Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: dchew on September 13, 2016, 06:50:43 am
-
Thank you Kevin & John for the article. I use ImagePrint (IP) with my 7900 and like it especially for the profiles and for B&W printing. I have a few questions about the workflow:
1. I have always exported sized images for two reasons: First, I have no idea how IP resizes, especially downsizing images. Second, I do not know anything about how IP output sharpens (I think this is new for IP 10 but not sure). Since by default what I don't know I don't trust (!?), I've been sizing and sharpening in LR prior to output. This is of course more cumbersome. It would be simpler to export a full size image and use that for multiple print sizes and paper types as Kevin suggests. What do other users do?
2. Kevin specifically: I know the overall message in the article was that IP makes printing easy, so what you showed in the video may be simplified to get that message across. For example, I doubt anyone would convert to B&W on the fly in IP like you showed there. But I do like the toning features in IP so I output a neutral file and tone in IP. Is this how you use IP normally?
3. One gripe I have: I wish IP made it easier to switch rendering intents, and I am not sure I understand what settings do what. As far as I know you have to go into Preferences. But when swapping between relcol/perceptual I don't detect the image changing on screen as I do when soft proofing in LR. There is a section under IMAGE PROPERTIES where you can chose rendering intent for the input profile, but I assume that is off unless you switch input profiles while viewing since it says "Embedded profile applied." Either that or it is for going from the image profile to the monitor profile?
Dave
-
I've watched the videos and haven't seen anything that would convince me personally to basically double the price of my printer (P800) by purchasing IP.
The demonstration was very trivial - so you can place an image on a page and center it. Big deal (and notice how the image didn't stay centered when Kevin was changing its dimensions and he had to center it again afterwards. This is an advanced printing&layout program?).
-
I agree the videos covered basic topics. For me the benefits are:
- Good reliable profiles for Epson printers.
- Not only the profile but also the printer/paper settings. For example, when I use Canson Baryta, IP sets the printer media type to Watercolor Paper, which certainly isn't an obvious choice. Often when you download a paper profile from the manufacturer the paper settings don't match the printer options directly. How much this affects the print I don't know, but it covers things like platen gap, etc. I haven't had a head strike since using IP. When printing through LR I always have to manually set the PG to Wide or I get head strikes.
- B&W Toning: You get to see the effects on the paper as you experiment with tints. Using the Epson Advanced B&W you just have to experiment and print - there is no print preview. Using LR, you can soft proof but it is a bit clunky for experimenting with tones.
- Improved permanence in B&W printing.
- The layout features are helpful, but I don't see them as dramatically better than LR. I do have occasional frustrations with LR's layout capabilities that do not exist with IP.
All that being said, I will soon be looking to upgrade from my 7900 to a 44" printer. The cost of IP makes that tough to justify. I have to look into whether any of my 7900 payment could be applied to a printer upgrade.
Dave
-
I agree the videos covered basic topics. For me the benefits are:
- Good reliable profiles for Epson printers.
How are they behaving with saturated blues? In the old days (V6 or so when I was using IP), they would shift magenta. Not too good. Be interested in how you find this file output's with respect to blues:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif
-
Andrew,
I did that test about a year ago. Here is a photo of the results (not for web evaluation, but just to show context).
Left = My own profile
Center = Canson canned profile
Right = ImagePrint profile
I don't have the ability to measure, but I would gladly send you these prints if you are interested. Anecdotally I can say this:
- The blue tones are very similar, although Bill's Balls look the worst in the IP profile. Note they look much worse on the web.
- For this specific case, I ranked the profiles 1-Mine, 2-IP, 3-Canson
So I saw no magenta shift.
Dave
-
- The blue tones are very similar, although Bill's Balls look the worst in the IP profile.
They certainly do. Thanks.
-
I don't know why people just don't spend their money on the i1 X-Rite software package which is a lot more useful for everything.
They certainly do. Thanks.
-
I don't know why people just don't spend their money on the i1 X-Rite software package which is a lot more useful for everything.
To be fair, you can use that product to create (better) ICC profiles for use in IP. I can't recall what one used to set in the product such you could print a target to do this, might have changed but at least at one time, it was possible. My point is, the IP profiles ColorByte creates are not best in class, never were. John P there will be pissed but it's not the first time I've tried to illustrate that to him and others.
-
I will say I see little benefit to printing through IP in color, aside from 1) trying new paper without having to generate profiles (I have the i1 X-Rite package too), And 2) on a job where I'm printing 10+ large images, it makes the workflow easier with fewer mistakes. At least for me.
I like it for B&W though.
Dave
-
Hi All.
After 5 years of trying to get a consistently good match, I'm still challenged by soft proofing. (I use all the recommended protocols.But I waste a lot of paper and ink.)
Maybe my eyesight fluctuates ?
Does anyone know of an easy to use soft-proof tool ?
I find IP too expensive just for soft-proofing and not useful enough for anything else.
Any suggestions most welcome.
Thanks.
Richard
-
To be fair, you can use that product to create (better) ICC profiles for use in IP. I can't recall what one used to set in the product such you could print a target to do this, might have changed but at least at one time, it was possible. My point is, the IP profiles ColorByte creates are not best in class, never were. John P there will be pissed but it's not the first time I've tried to illustrate that to him and others.
Yes, you can still print targets to create your own profiles. And you can tag them so you get the correct resolution and media settings automatically. You can't make a B&W profile, so for B&W you have to use the profiles from Colorbyte.
When I started printing on the Epson LF printers, the differences between using the Epson driver and ImagePrint was HUUGE. Nowadays the differences is much smaller, but I can still see a difference, especially with dark prints with lot of subtle nuances in the dark areas. I get an even better result if I create my own profile, so for me it's not a question to make my own profiles or to use IP. I use ImagePrint and I create my own profiles for some papers.
-
Hi All.
After 5 years of trying to get a consistently good match, I'm still challenged by soft proofing. (I use all the recommended protocols.But I waste a lot of paper and ink.)
Maybe my eyesight fluctuates ?
Does anyone know of an easy to use soft-proof tool ?
I find IP too expensive just for soft-proofing and not useful enough for anything else.
If you do any B&W printing you will find the quality of that is so much better than Epson Advanced B&W. So ImagePrint saves me the expense of having a printer with B&W inks. And I like the soft proofing in IP.
Today Eizo announced a program called Quick Color Match. Together with their latest ColorEdge monitors it is supposed to give you a much better soft proof with some of the printers and papers from Epson and Canon. Very easy to use and it's free. But you have to have a ColorEdge monitor ;-)
-
Stefan,
Thanks for the recommendations.
I do print b&w and follow Jeff Schwewe's work flow- with good success-usually.
Don't have an Eizo monitor. Use an iMac.
Will keep on lookin'.
Richard
-
I know we've slid into the usual "is IP worth it" discussion, which is fine. But I am still curious if anyone has info regarding resizing and sharpening within IP.
I will try some tests over the weekend.
-
I know we've slid into the usual "is IP worth it" discussion, which is fine. But I am still curious if anyone has info regarding resizing and sharpening within IP.
I will try some tests over the weekend.
Hi Dave,
The attached file will tell you if down-sampling is done well, non-linear gamma can cause artifacts at 100% size.
Cheers,
Bart
-
Thanks Bart!
-
I am a newcomer to printing, working out my work flow before I take the printer plunge. If "Back to printing" is the motto, I am trying to accomplish this using a Mac, an Benq monitor, and Capture One - plus whatever plugins and other software I have to use. There have been two "easy," end of process software packages reviewed or touted on this site: PrinTao8 and ImagePrint. Neither exactly encourage printing for the common man, with high prices that depend on printer "carriage" size. Should the motto be "Back to printing for the rich"? What alternatives are there for the Mac at a lower price that do not require self profiling and a degree in IT.
A question at the beginning of this thread was about final sharpening. I understand that final sharpening should take place after resizing, however that is done. What, if anything, is special about the IP final sharpening? IP might save the trouble of creating TIFF files with different sizes, but this is not all that onerous considering the price you pay to IP to do it for you - before final sharpening is applied and printing is done. What other advantages does the IP sharpening method have.
F.
-
Frank, I think this is a good question. Possibly off topic for this thread. Maybe as a new post we could generate a discussion on this topic. This forum is populated by folks who take printing very seriously and take it to what many of us would consider extremes. I get the sneaking feeling that they sort of enjoy the minutiae and technological nuances of the process. That is not said as a criticism but for many of us that level of file massaging and control is 1) outside of our price range regarding hardware and software, 2) outside of our comfort zone....in other words, takes the fun out of the process and 3) might not ever yield the sort of subtle nuances of tone and sharpness that are important to or even visible to us.
So yes, it would be interesting to look at and compare two or three levels of workflow that vary by expense and experience. This would need to include an open and honest assessment of results. This can be difficult because 1) we really can't critique prints that we can't see on line, 2) those of us who are not experts may not have eyes and brains trained to see the subtle nuances so desired by the high end/high tech printer (people) here and 3) those who have invested high levels of time, expense and expertise might not be willing (subconsciously) to concede the qualities of say, a lower level workflow print...speculation here, but certainly a plausible hurdle.
Having said that, as one who appreciates fine art B&W prints, even if I might not be able to make them, I would not want it to be assumed that because I cannot make a 44" fine aft B&W print that I do not know what I'm looking at or how to properly appreciate it.
-
There have been two "easy," end of process software packages reviewed or touted on this site: PrinTao8 and ImagePrint. Neither exactly encourage printing for the common man, with high prices that depend on printer "carriage" size. Should the motto be "Back to printing for the rich"? What alternatives are there for the Mac at a lower price that do not require self profiling and a degree in IT.
Hi Frank,
Although these programs have specific strengths and weaknesses, the high price is avoidable with Qimage Ultimate (http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/index.html) (currently for US$ 69.99).
While a Windows program, many use it on a Mac by running it under Parallels (https://www.parallels.com/eu/landingpage/pd/general/?gclid=CMeZkej5js8CFbAy0wodjWcC9Q) (currently US$ 79.99) or a similar virtualization program. It uses the printer manufacturer supplied printer driver, and therefore supports whatever format the printer can handle, no restrictions in width, and whatever paper profiles you can supply, either manufacturer supplied or selfmade.
But discussing Qimage is something for another thread, just wanted to let you know that there are options at a different price level, so don't despair.
Cheers,
Bart
-
If you do any B&W printing you will find the quality of that is so much better than Epson Advanced B&W. So ImagePrint saves me the expense of having a printer with B&W inks. And I like the soft proofing in IP.
Again, years since I used IP but I agree, it's strength is in B&W output. If you are really serious about this kind of printing, it's well worth testing.
Today Eizo announced a program called Quick Color Match. Together with their latest ColorEdge monitors it is supposed to give you a much better soft proof with some of the printers and papers from
Do they explain how it's supposed to provide a much better soft proof? I can think of a few things like the UI surround and how the soft proof with ink and paper simulation is shown to the user via it's update on-screen could be better than what Adobe provides, but outside of that, scratching my head how, using the same ICC profiles, it's 'much better'.
-
I have been using ImagePrint since version 5 ( I think ) and at the core are the consistently finest icc profiles I have used. If you've profiled and calibrated your monitor and use IP your prints are as close to WYSIWYG than anything else out there. I have often found other print drivers failing to match certain colors especially blues and yellows but IP does. I know a few people who use IP and I don't hear any complaints. Tech support is excellent. Yes its expensive but so is any other good piece of equipment. S
-
$695 for small format. It is true that good tools can be expensive. It can also be true that a tool can cost more than it is worth.
I'm curious and this question is made in ignorance, but is Print Tool, by the QTR folks, compare in any way with IP?
-
A quick response to N80 and Bart. Thanks for your comments.
N80, a separate post or thread might be a good idea. I will leave that for the time being. My purposes are practical and not polemic, but such a thread would not have to be the lattter.
Bart, thanks for suggestions about alternative software. Both products you mention are on my radar. For Parallels one also needs a copy of the Windows operating system. Since I prefer 7 to 10, that would have to be sorted that out, but I may go in this direction. I have Bootcamp on my old late 2009 iMac, but I am not sure if I want to print from that machine rather than my newer and faster one, and in some ways it would be less convenient than Parallels.
Thanks
Frank
-
I have used Imageprint on 11880, and found their color profiles to be inferior to what I (a non expert - i1 Pro and iSiS) could build with x-rite*.
They are, after all, canned profiles. Fancy ones, but canned - not your specific machine, unless you pay for them.
I sold my licence on. Colorbyte didn't even have an 11880 (which was then current) to profile on anymore.
No wish to denigrate them too much, I'm happy they exist, but their color profiles need(ed) a serious upgrade. If I were printing b/w, maybe feel very differently.
(*that said X-Rite seem to have given up on releasing updates for this, probably going to announce something new we all have to pay for over again!)
-
I've commented before, so I repeat
If you have a perfectly calibrated monitor (I have EZIO), and you have Imageprint, your Epson printer will produce exactly what is on your monitor on every paper that they have created a profile.
To me that is worth the cost
Stanley
-
I have used IP for many years. Images I printed 8 years ago I can print today and they look exactly the same.
Most importantly I have never had to jump through the hoops of changing operating systems and Adobe upgrades that break things and take teams of paper, testing, time on forums, mailing adobe and waiting for solutions. That frustration ended for me with my first purchase of IP.
I place the image. Choose the profile and make a print. No problems at all, not even one for all those years. Adobe and Mac can do what they like. I am sorted. Without going into quality issues, where I actually think IP is better than what I was getting on home profiling systems back when I still used them, the sheer reliability and immunity from the regular issues I see on forums around the world makes it a no brainer for me. I don't have weeks to figure out what went wrong when Adobe change something. I either get the print to my client and get paid or it all goes tits up. Simple.
-
Boy am I glad I did this! It helped with my original question about sizing algorithms and also confirmed something I though about IP. I don't think it will be meaningful to post images of the prints since they will go through multiple gyrations from camera to web. You will have to rely on my descriptions.
I took Bart's rings and placed them on a 13x19 custom layout in LR at various sizes:
1.389" (720 ppi)
2" (500 ppi)
2.778" (360 ppi)
4" (250 ppi)
8" (125 ppi)
I printed it on my 7900 three ways:
- Through LR without "print resolution" checked so it went to the printer @ native sizes listed above.
- With "print resolution" checked at 360ppi so LR resized everything to 360.
- I imported the file into PS and converted it from png to tif without resizing (I don't think IP will print a png). Then I opened up IP and dropped the image into a 13x19 sheet and resized them "on the fly" to the same sizes, just like Kevin did in the video.
What I see:
It is obvious that Schewe's recommendation in LR to check that little "print resolution" box improves results of this test dramatically, especially when upsizing the image. The two small images, 1.389" and 2", look close, but you can see a few "extra" rings in the 2" image printed natively (print #1). The 2.778" image looks exactly the same either way. But the 4" and 8" images have quite a few added rings when native resolutions are sent to the printer. By my count 24 extra rings appear on the 8" image (printer upsized from 125 to 360).
As for the IP test, the output looks exactly like #2; printing through LR with "print resolution" set to 360. The main difference is the IP version is more neutral, which is of course why I like IP in the first place for B&W printing.
So this test supports Kevin's workflow. There seems to be no reason to output images to the exact size for IP. Sharpening may be a different thing, but that will be a tougher test for me to think about.
There is a "but." I've always felt that IP's screen renderings, while very color-accurate, are not very detail-accurate. Attached is a screen shot of what these rings look like in IP. Just ridiculous. This may be because I am on a MBP retina, but it looks the same regardless of whether I move it over to my NEC PA241w or on the MBP screen. So when I get to the sharpening question, I won't be able to judge anything from the screen. It will have to be 100% via test prints. Edit: When you go into the sharpening mode in IP, it does render a very nice accurate image.
Thanks again Bart, the image really helped.
Dave
Note: I used Canson's canned profile through LR and IP's profile through IP. I did not use my own profile through LR.
Hi Dave,
The attached file will tell you if down-sampling is done well, non-linear gamma can cause artifacts at 100% size.
Cheers,
Bart
-
BTW, this is what the rings look like in LR. Several artifacts, but not nearly as bad as the view inside IP.
Dave
-
I am sorry I am not been able to respond to this warm topic earlier. Chris and I have been traveling and while he is now home I am on my way to Photokina and working on another project or two. There is good discussion on this topic and thank you to everyone for your contributions and suggestions and especially to David who's done some serious testing. For me ImagePrint works and fits ito my workflow very well. It's not for everyone, and it does cost a bit. But, I am very busy, I travel, work on the website and many other projects. I well I love to get into the technical side of things with printing I just don't have the time. So, for me as well as photographers such as Mark Dubovoy and many others ImagePrint is my solution.
As I've always said find what works best for you. In a few weeks Chris and I will be producing a new master video with a heavy emphasis on fine art printing. I don't want to give too much away at this point but I assure you that this video should be a lot of fun and all of us can learn something. In the meantime look for a lot of news and posts from Photokina next week.