Epson P800 to replace 3800, or go to P7000?

[BradSmith]

....... for standard Epson inks, you'd be nuts not to get IP.  ..........
Jeff

Seems to me that with a P800 and Lightroom and standard Epson inks, you'd be nuts to spend more for software like Imageprint than you did for the printer itself.

Okay, that's a little harsh.  But you get my point.  I can't see how I can get a better print than I'm currently getting.  And if it were somehow "better", the difference would be so tiny that for me, I couldn't possibly justify over $900 US extra expense.
Brad S

[JeffS]

Seems to me that with a P800 and Lightroom and standard Epson inks, you'd be nuts to spend more for software like Imageprint than you did for the printer itself.

Okay, that's a little harsh.  But you get my point.  I can't see how I can get a better print than I'm currently getting.  And if it were somehow "better", the difference would be so tiny that for me, I couldn't possibly justify over $900 US extra expense.
Brad S

Well, it's a heck of lot cheaper than buying custom profiling gear to get equivalent or better results with no real effort. That alone is worth the price of entry for me.  It's not just about the final print (although results are better with new features like final output sharpening, etc); it's the process to get there.  Not only do you get the profiles for virtually all papers (AND for different lighting conditions for each), but one is always in soft-proof mode, which is much better than LR, so WYSIWYG, with potentially significant savings in paper and ink.

IP also eliminates all the crap associated with the Apple-Epson-Adobe chain, especially when new iterations are issued.  I think back to the color management issues that a past O/S upgrade introduced, as but one example.  And one never has to worry again about forgetting or incorrectly inputting an Epson printer setting (or worrying about a print driver update) for any situation.....merely input the paper used and the desired profile and IP sets EVERYTHING behind the scenes.....properly.....and with better results. If I want to hang my prints under different lighting conditions, say for an exhibition, I can change the lighting profile with one click and re-print.

The P800 offered modest improvements to my 3800, which was a fine machine.  It was worth the money.  IP was not only worth the money, but it made life significantly easier for me, with better print results to boot.  Over the long term, the costs are in the inks anyway, not in the machine or the software.

YMMV, as they say.

Jeff

[roscoetuff]

Well, it's a heck of lot cheaper than buying custom profiling gear to get equivalent or better results with no real effort. That alone is worth the price of entry for me.  It's not just about the final print (although results are better with new features like final output sharpening, etc); it's the process to get there.  Not only do you get the profiles for virtually all papers (AND for different lighting conditions for each), but one is always in soft-proof mode, which is much better than LR, so WYSIWYG, with potentially significant savings in paper and ink. YMMV, as they say.

My view completely. There are folks out there who can print better than I can even when they're using no more than a pinhead attached to a stick and a bottle of ink. I suspect lots of folks on this site fit in this category. Me? I'm a fan of KISS. And somehow, being "done" with the post-processing software and setting it aside before moving on to print... even if it's loading a separate piece of software... just cements that process, keeps it simple or simple ERR, and stupid here (me) can figure that out better than trying to determine whether or not Aliens from Area 451 are controlling my printer's brain. Yes when it turns out badly; no, when it looks like I want it to.

[JeffS]

There are folks out there who can print better than I can even when they're using no more than a pinhead attached to a stick and a bottle of ink.

To quote myself from an earlier post...  The most important tools for great pics and prints are between the ears.....but this will ensure that the other tools aren't holding you back.

The printer and software won't make you a better printer any more than the camera will make you a great photographer.  But it's nice to have tools that do what you want/need them to do, and not otherwise get in the way.

Jeff

[dgberg]

Save your money, the return is nowhere near the price of admission for Image print. YMMV
I have all the latest profiling gear in our studio, a Munki plus a new i1 Pro and here it sits.
The effort required in profiling for the the smallest improvements is just not worth it in my opinion.
I spent all this time and money on these gadgets and use 100% factory profiles, they are that good. (For me.)
You might be one of those folks that can spend hours on this just for the feel good factor.
Profiling yourself has it's place, in some cases you just have to make profiles or have someone make them for you.
I print almost 95% on canvas and laying 3 prints side by side with factory profile, i1 profile and Color Munki profile you cannot pick which is which.

[JeffS]

It's about a lot more than the profiles for me, as already noted.  There's a free demo for anyone to make his/her own decision before committing.

I don't print on canvas, but I did find this excerpt from a review of an earlier IP iteration... 

     "If you are printing on canvas or a rougher surfaced paper, ImagePrint has unique capability in providing four and   eight pass printing at 1440 dpi. In this mode, the print heads will make four or eight passes over the same print area   and gradually build up the ink to make the image. The dot size for each drop of ink is modulated, as well as its exact   placement. In so doing, it creates far more precision and uses far more dots of ink to slowly build up the image while   it absorbs into the print surface. Try it!

In 2880 dpi mode, the print method is more direct, but still gradually builds up the image on the paper across the   printhead. You can observe the print process on your printer and see how the image is slowly built up across the printhead.   By controlling the amount of ink that is applied at each stage, there is more subtlety to, and exactness in, the final   print. For me, this is critical in making a fine art print, especially in regard to precision in the lower zones of   the image in my monochrome prints."

I have no idea if this is true, or if the results are visible.  But it's free to try. 

Jeff

[Farmer]

If it's printing at 1440 or 2880 dpi, then the number of passes is not relevant to that resolution, which is achievable through the driver.  Indeed, putting in down significantly later than the first pass actually presents an issue with control of dot gain.

The driver already precisely places dots and chooses an appropriate dot size based on the resolution (note that a RIP can only use the sets of variable dots sizes available at each resolution that the printer allows - they are all limited / capable in exactly the same way.

I also wonder if they really mean 4 or 8 passes of the head without any movement of the media, because 4 and 8 pass modes are standard even in the driver, with the head micro-stepping (i.e. less than the width of the print head) - you can see this by watching the print being done and seeing the image building up.  This is not unique...

Just saying.

[JeffS]

Just saying.

Exactly.  And then there's trying. 

I'm glad I tried it for my own applications. 

Jeff

[Farmer]

You said you don't print on canvas, so exactly how did you try that?

What I'm saying is that it appears that there needs to be some clarification from the vendor regarding the technical details being provided, because they're too vague to confirm whether there's actually a benefit or whether it's just re-stating existing technical capacity in a way that makes it sound like an exclusive feature.  You can't say for sure based on the information provided, so I would suggest prospective users check further.

[JeffS]

You said you don't print on canvas, so exactly how did you try that?

What I'm saying is that it appears that there needs to be some clarification from the vendor regarding the technical details being provided, because they're too vague to confirm whether there's actually a benefit or whether it's just re-stating existing technical capacity in a way that makes it sound like an exclusive feature.  You can't say for sure based on the information provided, so I would suggest prospective users check further.

I said two things.

One, I tried IP for my own applications, needs and preferences (not canvas).  It did everything I wanted, and more.

Two, I noted that demos were free and suggested others try IP for their own needs (like canvas prints) if they're curious about the product. (The demo adds watermarks, but still provides user experience.)

I don't have a vested interest one way or the other, but I don't find any value in negative critiques by folks who haven't actually tried something by themselves.  As Fred Picker used to answer students when they asked about how something would work, he generally said "try it and see".

Jeff

[Farmer]

It's not a negative critique.  It's a technical assessment of their claim that you posted.  I have some knowledge in the area and I'm sharing that as a suggested consideration.  My advice was similar - to check it out and ask them for more information about their technical claim.

Doing it for yourself is fine, but beware of the placebo effect, too.  It's worthwhile asking people to blind test a few results to back up your own opinion, as we end up biasing our views based on our expectations and hopes, seeing things we think are better because we assume they should be (and that's all of us, myself included).

As I said, it could be that they are not microstepping and are literally printing over and over - if so, it would be great if they shared information about the issue of dot gain and layering ink on ink rather than on substrate.  That's just one aspect.

[JeffS]

Here's a recent thread reflecting my earlier comments about IP and why I'm glad to no longer have to deal with Apple-Adobe-Epson messes....  http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=114851.0

Jeff

[roscoetuff]

FWIW Department: So just printed my 1st image with the Epson SC P800 under ImagePrint operation. Wow! I am a happy camper! This is just sooooooo easy its putting a smile on my face after a long, long week. I'm hardly scratching the surface... but hey, this could be habit forming. Nah... not at all necessary. And yes, many cried, "Save your money. You don't need it!" And they were right of course, but I didn't, and what I'm saving is time. More time to shoot more photos and less time spent on post for a high quality output means I can do much more. Not missing a chance to get that next shot? Priceless! Don't sell yourself short. Try it.

Mark D. Segal: True to your word, adding softproofing to the workflow is a real step forward. Thank you for the push! With ImagePrint adding the matching of paper and printer profiles, it's not going to take a lot of wizardry to move ahead from here. Thank you for your notes here! I am indebted. And thanks to our host, Kevin Raber... whose praise of Capture One, ImagePrint, and even Epson... I have to say have been rock solid guidance.

[edt]

I have used ImagePrint with my 7900 for years and considering replacing the 7900 with either a P7000 or I might just go the P800 route. If you print an 11x14 or 16x20 then you might well not need IP at all. If you occasionally need to print a job that has 2 each 16x20's, 115 each 5x7's, 6 each 8x10's and while you're at it you want to print 2 passport photos 2x2 then you will LOVE Imageprint. All those can be easily and quickly laid out before issuing just one print command. A job like this probably sounds like fiction to those who deal primarily in fine art but that job is a routine kind of job for me. It only takes a minute to do this in IP. For notecards I have laid them out in IP and print them on larger sheets or rolls of Hot Press Natural, then cut them...works for me.