Pages: 1 [2]   Go Down

Author Topic: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?  (Read 4999 times)

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #20 on: November 26, 2015, 06:10:34 pm »

In your opinion & experience, does it make a difference whether you're using an i1 V1 or V2, and/or UV-cut or non-cut for making your own profiles? 
In a word, yes, it can. Depends on a number of factors like the papers, degree of OBA's etc. In terms of UV Cut vs. Not, no hard and fast rules as far as I'm concerned and I'll often measure both and build a profile each way then decided.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

gigdagefg

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 83
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #21 on: November 26, 2015, 11:19:48 pm »

Imageprint simplified the printing process for me. Before purchasing the rip, I built profiles with varied success on quite a few different papers, but none of my profiles yielded the precise duplication between my calibrated Eizio monitor and the print as well as Imageprint. For me the investment in the software has more than paid for itself by avoiding wasted paper and ink
Stanley
Logged

Stefan Ohlsson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 174
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #22 on: November 27, 2015, 05:45:42 am »

Thank you.  Much appreciated.  May I ask a follow-up question please?  In your opinion & experience, does it make a difference whether you're using an i1 V1 or V2, and/or UV-cut or non-cut for making your own profiles?
I think that the i1 v2 is much improved compared to the first version. You can get similar results if you compare them, but it easier to make mistakes with the original version. Mistakes that an unexperienced profile creator doesn't notice. When I build a profile I measure my chart three or four times and then I compare the result before I create an average of the measurements. I notice that it is easier to get very similar results when I use my i1Pro2.


Quote
In some sense, your response is a little surprising. People often praise the ImagePrint profiles, but unless you're doing something unique, your reply suggests that the big difference is in the RIP itself rather than the profiles that they create and supply.
The results that I get when I build my own profiles or use the ImagePrint profiles are very similar. I don't think that the big difference is the profile, it's more the media setting (ImagePrint calls it the recipe). If you don't have a good media setting, no profile can correct the result.
Logged

Jager

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
    • E vestigio
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #23 on: November 27, 2015, 06:10:23 am »

Sorry man, that's simply not the case. Here's a prefect example: Epson canned profile vs. custom. These are photo's of actual prints made on a P600. The only difference is the profile, both using RelCol. Night and day:
Look at the mapping of blues, examine the dynamic range and lack thereof from the Epson profile.

Andrew, what would the comparison look like with one of the better (X-Rite created) Epson profiles?  e.g. for Exhibition Fiber?

As you note in your follow-on post, all Epson canned profiles are not created equal.  And since most of the "higher quality" (no offense to fans of Premium Luster) Epson papers appear to be made by X-Rite, making the comparison with one of those better papers would seem to make sense.

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1984
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #24 on: November 27, 2015, 08:53:06 am »

Seems like the problem is sort of Forrest Gump-y.  You never know what quality of profile you're gonna get unless you're a colorgeek and know/understand these sort of esoteric things.  That precludes about 99.7% of the users out there.

I think Epson is doing themselves a great dis-service by not riding shotgun on these profiles to give the customer a consistent quality.  But doesn't that sound just like Epson?

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #25 on: November 27, 2015, 12:39:17 pm »

Andrew, what would the comparison look like with one of the better (X-Rite created) Epson profiles?  e.g. for Exhibition Fiber?
Depends on how it was measured and built (custom settings for Perceptual table). But the differences should be much, much smaller than we see between the Seiko vs. X-rite profiles. That's night and day.


Let's say you use an iSis and produce various M-series measurements, then maybe OBA correction and/or post optimization as I do with all my profiles. You could see a difference on a good suite of test reference images (mine, Bill Atkinson, Roman 16). Even when I build custom profiles in i1P using 1700 odd patches, depending on a few factors, I see improved gray balance and saturated color rendering after running a post optimization using my custom target for that task. It can be subtle but it's visible! You're just not going to see that with any 'canned profile' for obvious reasons.

Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #26 on: November 27, 2015, 12:40:23 pm »

You never know what quality of profile you're gonna get unless you're a colorgeek and know/understand these sort of esoteric things. 
Actually you'll know after making prints using color reference images. One can conduct colorimetric testing too, but that requires a Spectrophotometer and something like ColorThink Pro. That data is useful and interesting but not prior to making prints!
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

howardm

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1984
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #27 on: November 27, 2015, 01:14:08 pm »

What I meant is exactly that.  How many people have come here (well, maybe less so) or DPR and when you tell them 'print a standard test image' they say 'I never thought of that!' or 'where can I get one'? 

I think many would just suffer in silence and say 'wow, this paper sorta sucks' when the profile itself isn't really very good.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #28 on: November 27, 2015, 01:22:37 pm »


What I meant is exactly that.
Well I was referring to the suggestion that:
Quote
You never know what quality of profile you're gonna get unless you're a colorgeek and know/understand these sort of esoteric things. 
You don't have to be a geek and I don't believe this is esoteric. One does need to now what to look for in printed output, if not, it's kind of moot: ignorance is bliss. FWIW, next video in the works goes over this exactly; what to look for, what test images to use etc.
Quote
How many people have come here (well, maybe less so) or DPR and when you tell them 'print a standard test image' they say 'I never thought of that!' or 'where can I get one'? 
I don't know. But the answer is easy to provide, education is key.
Quote
I think many would just suffer in silence and say 'wow, this paper sorta sucks' when the profile itself isn't really very good.
Possible. But we can't help those who are unable or unwilling to learn. None of us were born with any knowledge of printing, color management or image quality, we learned one way or another. As for DPR, well the site is FILLED with people who don't have a clue. Not so much here. We either try to assist and teach or just ignore them. I prefer the former.
Bottom line is, the tools (images) and techniques to evaluate profiles are around and conducting such tests is pretty easy. The colorimetric tests are far more difficult.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

Ferp

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 295
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #29 on: November 27, 2015, 05:39:33 pm »

I think that the i1 v2 is much improved compared to the first version. You can get similar results if you compare them, but it easier to make mistakes with the original version. Mistakes that an unexperienced profile creator doesn't notice. When I build a profile I measure my chart three or four times and then I compare the result before I create an average of the measurements. I notice that it is easier to get very similar results when I use my i1Pro2.

What sorts of mistakes are you referring to?  Surely you don't mean mis-scanning the target.  Do you mean too much sample variation, leading to a need to do as you suggest - averaging multiple scans?

I don't think that the big difference is the profile, it's more the media setting (ImagePrint calls it the recipe). If you don't have a good media setting, no profile can correct the result.

I've seen this with some other RIPs.  I don't see the point of buying a RIP less it's using its own media profile.  Otherwise I may as well save my money and use the Epson driver.
Logged

Jager

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 207
    • E vestigio
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #30 on: November 27, 2015, 05:42:41 pm »

Depends on how it was measured and built (custom settings for Perceptual table). But the differences should be much, much smaller than we see between the Seiko vs. X-rite profiles. That's night and day.


Let's say you use an iSis and produce various M-series measurements, then maybe OBA correction and/or post optimization as I do with all my profiles. You could see a difference on a good suite of test reference images (mine, Bill Atkinson, Roman 16). Even when I build custom profiles in i1P using 1700 odd patches, depending on a few factors, I see improved gray balance and saturated color rendering after running a post optimization using my custom target for that task. It can be subtle but it's visible! You're just not going to see that with any 'canned profile' for obvious reasons.

Thanks, Andrew.  I was hoping you had a comparison at-hand of Exhibition Fiber, or one of Epson's other "better" papers.

The OP came onboard with the notion that he needed either custom profiles or a RIP in order to get "better print quality."  It's been my experience that the canned profiles generally work very well - but then I use Epson's "better" papers almost exclusively (the profiles for which are all, I believe, created by X-Rite; and, again, no intended insult to those who favor Premium Luster).  Your example contrasting the custom-versus-canned profiles for Premium Luster - clearly quite dramatic - is, perhaps, somewhat less than representative of Epson's Signature paper lineup?  Lending what I'd suggest is false credence to the OP's belief that he's not going to get good prints unless he goes down the road of custom profiles or a RIP.

The reality is that buying an i1Pro 2 or other spectrophotometer is not going to suddenly turn one into a color and profile expert.  I agree with Peter that most folks out there today making profiles, either for themselves or for profit, are probably little better - and potentially far worse - in their efforts than are Epson, Canon, HP, Canson, Hahnemuhle, Ilford, etc.  My guess is that of those making profiles, very few are at your level (1700 patches!).

Which is not at all to suggest that if the OP wants to learn that somewhat esoteric part of the printmaking business, by all means proceed!  But to believe that the canned manufacturer profiles are all rubbish and the only way to get excellent results is to go there, seems patently false.

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #31 on: November 27, 2015, 06:05:12 pm »

Your example contrasting the custom-versus-canned profiles for Premium Luster - clearly quite dramatic - is, perhaps, somewhat less than representative of Epson's Signature paper lineup? 
All I can do is provide a list of the profiles made using X-rite vs. whatever the Seiko people use:
As I think I mentioned, if you see a "V" in the name, that's an X-rite profile.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

digitaldog

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 20630
  • Andrew Rodney
    • http://www.digitaldog.net/
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #32 on: November 27, 2015, 06:13:23 pm »

While I haven't printed using each profile in the supplied list, one can soft proof the Gamut Test File (or the Roman 16 blue girl who's print I illustrated) and this problem with mapping of blues to nearly black is clearly visible on-screen. Not with any of the profiles with a "V" in the name using the X-rite color engine. The one slight outlier is the profile named Epson Stylus Pro 3880_3885_3890 Standard. Not as bad. That said, I have no idea what that's for. It's still a profile tagged with Seiko in the copyright but it's not anywhere as bad as the others.
Logged
http://www.digitaldog.net/
Author "Color Management for Photographers".

PeterAit

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4559
    • Peter Aitken Photographs
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #33 on: November 28, 2015, 03:35:01 pm »

Sorry man, that's simply not the case. Here's a prefect example: Epson canned profile vs. custom. These are photo's of actual prints made on a P600. The only difference is the profile, both using RelCol. Night and day:
Look at the mapping of blues, examine the dynamic range and lack thereof from the Epson profile.

Well, your photos certainly provide food for thought! I can't help but think that the Epson profile image of the woman could be a lot better processed, but even so I will have to reconsider my ideas regarding profiles. Thanks.
Logged

Stefan Ohlsson

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 174
Re: ImagePrint or i1Pro 2?
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2015, 05:28:46 am »

What sorts of mistakes are you referring to?  Surely you don't mean mis-scanning the target.  Do you mean too much sample variation, leading to a need to do as you suggest - averaging multiple scans?
No, I don't mean mis-scanning a target. But when I compare several measurements done with the first version of i1 I get a higher variation than I get with version 2. I can think of several reasons for that, but the only thing I'm sure of is that when I started using i1Pro2 my Delta E went down when I compared 3-4 measurements of the same target.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]   Go Up