ImagePrint vs EyeOne

[eheffa]

Hi all,

I have been using ImagePrint 7 with my Mac printing to an Epson 4800 (Phatte Black option).  I have been very happy with the quality of the output.  I print to 3rd party papers (BC Lyve canvas, InkJet Art Microceramic Luster etc.)

I have an Epson 7900 on order.  To upgrade my current IP 7 to version 9 & add a license for the 7900 is going to cost me around $1700- (gasp).

I am wondering whether I should just go back to profiling my own printer output (get an EyeOne system) for the same price & bail on the IP option for the bigger printer.

Can people comment on the pros & cons of these two options? 

Can I expect to get  close to the same quality output with a carefully profiled system & not using IP? 

Any advice appreciated.

-evan

[Mark D Segal]

There's a 3rd option given the advances between a 4800 and a 7900. Forget about buying ImagePrint, forget about buying an expensive XRite profiling solution and buy several custom profiles from reputable sources such as Scott Martin (OnSight) or Andrew Rodney (Digital Dog) for the three papers you will use most often. Test them with those papers in the new 7900 and see whether they do what you need, using the printer driver in RGB mode. Also test the printer in Epson's ABW mode. I suspect you will find that's ll you'll need, and for a whole lot less expenditure.

[eheffa]

Thank you Mark,

The price of your suggestion is certainly attractive.  I do like using a variety of papers but I suppose that in reality,  what I use for serious output is limited to perhaps 5-6 different choices (Some Matte & some Luster / Baryta varieties.)  With the 4800, having the Phatte Black option made ImagePrint a reasonable cost-effective option with a library of very nicely done paper profiles...when I bought into the IP system 5+ years ago, it made good sense.

Fast forward a few years though & print layout options in LightRoom and Photoshop have improved significantly.  I understand that the dithering algorithms and actual OEM printer drivers have improved significantly making the IP advantage for resolution etc.  a little less compelling.  Reading the IP literature makes you think that the only way to make your 7900 produce its best possible output is to use ImagePrint...but maybe that's just hype?

The remaining issue seems to be the ability to get that first class quality profiled output. 

Having custom profiles done offsite leave me feeling like I am dependent on a rather slow system if I attempt to use new media etc.

Would I have trouble matching these profile makers' quality with my own XRite system?

I guess I have some experimentation to do & will avoid spending the big bucks until I've tried these more practical alternatives...thanks for your input


-evan

[Mark D Segal]

With the 7900 phatte black is obsolete. I'm using an Epson 4900 (similar technology to the 7900 in a 17 inch "desktop" configuration) with the Epson driver - no RIP. The resolution of the prints, smoothness of tonal gradations, fidelity of B&W conversions etc. are fine at output PPI from 240 or so Northward with a custom profile made for me by OnSight. I would be VERY surprised if I could do better with a RIP. There's nothing slow about this service. The slowest part is at your end and that would be the case whether you used your own profiling kit or out-sourced it. This is the production of the printed target and the drying time. If you are living in North America the printed target can be delivered to the profiler within a day and you get your profile back as an email attachment which you install in the usual way. I found the turn-around very rapid. I could have made my own profile because I do have an XRite Pulse Elite system, but it dates from 2005 and when i1 Profiler hit the market, just to clear any doubts I was provided an opportunity to see for myself that parts of the spectrum are better represented resulting in a somewhat larger gamut using the latest technology. While running a custom profile can be a very simple process, people who do this professionally would examine the result and make certain settings to get the best possible quality given the target from which the profile is being made. I think it's worthwhile doing your own tests by getting a couple made and seeing whether they perform to your expectations.

[eheffa]

Thank you Mark.

It's good and reassuring to hear of your experience with the OEM drivers. I appreciate the recommendation for the custom profiles & that may be the most cost effective option really. (Imageprint's excellent profiles are a major part of their RIP's appeal.  Getting a professionally produced custom profile should in theory be even better if the Epson dithering algorithms are now just as good.)

I will experiment & see how the Native Epson Driver with the 7900 compares to my IP/4800 output and go from there.

-evan

PS  I understand that the newer Epson Printers are a lot more frugal on ink with the cleaning cycles etc.  It always bugged me to have the 4800 dumping a pile of precious ink as part of the cleaning routines and the Black ink swap was almost criminal in its wasteful design. The Phatte black option with IP virtually paid for the cost of the RIP.  With the 7900 though,  I'm not sure I can justify that HUGE IP pricetag.

 

[Mark D Segal]

The x900 printers and the 3800/3880 use only about 4 ml of ink round-trip for the change between Photo Black and Matte Black - it's peanuts.

[Gigi]

Epson technician said that the change from one direction of phatte black to photo black was stingy, but the other way used up quite a bit of ink. Siad it had to do with the viscosity of the ink, and I think the matte cleaning out the glossy was the problem direction, but not 100% sure. 

[Mark D Segal]

Epson technician said that the change from one direction of phatte black to photo black was stingy, but the other way used up quite a bit of ink. Siad it had to do with the viscosity of the ink, and I think the matte cleaning out the glossy was the problem direction, but not 100% sure. 

This of course doesn't apply to what I said above because none of the printers I'm referring to ever used Phatte Black.

[eheffa]

Hi again,

I thought I would report in with some of my initial experience with the 7900.

Changing black inks may not take much ink  (the manual says this: PK to MK 1.2 mL & MK to PK 3.4 mL ink)  but i have found that it provokes a cleaning cycle which I'll bet eats up a lot more ink than that.  ( I do have Autoclean Off BTW)

Quibbles aside, the printer is excellent. 

I have had a chance to play with some canned 3rd party profiles which do not come close to matching the quality of the IP profiles with the 4800.  (The Epson profile for the DoubleWeight Matte is excellent, but I rarely print on Epson Papers.)I am not happy to have to send off for custom profiles so I bought an i1 Pro Photo package. I'm happy to report that the initial 1600 patch profiles I have done for BC Lyve canvas or BC Optica One are easily as good as the IP profiles and much better than the Breathing Color Profiles.  (I note that the IP output gives a little magenta twist to blue skies but is slightly better in the skin tones of a limited test series.) 

So, at this point, I do not think I will invest further in the ImagePrint software as the value is simply not there for me.  If the pricing scheme was little more liberal, (say allowing a 24 inch license to drive both 24 & smaller printers all in one license for something around ~$1000- it could be reasonable), but to have to buy two licenses just because you have a 17 inch and a 24 inch printer running is, in my opinion, quite  unreasonable.  Running Phatte black when I had just the one printer made good sense, but not with two printers running...

Anyways,  for anyone else in this situation, I hope this might be helpful.

-evan