Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: jnmoore on June 27, 2011, 08:23:59 pm
-
Hi,
Does anyone know of upcoming Epson sales or recommend a dealer with a good deal? Also, Michael recommends a RIP and B&H sell a version with this (ColorBurst) for a little bit more. Is it worth it? I've had frustrating times with my past printer drivers (Mac) getting confused about trays and paper sizes etc. so I am tempted to get a RIP to improve the process.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
John
johnagon.com
-
check IT Supplies.
switching to canon ended ALL of my printing frustration.
-
Thanks,
Vistek in Canada (I live in Vancouver) has lower prices. It can be purchased with the EFI eXpress RIP so any feedback on the value of this much appreciated. Apparently B&H won't ship these printers to Canada.
John
-
There was a thread recently about how all three manufacturers (HP, Canon, Epson) prohibit US authorized resellers from selling to Canada. So you're stuck with Canadian sources for the printer at least.
Neil
-
I have the 3880 with the bundled ColorBurst RIP. The bundled RIP is not a full featured RIP.
I seldom use the RIP as the Epson driver is much easier to use. The only time I use the RIP is when I need to print longer than 34 inches.
Most photographers don't need a RIP.
-
Most photographers don't need a RIP.
An old statement which have been discussed many times in this forum.
And comes mostly from users who think all RIP's are made for prepress work (i.e. CMYK-proofs) or
the signage industry. But there are solutions for photographers and RGB workflow.
Take a look at ImagePrint (http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/) and its community of satisfied users.
Their new blog (http://imageprinttoday.wordpress.com/) has a lot of good information and topics similar to LuLa.
/Sven
-
An old statement which have been discussed many times in this forum.
And comes mostly from users who think all RIP's are made for prepress work (i.e. CMYK-proofs) or
the signage industry. But there are solutions for photographers and RGB workflow.
Take a look at ImagePrint (http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/) and its community of satisfied users.
Their new blog (http://imageprinttoday.wordpress.com/) has a lot of good information and topics similar to LuLa.
/Sven
There are lots of good uses for a RIP. Avoiding confusion about input paper trays is probably not the best reason. I personally find Epson's standard 3880 printer driver easier to use then the bundled ColorBurst RIP for the 3880.
I agree that there are many situations where RIPs are a benefit. I still think that a RIP is not necessary for the typical photographer who makes color prints on pre-cut sheets using an Epson 3880. Obviously, not everybody falls into this category.
The bundled ColorBurst RIP is a particularly useless choice for a photographer because it does not support third party paper profiles. Many photographers like using non-Epson paper, and it's very helpful to use the matching profile.
-
The bundled ColorBurst RIP is a particularly useless choice for a photographer because it does not support third party paper profiles. Many photographers like using non-Epson paper, and it's very helpful to use the matching profile.
That's why I pointed on ImagePrint. A profile library for more than 400 different papers. And every papers has a bouquet
of profiles tuned for different approaches; daylight, tungsten, mixed light, fluorescent and unique b&w profiles.
Can you beat that? :D
/Sven
-
That's why I pointed on ImagePrint. A profile library for more than 400 different papers. And every papers has a bouquet
of profiles tuned for different approaches; daylight, tungsten, mixed light, fluorescent and unique b&w profiles.
Can you beat that? :D
/Sven
Are you suggesting that the primary benefit of ImagePrint is the bundled profiles?
Are you saying that this is something that most photographers need?
Personally, I don't need profiles for papers that I don't use, and I can't afford to stock a lot of different types of paper. I mostly use papers from Red River. They provide profiles that work beautifully with the standard Epson Driver. How would you see ImagePrint helping my workflow on my 3880?
-
Are you suggesting that the primary benefit of ImagePrint is the bundled profiles?
Of course not. The profile library is down the list of benefits. Have you read about all the others (http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/FAQ.html)?
Remember the OP's question.
/Sven
-
Of course not. The profile library is down the list of benefits. Have you read about all the others (http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/FAQ.html)?
Remember the OP's question.
/Sven
The OP's original question was whether he should get the bundled ColorBurst RIP to avoid confusion about trays and paper sizes etc. I don't think the bundled RIP is really a help for this issue, and in fact, i think the bundled RIP makes this issue worse.
I followed your link, and I did not find thier reasons compelling. On one hand, they say that standard drivers are bad because they are tuned for the general public. Instead of passing along marginal files, they "improve" the image so almost anything looks good on the printer. They then say that the advantage of their RIP is that it uses "Dynamic Contrast Matching" to automatically correct your images and make them really "jump".
The Epson 3880 printer is not aimed at the home consumer. Although the driver does offer the option of correcting your images, it also allows you to turn off these corrections. This allows you to adjust and tune all of your colors in your image management program (Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.). In my workflow, I let Photoshop handle the color management, and send 16 bit data to the driver.
The four listed benefits of the RIP are- 16 bit printing (which is already available to me printing from Photoshop to the stock Epson driver)
- Enhanced Printable Gamut - I find this claim doubtful as they don't give specifics as to how much the gamut is enlarged (something that should be easy to measure). In any case, the gamut I get from Epson's driver is large enough for my images. Additional gamut wouldn't help me.
- Large library of included profiles - I get my profiles form the paper vendor. Profiles for papers I don't use are unnecessary. For extremely critical work, I create me own profiles. Canned profiles for someone else's printer aren't really a benefit.
- Lower cost - profiles are included so you don't need to pay $100 each for custom profiles. Paper vendors typically provide free canned profiles for use with Epson's standard driver. Their profiles don't save you money over the standard driver. If you really care about color, you should already have color calibration equipment. Generic profiles made on someone else's printer are not as accurate as a custom profile made on your printer. Their profiles don't save you money, canned profiles are free either way, and they provide no savings for custom profiles.
Remember, I am not saying RIPs are bad. I think they are helpful and a benefit in many circumstances. I'm just saying that for the typical photographer printing from a 3880, they probably aren't needed. I could be wrong. Can you list a few specific issues that confront a typical photographer where a RIP would be the best solution?
-
I rather say that a user which prints a couple of prints a week, as you say, don't need a RIP.
No matter what printer you have.
Photographer or not, it's not only image quality or color fidelity, that play role. Flexibility, lower ink consumption, advanced layout
features, templates, step-and-repeat, job queue, rebuild jobs, annotations, design-your-own-cropmarks, 1000 inches print length, split-toned true b&w, and a lot more.
/Sven
-
I rather say that a user which prints a couple of prints a week, as you say, don't need a RIP.
No matter what printer you have.
Photographer or not, it's not only image quality or color fidelity, that play role. Flexibility, lower ink consumption, advanced layout
features, templates, step-and-repeat, job queue, rebuild jobs, annotations, design-your-own-cropmarks, 1000 inches print length, split-toned true b&w, and a lot more.
/Sven
In my mind, the typical photographer with a 3880 is primarily printing one image per cut sheet. He has no need for crop marks, advanced layout, annotations, etc. When he does have these needs, they are handled by Photoshop or Lightroom.
I guess we have different ideas of what the typical photographer/3880 owner needs.
-
Also, Michael recommends a RIP and B&H sell a version with this (ColorBurst) for a little bit more.
Exactly where does Michael advocate a RIP (and what is the date of that advocation)?
-
In my mind, the typical photographer with a 3880 is primarily printing one image per cut sheet. He has no need for crop marks, advanced layout, annotations, etc. When he does have these needs, they are handled by Photoshop or Lightroom.
I guess we have different ideas of what the typical photographer/3880 owner needs.
How do you know that?
And how did you assume the definition ..."the typical photographer/3880 owner" ? A hobbyist?
I know plenty of 3880/ImagePrint users, who happens to be "typical professional photographers".
/Sven
-
How do you know that?
And how did you assume the definition ..."the typical photographer/3880 owner" ? A hobbyist?
I know plenty of 3880/ImagePrint users, who happens to be "typical professional photographers".
/Sven
I am sure there are lots of photographers who are 3880 and ImagePrint users. But that's not the question.
The question was "does the typical photographer with a 3880 need a RIP?"
It's clear that we have different opinions on what constitutes the typical photographer, and what tools are best.
A good RIP offers options and features over the standard driver. The downside is that RIP costs money, and is an extra level of complexity to master. If you don't need the extra features, there is no need to spend the money.
For me, I typically print on cut sheets. If a customer orders 100 5x7 prints, I load a stack of paper into the 3880. Sure, I could print on larger paper and manually cut the images out, but I have better things to do with my time, and 5x7 paper is a stock item with my supplier.
My paper vendor provides profiles for the standard driver, so I don't need a large library of profiles from the RIP vendor. If I need custom profiles, It's no easier to make them with a RIP.
The color gamut from the Epson driver is excellent, and large enough to handle the photos I take. A larger gamut that includes colors not in my photos, wouldn't help me.
The standard printer driver gives me a 16 bit path, so the RIP offers no advantage.
Epson's standard printer driver for the 3880 is pretty good. Much better than drivers from a few years ago. My clients and I are very happy with the quality from this driver, and I don't see a RIP increasing customer satisfaction with my prints.
Photoshop already gives me crop marks, and image placement options. Lightroom allows me to print multiple images per page.
I use Epson's standard inks. I don't have my printer loaded with 8 shades of black. I don't need special software to support non-standard inks.
As to fine tuning the look of my image, I much prefer to do that in Photoshop. Sometimes I need to make images larger than my 3880 can handle or I may want to reprint an image in the future, long after the 3880 is no longer available. If the colors are correct in the image file, any properly calibrated process will make a matching print. If I am fine tuning the image with the RIP, then these changes are lost when I print without the RIP.
If I do want to adjust in the driver, Epson's printer provides excellent B&W options.
For me, the Epson driver meets my needs. There is no advantage to me to spend extra money, time and effort on a RIP, when I have no problems for it to solve.
As you point out, these are just my opinions. I have no data to back it up. My thought is that most photographers fall into the same category that I am in, and don't need a RIP. I am sure there are lots of people who need RIPs, I just think they are in the minority.
Obviously, you are very happy with you RIP, and I see nothing wrong with that. You have given us all your reasons why you think RIPs are a good idea for most photographers. Perhaps you will convince lots of people and they will get a RIP. In a few weeks we might start seeing a rash of posts from photographers who have switched to RIPs and want to share their positive experience. My suspicion is that this will not be the case.
-
I'm getting tired.....
"Suspicions and opinions" are what Schewe could have stated: – We don't guess, we need facts.
I would like to hear from someone who have used both systems on the 3880/00.
/Sven
-
I'm getting tired.....
"Suspicions and opinions" are what Schewe could have stated: – We don't guess, we need facts.
I would like to hear from someone who have used both systems on the 3880/00.
/Sven
Fair enough.
I have the Epson 3880 with the bundled Colorburst RIP.
The RIP is better for complex PostScript jobs.
The standard Epson driver is easier to use, and gives better color and results on photos.
The bundled RIP does not support profiles for third party papers.
I haven't fired up the bundled RIP in months.
In my case, the extra cost of the RIP was not justified.
-
And then you mean the ColorBurst RIP and not ImagePrint. Right?
/Sven
-
Hi,
Does anyone know of upcoming Epson sales or recommend a dealer with a good deal? Also, Michael recommends a RIP and B&H sell a version with this (ColorBurst) for a little bit more. Is it worth it? I've had frustrating times with my past printer drivers (Mac) getting confused about trays and paper sizes etc. so I am tempted to get a RIP to improve the process.
Any ideas?
Thanks,
John
johnagon.com
Hello,
Yesterday I gave a demo of an Epson Stylus Pro 4900 to a photographer. Mostly we sell these printers with the optional Spectrproofer to prepress houses and printers together with the EFI Colorproof XF, merely for proofing purposes. Then a rip comes in handy because it comes with features like automatic proof verification, iterating profiles, multiple input queues and so on.
I started the demo with just Photoshop and the Epson driver, thinking that a rip would be overkill for him. Colors were good, no problem here. It started when he asked about printing two or three images side by side, and putting crop marks around them, and cutting the roll paper without everytime having to create a custom paper size. I briefly showed him EFI Cololproof XF, but he wouldn't need multiple queues at once. Then I switched to EFI eXpress 4.1 Epson Edition. He was sold on the fact that he could following things with it:
- not spend a fortune on a rip (around 310 euro + tax, or 450 USD)
- drop multiple images in a folder (even from the network), and let the rip print them next to each other with the filename under them, rotated for minimum paper use, all sized to the same format, use the embedded profile, add crop marks and cut the paper after the last image was printed.
- use the same RGB output profiles from media vendors using the RGB Profile Connector. Yes, Epson has RGB Contone, CMYK Contone and CMYK Halftone drivers available for rip vendors.
- use CMYK output profiles for better control of the black channel, lower ink use
- print press proofs for jobs that will be printed in offset
- keeping the printed jobs stored for a few days in the rip, so that if the enduser requested a few more copies, the photographer would just have to select the job, enter the number of copies and hit 'print', and not loading the file back in Photoshop and make a mistake in printer settings/profile selection and what have you
- creating reliable profiles independently of the operating system version: no null transform tricks in Photoshop's print dialog box, no need to use the Adobe Color Print Utility. What will it be with Mac OS X Lion?
- easy to work with: he'll be installing himself
No need to tell I'm all for rips ;-)
Regards,
Yann
-
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?
-
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
-
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
-
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).