Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: ruud on January 10, 2020, 05:52:17 am
-
Dear all,
Without going into the passionate and high level discussions around the pros and cons of Imageprint/Colorbyte, here is my question :
- I have been using IP with an Epson 3800 for years and very happy with (mostly Canson / Hahnemulhe Baryta papers type, 50/50 b&w and colors) : great accuracy of the profiles, easy to use.
- My printer is going to its happy end and I have to choose between an Epson SP800 and a Canon Pro 1000 (similar pricing in France with the Epson roll option)
Should I :
(i) stick to the ImagePrint solution (with the need to buy v10 (the black one with the profiles provided) for the full price of 895$ since my v8 version is out dated) with the new Epson SP800?
(ii) go straight to the SP800 with no ImagePrint (I have read many discussions on the LL forum on how much papers manufacturers have increased the level of their icc profiles as well as the Epson drivers)? Can I live with no ImagePrint for B&W prints?
(iii) go with the Canon Pro 1000 with no ImagePrint (I understand from the discussions here that IP does few to increase the print quality with Canon printers)?
I do not intent to go with custom profiles; just want an easy solution with proper matching of what I see on my screen matches with the prints (I use Photoshop with Eizo CG screens) with decent papers profiles.
Thank you in advance for your inputs.
JM Humbert
Paris, France
-
There’s a new version of imageprint due out soon that changes and hopefully improves the canon print quality. I’d wait for that to be released before making a decision on the software package. As it stands now, you probably don’t need imageprint for canon and there’s little reason to get the more expensive image print black over red for canon.
-
Why not use Lightroom for printing? Very easy to use.
-
JM, You have multiple choices for printing. You are already familiar with ImagePrint and seem to like it. The only question is whether it makes printing "better" or easier in some fashion compared to the alternatives, and if so, is that extra goodness worth what ColorByte charges? Only you can answer that question.
You can try printing from Photoshop or Lightroom, using the paper manufacturers profiles or custom profiles, and see if that works for you. That doesn't cost anything except time and perhaps some aggravation. As a free alternative, you can also try using Epson Print Layout. I find Epson Print Layout to be easier and faster to use than the Photoshop printing interface. It uses the paper manufacturers profiles, or custom profiles, and is free: https://www.epson.eu/apps-software/epson-print-layout .
There are a number of people who frequent this forum that like Qimage. I have never used it. It is not free but I think it is much less expensive than ImagePrint. Again, you can use either the paper manufacturers profiles or custom profiles. If I did not already have ImagePrint v10, I would give Qimage a good look: http://www.ddisoftware.com/qimage-u/
Regards,
Mark G.
-
A big +1,for Qimage,been using it for many years.tech support is outstanding
You can download the trial version,if you want to test it out.
Good luck,
Mike
-
Imageprint is vastly overrated and overpriced. Maybe in the past, when other companies had not yet gotten their printing chops together, and printer manufacturers have learned to make excellent profiles. $900 for a printing program that is limited to one printer? I don't think so.
I downloaded the trial version a number of years ago and gave it a good workout vs. Lightroom and PS. Differences? Yes (minor). Superior? No.
Remember that anyone who has bought IP has a big psychological motivation to praise it.
-
A big +1,for Qimage,been using it for many years.tech support is outstanding
Yes, quite an impressive product, I’m not sure the relevance of IP these days.
-
Yes, quite an impressive product, I’m not sure the relevance of IP these days.
I have used Qimage (Ultimate) for more than 15 years and so far any other driver/RIP/application didn't look attractive enough to switch to.
The more when I got my HP Z3100/3200 printers that filled in the color calibration + profiling aspect for third party media with the integrated spectrometer + compatible software.
The only con I see is in the interaction of Qimage with the HP printer drivers when Mike started to integrate more of the driver functions in the QU interface.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/SpectralPlots/SpectrumViz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Of the half dozen printers (Using Lightroom) we run here we have a total of 18 different papers and canvases we print on. 13 profiles are from the paper manufacturer.
4 are from the HP z3200's built in spectro. The only one we made ourselves with i1 PhotoPro is for our metal Chromaluxe prints with a P8000.
The stock profiles are that good. Could they be better, probably so. Is the small incremental improvement worth the cost (ImagePrint), no.
The kind of work you do could drive you to ImagePrint but the cost of entry for a print shop like mine is way past the point of affordability. (Cost vs benefits)
-
I don’t see the point of it either unless you are an art school with a lot of students who don’t want to learn how to make or order color profiles and need to have them for a wide variety of papers.
Yea, Q-Image for layout and great upsampling sharpening, combined with custom profiles is all you need. If you have that money to spend on your set up I’d spend it either on X Rite profiling equipment or hiring someone to make a batch of precise custom profiles for you.
The problem I’ve always had with Image Print is you can’t linearize your media with it for custom media , only use basic pre-set ink limits, and you can’t do the most precise neutralization for monochrome imaging on any media, the way Studio Print can. I see it more of a layout program that comes with a library of profiles, most of which you will never use. And yea it’s expensive for just that.
Like Ernst said, with the HP Z printers you can do both without needing any add on software and it works great. The creation of the icc profile is a separate process from linearizing ( controlling how and how much ink is laid down per channel ).
The very inexpensive QTR with Print Tool only for Epson printers though the P 700/p 900 ) are fantastic for ultimate black and white control and split toning, but the creator of it says it will probably never be available for the new generation of Epson printers that use the new heads on the P10k, 20k, P 9570, 7570, etc.
John
I have used Qimage (Ultimate) for more than 15 years and so far any other driver/RIP/application didn't look attractive enough to switch to.
The more when I got my HP Z3100/3200 printers that filled in the color calibration + profiling aspect for third party media with the integrated spectrometer + compatible software.
The only con I see is in the interaction of Qimage with the HP printer drivers when Mike started to integrate more of the driver functions in the QU interface.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/SpectralPlots/SpectrumViz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Thank you to all of you for your "luminous" advise (as always on this forum and on this site)...
I will give a try to QImage as the software is so praised by many of you, including professionals. I was still on the (past) idea that icc profiles generated by the papers manufacturers were of low quality and only third parties softwares such as ImagePrint were able to provide decent profiles (or generating its own customized profiles but I do not have the time (and euros), nor the knowledge to invest into a spectro).
I just need to understand the b&w workflow with QImage to be sure to obtain clean prints with no casting and smooth transition in the gray scale.
Jean-Marc Humbert
-
Look also at the Dinax Mirage 4. You can try it for 14 days. I was also in the position of choosing a printing software and decided on Mirage.
Other options considering were Qimage and Print Tao.
-
Look also at the Dinax Mirage 4. You can try it for 14 days. I was also in the position of choosing a printing software and decided on Mirage.
Other options considering were Qimage and Print Tao.
Ditto on Mirage. I bought my upgrade to the latest version as a package with the P800.
-
I have both Qimage and Mirage. Both are great. I prefer Mirage though. I find Qimage feels like it was designed to make printing 'easier' and it seems to want to default to 'auto' a lot of the time. Like a camera that is both manual and auto but is really designed with 'auto' in mind? My workflow is to do all my file prep in PS and then send file to driver already sized and output sharpened. That works well with Mirage. Qimage seems to me to be designed to do things like file sizing and output sharpening in the driver stage. Of course Qimage can be full manual if you want it to, and the built in size and sharping algorithms are excellent. My 2 cents.
-
Look also at the Dinax Mirage 4. You can try it for 14 days. I was also in the position of choosing a printing software and decided on Mirage.
Other options considering were Qimage and Print Tao.
I downloaded Mirage 4 trial. I couldn't find a way to change the aspect ratio of the image on the fly. Something very easy to do in Qimage or LR ("Fit in" checkbox). Is there a way?
-
Thanks to all. Let me buy first the printer: my old Epson 3800 is now definitively clogged, end of a long story.
I am really hesitating on the choice between Epson SP800 and Canon ProPROGRAF 1000 (with a plus for the Epson with the paper roll option). Any advise on your side ? (I do a lot of B&W, and my most used papers are Canson Baryta and Hahnemulhe Photorag Baryta)
Considering the choice of the "RIP" software, Mirage 4 seems to me very promising (and in addition, you can buy custom profiles for specific paper by sending to Germany printed ICC targets); a solution that would cut by 2 the price of ImagePrint Black edition.
Jean-Marc Humbert
-
I am really hesitating on the choice between Epson SP800 and Canon ProPROGRAF 1000 (with a plus for the Epson with the paper roll option). Any advise on your side ? (I do a lot of B&W, and my most used papers are Canson Baryta and Hahnemulhe Photorag Baryta)
Considering the choice of the "RIP" software, Mirage 4 seems to me very promising (and in addition, you can buy custom profiles for specific paper by sending to Germany printed ICC targets); a solution that would cut by 2 the price of ImagePrint Black edition.
Jean-Marc Humbert
I looked at both printers and went with the Canon Pro-1000 early last year. The Canon is a better constructed printer with vacuum feed. Paper feed is really easy and I've never had an error or head strike, something that was common with my old Epson 3880. I happy that I did. Canon recently came out with new firmware that allows printing on larger length paper for panos along with a dedicated Baryta paper setting. I have not tried out the Baryta setting as the paper I use, Moab Juniper Baryta Rag, is back ordered. I do a lot of B/W printing and the Canon does a good job.
I do all my printing through Lightroom with my own profiles using Argyll CMS. I have never felt the need to use a RIP.
-
I do all my printing through Lightroom with my own profiles using Argyll CMS. I have never felt the need to use a RIP.
As it happens I'm testing out ArgyII with my own Canon today on Harman Gloss Baryta and my old ColorMunki. Can you tell me what swatch configuration you're using? I'm doing a 1188 swatch set with 100 neutral and 100 gray swatches. Also, are you using the manufacturer provided media type file or one of the default Canon ones? I'm trying to see if there's any difference between the Hahnemule provided media type and using Canon Pro Platinum. I remember reading the gloss overcoat behavior was special for Pro Platinum but I am unable to see any difference, and the Hahnemule profile prints bidirectional so it's 2x as fast which is a nice advantage.
So far I'm not seeing any advantage to going to the trouble of using my own profiles over the ones provided by ImagePrint and in fact the dmax is higher with the IP profile than I could get with my setup. Once ImagePrint releases their new Canon driver which should improve B&W output I'm going to try to write up my summary.
-
As it happens I'm testing out ArgyII with my own Canon today on Harman Gloss Baryta and my old ColorMunki. Can you tell me what swatch configuration you're using? I'm doing a 1188 swatch set with 100 neutral and 100 gray swatches. Also, are you using the manufacturer provided media type file or one of the default Canon ones? I'm trying to see if there's any difference between the Hahnemule provided media type and using Canon Pro Platinum. I remember reading the gloss overcoat behavior was special for Pro Platinum but I am unable to see any difference, and the Hahnemule profile prints bidirectional so it's 2x as fast which is a nice advantage.
So far I'm not seeing any advantage to going to the trouble of using my own profiles over the ones provided by ImagePrint and in fact the dmax is higher with the IP profile than I could get with my setup. Once ImagePrint releases their new Canon driver which should improve B&W output I'm going to try to write up my summary.
I use an i1 Pro which has smaller patch sizes than the Color Munki. I employ a two step process with a two page pre-conditioning profile and then use that to generate a four page patch set for the final profile. For the final profile I add a bunch of near neutral patches using the new '-n' command that Graeme added. The command for the final profile would be: Targen –v –d2 –G -cPreCondProfile –n100 -f1848 PrinterA
Before I do this, I use Scott Martin's paper setting tool to identify the best printer driver setting: https://www.on-sight.com/how-to-determine-the-optimal-media-selection-for-any-paper/ In most cases, I have found that the setting the paper manufacturer suggests is the best one to use. I don't know what you mean about manufacture provided media types. All they provide is an icc profile for a certain paper and Canon driver setting.
I have no experience with Image Print and cannot comment about Dmax values.
-
I use an i1 Pro which has smaller patch sizes than the Color Munki. I employ a two step process with a two page pre-conditioning profile and then use that to generate a four page patch set for the final profile. For the final profile I add a bunch of near neutral patches using the new '-n' command that Graeme added. The command for the final profile would be: Targen –v –d2 –G -cPreCondProfile –n100 -f1848 PrinterA
Before I do this, I use Scott Martin's paper setting tool to identify the best printer driver setting: https://www.on-sight.com/how-to-determine-the-optimal-media-selection-for-any-paper/ In most cases, I have found that the setting the paper manufacturer suggests is the best one to use. I don't know what you mean about manufacture provided media types. All they provide is an icc profile for a certain paper and Canon driver setting.
OK, cool. It sounds like we have a very similar process except for the instrument used and I include -g100 in addition to -n100 and I use a smaller number of patches (fills two 13x19 pages with the ColorMunki patch size). At some point recently Hahnemulhe started providing .am1x files in addition to the ICC profiles for the Canon PRO-2000/4000. I imported those into the Canon Media Configuration tool. Other than the fact they print while the head moves in both directions (and thus prints 2x as fast as Canon Pro Platinum media type) I haven't been able to notice a difference in output.
-
I have both Qimage and Mirage. Both are great. I prefer Mirage though. I find Qimage feels like it was designed to make printing 'easier' and it seems to want to default to 'auto' a lot of the time. Like a camera that is both manual and auto but is really designed with 'auto' in mind? My workflow is to do all my file prep in PS and then send file to driver already sized and output sharpened. That works well with Mirage. Qimage seems to me to be designed to do things like file sizing and output sharpening in the driver stage. Of course Qimage can be full manual if you want it to, and the built in size and sharping algorithms are excellent. My 2 cents.
In Qimage Ultimate you get both an automatic workflow and a completely transparent toolbox to set up the desired steps for a manual workflow. The last then can be saved as one of the auto workflows or recalled from the interactive log file. I do not see a problem with the steps you do in PS followed by QU, it is the way I instruct my customers; finish your editing in PS or C1, give the TIFF file the (virtual) dimensions the print needs but without resampling in PS, add borders or not. I will select original size and add discussed borders or not. Resampling and print sharpening is done in QU as it simply does a better job with a wider choice of algorithms, not to mention the anti-aliased downsampling. Customers get a 1:1 proof print strip before the final prints are made. They can do editing in PS or C1 on my calibrated/profiled monitor/system for color and QU print sharpening etc can be altered for successive proofs. In case the file is changed it will be transferred as a Tiff to the customer with a description and also kept in my archive. Flat Tiff in both cases. The QU log file is archived in more than one way.
The QU workflow does this all on the fly and the original image file is not touched other than by me or the customer who might like a PS or C1 image alteration. For repeat jobs I recall the job from the interactive log file, read the settings in that file, select the loaded image and browse to its directory by that image, check whether the driver settings represent the log file and print. The check I have to do as the HP Z3200 printer driver is not fully compatible with Windows standard and by that not fully compatible with QU interaction with print drivers. Actually my only complaint with QU today. Not an issue with Epson and Canon drivers.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/SpectralPlots/SpectrumViz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
Ernst, could you elaborate a little more about this comment in relation to QImage with the Z and Windows .
Are you referring to accurate control over border dimensions and centering, because that is what I have had the most problem with with the Zs and Windows? I’ve been using the macs so long I’ve forgotten how it worked but I’m thinking about going back to Windows for some things.
John
The check I have to do as the HP Z3200 printer driver is not fully compatible with Windows standard and by that not fully compatible with QU interaction with print drivers. Actually my only complaint with QU today. Not an issue with Epson and Canon drivers.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
-
This notion that paper makers' profiles are crummy is way outdated. After all, who has more motivation to provide top-quality profiles? And given that creating a profile is a purely mechanical process of measuring color patches and plugging the data into a program, what's the big deal? Train a monkey, crikey!
I have been using manufacturer's profiles for ages without a single issue.
-
Not all ICC profiles even from the same source are created equally:
Not all ICC profiles are created equally
In this 23 minute video, I'll cover:
The basic anatomy of ICC Profiles
Why there are differences in profile quality and color rendering
How to evaluate an ICC output profile
Examples of good and not so good canned profiles and custom profiles on actual printed output.
High resolution: http://digitaldog.net/files/Not_All_Profiles_are_created_equally.mp4
Low resolution (YouTube): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNdR_tIFMME&feature=youtu.be
-
This notion that paper makers' profiles are crummy is way outdated. After all, who has more motivation to provide top-quality profiles? And given that creating a profile is a purely mechanical process of measuring color patches and plugging the data into a program, what's the big deal? Train a monkey, crikey!
I have been using manufacturer's profiles for ages without a single issue.
+1
and no doubt made with the same equipment and process.
-
Ernst, could you elaborate a little more about this comment in relation to QImage with the Z and Windows .
Are you referring to accurate control over border dimensions and centering, because that is what I have had the most problem with with the Zs and Windows? I’ve been using the macs so long I’ve forgotten how it worked but I’m thinking about going back to Windows for some things.
John
The check I have to do as the HP Z3200 printer driver is not fully compatible with Windows standard and by that not fully compatible with QU interaction with print drivers. Actually my only complaint with QU today. Not an issue with Epson and Canon drivers.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
John, No issues with borders etc.
These days you can set the print media type, media size, roll/sheet and landscape/portrait in QU's interface itself. Which then is transferred to the driver for most printer drivers, although switching between printers can affect some issues too and you have to default the driver settings then and rebuild settings. It is worse for the Z3200 driver without even switching printers. Most of the time something is not set correctly, the driver may still be in portrait mode where you had landscape set in QU. Too many media type choices in the Z3200 driver corrupts it even more. The only reliable thing is a last check in the printer driver itself, correct the settings and an OK there, QU's menu will then show most things correctly but the driver menu might show Decor Art as the media choice and QU's menu PhotoRag instead. The Decor Art media preset will be used in the print workflow though.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/SpectralPlots/SpectrumViz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I see, you have to go back to check the Photoshop driver settings as a final step.
I don’t have the Ultimate version yet so I didn’t have this issue.
It would nice if you could make a couple of “ default “ settings for a couple of papers and save those as a preset that reliable.
quote author=Ernst Dinkla link=topic=133541.msg1147608#msg1147608 date=1579106187]
Ernst, could you elaborate a little more about this comment in relation to QImage with the Z and Windows .
Are you referring to accurate control over border dimensions and centering, because that is what I have had the most problem with with the Zs and Windows? I’ve been using the macs so long I’ve forgotten how it worked but I’m thinking about going back to Windows for some things.
John
The check I have to do as the HP Z3200 printer driver is not fully compatible with Windows standard and by that not fully compatible with QU interaction with print drivers. Actually my only complaint with QU today. Not an issue with Epson and Canon drivers.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
John, No issues with borders etc.
These days you can set the print media type, media size, roll/sheet and landscape/portrait in QU's interface itself. Which then is transferred to the driver for most printer drivers, although switching between printers can affect some issues too and you have to default the driver settings then and rebuild settings. It is worse for the Z3200 driver without even switching printers. Most of the time something is not set correctly, the driver may still be in portrait mode where you had landscape set in QU. Too many media type choices in the Z3200 driver corrupts it even more. The only reliable thing is a last check in the printer driver itself, correct the settings and an OK there, QU's menu will then show most things correctly but the driver menu might show Decor Art as the media choice and QU's menu PhotoRag instead. The Decor Art media preset will be used in the print workflow though.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/SpectralPlots/SpectrumViz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I see, you have to go back to check the Photoshop driver settings as a final step.
I don’t have the Ultimate version yet so I didn’t have this issue.
It would nice if you could make a couple of “ default “ settings for a couple of papers and save those as a preset that reliable.
quote author=Ernst Dinkla link=topic=133541.msg1147608#msg1147608 date=1579106187]
I guess/hope QU is not comparable in that sense to Qimage One. The last I tried only once so can not comment on whether it has the same issues with the Z3200 drivers.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/SpectralPlots/SpectrumViz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots
-
I downloaded Mirage 4 trial. I couldn't find a way to change the aspect ratio of the image on the fly. Something very easy to do in Qimage or LR ("Fit in" checkbox). Is there a way?
You export the file in the right aspect ratio from the editing app.
-
Dear forum members,
First thank you for all your advice. I went finally to the Epson SC P800 and... ImagePrint!
I have tried Mirage as well as the normal workflow with Epson drivers and OEM papers profiles: first Mirage 4 is not a Rip, just a way to arrange pictures on prints but using Epson drivers and OEM profiles. I did the same with the demo version of QImage.
Second, and I must praise Colorbyte, the new version of their soft (the BLACK version) and the imbedded profiles are incredibly good: easy to use (far more than the old version I had (v8)) and compared to OEM profiles (Canson and Hahnemulhe) IP profiles are just better: I am not an expert doing high level measurements (I do not have the right tools neither the experience), but definitively comparing side by side the prints (same file, same adjustments, same size) the difference is obvious: tonal range, smooth transitions on the darkest part for b&w prints, IP wins.
Yes Imageprint is expensive (at least for a non professional) but how much savings in time and papers, to get right out of the box perfect screen to print matching prints with no pain…
Jean-Marc