Proofing CMYK on an iPF5000

[nemophoto]

I've owned the Epson 4000 since it was released and have used it very successfully with Colorburst RIP X-Proof software to proof my CMYK images.

I have justed landed, along with a designer, a new account where I will do all the pre-press (which, presonally I love), for about 350 images I shoot. While this is not the largerest project I've handled (I do a catalog annually with over 500 images), in the past much of my proofing has been soft proofing since the client didn't want to see randoms. With this new client, they will want to sign-off on every image.

Colorburst and the 4000 have worked well in my workflow, but the printer, by comparison, is no longer considered speedy -- especially compared to the Canon iPF 5000 (I know that a new one is about to be released). Has anyone out there done large scale CMYK image proofing, accurately, using Photoshop to output to the 5000? I'd rather not plunk down money for yet another Postscript RIP (I own two already).

Nemo

[Mussi_Spectraflow]

well I would consider a newer epson before moving to a canon personally. You could also probably use your exisiting version of colorbust on a 4800, which would give you better speed and good quality. I really like the Colorburst RIP. I've been less than pleased with the canon in my limited interaction with them. I know that some people have had good luck with them, but that's not been my experience.
    The other question, why the canon if your proofing CMYK. The gamut of the press will of course be considerably smaller than either printer. Also the 12color printers are a bit more "interesting" to work with. For the sake of simplicity I would stick with an Epson, even the 3800 if all you need is sheet fed. You can get a 3800 with the colorburst RIP for a $200 premium over the base price and still come in way less than the IPF5000 which will be a discontinued item very shortly. just my $.02

Thanks,
Julian Mussi
www.spectraflow.com

[nemophoto]

You make some interesting points. Of the newer Epson printers, the only one I'd consider is the 3800. I think, in many respects, the 4800 is a dog. I can't stand the thought of how incredibly wasteful the 4800 because of switching black carts. Truly Epson's stupidest move. The speed differnence of the 4800 is not enough to make me move from the 4000.

You are absolutely correct regarding the gamut of CMYK and the Canon being greater. However, that can be said of the 4000, 4800 and 3800. However, at least with the RIP, you get an accurate representation and proofing of that CMYK image, even if you are printing on a device with greater gamut. The same is true with the iPF5000. My main thought is speed of printing. The 5000 is significantly faster than the other printers. I saw on Colorburst's web site the upgrade that included 3800. It was an interesting thought. I also understand your comment regarding the 12-ink printers being "interesting". Basically what someone at StudioPrint had to say. I also own StudioPrint to output Piezography BW from my older 7000. I could always upgrade that to the Postscript version. The nice thing about Colorburst is that they have canned profiles to get you going.

[Schewe]

Pretty sure that the 3800 is as fast if not faster for equal quality settings (if you can figure that out) than the 5000. Also note that you can get the Pro version of the 3800 which includes the Colorburst rip for Epson papers-which you would prolly want to use since that's the combo that is SWOP certified. Note sure any rip on the 5000 is SWOP certified, is there?

[digitaldog]

You can always convert from RGB to CMYK (final print conditions for press) then back to RGB for the Epson or Canon using an Absolute Colorimetric intent. No RIP needed IF you're handling just images, not composed pages. If you're doing a lot of this, it pays to have a print driver (RIP if you will) that handles output ready CMYK like ColorBurst does. But for an ocassional proof, with good profiles and maybe a bit of tweaking, you can get pretty close using RGB.

[Scott Martin]

The ipf5000 is faster than the 3800 at similar print quality settings, uses less ink and the ink costs less per volume (56 cents per ml instead of 62 cents on the 3800). Some places are selling the ipf5000 for $1395 now which is a heck of a lot more printer than a 3800 for the same price. ColorBurst won't have support for these printers for a little while but the driver and plug-in are both excellent and provide even more advantages over Epson.  It's certainly worth considering.

[neil snape]

The 3800 with Colorburst will be very close to a proof. Round trip even if your simulating, proofing a CMYK device is going to come in fairly close even with the rounding errors. The best and quickest way to verify is read in the Fogra MW2 (Media Wedge 2) with an i1 spectro in strip mode.
With higher gamut printers because of the separations, the delta E is actually higher than the good old stable K3 inks.
These days the gains in proofing on inkjets with CMYK output are not that much better if at all for flattened copy proofing. Where a CMYK rip is good is on overprints, single color shadows, named colors.
It is surprising to note the Adobe Poscript card in the HP Z series is a full Adobe engine, yet runs only in three channel data. As all late Postscript engines can, it accepts for or more channels, but there is no obligation to keep them. It's more important that the color management policies are sound than the number of channels to control (again for flattened proofing>otherwise the rips are still needed for service bureaus).

[Schewe]

The ipf5000 is faster than the 3800 at similar print quality settings
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117702\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Care to provide a link or some place/entity that has tested and published that data? Cause I'm not sure that is right....and this is your first post in the forums and I don't know YOU from Adam...

[Scott Martin]

Care to provide a link or some place/entity that has tested and published that data? Cause I'm not sure that is right....and this is your first post in the forums and I don't know YOU from Adam...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117712\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You've met me several times - remember swimming together at the i3forum? I've had the ipf5000, 4800 and 3800 side by side here at my studio and have demonstrated simultaneous printing on them to my clients at open house gatherings.

[Schewe]

You've met me several times - remember swimming together at the i3forum? I've had the ipf5000, 4800 and 3800 side by side here at my studio and have demonstrated simultaneous printing on them to my clients at open house gatherings.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117730\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

So, when running the 3800 are you printing in bi-directional on? Cause with the auto-head alignments, you can now with equal quality to Epson's old uni-direction...at 2x the print speed.

And you say we've met but you've posted no website nor any info other than you location....and I still don't see a name anywhere unless 'Onsight' is your name (in which case I still don't know who you are). And there were about 150 people at i3...

:~)

[Scott Martin]

So, when running the 3800 are you printing in bi-directional on? Cause with the auto-head alignments, you can now with equal quality to Epson's old uni-direction...at 2x the print speed.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Oh, god yes. I've been using bi for years except for the rare occasion in which it causes problems. Not exactly 2x but big difference indeed. Have you been printing with these printers (K3, ipf, Z series) side by side?

And you say we've met but you've posted no website nor any info other than you location..
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117769\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

My website *is* posted - just click on "Onsight" (or anyone else's name) and follow the link to the "home page" (if they have chosen to post it). I am Scott Martin of Onsight (http://www.on-sight.com) - I'm a digital imaging consultant. :-]

[Doyle Yoder]

Try this.

Work with your normal CMYK profile workflow, creating with Indesign (or Quark (haven't tested)). Create postscript, distill to PDF or create PDF.

Now set Photoshop RGB working space to the printer profile and CMYK space to your your normal CMYK profile. Make sure rendering intent is set to absolute or relative colormetric, which ever you prefer.

Open at 600dpi the PDF or PS file to an RGB file in Photoshop and export/print with the iPF5000 plugin with color management set to none.

But of course unlike a RIP I am not able to eliminate the printer from using the RGB inks, but I have found this to work very well to proof print jobs for the press on my iPF9000.

As for RIPs. I have tested about a half dozen RIPs for the Canon iPF series and find the biggest lack is the ability to nail spot colors. With the RGB inks I can nail them with RGB equivalent color when printing through the driver or plugin. I just have not found a RIP that takes advantage of that yet. At this point I am not interested in buying a RIP until I find one that does.

Doyle

[nemophoto]

DYP,

Thanks for the suggestion.

As for the ongoing debate of relative printer speeds -- 3800 versus canon 5000 -- Michael's own testing reaffirms the Canon speed superiority. On 6x9 matte, max res., the Canon prints in 2' 40", the 3800 in 5'50". The 3800 is much faster than the 4000 or 4800, but no speed demon.

[neil snape]

DYP,

Thanks for the suggestion.

As for the ongoing debate of relative printer speeds -- 3800 versus canon 5000 -- Michael's own testing reaffirms the Canon speed superiority. On 6x9 matte, max res., the Canon prints in 2' 40", the 3800 in 5'50". The 3800 is much faster than the 4000 or 4800, but no speed demon.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=117862\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't have either the Canon or Epson so I can't say with precision which is faster.
I will say what is a known fact at HP labs though, the color data stream going out to Epson is handled in the balck box with onboard ASICs that are hyper performant, whereas on HP and Canon it is done before it gets to the printer. So any comparisons must include system level spooling and comm to the printer. In this regard Epson is faster than HP or Canon. When the file is uploaded and or ready to plot, both Canon and HP are faster. Canon is first in the list on spooled separated files. It all comes into play when printing.