P800 and ImagePrint

[lauripie]

I recently purchased my first high-end printer, the Epson P800 and have been enjoying the ease of the workflow and high quality of the output.  I am using Lightroom to edit and print and it seems that all the problems of color management have been ironed out over the last years (of which I was not affected by as I have just now entered the digital printing era).

That being the case, is there any improvement in image quality when using Imageprint vs. the current Lightroom/Epson P800-driver -combo?  I downloaded the demo-version of IP.  To my eyes there was not much difference.  Has the time of IP passed or is there still a case to be made for it (regarding final print quality)?

Has anybody made any detailed comparisons?

Thanks,
Lauri Pietarinen

[dchew]

Lauri,
I am a user of ImagePrint, but only for the last few years. I printed out of Lightroom, and before that photoshop, for about 10 years before making the switch to ImagePrint. Your question is similar to the questions around camera equipment that essentially ask, "Is there a compelling reason to _____"
Use medium format
Buy an Otus lens
Shoot Leica
Shoot full frame vs APS-C
Get more megapixels
Get more dynamic range

Fill in the blank... In general, I think the correct answer to these questions is "no."

Keep printing through Lightroom and be happy! If at some point you see and/or feel limitations either in quality or workflow, then investigate options like ImagePrint. I do not think the time of ImagePrint has passed, but I also would not recommend ImagePrint to anyone who is just starting out.

Dave

[Mark D Segal]

Interesting response Dave, and raises a few questions that may help the OP make a decision, and shed light on the question in general, so allow me to ask: (1) What factors gave rise to your switch to ImagePrint? (2) Having used it for a while now, what factors give rise to your suggestion that the OP should continue printing through LR? (3) Have you noticed any significant quality differences in your prints that make ImagePrint a worthwhile investment - assuming this time an experienced photographer/printer?

[lauripie]

Hi Dave,

and thanks for your answer.  I am not quite new to photography, I spent the 70's and 80's locked in a darkroom so I have some sense of image quality. I do try to resist the temptation of buying new gear just for the fun of it. Surprisingly, I take a large portion of my pictures that I print with my Nokia 1020 mobile phone (with the so called "monster camera") and the rest with a Nikon 7200.

The point of me asking is that I get the feeling from reading reviews and various forums that IP was covering up for the shortcomings of previous Epson drivers.  Would that still be the case with P800?  Has anybody done any methodical tests of the potential advantages of IP with P800?

Thanks,
Lauri

[dchew]

Hi Mark, good questions.
1) I moved to ImagePrint primarily for B&W workflow. To my eyes the tint that comes out of IP matches what I expect, whether I want neutral or some specific tone. As I mentioned in the other thread, you get to see the effects on the paper as you experiment with tints. Using the Epson Advanced B&W you just have to experiment and print - there is no print preview. Using LR, you can soft proof but it is a bit clunky for experimenting with tones. But there were four other benefits I found:

First, when trying new papers it is much easier to get an excellent print right out of the gate because the profiles are quite good for all media they cover. I can make a better one, but that takes time I don't want to invest while experimenting with paper I may never end up using.

Second, when printing 20+ images for a job, it saves me time and I have less waste from human error. That's specific to me, but we're talking about my choice here (more on that later).

A third thing that I am just finding out literally as we speak is that I can see the effects of output sharpening like I can in PS, but not like LR. LR has sharpening, but it is added on the fly. I don't use PS much so IP is better than LR in that regard (again - my context). In IP you get to see the output sharpening with the paper profile applied in a very nice preview with comparison before/after. You still have to interpret how that will look on paper, but I am starting to see real value in using IP for that step.

Fourth, As Martin so eloquently pointed out here in Post 25, I haven't had the printing path break since I started using IP. In fact, to do the test I did this morning on resizing in IP, I had to uninstall, delete and reload my Epson driver to print through LR! It would start printing but then in the middle of the print just lose communication and spit out the paper. Arggghhh! Not to mention the recent broken color issue with Adobe. I just went right on printing through that one.

2) I think for the beginning printer, the above benefits are marginal at best. In some cases would never be noticed. IP is expensive, and just like my other equipment examples above, benefits that may or may not be valuable. I lumped them all together in my response because I think it takes time to see and know what matters to individuals and what doesn't, whether that is an expensive lens, specific camera format or IP. If someone off the bat dives into IP, I don't see how they would really know what or where the value was.

3) I do see a value for B&W prints because the tone is so accurate and you get a dead-on preview of that. In color, I don't think the quality is any different. Although I do still get the four benefits I listed above. But those are very specific to me and more workflow related than quality.

But your question used the words "significant quality differences." That's like my word "compelling." Those words are in the eye of the user. In general, I still would say "no." These things are neither significant nor compelling to the general photographer new to printing. But when you are printing several images for an impatient client, and you have a day job like me that requires lots of travel and has nothing to do with photography, then they tend to become significant.

I can't imagine them being significant when starting out. They certainly were not for me several years ago, but they are now.

Dave

[dchew]

Hi Lauri,

Sorry I didn't mean to imply you were new to photography. I was just reading into the "first high-end printer" comment. Hopefully my response above to Mark sheds more light on my thoughts.

I don't have a P800 so I cannot comment. It could very well be that new Epson printer/driver combinations make some or all of my reasons moot. Kevin obviously has one and I think Mark does, but Mark doesn't use IP.

Ciao,
Dave

Hi Dave,

and thanks for your answer.  I am not quite new to photography, I spent the 70's and 80's locked in a darkroom so I have some sense of image quality. I do try to resist the temptation of buying new gear just for the fun of it. Surprisingly, I take a large portion of my pictures that I print with my Nokia 1020 mobile phone (with the so called "monster camera") and the rest with a Nikon 7200.

The point of me asking is that I get the feeling from reading reviews and various forums that IP was covering up for the shortcomings of previous Epson drivers.  Would that still be the case with P800?  Has anybody done any methodical tests of the potential advantages of IP with P800?

Thanks,
Lauri

[Mark D Segal]

Thanks Dave,

That provides very helpful context. My only rejoinder would be that when using LR, which I have been using since version 1.0 and started printing from once they introduced soft-proofing into it, I must say I find it fine for predicting both tone and colour under soft-proof. The only thing one doesn't see is the impact of output sharpening before printing; however I have found its canned settings to be generally very useful. As you know, this is anyhow a mechanical process that depends on whether the paper is matte or non-matte, linear dimensions and resolution. The judgmental phase of sharpening is up-stream of printing, and this one I find I can foretell in LR quite easily. Other than that, to the extent IP by-passes both OS colour-management and printer drivers, I can see this being a simplifying, risk-averse approach - at an incremental cost.

[lauripie]

Thanks Mark and Dave for your thoughtful answers.

For the time being I think I'll follow Dave's advice and get some more experience with the current setup.
From what you write I understand that the potential benefits would be on the B&W side, at least in your case.

Thanks,
Lauri

[dchew]

All good points Mark, especially about sharpening. I have never considered myself particularly good at that. In fact, I am a habitual under-sharpener. If I was better skilled I would undoubtedly not be as curious about what I am now investigating through IP.

Dave

Thanks Dave,

That provides very helpful context. My only rejoinder would be that when using LR, which I have been using since version 1.0 and started printing from once they introduced soft-proofing into it, I must say I find it fine for predicting both tone and colour under soft-proof. The only thing one doesn't see is the impact of output sharpening before printing; however I have found its canned settings to be generally very useful. As you know, this is anyhow a mechanical process that depends on whether the paper is matte or non-matte, linear dimensions and resolution. The judgmental phase of sharpening is up-stream of printing, and this one I find I can foretell in LR quite easily. Other than that, to the extent IP by-passes both OS colour-management and printer drivers, I can see this being a simplifying, risk-averse approach - at an incremental cost.

[lauripie]

Spotted this post http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=104710.0 on the same topic which suggests that there is a difference in using ImagePrint with Epson P800.

Am I correct in understanding that there are two variables in the printing equation (for a given printer/ink and paper):

1) Printer and paper specific profile
2) Printer driver (that controls the placement of the droplets on paper, i.e. dithering)

In that case we would get still another result in above post using standard driver and profile produced by paper vendor instead of self made one.

Lot's of factors involved!

Thanks,
Lauri

[Mark D Segal]

These things vary between users printing in different environments, using different profiling and viewing/evaluating results in different lighting with varying personal criteria. The best thing to do is try it all and see what you like best, if ImagePrint allows a free demo period.

[dchew]

ImagePrint allows you to print all you want without paying. It just has a very annoying "DEMO" watermark across the page. 

As Kevin said in the video, I wish they would ditch the dongle and also the watermark and go to a free for 30 days approach.

Dave