Does Canon Print Studio Pro offer advantages over Lightroom 5.7.1 print module?

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Does printing with Canon Print Studio Pro as a Lightroom 5 plugin offer significant advantages over just printing with the LR 5 print module? If so, what are they? Are there any significant disadvantages, and if so, what?

Background: I finally got around to installing Lightroom on my computer at the office, which is networked to our Canon Pro-100 printer. Even though I have Lightroom 6 at home, because my office computer runs Windows 7-32 bit, I had to install the old version, 5.7.1.* Even the basic LR 5 print module is a huge step up from the kludge workflow I previously had to use if I wanted to print to the Pro-100 with color management. But now with LR 5, presumably I could install and use Canon Print Studio Pro (I think 2.1.1 is the current Windows version). I'm wondering whether doing so presents much if any advantages and/or disadvantages.

Thanks!


*As an aside, I have licensed, and Adobe's website correctly shows my license / serial numbers for, both LR 6 and LR 5. I assume that because I can put LR on two of my computers, Adobe is fine with my putting LR 6 on one and LR 5 on the other. FWIW, with the LR 5 installation on my office computer, the numbers went in fine, and it is working normally.

[Dave Rosser]

Does printing with Canon Print Studio Pro as a Lightroom 5 plugin offer significant advantages over just printing with the LR 5 print module? If so, what are they? Are there any significant disadvantages, and if so, what?

Background: I finally got around to installing Lightroom on my computer at the office, which is networked to our Canon Pro-100 printer. Even though I have Lightroom 6 at home, because my office computer runs Windows 7-32 bit, I had to install the old version, 5.7.1.* Even the basic LR 5 print module is a huge step up from the kludge workflow I previously had to use if I wanted to print to the Pro-100 with color management. But now with LR 5, presumably I could install and use Canon Print Studio Pro (I think 2.1.1 is the current Windows version). I'm wondering whether doing so presents much if any advantages and/or disadvantages.

Thanks!

If you install the XPS print driver for  PRO-100 then using Print Studio Pro rather than the built-in Lightroom print module allows 16 bit printing, as I understand it the Windows Lightroom print module is 8 bit only.  I will repeat that this is for Windows, the print module on Apple is slightly different.

[digitaldog]

If you install the XPS print driver for  PRO-100 then using Print Studio Pro rather than the built-in Lightroom print module allows 16 bit printing, as I understand it the Windows Lightroom print module is 8 bit only. 

Not on the Mac with some Epson printers and I can see zero difference, under a very, very good loupe between sending 8-bits or high bit color to the driver. Using Photoshop or LR.

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

Thanks for the responses. If all the Print Studio Pro plugin gets me over the Lightroom 5 print module is the ability to send 16 bits per RGB channel to the printer, I think I'll K.I.S.S. (necessarily an organizing principle of my life) and just stick with LR's print module.

As an aside, among things on which I'd like to see careful testing are what if anything going from 8 BPC to 16 BPC gets you in terms of print color accuracy or visible gradations, and likewise what if anything going from 'standard' 300 or 360 ppi printing to the 'finest detail' 600 or 720 ppi on some Canon and Epson models (respectively) costs you in terms of color accuracy or visible gradation. On both I've seen opinions and anecdotes, but not carefully-constructed tests with either instrument-measured results or expert panels of eyes working double-blind. (And yes, I think Jeff Schewe pretty clearly demonstrated the resolution / fine detail advantage of 600 / 720 ppi printing; what I'm talking about is the possible corresponding color detriment.)

[GrahamBy]

Thanks for the responses. If all the Print Studio Pro plugin gets me over the Lightroom 5 print module is the ability to send 16 bits per RGB channel to the printer, I think I'll K.I.S.S. (necessarily an organizing principle of my life) and just stick with LR's print module.

I find PSPro simpler to use than the LR5.7 module. It's certainly not complicated, although a little less obvious than the version than shipped with the Pro-100

[NAwlins_Contrarian]

I find PSPro simpler to use than the LR5.7 module. It's certainly not complicated, although a little less obvious than the version than shipped with the Pro-100

Thanks, and I'm curious: in what way(s) do you find Print Studio Pro simpler to use than the Lightroom 5.7 print module?

Personally, I find that if the file you want to print is in your open Lightroom catalog, then Lightroom printing is a model of simplicity. I don't like Lightroom forcing you into the catalog model (instead of letting you directly open a file). But other than that frustration, the only difficulty the print module gave me was stacking up multiple different images to print on one page, like 2 5x7 inch prints on one letter size (8.5x11 inch) sheet; I eventually got it to work, but it wasn't super intuitive.

[Doug Gray]

Not on the Mac with some Epson printers and I can see zero difference, under a very, very good loupe between sending 8-bits or high bit color to the driver. Using Photoshop or LR.

I was recently looking at this analytically. I made a program that did an exhaustive search of the entire 16M device RGB space to find the vectors, where, changing RGB values by only one bit created the largest dE76. I have two printers, a Canon 9500II and an Epson 9800. The program then creates scanning charts suitable for an I1iSiS to verify the predicted Lab values.

For both printers glossy media produced values with the highest dE76 peaking at just over 1.1.  However, these values also had dE00 values of less than .4 so they weren't perceptible. I could print them and measure them but couldn't see any difference between adjacent patches.

My conclusion is that 16 bits printer paths can produce measurable improvements but not visible ones.

If anyone is interested and they post a profile or link for their printer/media I'd be happy to run the program, create a patch set tif image and CGATs file for their worst cases.

[GrahamBy]

Thanks, and I'm curious: in what way(s) do you find Print Studio Pro simpler to use than the Lightroom 5.7 print module?

Personally, I find that if the file you want to print is in your open Lightroom catalog, then Lightroom printing is a model of simplicity. I don't like Lightroom forcing you into the catalog model (instead of letting you directly open a file). But other than that frustration, the only difficulty the print module gave me was stacking up multiple different images to print on one page, like 2 5x7 inch prints on one letter size (8.5x11 inch) sheet; I eventually got it to work, but it wasn't super intuitive.

Since I routinely print with the same format, all I need to do is click on the link under add-ins, watch it open up, then click "print." Using the print module required me remembering to set various parameters that seemed to be forgotten between runs (but it's been a while, and I still use LR5.7). The advantage is not huge, but since I get 16 bit printing thrown in, it seems like a no-brainer.

I don't do any multi-imge printing, so nothing to add there...

[digitaldog]

My conclusion is that 16 bits printer paths can produce measurable improvements but not visible ones.

Speaking for myself, most of my prints are made to show visible differences. And I print more targets than most 
Now maybe the 3880 isn't best in class for testing bit depth to a driver and even Epson stated there's no difference back in the day we taught about the 16-bit option in the Mac driver at the Epson Print Academy. I can try again with a P800 but if I can't see a difference, I don't care about the difference for prints of images.
Interesting is the 16-bit option (check box) no longer shows up in newer drivers on the Mac. So what does that mean?

[Doug Gray]

Speaking for myself, most of my prints are made to show visible differences. And I print more targets than most 
Now maybe the 3880 isn't best in class for testing bit depth to a driver and even Epson stated there's no difference back in the day we taught about the 16-bit option in the Mac driver at the Epson Print Academy. I can try again with a P800 but if I can't see a difference, I don't care about the difference for prints of images.
Interesting is the 16-bit option (check box) no longer shows up in newer drivers on the Mac. So what does that mean?

One reason I did the exhaustive search to identify 8 bit adjacent colors that had maximal change in device space is that I thought the odds were good that visibly different colors would show up somewhere in the 16M possibilities. I thought this might be a good way to characterize where better results might occur with a RIP. But they didn't. Not even close in either dE00 terms, or printing out the ones with the largest dE and eyeballing them.

So if one is measuring prints with a spectro, there may be a benefit to 16 bit drivers. Otherwise, for prints destined to be appreciated by eyeballs, 8 bits is just fine.

[digitaldog]

So if one is measuring prints with a spectro, there may be a benefit to 16 bit drivers. Otherwise, for prints destined to be appreciated by eyeballs, 8 bits is just fine.

With targets in that bit depth begging the question; how come so few products produce this high bit target if it's necessary?

[Doug Gray]

With targets in that bit depth begging the question; how come so few products produce this high bit target if it's necessary?

I1Profiler produces high bit CGATS files but not high bit target images. Probably for general compatibility as Windows does not have 16 bit paths managed or unmanaged. I1Profiler then rounds the CGATS files to match the 8 bit target images when computing profiles.

The only potential benefit from  16 bit end to end profiler targets is that you could always get even spacing between the device RGB spacings. Might make some of the math simpler.  However, profiler software has to be able to handle Euclidean distance variation in RGB values since standard practice is to have RGB points closer to each other in near neutrals. Consequently there is minimal, if any, reason to have 16 bit target patches.

[digitaldog]

I1Profiler produces high bit CGATS files but not high bit target images.

Maybe they got it backwards 

[Doug Gray]

Maybe they got it backwards 

[GrahamBy]

For both printers glossy media produced values with the highest dE76 peaking at just over 1.1.  However, these values also had dE00 values of less than .4 so they weren't perceptible. I could print them and measure them but couldn't see any difference between adjacent patches.

My conclusion is that 16 bits printer paths can produce measurable improvements but not visible ones.

Thanks, nice to know.