Print quality shootout

[The Doc]

Michael and Kevin have been speaking, on video, a lot lately on the printed image and going forward they would doing more in this area.

Often printing shootouts are between printer brands, however I would like to see is a print comparison between printing from Lightroom, Photoshop, Qimage Ultimate and ImagePrint 10 using the same printer. To see if the choices really make a difference in the final printed product.

Perhaps select 3 or 4 different papers and do glossy, matter and lustre prints.

Perhaps the comparison could include:
-Printed Image Quality;
-Ease of use;
-Functionality;
-Cost;
-Windows/Mac; and
-Best method of sharpening (use the app or a third party product).


regards

Michael

[Jimbo57]

I suspect that a major problem would be arriving at any sort of consensus about the criteria to be used.

What you cannot easily legislate for is that the ultimate quality of a print (however assessed) almost certainly has more to do with the skill, application and patience of the photographer than with the printer/paper/inks used. (Obviously within sensible limits)

[chez]

I suspect that a major problem would be arriving at any sort of consensus about the criteria to be used.

What you cannot easily legislate for is that the ultimate quality of a print (however assessed) almost certainly has more to do with the skill, application and patience of the photographer than with the printer/paper/inks used. (Obviously within sensible limits)

Exactly right. It takes years to master an application...just cannot see anyone being masters in all those applications.

[Ray Cox]

I also agree. The operator is the weakest link in that chain. Having gone to all in-house image production six years ago I have found that mastering the program is the all important step. Just as you would as a professional photographer not set the camera to automatic and hope for the best it requires skill to extract what you want from a file and transfer that to paper.

[Schewe]

Often printing shootouts are between printer brands, however I would like to see is a print comparison between printing from Lightroom, Photoshop, Qimage Ultimate and ImagePrint 10 using the same printer.

Fools gold...LR & PS should be the same (if you have half a clue), Qimage is using the print driver's pipeline so should be similar to LR/PS but with a Windows only pipeline and a different UI. ImagePrint has some useful additions particularly if using non-manufacture's paper

But to what point?

To tell you what to do?

I'll tell you what to do, do your own tests and make your own choices. Then make some decisions and make some great prints. Hand holding is optional.

[The Doc]

If you cannot make a civil response, do not bother posting Schewe.

I would be very interested in seeing a review by Kevin who has a great deal of experience in this area. Something I and many others could not do. I know he has ImagePrint (a rather big outlay if I was only doing a test).

I suppose some see the glass as half full, I see Kevin's comments being insightful.

[Schewe]

If you cannot make a civil response, do not bother posting Schewe.

You call that uncivil? Really? Surely you jest...I can be uncivil as others can attest and my answer was civil–I didn't call you any names :~)

 A "print shootout" is really a waste of time.

[dchew]

Last year I did my own little print shootout with my 7900 and Canson Infinity Baryta to compare the following print paths in color (not b&w):

• LR using Canson's profile
• LR using a custom profile I created
• Imageprint using their custom profile

I used Andrew's "Printer Gamut Test File" (the one with the fish, fabric, spectrum, boat and Bill's balls). I used the same paper and the same image, but still the output is fraught with pitfalls. Not to mention what part of the test image do I want to be "best"? The balls, the spectrum, the fabric or the fish? If the balls, which color? I did accomplish one thing: I verified my custom profile was pretty darn good. At least for one image...

As Jeff said, kind of a waste 'o time.

Dave

[digitaldog]

Not to mention what part of the test image do I want to be "best"? The balls, the spectrum, the fabric or the fish? If the balls, which color?

All of the above or those elements wouldn't have been placed on the page. It wasn't designed to be the end all single page test. It was designed as one page to examine how profiles deal with really saturated colors. That is why I also have a 2nd color reference image with different items on the page* (like a black to white step wedge you will not find on the Gamut Test File). IF you want a superb test suite of images for this task, do as I did and buy the Roman 16 test images**. As the name implies, you now have 16 pages of images to output and you still want to use test images like mine, Bill Atkinson etc, that has synthetic's designed to show issues with output.


* http://www.digitaldog.net/files/2014PrinterTestFileFlat.tif.zip
** http://www.roman16.com/en/

[digitaldog]

Further Dave, this is what you don't want to see (bottom example):

[PeterAit]

You call that uncivil? Really? Surely you jest...I can be uncivil as others can attest and my answer was civil–I didn't call you any names :~)

 A "print shootout" is really a waste of time.

This is not aimed at anyone in particular.

Jeff is 100% correct, IMHO. He was perfectly civil and I agree that this unceasing obsession with testing everything is completely non-productive. Do you really think that if you finally find the perfect printer, the perfect camera, the perfect paper, etc. you are suddenly going to start creating fantastic photos? No. And the reason is that you are a BAD PHOTOGRAPHER who hasn't a clue about what makes a good photo. If you want to be an equipment wiener then be my guest, but don't confuse that with photography.

[dchew]

Further Dave, this is what you don't want to see (bottom example):

Thank you Andrew. Most of the colored balls in all three of my paths look pretty good, but a few are in between your two examples. The thing is the really good looking balls are not consistent across the colors in one specific path. For example, my custom profile has two balls that look "better" and two balls that look "worse" than the canned CIBP profile.

I re-read my post and think I came across a bit harsh. First, I appreciate the tools and resources you, Jeff and others put up and make available for us hacks to learn from. They are exceedingly helpful. The point I wanted to make was the results of a test like what was suggested by the OP are so darn specific. Each photographer has their way of working, a limited list of tools to work with, and their acceptable level of effort and expertise she/he is willing to put forth to get that result.

I think the OP has a legitimate request; I just don't think it is possible to do in a way that would help any sort of "majority."

Dave

[The Doc]

Kevin in the recent Moab interview mentioned an upcoming review of RIPS. He only mentioned ImagePrint as an example. With any luck he will also look at LR, PS and hopefully some others.

In a former life Kevin printed images for a living and he is particular about his prints, so his insight will be helpful.

[digitaldog]

Kevin in the recent Moab interview mentioned an upcoming review of RIPS. He only mentioned ImagePrint as an example. With any luck he will also look at LR, PS and hopefully some others.

And hopefully Kevin and Moab will discuss what a RIP is and what it isn't. ImagePrint can be both depending on how you buy it.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

And hopefully Kevin and Moab will discuss what a RIP is and what it isn't. ImagePrint can be both depending on how you buy it.

Indeed, and depending on the definition of RIP (Raster Image Processor), it would be a great omission to not discuss Qimage Ultimate (which, as a Windows application, apparently also runs fine under Parallels on a Mac). Some Mac users even run a dedicated Windows OS PC for printing with Qimage Ulitimate, that's how good it is ...

Its high quality resampling and DFS smart output sharpening leaves many very much more expensive alternatives in the dust, by a mile or more. Not that even that result can't be improved upon by pampering individual prints with several elaborate partial software solutions, but it's pretty amazing for high productivity at very high quality, and at a price and upgrade regime that's hard to beat.

Cheers,
Bart

[Denis de Gannes]

Indeed, and depending on the definition of RIP (Raster Image Processor), it would be a great omission to not discuss Qimage Ultimate (which, as a Windows application, apparently also runs fine under Parallels on a Mac). Some Mac users even run a dedicated Windows OS PC for printing with Qimage Ulitimate, that's how good it is ...

Its high quality resampling and DFS smart output sharpening leaves many very much more expensive alternatives in the dust, by a mile or more. Not that even that result can't be improved upon by pampering individual prints with several elaborate partial software solutions, but it's pretty amazing for high productivity at very high quality, and at a price and upgrade regime that's hard to beat.

Cheers,
Bart

I am a Qimage Ultimate user for my printing needs. I have used Qimage since 2002 and while I have used Lightroom from inception in 2007 for processing my raw captures I have stuck with Qimage for my printing. I have used Lightroom printing module for printing also and it is very good and a step up from Photoshop CS for its user interface.
However testing the capabilities of printing software in my experience is very difficult by just comparing on screen captures or viewing. The final test is viewing actual prints physically so trying to achieve what the original poster is suggesting is pie in the sky as far as I am concerned.
Make your own comparison using the suggested applications and use the one that meets your expectations. They will all provide very good to excellent results.
In my experience Qimage will match results achievable from Lightroom / PS CS combined with, Perfect Resize 8 suite.