Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: psorantin on March 10, 2018, 03:36:11 pm
-
I would like to know what other members of this Forum think who use RIP software, including users of Impageprint from Colorbyte:
https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/
I am using their Imageprint software for probably 7-8 years on my Epson 4800;
bought paid updates over those years;
I am up-to-date on the current version 10 of Imageprint.
Imageprint v10 is currently priced at $895.- for a 17" printer like an Epson SC5000 (to which I switched very recently).
Turns out I lost the USB dongle that is required to run the software;
I called Colorbyte support to get a new dongle expecting a shipping fee and some fee for the new dongle.
Nope - support tells me that "policy is to rebuy the software for $895; do they know that I am customer - yes, sure; but policy for a lost dongle is to repay the full software fee".
Support says she understands my frustration, but she cant change that policy, talk to John Pannozzo (probably owner or co-owner).
I talked to John; answer on the phone call:
- this is our policy
- you could sell that dongle in reality, and just make this up, so we cant send you a new dongle
- go search for the dongle more, if you dont want to rebuy
- I sent two more emails to John -- he seems not to consider my emails worth a response. I find that quite rude.
I checked all of their documentation available to me regarding this - in my opinion - terribly one-sided policy;
having to repurchase the software due to a lost dongle is a significant risk for a customer one should know upfront about:
- not mentioned anywhere in the Imageprint manual
- not mentioned in the software license agreement.
I find that unacceptable - an undocumented policy that represents a significant risk for anyone buying from Colorbyte.
The only rationale given to me is that I could be a crook trying to trick them, although I am a customer for many years and purchased over time paid upgrades.
Am I wrong with my judgement that this undocumented "policy" is wrong -- do other folks here think that I should repurchase for $895.- a new dongle?
Imageprint provides value, is a great product, but I paid for my license already and Colorbyte chooses to ignore that.
Peter
-
Agreed, unacceptable. I could see a small fee for their cost of the dongle, but others no; move on. Last version I had was V6 and all is fine without.
-
You can make excellent prints on an Epson SC-P5000 without ImagePrint. And if you print out of Lightroom you can make and save Print layouts with all the settings. If you need to get custom profiles for certain papers, you can buy nine or ten of them for the price of ImagePrint.
Frankly, I find their judgment in your case rigid and unreasonable, but it's their company and they are of course free to set their own policies. Fortunately you have options and don't need to buy into them. I also agree that failure to answer emails is rude.
(edited a typo)
-
Mark is right on! Lightroom’s print module is worth the price of admission and no silly dongle.
-
Lightroom, yes. I never understood the whole allure of Imageprint in the first place. What are you paying for, a profile library where 90% of the profiles it contains you would never use? Seems to me your money would be much better spent investing in a good profiling package with a spectro, or hiring someone really good to make them for you for your specific equipment. For me a rip without linearization capability is not worth owning. Now Ergosoft, that’s a professional print rip.
Mark is right on! Lightroom’s print module is worth the price of admission and no silly dongle.
-
I have been a steadfast supporter and customer of Imageprint for many years now. I am still a fan. However, I now use QImage (print layout and workflow) and custom ICC profiles from Chromix (color accuracy and quality). My prints are the best they have ever been. These days, newer printers are pretty darn stable, reliable, and linear, including for black and white. I recently switched to Canon, which seems less in need of third party crutches than Epson (i.e., Canon has very linear printing capability, built-in color and paper calibration options; and a custom media configuration tool).
The bottom line: When I got my Canon, I had had to choose between paying for a license for a second printer with Colorbyte, or trying a new workflow. I got tired of licensing and un-licensing a printer based on which printer I wanted to use in Imageprint (my attempt to avoid paying the additional big license fee just for having a second printer).
I would recommend you experiment before paying out additional large sums of money for a RIP. Qimage is $69, and Chromix Color Valet service for unlimited profiles for your printer for 18 months is about $179. It took me about 3 weeks to fully acclimate to the new workflow, including (i) refining the creation of custom media types for third party papers (which is optional anyway), (ii) mastering the Qimage interface, and (iii) getting the custom profiles made. I have not found anything from Imageprint that I can't easily do in Qimage. Moreover, if you happen to move to Canon, Imageprint has to use the Canon driver anyway, unlike for Epson for which they are able to directly talk to the printer.
There are also some added benefits to my new workflow:
-A more intuitive way to save "jobs"
-Support for multiple printers and different size printers without additional license fees
-no dongle
-the ability to have custom profiles made when you see fit to do so
-Jobs aren't deleted when you change the printer being licensed
-like imageprint - resizing, output sharpening, and cropping at the print stage
Also, another option is Colorbyte's upcoming Imageprint Red, which is much less expensive than regular imageprint, and is like Qimage in that it relies on the manufacturer driver and your own color icc profiles. I believe there are no printer size/# of printer licensing restrictions.
-
this one = https://luminous-landscape.com/imageprint-overview-making-printing-easier/ = must be updated with the story about dongle ;D
Kevin, would' you - that will be fair to the customers to know upfront, don't you think ? not just "ImagePrint is one of the only pieces of software that I am aware of that still uses a dongle. This takes up a USB drive port. I wish there was a better way to handle activations with this software, similar to how Adobe does it. "
-
this one = https://luminous-landscape.com/imageprint-overview-making-printing-easier/ = must be updated with the story about dongle ;D
Kevin, would' you - that will be fair to the customers to know upfront, don't you think ? not just "ImagePrint is one of the only pieces of software that I am aware of that still uses a dongle. This takes up a USB drive port. I wish there was a better way to handle activations with this software, similar to how Adobe does it. "
Of course there are options. They could use a machine number and a TAN which the customer and the provider can keep separately on a computer (or the customer's smart phone). This ties the software to a specific machine and the risk of losing the credentials and the use of the software is close to zero. The problem here isn't technical, it's managerial.
-
I totally agree with that.
When I bought my copy of Studio Print and Poster Print ( now they call it Ergo Rip or something like that which contains both) from Ergosoft I bought it used, totally legally and it comes with the dongle, as does my drum scanner software.
I just called into Ergosoft and they transferred the license to me, so only one person could register and use it. They said at that time that if the dongle was ever lost they would give me another one. I don’t remember what it would cost but it was hardly anything. And that software costs about three times what Imageprint does. And for good reason, it is a real rip, not a nesting software that comes with generic profiles. QImage is a huge bang for the buck for a software like that.
Does Color Burst come with a dongle?
John
Of course there are options. They could use a machine number and a TAN which the customer and the provider can keep separately on a computer (or the customer's smart phone). This ties the software to a specific machine and the risk of losing the credentials and the use of the software is close to zero. The problem here isn't technical, it's managerial.
-
Of course there are options. They could use a machine number and a TAN which the customer and the provider can keep separately on a computer (or the customer's smart phone). This ties the software to a specific machine and the risk of losing the credentials and the use of the software is close to zero. The problem here isn't technical, it's managerial.
Mathworks has an interesting licensing system. You can license software to run on one machine. But, if you wish, you can license software to run on machines which are logged on to a Windows domain with a single userid. That way, your license can follow you from machine to machine. I find that convenient.
Jim
-
I agree 100%
Another beef with Imageprint, I upgraded last year to V10 and then discovered that it isn't even a 64-bit program yet. So there will be yet another upgrade to deal with later this year when Apple upgrades their OS to 64-bit only.
-
Mathworks has an interesting licensing system. You can license software to run on one machine. But, if you wish, you can license software to run on machines which are logged on to a Windows domain with a single userid. That way, your license can follow you from machine to machine. I find that convenient.
Jim
I truly hate these dongle things, to the point where I go out of my way to find alternatives (even writing my own code in one case). Matlab is a great program, but there are now reasonable free alternatives out there: https://dspguru.com/dsp/links/matlab-clones/ .
-
so what Mark Segal and Andrew (?) 'digitaldog' are saying is that the Epson driver has come along way and really doesnt make Imageprint a requirement, if you stay with non-exotic papers - correct?
I am printing mostly on Epson papers, and sometimes on Slickrock metallic pearl 260, Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, Hahnemuehle Photorag, all 17" roll paper
bye - Peter
-
so what Mark Segal and Andrew (?) 'digitaldog' are saying is that the Epson driver has come along way and really doesnt make Imageprint a requirement, if you stay with non-exotic papers - correct?
There's a point of diminishing returns. In the old days (when IP was on OS9 and it literally took days to get it installed), it was the only game in town for good B&W images. Those days are over. Prior to LR and the Print Module, it had more juice. IP's dither was slightly superior back then too; not sure if that's different today with respect to Epson or if it's worth the extra money (a LOT of extra money). Add the Dongle mess, I don't see the point. But I haven't seen the point since V6 of IP and yes, I still have a silver dongle in my dongle collections (I muse have nearly 2 dozen, some dating back to the serial port days). Hate them! In the days I used it and made custom profiles, mine were better! ;D
-
so what Mark Segal and Andrew (?) 'digitaldog' are saying is that the Epson driver has come along way and really doesnt make Imageprint a requirement, if you stay with non-exotic papers - correct?
I am printing mostly on Epson papers, and sometimes on Slickrock metallic pearl 260, Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, Hahnemuehle Photorag, all 17" roll paper
bye - Peter
Hi Peter; I have found that I did not/do not need any RIP for getting what to me was/is highly satisfactory colour and BW results, measured objectively and observed subjectively, using the Epson driver, and more recently the Canon driver in the context of proper image editing in Lr and Ps. This applies to ANY inkjet paper I've tested as long as the profiles are good.
That said, I have not made objectively measured comparisons of printer proofing targets comparing an ImagePrint result with a custom-profiled result from the Epson driver as the Epson driver comes at no charge with the printer, while Imageprint does not. I would not invest about 1200 CAD for the fun of doing this.
-
Outrageous to ask you to spend $895 to replace the lost dongle. Outrageous to automatically assume that a long-time customer is a cheat. Dongles are old technology, so "20th century." Web-based activation is so common these days, used by Adobe and Microsoft and ... the list is endless. Plus, ImagePrint itself is the biggest rip-off (sorry!) in the world of photography software. I gave the trial version a thorough workout on my 7900 compared with LR printing and the paper manufacturer's profiles. Subtle differences? Yes. Better? No.
-
............ I gave the trial version a thorough workout on my 7900 compared with LR printing and the paper manufacturer's profiles. Subtle differences? Yes. Better? No.
This is an important observation Peter. It could be useful to know which papers you used for these comparisons. It would be interesting for an appropriately equipped person to redo these kinds of comparisons now that Epson has produced the deepest Maximum Black in its history with the new SC-PX000 printers, and to use first-rate custom profiles with the Epson driver rather than OEM profiles. That set of tests would add another data point along with your observations.
-
I know you did not address the question to me,
but I use Ilford GFS and Smooth Gloss, Moab Somerset Museum Rag and Slickrock, Hahnenuhle Fine Art Barayta, Barayta FB, and Photo Rag UltraSmooth; and the Canon papers. I currently own Imageprint. I have found my current workflow without imageprint to produce equal, and in some cases better prints.
so what Mark Segal and Andrew (?) 'digitaldog' are saying is that the Epson driver has come along way and really doesnt make Imageprint a requirement, if you stay with non-exotic papers - correct?
I am printing mostly on Epson papers, and sometimes on Slickrock metallic pearl 260, Ilford Gold Fibre Silk, Hahnemuehle Photorag, all 17" roll paper
bye - Peter
-
I know you did not address the question to me,
but I use Ilford GFS and Smooth Gloss, Moab Somerset Museum Rag and Slickrock, Hahnenuhle Fine Art Barayta, Barayta FB, and Photo Rag UltraSmooth; and the Canon papers. I currently own Imageprint. I have found my current workflow without imageprint to produce equal, and in some cases better prints.
Again very interesting observation Logan. Could you inform: what printer are you using - especially is it the same one for both with and without ImagePrint, and when you say "better prints" - could you elaborate a bit indicating in what respects?
-
I’ve been using QtR for black and white with any inset on Epson printers for at least 18 years and it was far bettter than Imageprint ages ago and now because you could/ can always Linearize it yourself for any media, and it was always $50.00.
Again very interesting observation Logan. Could you inform: what printer are you using - especially is it the same one for both with and without ImagePrint, and when you say "better prints" - could you elaborate a bit indicating in what respects?
-
Hi,
I find that for some images printed on the P800, I can get better tonal gradations in the skin tones usng custom profiles. I also felt like skin tones were a little less lifelike than I wanted when printing with Imageprint. As I said, it was only some cases. I also felt that not every profile was equally as pleasing.
I now have a Canon Pro 1000. I prefer the output over the p800, regardless of whether I am using imageprint. See my thread here:My P800 Pro 1000 Thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123444.0)
However, using Imageprint on my Canon 1000 forced me to switch to perceptual rendering and play with the shadow slider. If not, the shadows had issues. I have almost always printed using RC rendering intent. It was torture, as all of a sudden I was having to tweak, defeating the whole reason I used Imageprint. Customer service was not able to help me. I also felt the results of some profiles were better than others, but that may have been the rendering intent issue. Finally, not sure it matters for most images, but colorthink does show my custom profiles as consistently having a bigger gamut.
Again very interesting observation Logan. Could you inform: what printer are you using - especially is it the same one for both with and without ImagePrint, and when you say "better prints" - could you elaborate a bit indicating in what respects?
-
I’ve been using QtR for black and white with any inset on Epson printers for at least 18 years and it was far bettter than Imageprint ages ago and now because you could/ can always Linearize it yourself for any media, and it was always $50.00.
I believe QTR is a different ball-game from ImagePrint, insofar as, if I'm not mistaken, QTR is specialized to B&W, whereas ImagePrint accommodates both colour and B&W printing.
-
Hi,
I find that for some images printed on the P800, I can get better tonal gradations in the skin tones usng custom profiles. I also felt like skin tones were a little less lifelike than I wanted when printing with Imageprint. As I said, it was only some cases. I also felt that not every profile was equally as pleasing.
I now have a Canon Pro 1000. I prefer the output over the p800, regardless of whether I am using imageprint. See my thread here:My P800 Pro 1000 Thread (http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?topic=123444.0)
However, using Imageprint on my Canon 1000 forced me to switch to perceptual rendering and play with the shadow slider. If not, the shadows had issues. I have almost always printed using RC rendering intent. It was torture, as all of a sudden I was having to tweak, defeating the whole reason I used Imageprint. Customer service was not able to help me. I also felt the results of some profiles were better than others, but that may have been the rendering intent issue. Finally, not sure it matters for most images, but colorthink does show my custom profiles as consistently having a bigger gamut.
Thanks Logan. It seems most of your qualms with IP stem from the Rendering Intent issue. I'm wondering why one should have to use Perceptual on a Pro-1000, and not Relative Rendering Intent. Seems counter-intuitive that software of this kind would trigger such a limitation.
-
This is an important observation Peter. It could be useful to know which papers you used for these comparisons. It would be interesting for an appropriately equipped person to redo these kinds of comparisons now that Epson has produced the deepest Maximum Black in its history with the new SC-PX000 printers, and to use first-rate custom profiles with the Epson driver rather than OEM profiles. That set of tests would add another data point along with your observations.
It was a while ago, but IIRC I used Epson Exhibition Fiber and maybe their Premium Luster.
-
It was a while ago, but IIRC I used Epson Exhibition Fiber and maybe their Premium Luster.
Thanks Peter - OK, both high OBA content which has implications for the profile measurement condition spec, but wide gamut, which is useful for comparing printing workflow capabilities.
-
I believe QTR is a different ball-game from ImagePrint, insofar as, if I'm not mistaken, QTR is specialized to B&W, whereas ImagePrint accommodates both colour and B&W printing.
With several grey and black inks in a 8-12 ink printer and them used in an OEM driver B&W mode QTR can at least do something to B&W profile that mode with its profiler. Used that even for the Z3100 in the past. For several Epson models it can substitute that OEM B&W driver mode + linearise and profile, while the color inks are still aboard. A step further is changing the inks to a more suitable B&W set on Epsons. Based on what I recall of the possibilities about 5 years ago.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
If I were to summarize (talking print output only), it would be:
(1) issue with RC rendering intent (Canon only)
(2) skin tones (note I am hyper sensitive to this)
(3) to a much lesser extent - profile consistency from paper to paper.
For many people, especially taking into account different types of images, the output will be more than good enough. For me, it was when I recently moved to Canon that I started to realize that changing my workflow could improve my output. As other people have alluded, printers have become good enough that it would be hard to improve output with "secret sauce".
I don't want this thread to turn into bashing colorbyte (although I agree the dongle issue is a big issue). The Imageprint workflow is good, and they provide a product and service that still works wonders for many. It served me well enough for a long period of time and I have personally felt their customer service to be exceptional. In fact, had I not tried QImage for layout and workflow, I would have moved to the upcoming Imageprint Red, which gives me the workflow, but let's me use the manufacturer drivers and my own custom profiles. I guess it was just a matter of timing. FYI, I assume that Imageprint Red is a reflection of the fact that printers have improved significantly. I still own Imageprint and I will be watching for improvement updates that may shift my thinking.
Thanks Logan. It seems most of your qualms with IP stem from the Rendering Intent issue. I'm wondering why one should have to use Perceptual on a Pro-1000, and not Relative Rendering Intent. Seems counter-intuitive that software of this kind would trigger such a limitation.
-
Update on the dongle issue:
Colorbyte's John Pannozzos sent me finally an email response: message:
"I know people who have found dongles they misplaced days after the fact to years."
So his approach to dealing with this support issue is "keep searching, some people have success years after they lost the dongle".
Given Kevin Raber's review of Imageprint v10, I think it would make sense to add the the lost dongle policy (or more accurately: the lack of a documented policy) to Kevin's review. You need to know that as a potential customer.
That idea came up earlier on this thread and it is in the interest of the readers of the LL site and Forum.
Regards,
Peter
-
Update on the dongle issue:
..............Colorbyte's John Pannozzos sent me finally an email response: message:
"I know people who have found dongles they misplaced days after the fact to years."
So his approach to dealing with this support issue is "keep searching, some people have success years after they lost the dongle".
It's the kind of response that probably isn't going to do his company any good over the longer term. Very disappointing. They would make a much better showing with an overall more innovative and constructive approach, but it's not for me to tell them how to run their company. They'll sleep in the bed they make.
-
Welcome to the outcomes from software piracy, ColorByte is doing what it has to in order to stay in business. I've dealt with Point of Sale registers who also have this USB dongle requirement, and we had to install a lockbox that prevented folks from accidentally removing it thinking it was a usb thumb drive. It sucks, especially for a home user who doesn't print that often.
But these are the times we live in. For them to change would be a major undertaking, and chances are they'd have to roll that cost into the next upgrade. There is no perfect answer, especially when something is licensed based on how wide, or how many printers can be controlled at once. Anything less than full price encourages folks to be dishonest if they need additional licenses. Microsoft & Adobe have a customer base that it doesn't kill them, but for specialized software vendors every sale is critical.
I'm sorry you lost your usb fob, but when was the last time you printed? Order one of these and when you find it, lock it inside.
https://www.amazon.com/Lucas-Distribution-USB-DONGLE-LOCKBOX/dp/B01MQJZW2E
-Joe
-
................ ColorByte is doing what it has to in order to stay in business. ............
-Joe
You mean there are no feasible alternatives that are safe for the company and easier on the customers? I'd be very surprised based on what's done elsewhere - even for smallish companies.
-
You mean there are no feasible alternatives that are safe for the company and easier on the customers?
In this case, the very feasible alternative would be for ColorByte to sell the customer a dongle for JUST the cost of the dongle! Or find better copy protection.
The answer provided by John (whom I've know for a very long time) is very disappointing to say the least. No excuse, not for what they charge. Hopefully the push back here will be enough whereby John comes to his senses and takes care of a customer who dropped a lot of money on his product.
-
Update on the dongle issue:
Colorbyte's John Pannozzos sent me finally an email response: message:
"I know people who have found dongles they misplaced days after the fact to years."
Translation: "Well seems these people were being honest all along but we screwed them anyway."
-
You mean there are no feasible alternatives that are safe for the company and easier on the customers? I'd be very surprised based on what's done elsewhere - even for smallish companies.
They've baked their anti-piracy solution into the code base - to replace it with something else isn't just replace a few lines. Plus to switch it now, you'd have 2 different solution methods in the field, as in some folks have a dongle, some folks have _____. Online activation would require adding in logic that looks to the clock and makes sure you can't roll it backwards. Plus you'd have to constantly ping online to verify that the machine is the only one activated. Are you sure you want your print stations constantly polling online? Wouldn't you block their internet access, just to keep them running with zero change.
Here's a case in point. To implement a new method of copy protection, ColorByte would be wise to make it Windows 10 only. That way they can leverage things in the latest OS. But then you're at Microsoft's mercy because you'll be getting every Windows 10 update even if it crashes your setup, because the computer will have to always be connected to the internet. Then we'd wish for the dongle based solution because you can run your old printer in XP with the drivers that just work, with zero chance things change or get screwed up. It just keeps printing the same amazing colors, week after month after year.
Yes, the replacement cost for just the 'dongle' is the cost of the full software package. Because with just that dongle, you can sell a computer with ColorByte software loaded and it'll work forever.
I'm sorry if I come off mean, but this is a business decision they need to stick to. Otherwise, every week another person 'lost their dongle' and they saw on LuLa that so-and-so got theirs replaced for cheap. Maybe this is a time to test out some of the other RIP packages, or Lightroom, or the Epson/Canon/HP print utility.
-Joe
-
The problem with all this is that the world isn't only Windows - at least 50% of the graphic arts/photography market is on OSX, so any solution needs to be OS agnostic, and people upgrade their computers and change their hard drives all the time, so protection solutions need to accommodate that as well. Then there is the fact that MOST of the software sold to this market never needed or no longer needs dongles. And on top of that, even if you could make a business case for not investing whatever it would cost them to catch up with 21st century protection solutions, this manner of treating CUSTOMERS with zero trust and zero tolerance for mishaps is just plain DUMB. Sorry, no cigar.
-
Mike Chaney has priced Qimage at a point where there is just no sense in using it any other way than by purchasing it. Colorbyte should talk to him and see whether the Qimage model suits their financial aims.
-
Mike Chaney has priced Qimage at a point where there is just no sense in using it any other way than by purchasing it. Colorbyte should talk to him and see whether the Qimage model suits their financial aims.
Do you think it could be that the applications are different enough in terms of design and technical services offered to explain the big price differences?
-
No idea. That's a suggestion for them.
-
Do you think it could be that the applications are different enough in terms of design and technical services offered to explain the big price differences?
Sounds like a good idea for a LuLa review Mark! So while I'm not a massive fan of CB's profiles, they DO offer free profiles for ANY paper; Qimage? Difference in Dither?
-
No idea. That's a suggestion for them.
Well, the issue is whether the suggestion has any a priori basis that commends it to be potentially useful. OK, you don't know, fair disclosure.
-
Sounds like a good idea for a LuLa review Mark! So while I'm not a massive fan of CB's profiles, they DO offer free profiles for ANY paper; Qimage? Difference in Dither?
Yes, they do offer profiles for any paper. Whether they are "free" I suppose depends on how one defines "free". One may also think this service is bundled into the entry fee. Perhaps the point is that one doesn't pay additional charges for the service.
As for a review, yes, decent idea, but we'd need to determine whether it would add value to those already done: Michael did a quite extensive one back in 2009 (ImagePrint Review (https://luminous-landscape.com/imageprint-v8-review/); Mark Dubovoy did another in 2011 and more recently Kevin did an overview in 2016. John has advised that they've re-engineered how the software handles the printing process down to the dot, so there may be something more worthwhile to dig into.
-
Yes, they do offer profiles for any paper. Whether they are "free" I suppose depends on how one defines "free". One may also think this service is bundled into the entry fee.
True! For what they charge, you could buy a lot of profiles (maybe a Spectrophotometer!).
The review would be more a challenge between IP and Qimage.
-
Yup - I see where you're coming from and something to consider. It would, however, be quite a commitment of time and effort - and there would need to be some arrangements with both companies.
-
I think the moral of the story is: Imageprint is a great product/service option, but there are perfectly viable options should one desire (including if there are concerns about the colorbyte licensing model). Given services like Chromix, and others, icc proofing should not be a financial concern.
Yup - I see where you're coming from and something to consider. It would, however, be quite a commitment of time and effort - and there would need to be some arrangements with both companies.
-
Fair enough - and I should mention that if one idoesn't want to print out of one's image editing application, there are other user-friendly solutions - for example LaserSoft Imaging's PrinTao application I reviewed on this site, or Mirage, neither of which need a dongle; and they are just as concerned about piracy as any other software vendor big or small.
-
Agreed. I will throw QImage into the mix since I recently discovered it for myself :)
Fair enough - and I should mention that if one idoesn't want to print out of one's image editing application, there are other user-friendly solutions - for example LaserSoft Imaging's PrinTao application I reviewed on this site, or Mirage, neither of which need a dongle; and they are just as concerned about piracy as any other software vendor big or small.
-
Fair enough - and I should mention that if one idoesn't want to print out of one's image editing application, there are other user-friendly solutions - for example LaserSoft Imaging's PrinTao application I reviewed on this site, or Mirage, neither of which need a dongle; and they are just as concerned about piracy as any other software vendor big or small.
The next version of IP (IP Black) is slated to include a new B&W printing mode for Canons (the Epson-focused B&W mode in IP 10 doesn't work on Canon). If you're going to do a new review I would wait for IP Black to include a comparison of QImage vs IP Black for B&W printing.
-
Will the IP software allow you to plug in your I1 spectro in order to precisely linearize your monochrome workflow and remove all the color inks if you want to do that, or tone exactly to the degree you want ? If it doesn’t it’s totally worthless to me. I have been doing this with True Black and White rip from Bouhaus for about 8 years now on the Canons for a fraction of the price, and with QTR for Epson platform for half the price of TBW for twice that long.
The next version of IP (IP Black) is slated to include a new B&W printing mode for Canons (the Epson-focused B&W mode in IP 10 doesn't work on Canon). If you're going to do a new review I would wait for IP Black to include a comparison of QImage vs IP Black for B&W printing.
-
Agreed. I will throw QImage into the mix since I recently discovered it for myself :)
If you are on Windows that's fine, but for those of us on OSX it's not an option. QTR is ambidextrous however.
-
I Believe that QImage One is on Mac and PC. My understanding is that it is the same core as QImage Ultimate, but with a more streamlined interface.
If you are on Windows that's fine, but for those of us on OSX it's not an option. QTR is ambidextrous however.
-
They've baked their anti-piracy solution into the code base - to replace it with something else isn't just replace a few lines. Plus to switch it now, you'd have 2 different solution methods in the field, as in some folks have a dongle, some folks have _____. Online activation would require adding in logic that looks to the clock and makes sure you can't roll it backwards. Plus you'd have to constantly ping online to verify that the machine is the only one activated. Are you sure you want your print stations constantly polling online? Wouldn't you block their internet access, just to keep them running with zero change.
Here's a case in point. To implement a new method of copy protection, ColorByte would be wise to make it Windows 10 only. That way they can leverage things in the latest OS. But then you're at Microsoft's mercy because you'll be getting every Windows 10 update even if it crashes your setup, because the computer will have to always be connected to the internet. Then we'd wish for the dongle based solution because you can run your old printer in XP with the drivers that just work, with zero chance things change or get screwed up. It just keeps printing the same amazing colors, week after month after year.
Yes, the replacement cost for just the 'dongle' is the cost of the full software package. Because with just that dongle, you can sell a computer with ColorByte software loaded and it'll work forever.
I'm sorry if I come off mean, but this is a business decision they need to stick to. Otherwise, every week another person 'lost their dongle' and they saw on LuLa that so-and-so got theirs replaced for cheap. Maybe this is a time to test out some of the other RIP packages, or Lightroom, or the Epson/Canon/HP print utility.
-Joe
This is not correct. The code to check a dongle might be 8 lines (spoken as a long-term coder). The code to go online and check the software serial # against the database would be about the same. And the software could (should) give the user a grace period to keep using the program if the internet is out, or whatever.
-
When, a few posts back, I brought up Qimage, I was suggesting that a marketing strategy might be a useful substitute for a dongle. Who knows really, but consultations with other vendors and marketing specialists might reveal another way. To test one against the other is bound to reveal technical differences not really related to the selling and support regimes.
-
I talked to John; answer on the phone call:
- this is our policy
- you could sell that dongle in reality, and just make this up, so we cant send you a new dongle
- go search for the dongle more, if you dont want to rebuy
Yes, a tough policy. Understandable to an extent, but not exactly customer friendly.
As the dongle is a physical item, is it's loss covered by any insurance you have ? A modest excess would be a more acceptable cost.
-
Yes, a tough policy. Understandable to an extent, but not exactly customer friendly.
As the dongle is a physical item, is it's loss covered by any insurance you have ? A modest excess would be a more acceptable cost.
Paul, I've thought about this and I don't think it's the least bit understandable. Maybe there was a time when a physical device was needed to protect from illicit transfer of software, but since those days other ways have been developed that allow medium size software vendors to do so; if they can do it, these guys can do it, especially taking into account the information that Peter Ait posted here. There are pros and cons to the several approaches vendors use, but if a company opts for preserving a dated technology that embeds risk of loss, I think it reasonable to expect that its management would show some accommodation to its customers. You have a point that insurance is one approach, but my household coverage, for example, wouldn't cut it. It's designed for major loss, as are many such insurance policies. Hence the deductible is high and once one makes a claim the rate is likely to go up on renewal; insurance companies are there to maximize premium income and minimize payouts, so not necessarily ideal recourse.
-
I don't think it's the least bit understandable.
If you look at it from the supplier's side, it's understandable. As they say, anyone could claim they've lost the dongle, buy a replacement for a nominal sum and sell it on. You'd only have to do it once and you've got almost free software.
I don't like the idea of dongle protection, but I see why it's used.
You have a point that insurance is one approach, but my household coverage, for example, wouldn't cut it.
Well that's down to individual policies and their small print. If you have a major investment in dongle protected software it would be prudent to ensure that you are insured for it's loss/damage/theft like any other significant item. I'm pretty sure you can buy professional photographic cover in the UK covers such risks.
-
The next version of IP (IP Black) is slated to include a new B&W printing mode for Canons (the Epson-focused B&W mode in IP 10 doesn't work on Canon). If you're going to do a new review I would wait for IP Black to include a comparison of QImage vs IP Black for B&W printing.
One should explore and describe B&W printing with Qimage again as things have changed over time with Qimage Ultimate's color management when greyscale images are loaded. For Qimage One it will be needed too. At some point I had QTR made B&W profiles in use with Qimage CM while the Z3100 was in B&W driver mode. This is still possible but with some tweaks on the image files. Today it could well be that the better color profiling for HP Zs as discussed here lately may suit B&W printing in color mode with Qimage One and Ultimate as well. The GCR/UCR in the HP Z media presets is reducing color in B&W to a level other printers do not know.
Simply throwing greyscale images at QImage and IP may not do Qimage justice, there are not much B&W dedicated features in Qimage but a workflow that aims at good B&W prints should still be possible.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
If you look at it from the supplier's side, it's understandable. As they say, anyone could claim they've lost the dongle, buy a replacement for a nominal sum and sell it on. You'd only have to do it once and you've got almost free software.
I don't like the idea of dongle protection, but I see why it's used.
Well that's down to individual policies and their small print. If you have a major investment in dongle protected software it would be prudent to ensure that you are insured for it's loss/damage/theft like any other significant item. I'm pretty sure you can buy professional photographic cover in the UK covers such risks.
Paul, it's only understandable if you think there are no preferable options and you think being uncompromising with your customers is the best way to win friends and influence people, and you think your product is so superior that you can stake out such positions and remain a winner. Otherwise, it makes no sense.
Yes, one can schedule items in a household insurance policy, but look at the cost. How many different papers do most of us regularly use? I could probably buy at least one custom profile per year for the likely additional premium. I use so much software that if I needed a dongle for each application I would have a bag full and a large annual premium increment. That's why the world has moved on...........
-
it's only understandable if you think there are no preferable options
It's understandable because IT IS how they sell their software.
It may well be smarter for them to sell it differently, but that's their business model they've chosen and selling cheap replacement dongles doesn't make sense for them: so understandable, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
Yes, one can schedule items in a household insurance policy, but look at the cost.
You just need to choose a suitable policy. I've been through several different options over the years as my requirements have changed and insurer's T&Cs have changed.
My last professional cover was cheaper than adding photo kit to a domestic policy. That policy covered everything and yes I did check about cover for my dongle for GMB/X-Rite kit.
-
I have found B&W prints using QImage/Custom profiles on a Canon Pro 1000, to be absolutely outstanding. Note that I have found The printer's B&W mode to be the same, especially after taking the brief time to create a custom media type for my preferred paper and letting the printer perform a unique color calibration for that paper.
:)One should explore and describe B&W printing with Qimage again as things have changed over time with Qimage Ultimate's color management when greyscale images are loaded. For Qimage One it will be needed too. At some point I had QTR made B&W profiles in use with Qimage CM while the Z3100 was in B&W driver mode. This is still possible but with some tweaks on the image files. Today it could well be that the better color profiling for HP Zs as discussed here lately may suit B&W printing in color mode with Qimage One and Ultimate as well. The GCR/UCR in the HP Z media presets is reducing color in B&W to a level other printers do not know.
Simply throwing greyscale images at QImage and IP may not do Qimage justice, there are not much B&W dedicated features in Qimage but a workflow that aims at good B&W prints should still be possible.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
It's understandable because IT IS how they sell their software.
It may well be smarter for them to sell it differently, but that's their business model they've chosen and selling cheap replacement dongles doesn't make sense for them: so understandable, but that doesn't mean I think it's a good idea.
You just need to choose a suitable policy. I've been through several different options over the years as my requirements have changed and insurer's T&Cs have changed.
My last professional cover was cheaper than adding photo kit to a domestic policy. That policy covered everything and yes I did check about cover for my dongle for GMB/X-Rite kit.
Yup - at that narrow scope of "understandability" sure, and we agree from a broader perspective not a good idea.
I won't get into what choosing a suitable insurance policy involves in this country - that takes us too far OT into the nether-nether land of insurance-ese. Speaking from Toronto the less I need to have to do with insurance the happier I am. I'd prefer software that comes without such risks meriting scheduled insurance cover.
-
It is my understanding that Mirage DOES require a dongle. At least my version of Mirage 4 for the P5000 does. I have sent the company an email asking for clarification as I would love to be free of it.
-
This is not correct. The code to check a dongle might be 8 lines (spoken as a long-term coder). The code to go online and check the software serial # against the database would be about the same. And the software could (should) give the user a grace period to keep using the program if the internet is out, or whatever.
But what's the full cost of the actual implementation since they'd be purchasing a new (expensive) licensing tool, and do you then maintain 2 methods of validating license. Plus you now have to maintain an online service that is ALWAYS available as if it's down and someone can't print how pissed are they going to be? None of the RIP products offer a 'free' trial basis - basically you can try the software but it'll watermark the whole thing - and the grace period would become the new 'I need to print' window.
Black Magic Design does a dongle for DaVinci Resolve - here's their thread of the same topic - treat the dongle like cash and don't misplace it: https://forum.blackmagicdesign.com/viewtopic.php?f=21&t=30075
-
"The dongle is the licence key. They are freely saleable and don't need registration to use so I recommend insuring the dongle like any other $995 valued item you can't do without.
Peter
DaVinci Resolve Product Manager"
Says it all.
-
FWIW... Blackmagic as changed Resolve this past year to a software license key. The dongles still work, but one can have them replaced with the software license with proof of purchase required...
-
what Colorbyte decides to be their licensing policy is their decision
BUT:
- if you go their route and do not document that in (a) the user manual (b) software license agreement (c) web-site, than this is unacceptable in my ethical conduct and understanding.
They document all licensing clauses that are important for them (printer size etc.).
But this highly unusual customer-needs neglecting policy is not documented anywhere by Colorbyte.
Why is that ??
Are they maybe afraid of stating that policy to potential buyers?
The communication behavior to my emails is a different thing. That is just a question of John P. and professionalism in customer support.
Peter
-
- if you go their route and do not document that in (a) the user manual (b) software license agreement (c) web-site, than this is unacceptable in my ethical conduct and understanding.
Did you actually read the EULA completely when installing or before this issue arose ?
I'm sure most of us don't. I think I've only bothered wading through one set myself.
-
There was a time in the dim, distant past (turn of the century) when ImagePrint was invaluable, if overpriced. Now, it's just overpriced.
-
Now, it's just overpriced.
I'm sure you're right and that makes their attitude to long term existing customers even more silly.
Quietly offering an acceptable replacement would seem sensible in these days when there's the possibility of rapid widespread bad publicity on the internet that last a long time.
This thread has shown how good other options are at a fraction of the price and how poor their customer service is, #completefail
-
There was a time in the dim, distant past (turn of the century) when ImagePrint was invaluable, if overpriced. Now, it's just overpriced.
+1
-
I'm sure you're right and that makes their attitude to long term existing customers even more silly.
Quietly offering an acceptable replacement would seem sensible in these days when there's the possibility of rapid widespread bad publicity on the internet that last a long time.
This thread has shown how good other options are at a fraction of the price and how poor their customer service is, #completefail
+1
-
I heard from Mirag and you can do either, Dongle or TAN.
Jed
-
Just sitting here in the background taking all this in.
I looked at Image Print a number of years ago when I had 3 printers and just could not justify the price point.
Today with a stable of 7 printers it is totally out of the question. Price of admission is somewhere north of $6,000.
Lightroom is that good to print from. We are using all the paper manufacturers profiles even though we have an i1Pro.
Would love to have a RIP to play with but at what cost. The tipping point for me would be around $500 for all my printers.
That puts it in excess of 10 times what I am willing to spend.
Sorry the return on investment is not there.
-
Did you actually read the EULA completely when installing or before this issue arose ?
I'm sure most of us don't. I think I've only bothered wading through one set myself.
Someone once said that the commonest lie told on the Internet is "I have read the Terms and Conditions".
Jeremy
-
Yes Jeremy, and perhaps more than sometimes one could not be blamed for thinking their lawyers draft these agreements in a manner to deter people from even trying to read them!
-
I admit it is a shame that the lost dongle incurs a new license fee. One would think that Colorbyte could verify a dongle use, since each one has a unique code. Having said that, I have to say that I have used the Image Print ver,10 for the last 6 months now, and the results are fantastic. There is nothing like their output sharpening, which uniquely sharpens the final image going to the printer in a way that I cannot match in Photoshop. I don't know all the technical details, but apparently the sharpening of the print file on the way to the printer is different in some unique way that cannot be matched in the sharpening of the image in Photoshop.
If I don't use Image Print 10, and print only with the Photoshop/Epson print profiles, even after downloading the paper profiles from the manufacturer, my pictures seem anemic, and less sharp.
The ColorByte program also saves a great deal of time with paper print errors and size mismatches.
My wish is that the program would become more affordable in the future, so more photographers could try it out.
-
I admit it is a shame that the lost dongle incurs a new license fee. One would think that Colorbyte could verify a dongle use, since each one has a unique code. Having said that, I have to say that I have used the Image Print ver,10 for the last 6 months now, and the results are fantastic. There is nothing like their output sharpening, which uniquely sharpens the final image going to the printer in a way that I cannot match in Photoshop. I don't know all the technical details, but apparently the sharpening of the print file on the way to the printer is different in some unique way that cannot be matched in the sharpening of the image in Photoshop.
If I don't use Image Print 10, and print only with the Photoshop/Epson print profiles, even after downloading the paper profiles from the manufacturer, my pictures seem anemic, and less sharp.
The ColorByte program also saves a great deal of time with paper print errors and size mismatches.
My wish is that the program would become more affordable in the future, so more photographers could try it out.
What sharpening applications have you tested when printing with Photoshop? When not printing from ImagePrint, were you using a one-off sharpening, or a sharpening workflow differentiating between Capture sharpening and Output sharpening? I ask because I haven't seen better sharpening results than obtainable with Photokit Sharpener as deployed for Photoshop or adapted into Lightroom. Based on sharpening principles as explained in Jeff Schewe's book on sharpening, output sharpening is basically a rote process that depends on print dimensions, resolution, print process and paper type. The only thing unique about it is that the settings change depending on these parameters, and the application handles that automatically. There is more user control for Capture and Creative sharpening, where judgment becomes important regardless of the printing process. Each sharpening stage is directed at different issues affecting apparent sharpness.
What do you mean by "paper print errors" and "size mismatches"? Are you talking about the user making wrong choices in the printer driver relative to what the printer expects? If so, don't you also need to make those choices correctly in a RIP to get the expected results?
-
See the notes earlier in the thread. QImage gives the same workflow as Imageprint, including automatic output sharpening. In fact, after using IP for 5 years, but trying QImage and custom profiles for 1 month (see my posts on experience), last night I unplugged my dongle. It had nothing to do with this thread. I simply made a decision to make my experimental workflow change permanent and I feel my output is as good as it can possibly get.
I admit it is a shame that the lost dongle incurs a new license fee. One would think that Colorbyte could verify a dongle use, since each one has a unique code. Having said that, I have to say that I have used the Image Print ver,10 for the last 6 months now, and the results are fantastic. There is nothing like their output sharpening, which uniquely sharpens the final image going to the printer in a way that I cannot match in Photoshop. I don't know all the technical details, but apparently the sharpening of the print file on the way to the printer is different in some unique way that cannot be matched in the sharpening of the image in Photoshop.
If I don't use Image Print 10, and print only with the Photoshop/Epson print profiles, even after downloading the paper profiles from the manufacturer, my pictures seem anemic, and less sharp.
The ColorByte program also saves a great deal of time with paper print errors and size mismatches.
My wish is that the program would become more affordable in the future, so more photographers could try it out.
-
Mark,
What I meant by mismatches was that often times my Epson print page did not match the Photoshop print information , and it could result in the wrong format or size or profile, etc. I know that experts may say this should be straightforward, but all too often I had one parameter that was off, and the print would need to be re-done. How many times did I forget to reset the paper type, or scale to the right size. It just seemed that for every print I had to carefully review each check box each time- a bit of tedium. With IP 10, I have my favorites set for papers and sizes, an it is two or three clicks, and exactly what I want each time.
-
I see, thanks. Unless I need Absolute Rendering Intent for proofing (which is in Photoshop), I print everything from Lightroom. Easy and no surprises.
-
I use Mirage Print. This also uses a dongle. Even though the dongle was from version 2 and the software is now version 3.
One advantage of this system is that i can use it on any computer. Just move the dongle.
I don't really find it a problem. Just don't lose it.
The print system works great, much better than any editing application.
-
I see, thanks. Unless I need Absolute Rendering Intent for proofing (which is in Photoshop), I print everything from Lightroom. Easy and no surprises.
+1
-
I’ve been following this thread. I use IP and just sent my dongle in to upgrade from a 17” printer to a 24” printer. I understand both sides of the argument, a simple solution is to use iLok. I use a iLok usb dongle for ProTools with no problems. If you loose yours there are mechanisms in place to replace lost dongles with minimum cost. They even have reasonably priced insurance that will expedite replacement.
Not sure why ColorByte wouldn't consider switching to a industry standard.
-
The colorbyte chief has imbued the dongle, an inanimate object, with magical powers. It's pretty much impossible to have a rational conversation with the someone when they do that, especially when they perceive their power as being threatened.
-
Power is illusory in a market like this one.
-
See the notes earlier in the thread. QImage gives the same workflow as Imageprint, including automatic output sharpening. In fact, after using IP for 5 years, but trying QImage and custom profiles for 1 month (see my posts on experience), last night I unplugged my dongle. It had nothing to do with this thread. I simply made a decision to make my experimental workflow change permanent and I feel my output is as good as it can possibly get.
I doubt Qimage's license protection will be as effective as a dongle can be but it relies on a wider customer base in the first place, license cost is accordingly. Less users will try to get the license through another illegal channel as steady updates appear and the developer is very responsive to questions and requests. That base will increase even more when Qimage One is spreading to Mac users too. Qimage Ultimate's features are second to none if it is about the printing stage of a workflow.
Similarity to Qimage's marketing policy can be found in Vuescan, price is very affordable, features excellent, one user license covers 4 systems using it, 3 operating systems run it and it supports more than 100 scanners. Compare that to Lasersoft's Silverfast software and you see IP comparable policies there, one scanner supported etc. Similar policy in their Tao printer application.
In the end they shoot in their foot, users will buy a new machine every 4 or 5 years and get annoyed by the additional costs. They will look for another solution and the internet will give them the information. Happened to me after I bought an expensive RIP that covered a lot of printers at the time but needed upgrades with new generations and gave only a 3 or 6 month support after each upgrade. Then I switched printer brand and the RIP driver never could equal the OEM driver quality.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots