RIP Software

[Abdo]

Good day !

Some RIP software that can print better than the original manufacturer's software ?

Thanks

Abdo

[Denis de Gannes]

Have a look here.
http://ddisoftware.com

[Abdo]

Thank you Dennis,

But the question is third party software, you can print better than the manufacturer.

Abdo

[Farmer]

The answer is "it depends".  What printer, which RIP, what sort of printing, what sort of media, what sort of images, how much time and money do you have, so on and so on.  There is no simple answer to your question.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Thank you Dennis,

But the question is third party software, you can print better than the manufacturer.

Hi Abdo,

Better than which manufacturer? Which printer?

Most printers that are used for Photographic output are inkjet printers from Epson of Canon. The standard software that comes with those is pretty basic in functionality. If you want to produce higher quality output, enlargements, then Denis' suggestion for Qimage Ultimate is a very good one (especially if you are on a Windows OS computer).

Cheers,
Bart

[Abdo]

Thanks all,

Bart, use IPF8400 and IPF6400.

The issue of software is basic I understand.

But the main issue is the final output.

Without changing the file because there would be handling.

Printing software Canon, using LR and RIP could do better?

Thanks

[keithcooper]

Thanks all,

Bart, use IPF8400 and IPF6400.

The issue of software is basic I understand.

But the main issue is the final output.

Without changing the file because there would be handling.

Printing software Canon, using LR and RIP could do better?

Thanks

As has been said - 'better' is potentially rather a vague and meaningless term ;-)

Having tested quite a few printers recently (enough that the house management is requesting I review smaller items for a while) I'm firmly of the belief that most people would benefit far more from a better workflow and improved appreciation of how decisions right from picking up the camera through to final adjustment of image files before printing affect printing.

On an 8400, I'd print from photoshop using the Canon plugin. With a custom profile (and media type if need be) I've seen no other software that prints better. I still say that for large printers like the 8400 and newer, the limitations for most photographers are primarily user (in)competence, and just buying 'print software' is wasting cash (but still an ever popular approach wrt cameras/lenses/software).  Harsh maybe, but I include myself in this sometimes ;-)

If you want layout and related options, then maybe other software will help (I've looked at Mirage and ImageNest recently) For B&W I might look at TBW, but the current version is still a bit clunky IMHO from a usability POV (I'm hoping to get a look at the latest version on the PRO-2000 if Canon don't take it back too soon !)

Personally, I'd not include LR in the mix for large prints - When I make a large print (20" x 30" upwards) I expect to do work in photoshop with all kinds of masked layers and the like. The bigger the print, the more important it is to have a truly print oriented workflow, and to accept that the best looking print comes from a file that may not be the best looking on the screen (one reason I regard soft proofing as an aid, not a crutch)

[Kevin Raber]

Next week there will be an article with two videos going over the ImagePrint RIP.  Lots of interesting tip and trick.  I have using ImagePrint as has been mentioned here before a few times and wouldn't think of anything else.  Hope you find the article informative.

[Herbc]

Been using Quadtone RIP for many years for b/w.  Don't know of others

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The issue of software is basic I understand.

But the main issue is the final output.

Without changing the file because there would be handling.

The file you send to the printer will be changed automatically. It will be resized to match the printer's resolution (300 or 600 PPI for your Canons) at the size your printing it, and its color will be changed to the profile of the media that you are using.

The better printing methods/workflows allow to sharpen the image after it is resized to output size, and that's called Output Sharpening. Then dedicated printing software (a RIP is more than that, and basically also converts vector images to raster images first). A really dedicated RIP is fine tuned for a single printer model, with control over all aspects (interpolation, nozzles, dithering, etc.), and therefore bypasses the manufacturer's default printer driver. These require serious investment in money and training.

All other printing applications use the manufacturer's printer driver instead, for the last bit of the printing pipeline, and do resampling and sharpening before they send the printer the RGB pixel data.

Printing software Canon, using LR and RIP could do better?

If the output is resampled to meet the 300 or 600 PPI, it will be very hard (if at all possible) to beat specialized software like Qimage Ultimate, which uses very good resampling algorithms and halo-free user adjustable Output Sharpening. It also offers efficient image nesting and other placements options (with reusable templates). It's hard to get anything better for its modest price (but don't let the low price fool you, it's very powerful).

Cheers,
Bart

[BradSmith]

My humble opinion.  99.342% of viewers of color prints would be UNABLE to pick out the RIP print from the "normal" Application/printer driver prints.
RIP might be "easier".  RIP might allow many unique, ganged image arrangements on larger format paper.  RIP might allow easy, controllable image toning for B&W.  But image quality difference wouldn't be visible.
Brad

[Abdo]

Thanks all !

Brad,

This is the information that I would know.

I understand that RIP can make life easier, and can have many functions.

Now the end result and looking two impressions is possible the eye, see difference ...

This is the question.

Thanks

[Abdo]

Look this:

https://www.facebook.com/raymondcruz.ph/posts/1113260412065548

[Jim Kasson]

The file you send to the printer will be changed automatically. It will be resized to match the printer's resolution (300 or 600 PPI for your Canons) at the size your printing it, and its color will be changed to the profile of the media that you are using.and sharpening before they send the printer the RGB pixel data.

It's a fine -- and admittedly a nerdy -- point, Bart, but I think you meant to say that the file will be resampled to match the printer driver's preferred resolution. I know of no reason other than computational efficiency and convenience that error diffusion with blue noise dither can't be done directly on a file at the resolution with which it's presented to the driver, as long either the target color is interpolated on the fly (same result as resampling) or the predicted color, and thus the error, is computed at or near the location of the pixel under consideration in the input file. With, say a 2880 dpi resolution in the print engine, you could use the input file at presented resolution and use nearest neighbor on the print side (fitting the target grid to the print engine grid, not some coarser sampling of the print engine grid, as is done in the Epson drivers).

Or am I missing something?

BTW, Bart, how are you doing? I've been a stranger here for a while.

Jim

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

It's a fine -- and admittedly a nerdy -- point, Bart, but I think you meant to say that the file will be resampled to match the printer driver's preferred resolution.

Hi Jim,

Absolutely correct, on both counts

Obviously, the printer's physical resolution is given by the nozzle positioning/density and paper transport mechanism, but for dithering the Canon printer drivers will resample single pixels to fit either 300 or 600 pixels (if the  'finest detail' option is selected) of them in an inch per unit length, and dither mixed colors with paper white and a mix of available inks (the dithering pattern can be as fine as 2400 x 9600 dots per inch on some of their printer models).

I know of no reason other than computational efficiency and convenience that error diffusion with blue noise dither can't be done directly on a file at the resolution with which it's presented to the driver, as long either the target color is interpolated on the fly (same result as resampling) or the predicted color, and thus the error, is computed at or near the location of the pixel under consideration in the input file. With, say a 2880 dpi resolution in the print engine, you could use the input file at presented resolution and use nearest neighbor on the print side (fitting the target grid to the print engine grid, not some coarser sampling of the print engine grid, as is done in the Epson drivers).

Or am I missing something?

I think that the chosen approach by printer manufacturers is indeed for reasons of computational efficiency. Only having to consider dither patterns and error diffusion at two predetermined pixel pitches (300/600 for Canon/HP, and 360/720 for Epson) is probably simpler when having to deal with multiple interwoven rows of image data and drying times (especially on large format inkjet printers, say 40+ inches wide).

As far as I remember, when I spoke with the creator of the PosterJet RIP software, dedicated RIPs that bypass/replace the default printer driver have very low level access to the print nozzles, and can print at other physical resolutions, and being server based applications, they can use much better resampling and sharpening algorithms than a universal driver with limited memory and processing power.

BTW, Bart, how are you doing? I've been a stranger here for a while.

I'm fine, just very busy. You have been missed here, but I did follow your Blog and DPreview contributions (and the struggle with a disruptive negative intelligence that shall remain unnamed here).

Cheers,
Bart

[pearlstreet]

Next week there will be an article with two videos going over the ImagePrint RIP.  Lots of interesting tip and trick.  I have using ImagePrint as has been mentioned here before a few times and wouldn't think of anything else.  Hope you find the article informative.

After watching your video with the Hahnemuhle rep, Kevin, I looked up Image Print.  $895 to use with my epson p800!!! Wow, that is expensive!

[BobShaw]

But the question is third party software, you can print better than the manufacturer.

IMHO, yes.
I use Mirage print and have done since I first saw it. It is not a RIP as such, more a pseudo RIP.
Is image quality better? Maybe not, but certainly not worse.
But if "print better" means more high quality prints easier and more consistently with less waste, the right size and the right orientation all exactly the same with less time spent on presets and creating more presets for different programmes and redoing presets overtime you update something and fiddling with colour management on every programme then you need one.