Luminous Landscape Forum
Site & Board Matters => About This Site => Topic started by: David Watson on December 24, 2017, 05:12:29 am
-
I have been using Imageprint for a long time on a series of Epson printers (currently P800 and 7900) and I totally agree with Alan's conclusions. It is easy to use, works reliably and produces very good results.
However the clincher for me was, as Alan says, the fact that it bypasses both the computer's OS and the printer driver. Before I got IP I was driven mad by frequent changes and updates to my computer's operating system and printer updates. Every change meant a possible reconfiguration and/or new profiles. I use IP's profiles on mostly baryta papers and they are very good IMO.
The software is not cheap but it is a lot less than commercial RIP software and the service and support are first class.
-
I agree, same here although recently I had two profiles made for both the Canson Bartya and Plantine by Freestyle Photo. They produce brighter whites, slightly more accurate color rendering, and better detail in the shadows than IP and if I were a rich man I'd probably profile all my papers.
-
I can see this being a worthy purchase in only two situations. First, you need to gang multiple images together into a single print job VERY often or have a commercial print operation and print large, multiprint jobs on roll paper. Secondly, you want to have the BEST, STATE OF THE ART equipment, no matter how much it costs. In other words for you, price is no object.
I have a 17" Epson P800. Today you can buy a new one in the US for $900. I own and can print just fine from Photoshop. I own and do print even more easily from Lightroom. I'm usually happy with current OEM downloaded profiles and have purchased only a couple custom profiles. To purchase Imageprint for this printer would cost about $920. That is more expensive than the printer. It is more than what I paid for Photoshop and Lightroom combined! And the most recent Imageprint upgrade, from ver. 9 to ver. 10 cost $313. Oh, and by the way, I can put together a capable Windows based computer for all this to run on for about the price of Imageprint alone. It seems to me that this software is hugely overpriced in terms of value added and in comparison to the tools that surround it in a digital printing environment.
Regarding quality of output....if a skilled printer printed an image to their "best ability" from, say Lightroom, and then from Imageprint, and then showed ONE of them to you, would you reliably be able to tell which software printed the image? I doubt it. And I'm willing to bet that the public couldn't tell the difference if they saw them side by side.
Given that I have to factor value into all of my purchases, for me, this software is out of the question.
Brad
-
I have been using Image Print for many years also and for me the availability of excellent profiles for a wide variety of paper stocks is a key value.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
One thing that seems to be rarely mentioned in favor of using Image Print is the ease of using any odd-sized scraps of paper for test strips. Of course, the scraps must meet Epson's minimum criteria for that particular printer, i.e. minimum 4" x 6", right angle cuts, straight leading edge for a 3880. But there is certainly an economy of effort to do this, along with an economy of paper. Also, being able to control the output sharpening in the printing routine is convenient since you don't have to go back to PS or where ever to change the amount of sharpening.
If you print similar types of images on the same papers with the same sharpening, toning, etc, then once you get the settings nailed down in PS or LR there is really no good reason to use Image Print. But if every image is different and you print on a large variety of papers and like to experiment with trying something different then Image Print can save you time and frustration, and it may help you produce a better print in the end.
-
One thing that seems to be rarely mentioned in favor of using Image Print is the ease of using any odd-sized scraps of paper for test strips. Of course, the scraps must meet Epson's minimum criteria for that particular printer, i.e. minimum 4" x 6", right angle cuts, straight leading edge for a 3880. But there is certainly an economy of effort to do this, along with an economy of paper. Also, being able to control the output sharpening in the printing routine is convenient since you don't have to go back to PS or where ever to change the amount of sharpening.
If you print similar types of images on the same papers with the same sharpening, toning, etc, then once you get the settings nailed down in PS or LR there is really no good reason to use Image Print. But if every image is different and you print on a large variety of papers and like to experiment with trying something different then Image Print can save you time and frustration, and it may help you produce a better print in the end.
Lr has tools to do that just as well...
-
I also use image print with my 7900; have been since 2014. There is no outstanding reason that I can't live without, but they add up. Pretty good profiles, versatile B&W toning with WYSWYG, extensive layout capabilities, a pipeline that doesn't break with OS upgrades, printing history/storage in Spoolface, and a workflow in which I make fewer mistakes.
Thank you for the article Alain. It reminded me what a small portion of the layout capabilities I use, and how much I could learn. An interesting thought about using Imageprint for global adjustments. I do not do any adjustments other than B&W toning in IP. I might try it...
About a year ago I did try output sizing and sharpening in IP. If I could get it to work I could output one full size tiff and use it for any size print. I gave up just because I am satisfied with LR's output sharpening, and couldn't easily figure out starting-point settings for a given size. I have not developed a sense for what sharpening should look like on-screen in order to get "good" sharpening in a print. LR is too easy and has dulled my sharpening skills...
Dave
-
Thank you for your comments on my ImagePrint essay. You are all welcome. I don't write about software often but Image Print is such an important aspect of my workflow, and so often overlooked, that I felt compelled to do so.
-
Alain,
Excellent article. I have used IP for several years and have been amazed at the consistent quality using IP.
I might also mention they are very responsive and helpful.
Regards,
Dick Riebel
-
Thank you Riebs. I have found the same to be true for my work. For me Image Print is part of creating the look I am after. As I mention in the essay it is part of my personal style at this point and has been for a long time. I am often asked how an image can appear to be lit from behind, which is obviously a look-based effect since there is no lighting that can achieve that. The answer is of course in the processing and optimizing of the image. However, for me Image print is how processing skills are translated into a print on paper that demonstrate this lit-from-behind look.
-
Thank-you for this article. I have been using Imageprint for many years and for me it just works time and time again.
That said I realize that I only use a small percentage of what it is capable of doing and this article will help me explore things like B&W toning in more detail.
Thanks again.
-
Pretty good profiles, versatile B&W toning with WYSWYG, extensive layout capabilities, a pipeline that doesn't break with OS upgrades, printing history/storage in Spoolface, and a workflow in which I make fewer mistakes.
How do blues do? In the past, their color engine sent blues (unacceptable to me), towards magenta:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif
-
How do blues do? In the past, their color engine sent blues (unacceptable to me), towards magenta:
http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif
Hi Andrew,
I think you mentioned that in a previous thread a year or so ago. I've used your Gamut Test File several times over the years; thank you very much for making it available. Using CIBP, I made a comparison between the Canson canned profile, my custom xrite i1P profile (both through LR) and IP's profile through IP.* I still have those and pulled them out.
Bill's blue balls (ha! I LOL every time I think of that) look far worse with the IP profile, but not in hue, just in luminance. They fade to black in an awful way. The balls from my custom profile look the best. The spectrum look different in each version. As for the images however (fish/fabric/boat), they all look extremely close, and I cannot distinguish much about the blues. I will say this about the IP profile: The fabric looks better to me, especially the purple hues. In the Canson and in my custom profiles, the verticle-hanging purple fringe looks like it is in the shade, which I know it isn't. That fringe in the IP print looks lighter, like it is illuminated by the sun as it should.
Anyway, I cannot detect any magenta shift in the blues so either I am missing it or they improved the engine in that regard.
Dave
* Used RelCol on all three
-
I don't have any issue with the way ImagePrint handles blues. I like them personally.
-
I don't have any issue with the way ImagePrint handles blues. I like them personally.
Try this: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif (http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif)[/font]
-
I have used Imageprint for years. From an Epson 3800 through my current P800. I cannot match the quality or look of Imageprint with either Photoshop/Lightroom or the Epson software. I am sure others can, but I find that when I work on a print and get it where I want it, especially in Black and White, that IP will match it to the paper and I will have a good print within two tweaks. The ability to tweak from within the RIP is a great advantage. I move from paper to paper and between baryta and matte and am always pleased. I really no longer worry about the print when I work on a file.
-
My appetite was whetted - until I went to the Imageprint website and find that almost no Canon printers are supported.......
Jim
-
Try this: http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif (http://www.digitaldog.net/files/Gamut_Test_File_Flat.tif)[/font]
I always add magenta to blue, especially in skies. I don't like cyan and blue without magenta often veers towards cyan. If indeed Image Print adds magenta to blue then it is one of the reasons why I like printing from it. As I mentioned before IP is part of my style and my style is in large part based on the use of specific colors, for example little or no cyan and a passion for orange.
-
I always add magenta to blue, especially in skies.
I was curious about the the blue balls but whatever.
I was using IP dating back to OS9 (and man, was that a drag to configure and use). Just wondering if some of the profile warts were worked out or not. Showing John the rendering fell on deaf ears.
-
I was curious about the the blue balls but whatever.
I was using IP dating back to OS9 (and man, was that a drag to configure and use). Just wondering if some of the profile warts were worked out or not. Showing John the rendering fell on deaf ears.
Yes the old version of IP was challenging to use. Things are better now :-)
I have not printed the test. I like the colors I get and they match my screen so I am happy. What matters to me is that IP prints the colors that I use. It may not print the colors I don' t use (although that remains to be seen) but then since I don't use these colors it's not a problem. Worrying about this is a little like worrying that your art supply store does not carry all the oil paint colors of a given manufacturer (say Windsor & Newton) even though you never use the colors that store does not carry ... Why worry?
I do understand that knowing if IP can render every color in the visual spectrum can be a subject of interest from an engineer's perspective. But then I am not an engineer, I am an artist.
-
Yes the old version of IP was challenging to use. Things are better now :-)
I have not printed the test. I like the colors I get and they match my screen so I am happy. What matters to me is that IP prints the colors that I use. It may not print the colors I don' t use (although that remains to be seen) but then since I don't use these colors it's not a problem. Worrying about this is a little like worrying that your art supply store does not carry all the oil paint colors of a given manufacturer (say Windsor & Newton) even though you never use the colors that store does not carry ... Why worry?
I do understand that knowing if IP can render every color in the visual spectrum can be a subject of interest from an engineer's perspective. But then I am not an engineer, I am an artist.
Many color in my document will NOT match your display! Impossible. As to how the blues print for you, we will never know although I’d be happy to send an 8.5-11 sheet for a single print should your curiosity ever peek.
-
Many color in my document will NOT match your display! Impossible. As to how the blues print for you, we will never know although I’d be happy to send an 8.5-11 sheet for a single print should your curiosity ever peek.
I do appreciate your offer Rodney but I'll pass. I like the colors that IP prints even though I (perhaps) don't see them on my screen. In short, I am happy. If I need you to send me a print to visualize what I cannot see on my screen that IP cannot print I am afraid this gets far too abstract for me. As I said I am an artist, not an engineer, and I much prefer to use my time creating art than gettting lost in abstract gamut considerations.
-
I do appreciate your offer Rodney but I'll pass. I like the colors that IP prints even though I (perhaps) don't see them on my screen. In short, I am happy. If I need you to send me a print to visualize what I cannot see on my screen that IP cannot print I am afraid this gets far too abstract for me. As I said I am an artist, not an engineer, and I much prefer to use my time creating art than gettting lost in abstract gamut considerations.
So much for curiosity Briot.
So you understand that NO printer (using IP or not) can print all of sRGB. So much for actual gamut considerations. There are lots of colors you can print, with or without IP you can't see on your display. The bigger issue is how those colors print and blue's should print blue, not shift magenta.
I could of course reload IP version 6 (got a silver dongle) but I know what it will do with blues; I was using this product, installing it for customers long before it made the necessarily leap to OS X. So while I have a lot and long past experience with the software, nothing prior version 6 which, acceptably dealt with blues. Blues should not print magenta. You can edit them not to, but that's not an excuse for blues printing magenta.
Now as to WHY I stopped using IP 6, aside from their (at the time alone?) profile issues mapping blues (which I can of course build using the product, without a magenta shift), that's another story.
-
The point in the article that most captured my interest was in "7. My Approach." I too have recognized that my prints are uniformly dark as compared to the screen image. I long for an easy and reproducible way to have files optimized for print and for screen, and to preserve and keep track of each version. But for a low volume printer like me, the price of IP is tough to swallow.
In the piece, Alain notes that this adjustment can be done in LR or Photoshop. If one chooses this option, what is the best workflow for this process? What is the best way to preserve/label/recall the print and screen versions of images? Separate files with unique adjustments? An adjustment layer in PS that can be turned on and off? Alain says that the adjustment is the same every time. What is the best way to have the adjustment in the can, waiting to be laid on?
-
The point in the article that most captured my interest was in "7. My Approach." I too have recognized that my prints are uniformly dark as compared to the screen image. I long for an easy and reproducible way to have files optimized for print and for screen, and to preserve and keep track of each version.
That's where something like an NEC SpectraView comes in so handy! Multiple calibrations for differing needs, all take place in the panel with the associated ICC display profile being loaded on the fly.
What is the best way to preserve/label/recall the print and screen versions of images? Separate files with unique adjustments? An adjustment layer in PS that can be turned on and off? Alain says that the adjustment is the same every time. What is the best way to have the adjustment in the can, waiting to be laid on?
What's great about LR is you can setup a soft proof, you can create as many virtual copies (Print Copies) with output specific edits that require no increase in disk storage to do so; they are virtual.
-
In the piece, Alain notes that this adjustment can be done in LR or Photoshop. If one chooses this option, what is the best workflow for this process? What is the best way to preserve/label/recall the print and screen versions of images? Separate files with unique adjustments? An adjustment layer in PS that can be turned on and off? Alain says that the adjustment is the same every time. What is the best way to have the adjustment in the can, waiting to be laid on?
Either keep 2 separate files, one with the lightening adjustment and one without, or redo the lightening adjustment each time you print. It's always the same adjustment so you can create a preset, in Lightroom, or an action, in Photoshop, to apply it automatically.
-
I have been using imageprint for about 5 years. It has more than paid for itself. Layout options, print stage sharpening and corrections, text (for example - to include a hi res image title at the bottom of the print). These are all reasons I use it. Their support team (Daniel and Irene) are amazing as well.
Recently, I have been curious as to whether I can have better color profiles made. I had some made by the well regarded Chromix company. While the prints are reasonably close, they are different. I have only done a few test prints, such as fall foliage. So far it appears that I have less out of gamut color with imageprint, and (perhaps as a result?), a little more detail in certain areas. This is confirmed by comparing the image print profiles to the other profiles for various papers - using Photoshop proof colors with gamut warning turned on. I also compare the prints themselves.
You can make your own color icc profiles and use them within imageprint. But, even if I were able to develop better profiles, I would still use ImagePrint for all the reasons I mentioned above. With regards to cost, the no-charge profiles makes a huge difference. High quality profiles from profiling services can cost you up to $100 each. While I have 4-5 papers I generally use, I often use various other papers for specific projects. That would add up for traditional profile services, and then when you change your printer, you would have to start all over again. That is not for me 😀
Regarding Canon, the do support the more recent models, but I believe the direct hardware support (bypassing the printer driver like they do with Epson) is coming in the next few months.
BTW, I have a P800. If only image print could fix the need for Epson black ink swap 😀
-
For a long time, I had problems with dark prints. I don't any more. I attribute it to a proper calibrated monitor, workflow, and viewing under sufficient lighting (usually the cause when I think a print is too dark). One of the most recent 'working with the Masters LL videos' here talks specifically about dark print issues. It is fascinating, including the discussion on the impact of selecting the image border color around the photo you are editing. I think most people leave the border around the image in LR as black. Since my prints have white borders on my prints, I use a white border in the app. Makes a huge difference in terms of gauging lightness and avoiding the dark print problem. I highly recommend you look at that video. I have not found that Imageprint creates or solves the dark print issue.
The point in the article that most captured my interest was in "7. My Approach." I too have recognized that my prints are uniformly dark as compared to the screen image. I long for an easy and reproducible way to have files optimized for print and for screen, and to preserve and keep track of each version. But for a low volume printer like me, the price of IP is tough to swallow.
In the piece, Alain notes that this adjustment can be done in LR or Photoshop. If one chooses this option, what is the best workflow for this process? What is the best way to preserve/label/recall the print and screen versions of images? Separate files with unique adjustments? An adjustment layer in PS that can be turned on and off? Alain says that the adjustment is the same every time. What is the best way to have the adjustment in the can, waiting to be laid on?
-
I would love to hear that story, although I doubt it would change my mind on using image print. Bottom line is that it works extremely well for me.
They do have a demo of imageprint 10. You could download, test, and let us know whether you feel the same way about modern versions of Imageprint. Lots has changed since v.6, and I assume you are now using a different printer, which might also make a difference. I like digging deep into the technical stuff, so it would be really interesting.
So much for curiosity Briot.
So you understand that NO printer (using IP or not) can print all of sRGB. So much for actual gamut considerations. There are lots of colors you can print, with or without IP you can't see on your display. The bigger issue is how those colors print and blue's should print blue, not shift magenta.
I could of course reload IP version 6 (got a silver dongle) but I know what it will do with blues; I was using this product, installing it for customers long before it made the necessarily leap to OS X. So while I have a lot and long past experience with the software, nothing prior version 6 which, acceptably dealt with blues. Blues should not print magenta. You can edit them not to, but that's not an excuse for blues printing magenta.
Now as to WHY I stopped using IP 6, aside from their (at the time alone?) profile issues mapping blues (which I can of course build using the product, without a magenta shift), that's another story.
-
For a long time, I had problems with dark prints. I don't any more. I attribute it to a proper calibrated monitor, workflow, and viewing under sufficient lighting (usually the cause when I think a print is too dark). One of the most recent 'working with the Masters LL videos' here talks specifically about dark print issues. It is fascinating, including the discussion on the impact of selecting the image border color around the photo you are editing. I think most people leave the border around the image in LR as black. Since my prints have white borders on my prints, I use a white border in the app. Makes a huge difference in terms of gauging lightness and avoiding the dark print problem. I highly recommend you look at that video. I have not found that Imageprint creates or solves the dark print issue.
Totally, absolutely true. Also recommended is a viewing booth, such as a Just Normlicht Color Master or equivalent, so that you look at your prints under consistent (always the same regardless or time of day, weather, location, etc.) and calibrated (same as your monitor, either 5500 or 6500k) lighting. No more looking at your prints under your desk lamp, no more trips to the backyard during the day to have 'natural light,' or to the garage at night because it is dark outside, or some other print-lighting-horror-story!
However, no, Image Print will not solve the dark print issue we all face. Nothing will except aplying a print lighting adjustment curve the way I describe in my essay. There is no sign that this will be automated anytime soon because it is dependent on your viewing enviroment.
-
Nothing will except applying a print lighting adjustment curve the way I describe in my essay.
Or not, as it's not necessary when what you see is what you get in terms of brightness between print and display. Zero adjustment needed (even on the Gamut Test File below).
Prints are either too dark or they are not. The best print ever made (photographic or otherwise) will appear too dark if viewed in too dim an environment. The digital values are either correct or not; altering the display or adding yet another so called print lighting adjustment is simply a goal in producing ideal RGB values. Soft proofing aids hugely too. All of this is far easier to accomplish when the display and the print brightness actually match! And that's doable with display calibration of good quality.
-
Here is a link to the article with the video regarding Dark Prints and Perception: Luminous Landscape Cramer Video (https://luminous-landscape.com/shooting-masters-charles-cramer-part-3/)
For a long time, I had problems with dark prints. I don't any more. I attribute it to a proper calibrated monitor, workflow, and viewing under sufficient lighting (usually the cause when I think a print is too dark). One of the most recent 'working with the Masters LL videos' here talks specifically about dark print issues. It is fascinating, including the discussion on the impact of selecting the image border color around the photo you are editing. I think most people leave the border around the image in LR as black. Since my prints have white borders on my prints, I use a white border in the app. Makes a huge difference in terms of gauging lightness and avoiding the dark print problem. I highly recommend you look at that video. I have not found that Imageprint creates or solves the dark print issue.
-
Agreed, with the exception that I have not found the need to do any lightening of the image for the purpose of printing. Note, it took a few weeks of refining my workflow in order to fully understand the interplay among calibrated monitor, printer, camera profile (I use a custom camera profile in ACR), editing app setup, paper selection, and Imageprint. Now that I have gone through the process, I get completely predictable results - all the time.
Totally, absolutely true. Also recommended is a viewing booth, such as a Just Normlicht Color Master or equivalent, so that you look at your prints under consistent (always the same regardless or time of day, weather, location, etc.) and calibrated (same as your monitor, either 5500 or 6500k) lighting. No more looking at your prints under your desk lamp, no more trips to the backyard during the day to have 'natural light,' or to the garage at night because it is dark outside, or some other print-lighting-horror-story!
However, no, Image Print will not solve the dark print issue we all face. Nothing will except aplying a print lighting adjustment curve the way I describe in my essay. There is no sign that this will be automated anytime soon because it is dependent on your viewing enviroment.
-
I still can't be conclusive on which profiles I like better for "color". Frankly, I doubt I ever will be able to (Both the IP and Chromix profiles are very good). As I soft-proof and print more photos, the two become slight variations on what is possible, rather than competitors for what is best. Is there a benefit to a custom color profile, or has printer performance become so linearized that a profile for your model is good enough? How much art is left in making the profiles in the first place given how good profiling equipment has become? Have we simply reached a plateau?
Hats off to both companies. The holy grail experiment for me will be to experience the Custom profiles used within Imageprint (need to print new targets through Imageprint for that). I do think I am still getting better detail, and shadow detail printing with Imageprint, but that is likely due to the way it controls the printer (bypassing the Epson driver) and not likly related to the color profile (I could be wrong there). Moreover, as I mentioned before, I can use IP or custom profiles from within IP, which means I can make the decision on a case by case basis.
Cheers!
I have been using imageprint for about 5 years. It has more than paid for itself. Layout options, print stage sharpening and corrections, text (for example - to include a hi res image title at the bottom of the print). These are all reasons I use it. Their support team (Daniel and Irene) are amazing as well.
Recently, I have been curious as to whether I can have better color profiles made. I had some made by the well regarded Chromix company. While the prints are reasonably close, they are different. I have only done a few test prints, such as fall foliage. So far it appears that I have less out of gamut color with imageprint, and (perhaps as a result?), a little more detail in certain areas. This is confirmed by comparing the image print profiles to the other profiles for various papers - using Photoshop proof colors with gamut warning turned on. I also compare the prints themselves.
You can make your own color icc profiles and use them within imageprint. But, even if I were able to develop better profiles, I would still use ImagePrint for all the reasons I mentioned above. With regards to cost, the no-charge profiles makes a huge difference. High quality profiles from profiling services can cost you up to $100 each. While I have 4-5 papers I generally use, I often use various other papers for specific projects. That would add up for traditional profile services, and then when you change your printer, you would have to start all over again. That is not for me 😀
Regarding Canon, the do support the more recent models, but I believe the direct hardware support (bypassing the printer driver like they do with Epson) is coming in the next few months.
BTW, I have a P800. If only image print could fix the need for Epson black ink swap 😀
-
Hi Andrew. I just spent time at your website. Of course, I have been there before, however I wanted to say thank you for all of the great content!
Or not, as it's not necessary when what you see is what you get in terms of brightness between print and display. Zero adjustment needed (even on the Gamut Test File below).
Prints are either too dark or they are not. The best print ever made (photographic or otherwise) will appear too dark if viewed in too dim an environment. The digital values are either correct or not; altering the display or adding yet another so called print lighting adjustment is simply a goal in producing ideal RGB values. Soft proofing aids hugely too. All of this is far easier to accomplish when the display and the print brightness actually match! And that's doable with display calibration of good quality.
-
As the creators of ImagePrint we like to look at the product in two ways. Workflow for printing, making it easier to print without mistakes and waste. Having a delivery system for profiles for a very large variety of papers and simplifying color management. Then we look at actual printing technology. What can we do to drive the printer directly to make it print better. This will vary from printer to printer. We were the first to create 8 pass micro weave it later became standard in Epson drivers. We were the first to control the OEM inks in a narrow gamut mode for BW. A subset of this is what ABW in the Epson driver is. We also developed a true color model to use orange and green inks that dramatically improves the stability and archivability of the print. And on and on. So we are actively driving the technology forward. By writing every aspect of the process we find little ways to improve things on different levels. Unfortunately this also why we can only support a small number of printer models. This process is both time consuming and expensive. And we understand not everyone is at the point to jump into a very custom product like ImagePrint. ImagePrint is by no means a perfect product, but striving to be perfect is what makes it better over time. Forum participants tend to attract more of the crowd that likes to do it themselves and go through great lengths to make things work which is admirable. ImagePrint is a product built for just the opposite. It's designed for those who don't want to have to worry about the process. It's not about one image that prints better this way or that way its more about consistency and predictability for all images. I want to thank all those using ImagePrint or not because printing is important and communication of ideas is important. Happy New Year! John
-
Hi John,
Thanks for the detail. Out of curiosity, is there a philosophy you and Irene have when making color profiles (particularly the relative colormetric variety)? There were a few comments about handling blues and magneta color cast. I have not experienced these issues in real photos so far. I would be great to understand what the underlying philosophy is. Is it accuracy, pleasing results, or something else?
Also, since there is interest in Canon printers these days (I am happy with my Epson), can you speak to where IP stands in terms of full Canon support?
As the creators of ImagePrint we like to look at the product in two ways. Workflow for printing, making it easier to print without mistakes and waste. Having a delivery system for profiles for a very large variety of papers and simplifying color management. Then we look at actual printing technology. What can we do to drive the printer directly to make it print better. This will vary from printer to printer. We were the first to create 8 pass micro weave it later became standard in Epson drivers. We were the first to control the OEM inks in a narrow gamut mode for BW. A subset of this is what ABW in the Epson driver is. We also developed a true color model to use orange and green inks that dramatically improves the stability and archivability of the print. And on and on. So we are actively driving the technology forward. By writing every aspect of the process we find little ways to improve things on different levels. Unfortunately this also why we can only support a small number of printer models. This process is both time consuming and expensive. And we understand not everyone is at the point to jump into a very custom product like ImagePrint. ImagePrint is by no means a perfect product, but striving to be perfect is what makes it better over time. Forum participants tend to attract more of the crowd that likes to do it themselves and go through great lengths to make things work which is admirable. ImagePrint is a product built for just the opposite. It's designed for those who don't want to have to worry about the process. It's not about one image that prints better this way or that way its more about consistency and predictability for all images. I want to thank all those using ImagePrint or not because printing is important and communication of ideas is important. Happy New Year! John
-
Has anyone tried to make their own profiles through Imageprint 10 for the Epson P7000 printer? I'm told by Colorbyte that you can't do it.
-
There is a section in the manual for making your own profiles. I am not sure if there is something specific about that printer, however.
Has anyone tried to make their own profiles through Imageprint 10 for the Epson P7000 printer? I'm told by Colorbyte that you can't do it.
-
Re. Building your own profiles for P7000.
It's not impossible. The profile itself in standard ICC. The problem is that we imbed a special lookup table in the profile itself. This is another layer of control for the new P series inks. The blacks get dark really fast and vern non linear. With profiling you only have so many steps to deal with. We use the lookup table to help the profiler along in trouble spots. So when you build your own profiles you have to put the correct lookup table back into you profile. We are going to provide a utility to do that, we have it on Windows but need to build it for the Mac as well. Once you can do that it's very easy to build your own profiles. Our support dept. would be more than happy to help with that. We can tag the LUT for you after you are done.
-
Hi John,
Thanks for the detail. Out of curiosity, is there a philosophy you and Irene have when making color profiles (particularly the relative colormetric variety)? There were a few comments about handling blues and magneta color cast. I have not experienced these issues in real photos so far. I would be great to understand what the underlying philosophy is. Is it accuracy, pleasing results, or something else?
Also, since there is interest in Canon printers these days (I am happy with my Epson), can you speak to where IP stands in terms of full Canon support?
Philosophy only comes into to play with Perceptual. Relative Colormetric is a defined standard. We write our own profiler. It is very much tailored for the reproduction of photographic capture.
I assume by Full Canon Support you mean narrow gamut BW. We will be releasing an update in the near future that will have that in it.
-
Hi,
Regarding Canon, I thought that currently IP prints through the Canon driver, but that an update due soon will enable direct printing as you have on Epson.
Regarding Profiles, that is good to know. I have noticed slightly less saturation in some photos compared to manufacturer profiles, but I think that is not very relevant. In most cases, I prefer it over overly saturated profiles. Also,I have not been able to duplicate the magneta cast mentioned about older versions of the software (yeah!). However, I do notice a bit of one when soft proofing (BenQ SW320 monitor). That doesn't bother me as I only care about the prints. Thank you again so much for this SW. I was printing last night, and it really makes a massive difference.
Philosophy only comes into to play with Perceptual. Relative Colormetric is a defined standard. We write our own profiler. It is very much tailored for the reproduction of photographic capture.
I assume by Full Canon Support you mean narrow gamut BW. We will be releasing an update in the near future that will have that in it.
-
Hi
I have been using ImagePrint for many years with various iterations of the Epson Stylus Pro 4000 (now 4900). I am not a commercial printer and use ImagePrint for fine art printing (or at least as close to "fine are" as my photography will get me). Yes, it is expensive. But when compared to either paying for professional profiling of various media, or purchasing X-Rite i1Photo Pro 2 Color Management Kit for Photographers at over $1,200, I prefer the cost of IP. I use an NEC PA-302 color monitor and while no profiling is perfect, I find then colors are extremely close to what the monitor internally profiled with Spectraview shows on screen. I'm thinking of adding a 44" printer (leaning toward Canon despite having used Epson for many, many years - due to the infamous ink clogging problems and Epson's notorious poor customer support - but that's a whole 'nother issue. I will have to swallow hard to purchase IP for that printer given it's cost. But I will likely go with it, given what it has provided me, particularly in its most recent iteration.
-
Hi,
Regarding Canon, I thought that currently IP prints through the Canon driver, but that an update due soon will enable direct printing as you have on Epson.
Regarding Profiles, that is good to know. I have noticed slightly less saturation in some photos compared to manufacturer profiles, but I think that is not very relevant. In most cases, I prefer it over overly saturated profiles. Also,I have not been able to duplicate the magneta cast mentioned about older versions of the software (yeah!). However, I do notice a bit of one when soft proofing (BenQ SW320 monitor). That doesn't bother me as I only care about the prints. Thank you again so much for this SW. I was printing last night, and it really makes a massive difference.
The new drivers when we release them will be direct. It won't change the profiles though just the way we connect to the printer.
-
I've looked at the IP website, and I can't tell if the user has any control over the resampling algorithm or not. I also can't tell if IP resamples to 720 ppi or 360 ppi for Epson printers, and whether that is under user control.
Anybody know?
Jim
-
Since using imageprint, I have not had to worry about resampling, resizing, cropping, or otherwise. Nor have I had to worry about other tasks that should only be necessary at the output (print stage), such as output sharpening, borders, frames, and gallery wrap borders. My workflow is greatly simplified by not having to generate multiple files based on various print tasks. I know there are certain print quality settings, but I don't recall an option to select resampling algorithm. Also, even when comparing to specialty programs like "re-size", I have never been able to discern a difference vs imageprint on the actual prints. Why not download the demo and check it out for yourself?
I've looked at the IP website, and I can't tell if the user has any control over the resampling algorithm or not. I also can't tell if IP resamples to 720 ppi or 360 ppi for Epson printers, and whether that is under user control.
Anybody know?
Jim
-
I've looked at the IP website, and I can't tell if the user has any control over the resampling algorithm or not. I also can't tell if IP resamples to 720 ppi or 360 ppi for Epson printers, and whether that is under user control.
Anybody know?
Jim
This can be a bit confusing. If you print from Photoshop for example, PS has to send the data through the OS print path before that data gets to the OEM print driver. The OS does all data transformation in a bi-linear fashion. This is very bad for photographic printing. To avoid this, users are instructed to make sure you are setting the PPI in PS to exactly what the printer driver wants. For Epson that is 360. There has been discussion that 720 is better but from a technical point of view 720 will be scaled back to 360 at the time of dithering so oversampling won't have much benefit. With ImagePrint, Non of the above ever happens so there is no need to do or control that. You can give us any size you want and we will perfectly prepare it for our dithering routines. On some printers we allow you to control our dithering routine but that is mainly a large format feature to go lower not higher for those printing very large murals where the dithered file could exceed the limitation of the OS.
-
This can be a bit confusing. If you print from Photoshop for example, PS has to send the data through the OS print path before that data gets to the OEM print driver. The OS does all data transformation in a bi-linear fashion. This is very bad for photographic printing. To avoid this, users are instructed to make sure you are setting the PPI in PS to exactly what the printer driver wants. For Epson that is 360. There has been discussion that 720 is better but from a technical point of view 720 will be scaled back to 360 at the time of dithering so oversampling won't have much benefit. With ImagePrint, Non of the above ever happens so there is no need to do or control that. You can give us any size you want and we will perfectly prepare it for our dithering routines. On some printers we allow you to control our dithering routine but that is mainly a large format feature to go lower not higher for those printing very large murals where the dithered file could exceed the limitation of the OS.
Are you doing something like this:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/lets-do-away-with-resampling-for-printing/
If so, I think that's wonderful!
Jim
-
ImagePrint does not require resampling to the exact printer DPI. It's a great feature because it saves having to worry about that aspect of printing.
-
This can be a bit confusing. If you print from Photoshop for example, PS has to send the data through the OS print path before that data gets to the OEM print driver. The OS does all data transformation in a bi-linear fashion. This is very bad for photographic printing. To avoid this, users are instructed to make sure you are setting the PPI in PS to exactly what the printer driver wants. For Epson that is 360. There has been discussion that 720 is better but from a technical point of view 720 will be scaled back to 360 at the time of dithering so oversampling won't have much benefit.
It sounds like you're talking about Mac OS. I've done some reverse engineering under Windows -- but several years ago -- that indicated the following with Epson printers:
The OS does not resample the image.
The driver does, using nearest neighbor.
When finest detail is checked, the driver resamples to 720 ppi (with NN)
When finest detail is unchecked, the driver resamples to 360 ppi (with NN)
The driver performs error diffusion with blue-noise dither on the resampled image.
Sounds like you skip the resampling. That is, IMHO, the right way to do it.
Jim
-
Are you doing something like this:
http://blog.kasson.com/the-last-word/lets-do-away-with-resampling-for-printing/
If so, I think that's wonderful!
Jim
Yes. We own our own pipe to the printer so no resampling needed. Depending on the application sending the data the OS and or Driver can get involved at various levels and yes, it is slightly different between Mac and Windows.