Lack of 16bit print

[Bryan Conner]

As far as I know, and I do not know everything, you need to download (if it is not already on your Canon cd or already installed) and use the Canon Easy PhotoPrint Pro Plugin software.  This will allow you to use the 16 bit print pipeline through the Canon plugin.  Without this plugin, you are only printing with 8 bits directly from Lightroom irregardless of which printer driver you choose in Lightroom.

With a loupe, you can definitely see more details in a 16 bit print vs an 8 bit print.  But, you have to use a loupe.  I can not see the difference at a normal viewing difference, but since I know more detail is there, I choose to print it...haha.

[Tony Hubcaps]

Thanks Bryan - and yes, I'm with you on that....

and in fact there are plenty of aesthetic reasons for doing it - for instance I like
the idea of reproducing sweeping landscapes as large as I can manage to print,
such that when you go right up to the print you can see all of the things going on
in the landscape.... a tractor two miles off working in a field, ants busy under
yonder rock, and so on and so forth.

Yes, I have the Canon plug-in installed but when I print from CS5 either by normal
or 'Easy Print' I still don't see the "send 16 bit output' tickbox.  Looking online it seems
that this should be visible and needs to be ticked.  (Perhaps I better go back and find
a link).

As I say, my thinking is that since it seems that LR possibly only offers 16 bit tickbox
when 16 bit printing is actually available, the same may be true of PS even with plug-in
installed.  (Or maybe its a mac thing and isn't programmed into windows).

Still, if you can get 16 prints, great.  I can't remember have you posted your set up?
Do you see and check a tickbox anywhere??

EDIT - ah, I see you posted a screen shot and no tick box.

[Tony Hubcaps]

And I forgot to mention -

There seems (on the basis of my hasty googling) to be an opinion floating around
the net that even with the the Canon plug-in, in Windows to get 16 bit you must
allow management by printer not application.

Adobe are raking in enough cash, it seems to me that they ought to do the decent
thing and make available a clear statement - for the average person - of what can
or can't be done, and how.

There is some discussion of this issue on the Adobe help forum(s) but to my mind the
responses are very technical and hardly answer the basic questions.

Of course I may have missed something, but as said, I started to feel frustrated at
the wealth of conflicting opinion coming at me.

[Bryan Conner]

Thanks Bryan - and yes, I'm with you on that....

and in fact there are plenty of aesthetic reasons for doing it - for instance I like
the idea of reproducing sweeping landscapes as large as I can manage to print,
such that when you go right up to the print you can see all of the things going on
in the landscape.... a tractor two miles off working in a field, ants busy under
yonder rock, and so on and so forth.

Yes, I have the Canon plug-in installed but when I print from CS5 either by normal
or 'Easy Print' I still don't see the "send 16 bit output' tickbox.  Looking online it seems
that this should be visible and needs to be ticked.  (Perhaps I better go back and find
a link).

As I say, my thinking is that since it seems that LR possibly only offers 16 bit tickbox
when 16 bit printing is actually available, the same may be true of PS even with plug-in
installed.  (Or maybe its a mac thing and isn't programmed into windows).

Still, if you can get 16 prints, great.  I can't remember have you posted your set up?
Do you see and check a tickbox anywhere??

EDIT - ah, I see you posted a screen shot and no tick box.

No, there is no tick box in my version of Canon PhotoPrint Pro that I use with CS5 and Lightroom 5.3.  I have to select the Canon XPS driver in order to get 16 bit printing.  I am not sure if it was discussed in this thread or earlier, but I think the reason that Adobe does not allow 16 bit printing directly from Windows is due to the fact that in order to print 16 bits in Windows you have to use the XPS Print Path.  XPS is actually an open source competitor to Adobe's own pdf format.  I think the XPS print path was introduced with Windows Vista.

I do not have any inside information, so take what I have said above with a grain of salt and verify it for yourself...or maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject that I will chime in and either correct me or verify what I have said. 

[TonyW]

I believe Bart provided the answer for 16 bit printing Windows  via LR or PS and that is to use the Print Studio Pro plugin along with the XPS drivers.  Support for this plugin is limited to the Pro series of printers and the 9000 and 9500MkII so you should be good to go.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Inkjet/Professional_Photo_Printers/Print_Studio_Pro/

AFAIK once you use the plugin from the PS Automate menu or LR Plug-in Extras menu you are leaving the control that these two applications offer and the printer driver is managing all aspects of print output.

No idea if Adobe will implement 16 bit printing from Windows in the future as to do this requires XPS drivers from the printer manufacturers to communicate with Windows and use the XPS path and I think that Canon maybe on their own producing such - perhaps not a priority?

[digitaldog]

Now, I am not claiming that this test is conclusive in any way technically, but there is a definite difference in the print from the Lightroom Plug in.  There are a few areas where the colors printed are different...actually the areas that are different have colors that are not present on the other prints.  The prints printed from Lightroom are identical regardless of which driver was selected.  The only thing that I am not sure of is if there could be a difference in the colors printed between 16 bit and 8 bit, or is this a difference brought on by the Canon plug in?

Well for one thing, I don' think Canon supports Black Point Compensation or at least a few years ago when I had a Canon it didn't. I have no idea what's changed since then.
There was a recent discussion about using Epson drivers on Mac with 16-bit data here. I can see a slight difference under a loupe. If I found out I couldn’t use that path, I wouldn't be disappointed, the differences are pretty tiny.

[Tony Hubcaps]

Printer manages things not much use to those of us who want to use
profiles then!

Thanks for the info both.  We'll see how things look when I've done some
test prints at A3+

[Some Guy]

I use the Canon XPS driver on my 9000 II since that option appears in Qimage Ultimate when the printer options command window comes up.

I have noted in the past that with the Adobe software, and even QTR RIP software for B&W, that prints appear far softer than what comes out of Qimage so I use that as my final "print tuner" software for the Canon XPS driver.  Finely detail items like hair and grass really are different.  QU seems to do far better print sharpening when you place a print from Adobe or QTR side-by-side to one made out of QU, imho.  Even the Epson shows better detail over the other two software's so I don't use either as a printer control software at all now.

SG

[TonyW]

Printer manages things not much use to those of us who want to use
profiles then!...

The Print Studio Pro plug in allows the selection of icc profiles and rendering intent so perhaps this not a problem.  But is it able to actually match what you see on screen in soft proofing in either LR or PS is for me the $64,000 question.

I did not think that Qimage able to utilise 16 bit in Windows as I understood that Mike Chaney had no plans until Windows supported native 16 bit printing and the XPS path not considered such?  So I guess again that although the XPS drivers in use that only 8 bit data is being sent?  Has this now changed?

[Bryan Conner]

Support for this plugin is limited to the Pro series of printers and the 9000 and 9500MkII so you should be good to go.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Inkjet/Professional_Photo_Printers/Print_Studio_Pro/

For those that do not have a Canon Pro series printer, the Canon Easy-PhotoPrint Pro plugin is available for many Canon printers and all in ones.  It also allows 16 bit printing via the XPS driver.

[Tony Hubcaps]

I believe Bart provided the answer for 16 bit printing Windows  via LR or PS and that is to use the Print Studio Pro plugin along with the XPS drivers.  Support for this plugin is limited to the Pro series of printers and the 9000 and 9500MkII so you should be good to go.
http://www.canon.co.uk/For_Home/Product_Finder/Printers/Inkjet/Professional_Photo_Printers/Print_Studio_Pro/

Ah, I hadn't noticed this plug-in supports profiles.  Looks good in fact.
To my mind it's a replacement for the more limited Easy Print Pro software.

And for me it's a bonus to be able to print from LR.  Plug-ins etc or no, I've never been able to get a satisfactory print
via PS.  Obviously I'm doing something wrong, but I could never get to the bottom of what.

[TonyW]

For those that do not have a Canon Pro series printer, the Canon Easy-PhotoPrint Pro plugin is available for many Canon printers and all in ones.  It also allows 16 bit printing via the XPS driver.

Did you mean Canon Easy-PhotoPrint EX as Easy-PhotoPrint Pro is only for the Pro range of printers AFAIK? For me the issue still remaining is having to step outside of LR or PS and using the Easy PhotoPrint application to manage print output.

...To my mind it's a replacement for the more limited Easy Print Pro software.

And for me it's a bonus to be able to print from LR.  Plug-ins etc or no...

It will be interesting to see if you get any improvement and if PhotoPrint Pro actually allows you to get a WYSIWYG match to your LR or PS soft proofed version i.e. your carefully crafted adjustments in the soft proof version in LR are actually correctly honoured once output via this plugin. 

[Tony Hubcaps]

It will be interesting to see if you get any improvement and if PhotoPrint Pro actually allows you to get a WYSIWYG match to your LR or PS soft proofed version i.e. your carefully crafted adjustments in the soft proof version in LR are actually correctly honoured once output via this plugin. 

Yes, that for me is the highest priority.  I'll report back when I've done some printing.

[Pete Berry]

Well for one thing, I don' think Canon supports Black Point Compensation or at least a few years ago when I had a Canon it didn't. I have no idea what's changed since then.
There was a recent discussion about using Epson drivers on Mac with 16-bit data here. I can see a slight difference under a loupe. If I found out I couldn’t use that path, I wouldn't be disappointed, the differences are pretty tiny.

The Canon 16-bit PS printing plugin for their large format iPF series still doesn't support Adobe CMM, AFAIK, so no BPC for that otherwise superb utility. The plugin has been available for years now, so why this fault has not (or maybe cannot?) be corrected beats me.

[digitaldog]

The Canon 16-bit PS printing plugin for their large format iPF series still doesn't support Adobe CMM, AFAIK, so no BPC for that otherwise superb utility. The plugin has been available for years now, so why this fault has not (or maybe cannot?) be corrected beats me.

They could use their own CMM with BPC, they don't have to use ACE to use BPC. That would get the results far closer than without from two different CMM's.

[Bryan Conner]

Did you mean Canon Easy-PhotoPrint EX as Easy-PhotoPrint Pro is only for the Pro range of printers AFAIK? For me the issue still remaining is having to step outside of LR or PS and using the Easy PhotoPrint application to manage print output.

The plug in that I have installed is Canon Easy-PhotoPrint Pro.  It works with my Canon MG6250.  Easy PhotoPrint EX is the standalone printing application.  Easy PhotoPrint Pro is a Lightroom/Photoshop plugin.

[TonyW]

The plug in that I have installed is Canon Easy-PhotoPrint Pro.  It works with my Canon MG6250.  Easy PhotoPrint EX is the standalone printing application.  Easy PhotoPrint Pro is a Lightroom/Photoshop plugin.

Thanks.  While being aware of the differences standalone v plugin a search for the PhotoPrint Pro version only revealed info. stating that this for the Pro version printers.  Having two everyday Canon consumer models iP4000 and all in one MP4950 the XPS driver is available but not PhotoPrint Pro just EX - seems Canon may not be interested once a printer reaches a certain age.

[jerryrock]

The Canon 16-bit PS printing plugin for their large format iPF series still doesn't support Adobe CMM, AFAIK, so no BPC for that otherwise superb utility. The plugin has been available for years now, so why this fault has not (or maybe cannot?) be corrected beats me.

The workaround for the BPC issue is to convert the image to the appropriate icc paper profile in Photoshop before exporting to the Canon iPF print plugin.

[Scott Martin]

The Canon 16-bit PS printing plugin for their large format iPF series still doesn't support Adobe CMM, AFAIK, so no BPC for that otherwise superb utility. The plugin has been available for years now, so why this fault has not (or maybe cannot?) be corrected beats me.

Adobe never updated the CMM to 64 bits so 64 bit versions of Photoshop can't offer this for Plug-in's like Canon's. RelCol with BPC is available in older 32 bit versions of Photoshop with their plug-in. Buy since BPC is included with the Perceptual intent (which is the intent most people use), and because you can convert with RelCol wBPC before printing, it's considered a low priority. I wouldn't expect to see a change.

[Pete Berry]

The workaround for the BPC issue is to convert the image to the appropriate icc paper profile in Photoshop before exporting to the Canon iPF print plugin.

I don't understand this, Jerry. I would convert my 16-bit PP-RGB color space files out of ACR to my icc paper profile in PS's Edit > Convert to Profile dialog (which includes BPC choice)? I tried this and the image changes radically - as if displaying a PP-RGB image in sRGB color space, and would need much soft proofing to print acceptably. Checking/unchecking BPC makes no apparent difference in preview. Converting a color space to a paper/printer profile just makes no sense to me.

Pete