RIP for Lightroom

[Photo Op]

Maybe some watchful gurus can comment on this experience. I have an Intel Mac with 10.6.2. I use CS4 and LR 3B. I have an Epson R2880 with the latest drivers. I calibrate with ColorEyes. I finally listened to Jeff Schewe explanations and read Ian Lyons tutorial on soft proofing. I thought I had my sheet together. Using their soft-proofing methods I could finally get prints real close to what I was seeing on the screen.

So with satisfaction and a little time I my hands I googled "Mac printing RIP" (don't like the idea of Qimage in Parallels). Lo and behold, I get two hits, one of which I download, install and setup within minutes. I crank up LR3b, select three proof templates (Spider3Print, DigitalDog, Northern Lights). In the print module, I select one of my presets for Ilford Smooth Pearl. Change nothing and hit print. LR3b gives me a dialog that the ICC I've created prior to the RIP can't be found and that LR will print photo without color instructions. OK by me, I press continue. The selection in LR changes to Manage by Printer (I watched), the dialog for the RIP appears, I hit Print.....AND.....I get the most accurate photos, EVER. The templates are NOT soft proofed for the paper. Blues in the various color swatches are NOT magenta shifted to purple. I see gradations in the black and white samples that I never got before. Skin tones are great. Fingers on the hand (DigitalDog) are not dark (did I mention that the blues are blue, the necklace and the wrist band!)

Now I know there's issues with Colorsync, print pipelines in Snow Leopard, Epson drivers that are not updated for either, software (read LR and CS4) that take advantage of either older or newer APIs....and this RIP (<$100 US) gives me a "perfect" print. Excuse my English, but what the hell could this company have done to get it right when the Big Boys mentioned above are standing in a circle shooting each other?

Sorry for the rant, but maybe Adobe should just buy the company or license the RIP.

Just a thought. Would be interested in others. Thanks.

[PeterAit]

Maybe some watchful gurus can comment on this experience. I have an Intel Mac with 10.6.2. I use CS4 and LR 3B. I have an Epson R2880 with the latest drivers. I calibrate with ColorEyes. I finally listened to Jeff Schewe explanations and read Ian Lyons tutorial on soft proofing. I thought I had my sheet together. Using their soft-proofing methods I could finally get prints real close to what I was seeing on the screen.

So with satisfaction and a little time I my hands I googled "Mac printing RIP" (don't like the idea of Qimage in Parallels). Lo and behold, I get two hits, one of which I download, install and setup within minutes. I crank up LR3b, select three proof templates (Spider3Print, DigitalDog, Northern Lights). In the print module, I select one of my presets for Ilford Smooth Pearl. Change nothing and hit print. LR3b gives me a dialog that the ICC I've created prior to the RIP can't be found and that LR will print photo without color instructions. OK by me, I press continue. The selection in LR changes to Manage by Printer (I watched), the dialog for the RIP appears, I hit Print.....AND.....I get the most accurate photos, EVER. The templates are NOT soft proofed for the paper. Blues in the various color swatches are NOT magenta shifted to purple. I see gradations in the black and white samples that I never got before. Skin tones are great. Fingers on the hand (DigitalDog) are not dark (did I mention that the blues are blue, the necklace and the wrist band!)

Now I know there's issues with Colorsync, print pipelines in Snow Leopard, Epson drivers that are not updated for either, software (read LR and CS4) that take advantage of either older or newer APIs....and this RIP (<$100 US) gives me a "perfect" print. Excuse my English, but what the hell could this company have done to get it right when the Big Boys mentioned above are standing in a circle shooting each other?

Sorry for the rant, but maybe Adobe should just buy the company or license the RIP.

Just a thought. Would be interested in others. Thanks.

Is the name of this RIP a state secret, or what?

[digitaldog]

A RIP is a Raster Image Processor who’s main role is to take non raster data (Postscript for example) and rasterize it. The other use (which isn’t necessarily limited to a RIP) is to handle CMYK data (GDI and Quickdraw drivers don’t understand how to deal with this color model). So are you actually either handling Postscript (doubtful since LR can’t deal with that data) or CMYK (same issues)? I don’t understand what you mean by RIP in the context of using Lightroom.

[vandevanterSH]

LR RIP??  From the perspective of a hobbyist, one of the biggest benefits of LR is the printing module.  Soft proofing would be nice but if you are printing in low volumes and with a small selection of papers, the lack of soft proofing isn't a major handicap.

Steve

[photopianeil]

LR RIP??  From the perspective of a hobbyist, one of the biggest benefits of LR is the printing module.  Soft proofing would be nice but if you are printing in low volumes and with a small selection of papers, the lack of soft proofing isn't a major handicap.

Steve

Thanks for this voice of reason.  I totally agree that softproof, despite its touted advantages by the LL tutorials, is a helpful tool for troublesome imagery, but one that I rarely use.  If you print once a week or more, you should know the limitations of your setup and have that magical fudge factor built into your normal adjustments.  Although primitive, the Adobe print dialog boxes has a mini softproofer which reduces the whites and black and let's you know the out-of-gamut colors.  I always prefer not to go to PS to print as you mentioned, and I would rather have my fudge factor in my head rather than applying a modified one after softproofing.  As far as I'm concerned when I am only printing to one printer (3800) and a few papers, until there is a better function available in both PS and LR, softproofing will not be in my workflow.  In addition, I would rarely use any rendering intent other than perceptual. This is where Michael likes it to choose the best intent for his images.  I believe the idea behind RC is not one for artists' imagery.  Since we know that color is the most relative of all media, why would one use a RI which did not keep the relationship between the in and out of gamut colors?
Neil  

[vandevanterSH]

I would rather have my fudge factor in my head rather than applying a modified one after softproofing
********
I guess that I have internalized the "fudge" factors but just using 2-3 papers and a calibrated monitor, the print output is usually very good; at least I am happy.  If I am not happy then I change the image and compare to the previous print.  No big deal to waste a little paper and ink but usually not necessary.  It would be a mistake to get hung up with the soft proofing "issue" and not benefit from the other aspects of LR printing that makes quality printing quite easy for the non-expert, IMHO.

Steve