software and require an upgrade. In my experience the DCM profiles give yet more shadow detail. But, at this level, I am not sure this is always desireable or could not be achieved through manipulation in LR.
On another thread about Mark Dubovoy's article Eleanor Brown says she is now "getting stunning results from my epson drivers on both my 7900 and 9880 printers provided my files are properly prepared". This, I think, is the clue. Epson printing technolgy and profiling tools are continuously improving. I may be wrong but I feel that the recent updates for IP have been more layout driven than colour management driven and, unless IP ups the ante, the one will overtake the other. Perhaps, as BradFundhouser asks, maybe this point will arrive with X-Rite's new profiling offer. Unless, as I suspect, it has already happened.
From a print quality perspective only, is it worth the money? If Colorbyte offered me a full refund I would probably not accept it. But I hope and suspect I will not have to buy an upgrade for my next printer. Or, who knows, perhaps I will. It can produce great images. However, even though I own IP, I usually stick to LR and the Epson drivers.
And please forgive me if my R2400 is so now old hat that none of my comments are relevant.
Hope this helps,
"Joe User" (Peter).
-
Based on that information I can only conclude that Lightroom blurs the image. Not likely I think.
The test image is 3600x2700 pixels @ 360 ppi, so there is no need to resample neither in Lightroom nor in Imageprint for an A4 print. In Lightroom I set height to 19,05 cm (7,5”), deselect print resolution and output sharpening and I then assume Lightroom just sends the file to the printer driver. In ImagePrint there is no sharpening to choose and ImagePrint does not resample a file if it’s at 360 ppi.
-
Correct, alfin, LR will neither resample nor output sharpen in the case you've described.
Also, regarding your earlier comments: I noticed that you did your tests on Enhanced Matte (a MK paper). I have found in my testing for the 3800 that Epson's supplied profiles for Photo Black (PK)-compatible papers are excellent, but the ones for their Matte Black (MK)-compatible papers less so.
-
In ImagePrint there is no sharpening to choose and ImagePrint does not resample a file if it’s at 360 ppi.
I wrote "under the hood". There is an analogy with the Imacon scanners, you actually have to set negative values in the sharpening settings of the Imacon software to take out sharpening. People comparing scanners are not always aware of that default value. That ImagePrint doesn't have an entry for sharpening doesn't have to mean there is no sharpening done.
I can imagine one thing that could make a difference in ImagePrint. Given the reported coarser screening and the here so far hardly mentioned 16 bit pipeline of ImagePrint, the translation to the cell size of the rasterisation can be more optimal. In a sense the resolution is reduced in favor of a better defined screening. I doubt that is the sole reason it looks sharper and I expect some print sharpening happens in that pipeline too. Whether you created equal conditions for Lightroom by taking out sharpening is still a question.
BTW, there is no way to set "original size" in Lightroom + driver to ensure that the input resolution actually matches the printer's native resolution = 360 PPI. That is what I do with Qimage when I print vector designs first rasterised in Photoshop to 360 or 300 PPI Tiffs.
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
spectral plots of +100 inkjet papers:
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
-
I can imagine one thing that could make a difference in ImagePrint. Given the reported coarser screening and the here so far hardly mentioned 16 bit pipeline of ImagePrint, the translation to the cell size of the rasterisation can be more optimal.
I think you are getting closer now to the real reasons why ImagePrint looks better and sharper with more defined details.
I doubt that is the sole reason it looks sharper and I expect some print sharpening happens in that pipeline too. Whether you created equal conditions for Lightroom by taking out sharpening is still a question.
Maybe, but since neither of us know, it’s just guesswork anyway. However, if it’s all about sharpening (like Qimage), let’s take Lightroom out of the equation also and print through Photoshop.
A print ready image, output sharpened with Photokit Sharpener and sent through Photoshop and the printer driver. The same image, without any output sharpening applied, sent through ImagePrint.
Are they equally sharp and detailed? Nope. ImagePrint still looks better with more micro contrast and details. It’s not about acutance!
BTW, there is no way to set "original size" in Lightroom + driver to ensure that the input resolution actually matches the printer's native resolution = 360 PPI. That is what I do with Qimage when I print vector designs first rasterised in Photoshop to 360 or 300 PPI Tiffs.
OK, you better discuss that with Eric Chan instead.
-
A big issue is whether you are printing from a Mac or a PC. If a PC I cannot offer an opinion but if you are printing from a Mac then IP is a definite improvement on the native drivers. Every Mac upgrade seems to bring its new printing problems. Whether it is the need to find and use drivers embedded in the OS or overcome contentions in the software when producing profile targets. For my own purposes (landscape and architecture) IP solved all of these problems in one fell swoop. I get very high quality and most importantly consistent results from both my 3880 and my 7900 printers - consistent between printers and from print to print -and I do not have to waste hours and hours generating new profiles and setting up the OS/driver combinations. IP bypasses all of the OS and application drives so there is no issue with colour management contention coming from the OS or the application.
In addition I do not use any Epson papers as I favour Hahnemuehle PhotoRag smooth and Canson Baryta Photographique so the Epson profiles are really of no use to me. The IP profiles for these papers work very well indeed.
Yes it is expensive to buy but it is a one-off cost and compared to the aggregate cost of quality papers and inks, not to mention the high cost of digital MF and lenses, I think it is affordable.
This was my earlier post on this subject and the thread reporting yet another set of printing problems with the latest 10.6.5 update just reinforces my view.
I have run the update and what do you know? Imageprint runs with no problems at all on my Epson printers. Good value I would say so!
-
I think you are getting closer now to the real reasons why ImagePrint looks better and sharper with more defined details.
When I check the eyes and lashes of the child on this page I see detail contrast and noise in the IP one. The old discussion about sharpness in fast and slow films comes to mind, the difference between chromogene dye clouds and B&W silver grain. I don't think the ImagePrint version is better here. There is not more definition. In halftone terms it is a bigger dot/ rougher screen and within that dot you then can define the dot sizes better based on the same image data input. It depends on the quality of the inkjet paper, the image content and the viewer's eyesight whether that is a good strategy.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/software/imageprint8.shtml
met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla
Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/
-
Hi All,
I'm looking for a version of ImagePrint V6.1.... that includes the driver for the Epson 2400. Nu G4 that housed the software died and I'm trying to load it onto my G5. Every copy that I find does not include the Epson 2400 driver.
I thought I'd try to find it before having to upgrade to V8.
Thanks in advance!
-
When I upgrade printers, every couple of years, I try some alternatives to IP, but always come back to it. I am still on IP 7. What does IP 8 offer? I primarily print b&w.
-
Kirk
It' still the same color engine, so technically it's no difference to print via v7 or v8.
The support for newer print models in v8, does, of course, give you those printers advantages over older ones.
What is added in v8 is more of frames, text in images, background color, a better Spoolface, and so on. Take look here (http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/New%20in%20version%208.pdf)
And if you are on Mac, the latest build v7 also runs under SnowLeopard.
/Sven
-
I have a 3880, and a 9800 and an 11880. The total cost for these with IP8 is over $4500. Thats insane, at least when you are not running a print business.
With the 11880 I use Bill Atkinsons profiles which are great. and I mean GREAT for the papers they cover. Thank You Bill.
I agree that generic profiles are a lot better than before, plus there is much less variation in the modern printers anyway. For example, the profile for Epson Exhibition Fiber on 3880 or 11880 is a remarkably good profile, I think it was made by the PixelGenius people for Epson, so not surprised.
I will one day test IP's EEF on the 3880 vs Epsons EEF profile, and see if it betters that, (doubtful, but will be impressed if it does)
Remember IP profiles are Generic too - they are not for your specific machine, unless you pay extra for that service.
-
A weak argument, but you actually get a discount for add-on IP licenses.
/S
(11880, 9900, 7880, 4800 and soon 4900. All with ImagePrint)
-
My use of a RIP is somewhat specialized - I use Quadtone Rip to adjust the individual ink densities to create a negative with the appropriate contrast range for a platinum print. Unfortunately, based on a query to ImagePrint technical support, they do not support this kind of flexibility.
-
A weak argument, but you actually get a discount for add-on IP licenses.
$4500 cost for software is a weak argument ? - what software to you have that costs anything like that?
and more importantly what software do you have that allows you only to use it on one of your devices:
does Adobe charge per camera that you wish to use for Lightroom, or for Photoshop?
does Capture One charge you for processing Canon 5d2 files, then charge you again for profiles to process 1Ds files? and again for profiles for D60 files? and again for S95?!
No - you buy the software and you can use it on your devices, end of story.
It's a silly joke that you, an individual photographer have to pay for each and every machine you want to use IP on.
-
You misunderstood. I meant that my argument was weak, it was more like an encouragement.
But for the rest of your reply I put in this:
Adobe charges you per computer. So does Cap1.
Silly jokes?
There are many software out there with very strict license policies. Often bound to an encrypted dongle.
Why? Because these small companies don't have the "muscles" as the Big Ones, and have to fight to protect their product and patents.
So there's no doubt that these companies can't have the prices you are used to. The developments and inventions from this sort of manufactures are very often progressive and a big help for the rest of the community. I don't mind supporting them.
And I can agree, that most of the "individual" photographer rarely need a sophisticated RIP these days.
But for me, running a print studio, it's definitely a must, and where IP's strength is unbeatable.
/Sven
-
You misunderstood. I meant that my argument was weak, it was more like an encouragement.
But for the rest of your reply I put in this:
Adobe charges you per computer. So does Cap1.
/Sven
Aha - I get it Sven - yes agreed.
although I would respectfully point out that Adobe and Phaes One do not charge per computer, they allow a user to have at least two operational machines per licence code, and you can call Adobe and get a third activation most of the time.
yes for a print lab like yours, its maybe a necessity, for an individual who is just looking for better final quality, then its all about the profiles (Epsons dither pattern is much better in 2009/10 than it was in 2005) and as discussed above Generic profiles are often very reliable now, and the difference to IP ones hard to justify, if it exists at all.
-
I've read thru this thread (and understood it) after coming here to see if I could find an explanation for the fact that the IP profiles are so _small._
Greeting to this august group, and happy holidays.
I just got IP8 a few days ago, and am testing. I've been making my own profiles using a (don't laugh) ColorMunki. I've used those, and of course the paper mfgr's profiles, along with Epson's (for my 3800.) I'm not knocked out by the results, but I'm still testing...
However, I did notice this: compare the IP profiles with others (my own; mfgr's, Epson's) and every one of them is 20% (or so) smaller. (Using ColorSync Utility on the Mac & holding one for comparison with the other.)
I certainly didn't expect that; at least not according to their literature, and what I'd read. Any comments? Anyone care to explain that 1) either this is as screwy as I think it is, or 2) I'm an ignorant newb, and it isn't important because...?
TIA
-
I've been making my own profiles using a (don't laugh) ColorMunki.
I’m not laughing, it makes surprising good profiles!
However, I did notice this: compare the IP profiles with others (my own; mfgr's, Epson's) and every one of them is 20% (or so) smaller.
As my wife likes to say, size ain’t everything <g>. There are private tags and metadata in profiles that can make the size larger. The measured data is often stored in X-Rite profiles which of course, makes them larger in size. Test the profiles using them with images and printing said images, don’t read much into the actual size of the profiles.
-
Thanks, DD. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the -file- size, but the size of the image space, just as AdobeRGB is a smaller space than ProPhoto. The IP spaces are all comfortably (and well) inside the other spaces. Here, for example is the Canson Baryta profile's space, and the IP version of it, inside. (Well, the yellows are larger, as are some of the deep blues, but the greens are significantly recessed, as are the rest of the colors.)
(http://aperturef8.com/spaces.jpg)
-
OK, size of the gamut. Part of this may be due to the target used to build the profile and where in color space the patches reside.
-
That makes sense. I can understand how that would work. The next question is, of course, is that smaller space imposing a limit (relative to the larger one) on the gamut of the output? (In my ignorance, I suppose so, but perhaps the driver is expanding it? Seems a stretch....
As we exchange here, I'm printing out many tests against the driver and Bill Atkinson's (I went to college with Bill: UCSD) standard test file. FWIW, the Ilford Smooth Pearl profiles seem fine (I prefer the IGSP11 version slightly); the Epson Premium Luster paper really needs the ep3800 PK7 UltraPremiumPhotoLuster RDay profile else the pastels are off significantly. (At least I can manage to give something back! :-)
-
Tracy's observation on the IP profiles made me curious, so I did my own comparison of an InkJetArt Micro Ceramic gloss stock profile for the 4800 against the IP profile for the same printer/paper combination. The gamut volumes are almost exactly the same with a slight shift in colors. This is the result that I would have expected.
-
Jeff & I exchanged a few emails and he was quite helpful. (Thanks, Jeff.) As I told him, I've sent off the question to ColorByte and will report their answer. (I don't see anything obvious in the resulting prints, so I'm curious as to the why of it all...)
later... well, I've just compared the 3D plot of Apple's ColorSync Utility and ColorThink 2.2 using the default sRGB and SWOP. Ummm... they only barely match. Both show the swop yellow and green outside the SRGB, but the Apple utility shows a whole bunch of red and everything toward the black well outside the sRGB frame, while Colorthink shows no such thing.
I also see that the luminosity white points don't match between the two displays, so obviously they are comparing different things, or using different techniques.
So... that might explain the gamut size difference that Jeff and I saw... and I'd be interested to learn from someone here what's going on between the two different software products... why is the axis off? why are the values shown so different?
Here's what I see:
(http://aperturef8.com/versus.jpg)
-
If you have access to MeasureTool (licensed) you can easily generate a control-strip for, say, 20 patches with familiar colors.
Sky, skin, foliage, gray, black, etc.
Print the strip (of course with the actual profile/paper/printer/settings) with Absolute Colorimetric Rendering Intent. Dry as normal.
Measure the strip, compare in Calculating in MT and voilà; you have the DeltaE for that profile.
/Sven
PS. For testing IP profiles, convert the strip from Lab to (Adobe)RGB. IP don't treat Lab in a proper way.
-
And you misunderstood my comparison; that "quality and price" both are higher for that system then the OEM system.
Better prints? Different prints, I would say. But that is just one of many good reasons for using a RIP like IP.
About pricing; what's the cost for an own profiling system, e.g. EyeOne Pro with ProfileMaker?
What's the cost for custom made profiles, say, for ten different papers?
/Sven
Cost for profiles for 10 different papers is between $250 and $500
With oem profiles being so good their is no real reason to have Profilemaker or buy custom profiles.
As a lifelong business owner I am always looking at cost versus benefit ratios. Although some benefits are there the ratio is just to far off to make it cost effective. $250 to $500 range and I become a whole lot more interested.
-
If you have access to MeasureTool (licensed) you can easily generate a control-strip for, say, 20 patches with familiar colors.
PS. For testing IP profiles, convert the strip from Lab to (Adobe)RGB. IP don't treat Lab in a proper way.
You can build and measure in ColorPort as well (without restrictions). If you have ColorThink, you can build a color list that can be imported as patches in ColorPort, saved out as a target and measured. Now what RGB values you select in what color space (Adobe RGB was suggested) is the next question. ColorThink will take RGB values in a color list and assign a profile to produce the Lab conversions as well. You’ll have to select a rendering intent of course! Now you have a reference set and can compare that to the measured data for a dE report or plot the vectors as well as comparing gamuts.
-
Interesting Andrew, thanks for the tip.
/Sven
-
...and, as promised, here's a reply from Chromix as to the differences between the two software products:
Hi Tracy,
What a great question!
Yes, the white points in our grapher don't match because the white points of the profiles don't match. If you open up the two profiles in the Profile Inspector and click on the white point tab, you can see the white points of the two profiles. sRGB is a blueish white, and SWOP is a dark and slightly warm "white". Our 3D grapher accurately reflects this.
Also, Lab space is 255 increments wide and only 100 increments high, so to reflect Lab space as being a squared cube is incorrect.
Here's an article our president wrote that goes into this in more detail:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28
hth
Tracy
-
I agree (being Joe User myself ;) )
-
The reason they are so expensive is because they can charge large printing companies what they want. They maybe part of the SWOP group monopoly.
They price the product based on your potential profit, not on what it takes to make the software or have a good business. Not at all! There is simple ZERO reason to charge the crazy prices they do. They want to keep prepress off the hands of the average folk and only to the industry. Remember the time when magazines only took ads with a Contract proof? Some still strongly demand it, or you sign a big waiver to release liability of color.
I would think these companies could get off their high horse and provide some reasonably priced solutions for independent designers and printers. One could only hope. But why would they, they are still reeping gains from the med-large printing houses.
I know there is quite a bit involved in the dev of such, but Qimage could come up with a prepress version and shock the market.
-
The reason they are so expensive is because they can charge large printing companies what they want. They maybe part of the SWOP group monopoly.
SWOP monopoly, what’s that? What has SWOP got to do with printing on an inkjet using a print driver designed primarily for ‘fine art’ photo output?
The price some may consider high. If the cost proposition isn’t for you, don’t buy it.
They price the product based on your potential profit, not on what it takes to make the software or have a good business
How would they have any idea of your potential profit?
I know a few folk who use this product and have no such potential profit, they just want to use it to make their own prints.
-
I'm talking about RIP software for prepress. These are the controllers of what is considered "certified" or not.
Most of these inkjets at the time replaced "blueline" prints, Kodak or Iris prints. those were considered proofs. They came with color controllers, RIP software. This was sometimes a $150 for a single Letter size page.
Then proofing and more recently for photo printing. From what I remember, the software for accurate color worked from the prepress side first.
I think a proof now adays is less than $20. So the software side needs to correct the pricing, and they haven't.
-
I'm talking about RIP software for prepress.
And this thread is about Imageprint vs QImage...the proofing rips don't apply here.
-
this thread is old. I read it and what I mention has more to do with it than much of the other pages of discussion.
the price stucture does apply in some of them. I paid $2K for a rip an now that I have a new printer they want another $1200....I want it for my photography prints.
-
I personally like Q-Image a lot more.
Yes, Imageprint has somewhat like over 10 thousand profiles up on their server.
But the fact is, I never need to provide that much veriaty to my customer.
Most of the time I provide no more than 10 types of paper in all the time.
Once is a blue moon, I do have a request on some other paper that I don't always keep in stock.
But that's not a really big problem for me.
Plus sometimes, customer will bring in or request some special paper which they will not have a profile on their side such as no name uncoated fine art paper, uncoated traditional Chinese rice paper.
So no matter what, it is better off for me to create my own ICC profile.
Plus, I "personally" think Q-image has a better user interface.
aaron
-
I'm going to give Qimage a deeper try. I have downloaded the tester, but 14 days is more like 3-4 days by the time I get around to it.
regarding other pricey RIPs, I rather pay $30-40 for someone who does it often to make a profile. In a pinch, I'll dust off my profile maker.
-
Plus sometimes, customer will bring in or request some special paper which they will not have a profile on their side such as no name uncoated fine art paper, uncoated traditional Chinese rice paper.
So no matter what, it is better off for me to create my own ICC profile.
aaron
You never print in B&W? I find that the quality of the B&W profiles that ImagePrint has is superior to what I can create, no matter how hard I try. And as the B&W prints in ImagePrint don't use any of the yellow ink, they will last a lot longer than a B&W print made with a colour profile or with Epson's ABW option.
-
You never print in B&W? I find that the quality of the B&W profiles that ImagePrint has is superior to what I can create, no matter how hard I try. And as the B&W prints in ImagePrint don't use any of the yellow ink, they will last a lot longer than a B&W print made with a colour profile or with Epson's ABW option.
Phil most likely has an HP Z3200 printer too given his other messages in the forum. ImagePrint does not support that printer. On the other hand the combination of Qimage Ultimate + the HP Z3200 is made in heaven; the spectrometer aboard the printer keeps any media calibration up to date and delivers custom profiles for third party media, Qimage Ultimate does the right job in up and down resampling + smart print sharpening and way more. IP does not have that many features. HP documents on using third party media are nice too. The quad ink B&W matte prints of the HP Z's driver B&W mode are one of a kind within OEM solutions and can be enhanced with QTR B&W profiling if needed. The total substitution of composite grey mixes by grey ink mixes has been aboard the Z driver/firmware from day one, 2006, both for color and B&W driver modes. That novelty must have been the inspiration in 2012 for the ImagePrint engineers to create a similar black generation in today's ImagePrint so the Epson inks can deliver a better light resistance in prints than possible with the Epson drivers. The Epson ink set still lacks a decent light resistant yellow ink though and the grey inks need some color inks to be neutralised where the HP grey inks up to the PK are neutral themselves.
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_weakest_link.shtml
The HP ink mixing is a bit more nifty than I describe it here. Mark McCormick has mentioned the compensation of the grey ink's warming up in time with a synchroneity in cyan ink color shifting. If I recall it correctly.
To profile other brand printers with the Z's spectrometer one has to check the ability of the HP Color Center or APS software for that task. I have done it for some customers with other printer models.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
You never print in B&W? I find that the quality of the B&W profiles that ImagePrint has is superior to what I can create, no matter how hard I try. And as the B&W prints in ImagePrint don't use any of the yellow ink, they will last a lot longer than a B&W print made with a colour profile or with Epson's ABW option.
Yes, I do.
But I'm sorry, I don't really see the huge difference between both of them.
I know Michael said that the curve of top of the line product is almost very flat.
But as a shop owner, I do also have to concern about the balance between my investment and my income.
If it does not create higher profit than my current workflow, why should I invest a new equipement?
Longevity is very important, but by some how, I think this term has been over rated in someway.
I studied fine art as my major, to me, art is itself.
I, as a human being, changes all the time when time pass by.
I do believe changes in an art piece is acceptable.
But of course it better stays what it looks like after 30 years when I sold the piece to my collector.
Otherwise I will either have to reprint it or the value of my other works might just drop a bit.
Let me put this in another way, very selfish to say that, but personally I don't really care about longevity of my personal work.
If it will last for another 50 years, I'm good with it, I'll be in my 80s by that time.
I don't really give a dime after that, cuz I'll probably gonna be dead anytime soon.
I don't think da vinci had thought about his work can last that long too. (Just my thought of it, maybe he really did)
Nothing is perfect, IP is not, QI is not as well.
Just my personal favor doesn't mean is the best for the others,
but at least it works for me and I can still pay my bill for my rent and my coffee every morning.
Just like profiling, you want the piece come out numerical perfect or more eye pleasing?
I would choose the later one.
aaron
-
I'm talking about RIP software for prepress. These are the controllers of what is considered "certified" or not.
As Jeff points out, this has absolutely nothing to do with Imageprint. I’ve worked with it and clients since the days it ran under OS9 and everyone of those clients were working in RGB workflows to produce ‘fine art’ prints, nothing to do with Prepress. I’ve been over their site (not with a fine tooth comb) and find nothing about SWOP or for that matter, the company suggesting it is for prepress work, cannot find the term SWOP anywhere.
Question Phil, have you ever used ImagePrint?
Further, your ideas about a SWOP monopoly don’t make any sense to me and since you made the point, be useful if you’d explain what you’re talking about. Here are the facts about SWOP which has nothing to do with ink jet printing of RGB data:
Specifications for Web Offset Publications. The SWOP committee came together in 1974 when a group of printers formed this organization to provide some standards for web offset presses. The web in this case shouldn’t be confused with the Internet (World Wide Web), but rather a printing process using large rolls of paper instead of the alternative, which is a sheet-fed press (printing onto cut sheets). The large rolls of paper were known as webs. In 1977, the SWOP committee produced standards for printers to follow and have published updates over the years. To clarify the goal of the SWOP committee, the following quote from their mission statement follows.
SWOP Mission
The mission of SWOP is to continually raise the level of quality of publication printing by setting forth specifications and tolerances.
The SWOP committee is attempting to produce reasonable goals and consistent expectations for print vendors to follow. The SWOP organization publishes very detailed specifications about aim points that when followed, produce SWOP press behavior.
-
have you ever used ImagePrint?
It doesn't change anything if I used it or not. I have used 4 different RIP systems, QImage I an not sure what catagory it falls in, but it will be the 5th printing software I use.
I don't need to use ImagePrint to give my opinion of how I think RIP systems that sell $XXX are a huge burden on the Fine Artist, and the independent printer.
the discussion at this point is not even about how the software works.
You're repeating yourself. If you don't see a parallel, and you find yourself in the defensive, there are other topics.
Also true as pointed out, I use a HP, as I have learned to hate using the Epson printers over the past decade, even when I have loved the prints they make.
If this doesn't make sense, then you are lucky and a different user.
Speaking from experiences in other threads, maybe we are close to getting at the polar differences on how one thinks. I think it is vital for such polarity to exist in creating a balance in everything, but sometimes we just get fed up and vent. No need to pick at every thread to drive a point.
Most RIPs are overpriced for the independent printer and specially the fine artist. Sometimes there are groups and boards with members in place to protect such interests. Is this really hard to see and believe?
Have you looked at a chart of which printer models are within SWOP spec and which are not in the past 10 years? If you did, you would know exactly what I'm talking about. There is plenty for you with starting there for info and seeing how printers get in and out over the years.
-
It doesn't change anything if I used it or not.
That’s what I suspected in terms of your ‘rant’ of ImagePrint. And what appears to be the nonsensical SWOP monopoly text too. Enough said.
-
Im using IP about 3 weeks now! ;D It has produced much better profiles than I could done..Much better than anything the epson can produce, including ABW.
I did find a paper that was not in their profile library. They wanted me to send them my samples..Well, i decided to not to do that! So,, no chromaroll.
-
That’s what I suspected in terms of your ‘rant’ of ImagePrint. And what appears to be the nonsensical SWOP monopoly text too. Enough said.
I didn't even mention the name IP. Your sense of defensiveness is whats ridiculous.
That's how "invested" you are in Imageprint? Block out anything that might tarnish the thought of it ?
Sounds like you are somehow affiliated or you've got some relation.
I didn't refer to a specific RIP. Odd how you run and protect any thread that goes against your level of understanding, or threatens it.
Try and jump in once in awhile for the sake of discussion and advice, etc.
(Not only for the sake of "trying to disqualify" someone to protect yourself). Maybe you have?
-
I didn't even mention the name IP.
IP is ImagePrint. That's the topic here. It's actually part the topic title!
That's how "invested" you are in Imageprint?
Zero investment, I haven't used it since version 6. My investment is in seeing that people don't produce silly rants that have no basis in fact like a so called SWOP monopoly, whatever that is supposed to be (you made it up, can't you explain and defend it?) or that the price of a RIP is too high for you so it has to be for everyone. IF that were true, and it certainly isn't, ColorByte and a slew of other companies that produce what some call a "RIP" would have gone out of business long ago. Clearly that isn't the case Phil.
I didn't refer to a specific RIP.
Oh so you are now going to lump every and all RIP's into your rant? You'd be better off just blaming IP at this point.
Try and jump in once in awhile for the sake of discussion and advice, etc.
My advise to others would be, based on your post about all RIPs and the SWOP monopoly, your writings should be ignored. OK?
-
Phil, just so you don't go off mad, let me point out that this topic is over a year old**. I've posted multiple times from the beginning. You came here yesterday and kind of hijack it, go off topic about SWOP monopolies, proofing RIPS (which neither QImage or IP are intended for) then get pissed when called out about what certainly seems to be a rant. I thought it was directed at IP but now you're telling us you're referring to all RIPs so you've taken a perfectly useful set of posts where it was never intended to go, presumably to let us know how you feel about said products. I suppose that's a useful exercise for you, but as Jeff pointed out, it has absolutely nothing to do with this topic.
Based on the above post facts, it's interesting you would come here and write: Try and jump in once in awhile for the sake of discussion and advice, etc. You are the pot calling the kettle black Phil.
** my mistake, more than 4 years old. Where you been Phil?
-
I resurrected it...
in a new direction :-)
For this, you can make up for it by helping random posts, none related to color! :-)
And I will post on threads with direct measurable input.