where & when to buy Epson 3880, RIP?

[mfryd]

And then you mean the ColorBurst RIP and not ImagePrint. Right?

/Sven

As I stated, I have Bundled ColorBurst RIP - exactly the product the OP asked about.

No one is questioning whether or not RIPs offer benefits - of course they do.  The question is whether or not these benefits justify the added costs for the typical photographer.

For instance, a studio strobe with an exceedingly short flash duration is better at stopping action than a typical strobe whose flash may last 1/1000 second.  The shorter duration strobe is more expensive, and better.  On the other hand most studio photographers don't need to be able to stop extremely fast action.  The standard strobe is more than good enough and the additional functionality isn't needed.

The question being debated is not whether or not a RIP offers benefits, but whether or not those benefits are needed by the typical photographer.


I would be very interested in hearing from people who use ImagePrint in their 3880.  I am curious as to the benefits they see.

For me, the quality of the Epson 3880 is excellent.  It surpasses the quality to make my clients happy.  My customers are pretty typical, and would not be able to differentiate between standard Epson 3880 output, and output that is somehow "better".  Thus any increase in quality would not give me a tangible return.  I don't "need" better quality/

A good RIP is clearly an advantage if you are using unusual ink sets.  Load up various shades of grey ink, and you will see a benefit from a RIP designed to take advantage of those hues.  Most people use Epson ink, and don't "need" the ability to use unusual ink sets.

A good RIP is clearly an advantage in the pre-press industry, where you must match CMYK colors, Pantone spot colors, and perfectly execute PostScript/PDF files that have various advanced features (transparency, etc.).  As a photographer, I primarily deal in RGB photoshop files.  I don't need perfection in printing CMYK, PostScript or PDF files, thus I don't "need" this functionality.

A good RIP is clearly an advantage with roll paper, where you want to mix and match prints to get the most use of the roll width.  It takes more time change paper types with rolls than cut sheets.  With rolls there is a bigger advantage to being able to queue jobs and then print them according to desired paper type.  As a 3880 owner, my printer doesn't support roll paper, and hence I don't "need" support for managing my printing to various rolls.

A RIP is needed if you want to print longer than the approximately 34" supported by Epson's standard driver.  Although, if this is something you routinely do, you should consider a printer that supports rolls.  The Epson 3880 isn't really designed to handle sheets longer than 4 feet, and isn't great in handling them (nor is is spectacular at handling sheets with a slight curl that were cut from a roll).  My experiences with printing from a 3880 to long sheets cut from rolls, suggest that I am better off sending out the occasional long print, or buying a 4900.

My opinion, and I could easily be wrong, is that most photographers who have chosen a 3880 don't have a great need for the above functions.  If they did, there's a good chance they would have bought the 4900 instead (it's a much cheaper machine to operate for volume printers).


Perhaps you can enlighten us on some of the advantages that a RIP provides the typical photographer?

[ippolitois]

I was a big skeptic about IP until I started using it. IP is everything the print driver should be and more. I bought it so that it would solve the shadow blocking that the standard driver could not solve. The shadow blocking was my number one issue I had with my printer and it seems that this issue is still a concern with most Epson drivers. I bought the Spyder kit to generate my own profiles thinking that I would be able to detune the shadow problems in the profiles, only to discover (thanks to the folks here) that this issue is inherent to the drivers by Epson. After reading some comments about IP in this forum, I found an older copy of the program and discovered within a couple of prints that IP solved ALL of my shadow blocking issued and provided beautiful smooth gradations in the shadows that I once thought were not possible with any printer. I have not made one single profile since and I'm now free to buy and try all kinds of papers without bothering with the tedious task of profiling the paper. The profiles alone are worth the investment in just time saving and paper consumption.

Have I mentioned B&W. Well, if you haven't made a B&W with IP, then you're missing out. It prints the most beautiful neutral B&W that I have ever seem. As good as or better than wet processing. I didn't believe it until I actually printed my first image and the only words coming out of my mouth were WOW! I would suggest you find someone that can print out one of your most difficult photos for you using IP and compare it to your custom profile with your Epson driver. You'll be sold like I was. Also, if you own an older generation printer like I do, IP will breath new life into it. I was so impressed with all of it's capabilities.

I have been contemplating upgrading my old copy but with my love / real hatred with Epson, I've been waiting to make a decision. The only thing holding me back is that the Epson's are clog masters and I'm sick and tired of wasting ink every time I have to print. I'm hoping that Colorbyte will support Canon printers soon.

Is it worth it? I bet if you see the results compared to the prints from the Epson drivers, and the ease and use of the profiles for so many papers, it won't take you long to figure it out. I now understand why people here who use it, swear by it and for good reason. I normally don't endorse anything, but this is a real winner. Thanks to everyone here for pointing out IP to me.

Hope this helps.

Paul

[Sven W]

I don't "need" better quality/

A good RIP is ......

the advantages that a RIP provides the typical photographer?

I talk about the ImagePrint RGB RIP for photographers and you seem to talk about prepress workflow RIP's.
And that's a big difference.

Thanks for participating....

/Sven

[mfryd]

I talk about the ImagePrint RGB RIP for photographers and you seem to talk about prepress workflow RIP's.
And that's a big difference.

Thanks for participating....

/Sven

I was responding to the pre-press workflows because those were the primary purported benefits of a RIP.  I am sorry if I have confused you.

The non pre-press benefits of a RIP seem to fall into the categories of Better shadow detail, better B&W, and RIP based layout options.

Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see much benefit to trying to solve a non-existant problem.

If I am not having issues with my print quality, why should I spend money to try to improve it?  You might claim that I don't realize I have issues, but you would still need to make the argument that better quality would enhance my business.

We all agree that most photographers don't need the pre-press benefits of a RIP.

No one seems to claim that RIP based layout is a big issue for cut sheet printers like the 3880.

That leaves B&W printing.  Assuming that a RIP can produce output than Epson's driver, no one has tried to make the case that the difference is significant enough to give a financial advantage to the typical photographer.  I suspect that this is because Epson's driver is more than good enough to keep photographers and their clients happy.

My point is that a typical photographer does not need a RIP.  You seem to be saying that a RIP is better.  It seems we agree.  Both of us agree that a RIP can produce better output, and neither of us can provide a reason why the typical photographer would benefit from this.

Consider the following: The 3880 produces better detailed images when you select 'Finest Detail' (720ppi).  The downside is that is uses about 10% more ink, and takes twice as long to print.  Although the prints from 'Finest Detail' are "better", most photographers are happy with images printed at the normal 360ppi setting.  It's not a question of what's better, it's a question of whether the "better" is worth the cost (in terms of time, effort and $).

We've heard Yann who was surprised when he found a photographer client that wanted a RIP for his 4900.  We all agree that there are some people who need a RIP, and the surprise indicates that it is unusual for a photographer to need a RIP (keep in mind this was a photographer with a roll fed printer)

I haven't seen many positives to help the typical photographer.  I have seen claims that on difficult images, ImagePrint produces superior output.  I have seen nothing to suggest that there is a major difference for typical prints.  Nor have I heard an outpouring from photographers complaining about the lack of quality from Epson's standard 3880 driver.


At this point I think we have exhausted the issue.

There are clearly people who are quite happy with Epson's standard driver, and don't have any issues to resolve.

RIPs provide additional options and benefits over the standard driver.  There are clearly people who love RIPs, benefit from them, and should use them.


It is a point of (heated) debate whether or not these benefits justify using a RIP for the typical photographer (particularly one with a cut sheet printer like the 3880).