Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Printing: Printers, Papers and Inks => Topic started by: Jager on November 09, 2014, 08:40:59 pm
-
Jeff's related thread on B&W printing options prompted me to download the ImagePrint RIP software (in demo mode) and give it a whirl.
Backdrop... for many years I printed directly out of Photoshop, creating multiple FINAL versions of an image, depending upon media size. The last few years I've done all my printing directly out of Lightroom. I find it to be a notable improvement, especially not having to save (and track) multiple versions of files.
I'm primarily a B&W photographer. If a file is not native grayscale (i.e. scanned film or Leica Monochrom), I almost always convert in SEP; very occasionally in Lightroom. I print to an Epson 3880 and, save for those odd occasions when I'm printing a color file, use ABW mode. I like the quality in ABW. But the fact that its doings are largely a black box, and its inability to soft-proof an image, lead me to look at ImagePrint.
Installing IP on my Mac was easy peasy. On firing up the software, though, I was stunned by how kludgy the interface is. Not that that is insurmountable. Even with crappy software, you learn how to do what you need to do and then you just kind of forget how bad the design is. Still, it's been a long time since I've seen a user interface this awful.
Then there's the dongle. Really, a dongle?! It's almost like I could close my eyes and pretend it's 1985!
The good news, UI issues aside, is that it seems to soft proof really well. And some of it's subtle features like narrow-gamut tinting seem genuinely useful.
Ultimately, the thing that would sway me is output quality. Alas, when I printed an image in ABW and then out of ImagePrint, to compare, the IP version is so overwrought with its DEMO MODE watermark that it's really quite difficult to discern any nuanced difference between them. The only thing I can say for sure is there isn't a dramatic difference. Between them, I seem to like the ABW version best, though acknowledge that might just be my emotional response to the heavy-handed watermark on the IP version, versus the clean Epson print.
Which leads to my question. How many here actually use ImagePrint to maximize B&W print quality using OEM Epson inks? A handful in Jeff's thread clearly favor it. I'm wondering how extensive it's use might be? Or has it, with the improvement in OEM printing, largely lost its benefit for most?
Thanks,
(another) Jeff
-
Then there's the dongle. Really, a dongle?! It's almost like I could close my eyes and pretend it's 1985!
If you use a RIP, you will find that many of them uses dongles. I use ImagePrint and EFI Fiery, and I'm testing GMG Colorproof right now. All of them uses dongles.
And when you test ImagePrint, be sure to adjust the black point compensation to get the best black, without losing separation in the darkest shadow areas. It takes some testing to get the best out of the program, but these small adjustments are important to really get the best prints.
-
And, remember the availability of many hundreds of very high quality profiles at no extra charge or effort.
Michael
-
If you really want to compare apples to apples, test Image Print against QTR, the $50.00 program ( for ANY Epson printer ) and then see if you notice any difference for bw. You have much better custom control over linearization with QTR. I would use the 51 patch grayscale, not the 4x24 chart to linearize. If you have an I1 you can use Color Port to do that and avoid the old Profile Maker Pro incompatibility issues, especially if you are on a recent Mac os.
Scott Martin worked this out - http://www.on-sight.com/using-colorport-for-qtr-grayscale-and-alt-process-measurement-and-profiling/
It seems to me that Image Print is the most useful for Epson people who don't want to make their own ICC profiles for color work on a variety of media. Their color profiles are quite good and there are a lot of them. But for me I'd spend the money on the X-Rite I1 package, then you can use it on any printer your have now or may have in the future and also profile any media.
john
-
QTR can produce beautiful B&W from Epson. However the process of creating the custom curves for each paper i found both confusing and frustrating. I had hoped be a bit less. I gave it my all with my 9880 but never got the curve I really liked. Never tried it on my 9900. The help and manual were not very clear to me. More was written on the MAC side.
I had hoped there would be a bit more sharing of profiles but never did see that.
Still might try it again one of these days.
Paul
-
Yea it's not very intuitive on the pc side, even loading existing curves is strange.
-
It seems to me that Image Print is the most useful for Epson people who don't want to make their own ICC profiles for color work on a variety of media. Their color profiles are quite good and there are a lot of them. But for me I'd spend the money on the X-Rite I1 package, then you can use it on any printer your have now or may have in the future and also profile any media.
I have all the equipment to make icc-profiles and I do that a lot for photographers that we work with. But as we print on a lot of different papers, and to make a high quality profiles takes some time, ImagePrint is a big timesaver for me. And as I know that the profiles are of a very high quality, both for colour and B&W, we can use all of these papers without spending time to create a profile. And every now and then I create a profile for colour work in ImagePrint. If I'm very careful, I can create a better profile than some of the profiles that you get from Colorbyte.
But I have to read the charts three or four times, make an average of these measurements and then smooth the values in a wonderful program called ColorAnt and then create a profile. After a few hours work I might have a better profile than the one provided by Colorbyte.
-
Thanks for the input, guys.
I understand the benefit of the large library of profiles that ImagePrint provides. That said, I print to a handful of fairly mainstream papers (Epson and Canson) for which profiles are readily available.
I'm also not keen on testing RIPs, building my own profiles, or otherwise embarking upon arcane explorations. I'd like to be able to soft proof, but that is really a minor issue. Ultimately my question circles around whether or not output image quality can be meaningfully advanced by using ImagePrint (or any other RIP, using OEM Epson inks). My first-blush exposure, via IP's demo trial, would suggest... not so much.
I recognize that first, quick truths are oftentimes anything but, though. And so I figured that if a RIP is truly the way to go, most all the folks here - the most serious image printing community I know of - would surely be using one? My sense is again, not so much. Some do. Some don't.
Which would be consistent with a product that perhaps provides a bit of benefit here or there, but nothing substantial. Am I wrong in that conclusion?
-
Hi Jeff,
I have been down this road. I downloaded, tested, and purchased Imageprint 9 for color printing on my Epson 4900. While the interface takes some getting used to, I found the image quality demonstrably better, to my eye, than printing out of photoshop or LR and using the Adobe/Apple/Epson color management food chain. The largest difference to my eye was in the quarter tones - tonality below middle gray but not black. I found the prints made with Imageprint to have much better shadow separation, visibility, and color. The difference was subtle but important enough that I spent the money and purchased the program. While their pre-canned profiles are part of the value proposition, I have also made my own and integrated them into Imageprint (according to their instructions and support which are good) and found the results to be even better. The conclusion I reached is that Colorbyte has had one focus for years; making the best possible output for Epson printers independent of the other agendas/evolutions that Apple/Adobe/Epson have. They do this better than anyone. I am making the best prints I have ever made with this program and my Epson 4900. For workflow, I can directly "edit in" imageprint straight from Lightroom so the process is not disjointed. The new version of Imageprint, V10, will also have output sharpening to complete a straightforward workflow.
While I have tried imageprint for B&W, I have been a long-time user of Cone Piezography and QTR and find that I like those prints more. Especially with Cones Glossy inkset, the prints are "in" the paper rather than "on" the paper with a beautiful tonal curve. I have a dedicated Epson 4880 with Cone Inks for this purpose. If you are serious about B&W, and your message indicates that you are, you owe it to yourself to fully explore this option or another dedicated inkset to see if the results are meaningful to you. Cone will make custom prints using their inksets from your favorite files or there are many practitioners (tyler boley is one of the great ones) who do custom printing with Cone Inks. With B&W the impact of tonality, paper/ink color, and images being in/on the paper were important to me..the only way to definitively know is to try for yourself. The options are there.
Good luck in your search.
George
George
-
Thanks for the input, guys.
I understand the benefit of the large library of profiles that ImagePrint provides. That said, I print to a handful of fairly mainstream papers (Epson and Canson) for which profiles are readily available.
I'm also not keen on testing RIPs, building my own profiles, or otherwise embarking upon arcane explorations. I'd like to be able to soft proof, but that is really a minor issue. Ultimately my question circles around whether or not output image quality can be meaningfully advanced by using ImagePrint (or any other RIP, using OEM Epson inks). My first-blush exposure, via IP's demo trial, would suggest... not so much.
There is a learning curve with IP, as with any other software. What black point compensation to use, should I use the DCM, if so how to adjust these settings and so on. When I started out with fine art printing, the difference between the Epson driver and the supplied profiles were huge. Today the differences are smaller, but every time I test I can see enough of an advantage with IP both for colour and B&W. And as many of our customers want prints that will last even if displayed, the better light fastness of the ImagePrint prints are of great importance to us.
-
Assuming a relatively vanilla workflow (Epson inks - either 3880 or, in my case, 7900, with a paper for which a high-quality profile exists), how much difference does IP make? I have no doubt of its value with Cone inks, really odd papers or other unusual situations! Is the previous comment on the quartertones related to Epson inks or third-party inks? When ImagePrint first came out, printers were nastily non-linear things, with relatively small gamuts (the first pigment printers like the Stylus 2000P, 7500 and 9500 couldn't even reach all of sRGB, and color relationships were really strange!). Again, there was no question of IP's value in that situation! Now, with a very well-behaved printer with a gamut that reaches Adobe RGB nearly everywhere and exceeds it in significant areas, is there much more for IP to do?
Dan
-
Cone's K7 inks are set up for QTR not Imageprint.
Imageprint is set up for Epson inks.
-
I have tried IP7 back in 2009, I really don't like it at all back in that time.
Let's put longevity on the side.
To me, quality is based on technical skills.
IP has a very close loop calibration procedure back in their office to calibrate all the paper and printers.
Epson printers are getting really good on the quality consistancy but variation should still appear after period of usage.
I have my own custom calibration target and method to achive very nutrual b&w print out of a color icc profile on my previous Canon 8300. Instead of using Bowhus RIP, first of all I don't have to pay extra on it and second, I can accurately preview the softproof with my Eizo monitor as well.
I do still believe in "A superb ICC profile could do all kinds of image".
Aaron
-
Again, there was no question of IP's value in that situation! Now, with a very well-behaved printer with a gamut that reaches Adobe RGB nearly everywhere and exceeds it in significant areas, is there much more for IP to do?
Dan
For me it's first the workflow advantages. It is so much easier and faster to set up a custom paper size, to add one or several images and place them exactly where I want them. Second, it's that we avoid all the small problems and changes that has affected the print workflow with every upgrade to the OS, Photoshop or driver. Third, we still see a quality advantage, especially as the gamut is a little bit bigger. And as we do a lot of B&W prints, where the quality advantage is clearly visible, we don't have to dedicate a printer to B&W.
-
Epson printers are getting really good on the quality consistancy but variation should still appear after period of usage.
I use another RIP, EFI Fiery, for proofing. I have set up and profiled 10 such systems for customers. When you profile such a system, you tweak it until your test chart show a Delta E less than 1 on average.
I had to replace a printer for one of our customers, because a water pipe broke and flooded the printer with water during a weekend. I thought that I had to reprofile the new printer, as the old one was two years old and had been used a lot. But when I measured the test chart, I saw a difference of less than Delta E 1 between the charts made on the old printer and the new one.
Of course this is just one printer. You have to test at least 10 printers the same way to see if they are stable over time. But at least it proved that they can be.
-
Thanks again, gentlemen.
George, your post in particular has me now thinking in a different direction. I started this thread out of the - fairly idle, I thought - wonder if a RIP might be a fairly painless path to greater print quality. My one, overarching requirement was that under no circumstances would I deviate from the Epson OEM inks. Having spent much time back in the day on the Digital Silver and Black and White Printing list servers and heard the endless suffering associated with early 3rd-party ink sets, I absolutely was not going to go there. Your mention of your dedicated B&W setup prompted me to spend a few hours poking around.
It seems things have matured a bit. Maybe thinking about a RIP, all by itself, is the tail wagging the dog.
I've sent off for Cone's sample pack of five images printed in his different ink sets. I don't know where all this will go. Certainly this is a road I didn't expect to travel. But if a black-only ink set will get me noticeably superior print quality, the workflow isn't too esoteric, and printer reliability doesn't suffer, I'll probably go there.
Having gone to bed last night with that thought in mind, this morning I came across this post in another thread from Mark (MHMG) from a few months ago...
"This statement needs to be qualified somewhat. The Piezography "Carbon Sepia" and the more recent "Carbon K7" sets are indeed full carbon pigment ink sets, and as such they are more lightfast than OEM color sets even when the OEM inks are run in full grayscale or "advanced B&W" modes. But the OEM B&W modes are significantly more lightfast than other Piezography shades like "selenium", "neutral", "warm" etc., on just about any media. The Piezography full carbon pigment is considerably warmer than the MIS Eboni full carbon on most media, so Cone achieves his more neutral Piezography shades by blending cyan and magenta pigments into the mix. The magenta drops out first, causing the print to eventually turn more greenish-gray in appearance. Greenish-gray tones in B&W prints are not a visually acceptable outcome for most folks. The light fade resistance of the cooler Piezography shades is therefore only moderate at best and also more sensitive to choice of media as well when compared to B&W prints made using OEM inks and OEM driver settings.
That said, as long as the print collector knows that not all Piezography prints are highly lightfast and therefore takes care in choosing illumination levels and/or managing the time on display, then the more conservative display policies will allow the more neutral toned Piezography prints to last many generations before noticeably turning more greenish gray. Failure to implement smart illumination/display policies for the cooler toned Piezography ink sets will indeed result in greenish-gray prints more than likely within one's own lifetime."
That certainly gave me pause. Having lived through the pretty awful early years of dye-based photo inkjet printing, I was absolutely in the crowd cheering the move to dramatically-more-lightfast pigment-based ink sets. I'm not inclined to retrace that hard-won ground. It's a disappointment to hear that most of the "black-only" ink sets... aren't. And that they have a longevity significantly worse than Epson's own OEM ink set in ABW mode.
Which leaves Carbon as the only Piezography ink set, along with Paul's similar Eboni ink set, which is truly black-only. I'll be interested to see how the Carbon ink set print compares to the others, once my sample pack arrives.
The road turns crookeder and crookeder...
-
That certainly gave me pause. Having lived through the pretty awful early years of dye-based photo inkjet printing, I was absolutely in the crowd cheering the move to dramatically-more-lightfast pigment-based ink sets. I'm not inclined to retrace that hard-won ground. It's a disappointment to hear that most of the "black-only" ink sets... aren't. And that they have a longevity significantly worse than Epson's own OEM ink set in ABW mode.
If light fastness is important to you, then you should take a look on the ImagePrint B&W print samples that Aardenburg tested. As these profiles don't use any yellow ink, they are more stable than Epson ABW. Even the ImagePrint colour samples were more stable when you use a x900 printer, as the IP profiles use less yellow and more orange ink, which is a more stable ink.
As the tinting feature in ImagePrint is very important to our customers, we can't use a monochrome ink set. If you're only printing your own images, you might find an ink set that's OK for all of your prints, but we have to be able to give an image a slightly cool tone in the shadow, a bit warmer in the mid tones and a neutral tone in the highlights for one customer, a warm tone for the whole image for another one and so one. As I can save these tints, I can apply the same look when we make a new print some months later.
-
Aaron,
Is there a target for the I1 Pro X-Rite software that you could recommend for making bw profiles for the 8300 or other printers? Some supplied by X-Rite have
more extended grays than others. Just wondering what your opinion was on how many gray patches are needed? I haven't been able to equal what I get with TBW through any of these targets yet, but I haven't done extensive tests with that.
John
-
Aaron,
Is there a target for the I1 Pro X-Rite software that you could recommend for making bw profiles for the 8300 or other printers?
I'm not Aaron, but when I create a profile where it's important to have a very stable gray balance (and when isn't that important?) I do a second round in i1Profiler with a target built with 2502 spot colors. I downloaded that target from X-Rites home page, but now I can't find it there. But I've attached it here.
Place that CXF file in the spot color folder that you'll find in X-Rite's Application Support area. After you have created your first profile, choose to do an optimization. You can then choose spot colors and here you can select this file. Print it out, measure and i1Profiler will rebuild your profile with a better gray balance.
But as it is still built mostly with the color inks, you will still have a problem with metameric failure when you present your images under other lights than daylight.
-
If light fastness is important to you, then you should take a look on the ImagePrint B&W print samples that Aardenburg tested. As these profiles don't use any yellow ink, they are more stable than Epson ABW. Even the ImagePrint colour samples were more stable when you use a x900 printer, as the IP profiles use less yellow and more orange ink, which is a more stable ink.
As the tinting feature in ImagePrint is very important to our customers, we can't use a monochrome ink set. If you're only printing your own images, you might find an ink set that's OK for all of your prints, but we have to be able to give an image a slightly cool tone in the shadow, a bit warmer in the mid tones and a neutral tone in the highlights for one customer, a warm tone for the whole image for another one and so one. As I can save these tints, I can apply the same look when we make a new print some months later.
Thanks for reminding me of that quality, Stefan. It suggests to me that ImagePrint (and QTR too, I suppose) make more intelligent use of the OEM ink set than do Epson themselves. And, yes, lightfastness is an important characteristic to me.
You know, it's funny. A few days ago I was perfectly happy printing with Epson's ABW. Now I am quite conflicted!
-
Thanks man,
I don't seem to have any problem with gray balance with color prints with my 8300 and the X-Rite 2033 patch target and my color is right on.
But as you say I wouldn't use the normal icc workflow for black and white prints due to the metamerism failure. It is not as bad as with Epson printers that use a lot more color ink and for some reason not as good as my HPZ ( which can use a color toning method for very neutral prints with no metamerism failure that i can see, until you go warm with them then it does show up ).
That's why I use the True Black and White solution for Canon. When I have all the color inks turned off and send this grayscale file to TBW the results are totally neutral on both matte and gloss fiber media. You can see in the sliders for each color channel that no color is used. I have a feeling that the Canon driver using RGB does use color inks because when even sending a grayscale file over there, or a color file with all color zeroed out, the print comes back cooler, so it must not be using just the black and two grays as Bowhaus does.
It's odd but that's the only reason I can see for the poor Canon results and the excellent TBW neutrality with no metamerism failure (and I"ve looked for it).
John
-
Dean,
I custom made my own target with not just 256 gray patches in it but also very subtle color added into the gray as well.
This is how you let the printer to define weahter it is 128 128 128 and 128 126 128
Something like that
The reason why I did this was because I had a client he shot with wet plate.
We scanned it and want to reproduce the color from the web plate which is the hardest thing I have everydone in my life........
The color shift between highlights and shadows are totally different, but not in a harsh way.
Aaron
-
Dean,
I custom made my own target with not just 256 gray patches in it but also very subtle color added into the gray as well.
This is how you let the printer to define weahter it is 128 128 128 and 128 126 128
Aaron
This is exactly why the spot colour chart that I downloaded from X-Rite is so good. It is adapted to the profile that was created in the first place.
-
Hi Jeff,
sorry, have been off the forums for a few days..
appreciate your concern regarding longetivity of K7 selenium and other non-pure-carbon inkets..this issue has been dealt with before and there is a lot of info out there..
Please see this link:
http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?84883-Permanence-of-non-carbon-sepia-Piezography&highlight=cone
Aardenburg imaging further describes his criteria (which are great and very strict) where he states that all Piezo K7 inks, under "normal" collector display conditions, should last for 100+ years without "noticeable" shift...Carbon is the best at 140 ML hours but the real issue for me is how many ML hours do you really need? I would only hope that my work is worthy to be viewed by someone for that long besides someone in my family! I prefer the tonality of K7 selenium printed on Canson Platine (non-OBA) and Canson Baryta (some OBA) so I print.
The real story here is that Mark at Aardenburg does great work; however, a close reading of his findings is needed to understand how they relate to your printmaking needs.
To further aid your B&W exploration, there was an excellent article written by Jon posted on the agnostic print:
http://theagnosticprint.org/the-state-of-the-state-of-the-arts-in-black-white/
You will find several print makers referenced here who can make some prints for you so that you can truly see and compare before you decide.
Going back to another question regarding Imageprint and color print quality from a different poster... I agree with Stefan. Even with contemporary Lightroom, Epson 4900, OSX, I1Profiler profiles, I find the image quality better with Imageprint. That is why I purchased it. For me, the real difference was in the quarter tones..I especially noticed this with portraits that had higher contrast ranges when I was striving for "translucent" shadow luminance and skin "touchability"..sorry for the cheesy words, I am trying to express what I saw - I would not part with my $$ if I didn't see a meaning (to me) difference.
Also in agreement with Stefan, I was tired of subtle changes that happened in Apple/Adobe/Epson color management as these vendors evolved their software and systems over the last X years. I lost a fair amount of time and effort figuring out how Photoshop's latest color management behavior changed on Apple's latest version of OSX. Imageprint took that variable away.
Anyway, hope this helps in your search...
Regards,
George
-
Thanks for the perspective (and the resource links), George. It's always good to be reminded of the context in which issues like print permanence exist. More is better, of course. But to allow that issue, alone, to dictate a very narrow range of artistic materials seems perhaps a little overdone for most of us.
After countless hours over the last week researching ImagePrint, QTR, and Piezography - at one point my browser had 44 tabs open - I have decided to give Cone's ink sets (and the associated QTR RIP) a shot. The sample images I ordered from Cone arrived in yesterday's mail and, based upon those, I placed an order for the K7 Warm Neutral ink set. I went with the "MPS" system as the closest analog to Epson's own ABW product, allowing me to continue printing on both matte and non-matte media. I'm excited to see what the next stage in this little adventure will produce!
-
After countless hours over the last week researching ImagePrint, QTR, and Piezography - at one point my browser had 44 tabs open - I have decided to give Cone's ink sets (and the associated QTR RIP) a shot. The sample images I ordered from Cone arrived in yesterday's mail and, based upon those, I placed an order for the K7 Warm Neutral ink set. I went with the "MPS" system as the closest analog to Epson's own ABW product, allowing me to continue printing on both matte and non-matte media. I'm excited to see what the next stage in this little adventure will produce!
I think that the skill of the user to extract all of the quality that's in high quality system as ImagePrint, QTR, and Piezography is more important than the actual system. After you have used the system you've chosen for some time, you learn how to optimize your image for that system.
We have all recommended different systems. It might be because we are familiar with one system and when we try out another system we don't give it enough time to get past that system's odd parts.
Stefan
-
Try Mirage Print. Fully functioning for 14 days. Yes, then you need the dongle.
-
Was surprised to read about the good results with TBW - software that I was unaware of. I will definitely give it a try..... always a good idea to poke my nose into the printing forum. As for IP I can't imagine it ever being worth its unbelievable cost given the newer generation of printers. I had 7 and used it with a 7600 and always found that I could do equally well using my profiles and printing skills. Top that off with poor support and there isn't a chance I would put my money in that direction. Moot point now as I've switched to Canon after clogging with my 9900 which would have required a service call on my dime..... better to just throw the printer away!
Victor
-
As for IP I can't imagine it ever being worth its unbelievable cost given the newer generation of printers. I had 7 and used it with a 7600 and always found that I could do equally well using my profiles and printing skills.
Victor
For B&W? No way. Either didn't you use the program as it's supposed, or your standards are much lower than mine.
As I said before, I do a lot of printer profiling. For that I print a chart with around 2000 patches, which I find to be the optimum test chart. More patches don't give me better quality. I then measure the chart three or four times, depending on the surface. For a smooth surface I use only three measurements, for rough surfaces I use four. I then average these measurements in a program called ColorAnt. After that I can control the quality of the measurements in that program, and perhaps change to another media type. Then I bring the measurements back to i1Profiler to build the profile. I get a perfect profile for colour prints. I don't know how I could improve the quality of the profiles I create. The new i1Pro2 is also an improvement, with it's double light system.
Still, the differences in quality are huge when I compare a B&W print made with such a profile and a print made with ImagePrint.
-
For B&W? No way. Either didn't you use the program as it's supposed, or your standards are much lower than mine.
Speak only for yourself and your standards and don't make assumptions about my profile skills or my ability to use IP. I have been printing probably longer than you've been alive and could care less about your profile skills. When it comes to B&W the final print becomes very subjective - ya know.... eye of the beholder. So, again, I'll speak for myself and state again that I could get as good results with my printing skills and profiles as I could with IP. and..... I also use the latest Xrite software with i1pro2 and a minimum of 3500 patches. Regardless..... that was then this is now.... and IP ain't worth the money..... PERIOD!
Victor
-
Speak only for yourself and your standards and don't make assumptions about my profile skills or my ability to use IP. I have been printing probably longer than you've been alive and could care less about your profile skills. When it comes to B&W the final print becomes very subjective - ya know.... eye of the beholder. So, again, I'll speak for myself and state again that I could get as good results with my printing skills and profiles as I could with IP. and..... I also use the latest Xrite software with i1pro2 and a minimum of 3500 patches. Regardless..... that was then this is now.... and IP ain't worth the money..... PERIOD!
Victor
OK, I started out in the sixties with B&W printing. Been working as a professional photographer since the mid seventies. Nowadays I make my living as a printer for some of the most demanding, quality conscious photographers in Sweden and one or two photographers in U.S.
I can see a major difference in quality between a B&W print made by Epson's normal printing path and a print made by Imageprint. If you can't, it's OK with me. But you can't say that Imageprint isn't worth the money. I do this for a living, every krona I spend I have to know that it increases my income. I've tested all of the workflow options that has been mentioned in this thread, except for QTR, and I haven't found any reason to change.
Best regards
Stefan
-
OK, I started out in the sixties with B&W printing. Been working as a professional photographer since the mid seventies. Nowadays I make my living as a printer for some of the most demanding, quality conscious photographers in Sweden and one or two photographers in U.S.
I can see a major difference in quality between a B&W print made by Epson's normal printing path and a print made by Imageprint. If you can't, it's OK with me. But you can't say that Imageprint isn't worth the money. I do this for a living, every krona I spend I have to know that it increases my income. I've tested all of the workflow options that has been mentioned in this thread, except for QTR, and I haven't found any reason to change.
Best regards
Stefan
Thanks Stefan,
I'm just starting out and IP was recommended by a mentor. I didn't want to spend the money , but penny. Wise pound foolish I will " suck it up" and purchase it. However, everytime I read about alternatives and negative comments about on all threads and forums, I get nervous about it. Then I read ur posts and realize it is the right
purchase to make.
I think alternatives to the software are great for competition and believe that those options work well for others when they have the ability to "customize" or tailor the software to their own needs. I would rather be shooting and PP than fiddling with profiles, testing paper and making targets. The software will free up my time for what I enjoy doing! I get it now!
-
I would rather be shooting and PP than fiddling with profiles, testing paper and making targets. The software will free up my time for what I enjoy doing! I get it now!
I'm happy to read that. And the more you print with the program, the better you will become. I think that too many is looking nervously around and asking should I use this or that program. For me, it's more important to really understand how to get the best quality out of a file. It took me some time to really understand how I should optimize my workflow for a specific paper. That's important.
-
OK, I started out in the sixties with B&W printing. Been working as a professional photographer since the mid seventies. Nowadays I make my living as a printer for some of the most demanding, quality conscious photographers in Sweden and one or two photographers in U.S.
I can see a major difference in quality between a B&W print made by Epson's normal printing path and a print made by Imageprint. If you can't, it's OK with me. But you can't say that Imageprint isn't worth the money. I do this for a living, every krona I spend I have to know that it increases my income. I've tested all of the workflow options that has been mentioned in this thread, except for QTR, and I haven't found any reason to change.
Best regards
Stefan
I left my post by saying IP wasn't worth the money..... Period!...... and I still mean it. You have all the skills to easily produce a print equally as good as IP so why not just do it? Your customers would never see the difference between what you can produce on your own and what you do with IP - and a workflow that could be just as easy. You have only given yourself that software crutch.... expensive crutch that's not needed. I don't know anyone who uses IP and I know a lot of printers who do a fair amount of BW. Horses for courses...... if you gotta have it then you gotta have it..... I don't need it..
Best in the future......
Victor
-
I left my post by saying IP wasn't worth the money..... Period!...... and I still mean it. You have all the skills to easily produce a print equally as good as IP so why not just do it? Your customers would never see the difference between what you can produce on your own and what you do with IP - and a workflow that could be just as easy. I don't need it..
Best in the future......
Victor
Don't you think we have tested? We've done prints both through the Epson driver with a normal colour profile, with Epson advanced B&W and with IP. Those of our customers that are skilled printers in the darkroom prefer the IP prints 8 out of 10 times. And we work faster as it easier for us to get a perfect paper size, a perfect layout and we don't have to create a profile for each and every paper we use. And we use a lot of different papers.
So if you don't like Imageprint that's OK with me. You don't need it, but I do. I can make better looking prints that will last a lot longer in a shorter time.
-
Years ago I took ownership of an Epson 9600. I had just upgraded all my Mac computers to OS 10.2 and Epson did not support that OS yet. Rather than partition a hard drive or buy an older computer, I bought ImagePrint (v6 I think) as a solution. It was expensive (~$2800) but felt I could make my money back (I did).
The B&W printing of IP is excellent, and its toning & split toning is nice. I think you'll like that feature.
The paper profiles were excellent, but I used only three or four Epson papers while using that printer. Having dozens more made no difference to my workflow.
When I switched to a Canon iPF8xxx printer, Colorbyte Software said they were only a few months away from releasing a version supporting those printers. It never happened.
-
When I switched to a Canon iPF8xxx printer, Colorbyte Software said they were only a few months away from releasing a version supporting those printers. It never happened.
It's been a joke of ours for a long time, every time we ask when they will support a new printer or when they will release a new upgrade, ColorByte says that the release is just around the corner. We often ask ourselves how long is a corner in Florida.
-
It's been a joke of ours for a long time, every time we ask when they will support a new printer or when they will release a new upgrade, ColorByte says that the release is just around the corner. We often ask ourselves how long is a corner in Florida.
LOL
Yeah, I was very surprised by their carrot-on-a-stick responses. I also used their Trident scanning software for my Howtek HR8000 drum scanner. Users were promised for years that a release for OSX was coming "very soon". Never happened.
-
But I have to read the charts three or four times, make an average of these measurements and then smooth the values in a wonderful program called ColorAnt and then create a profile. After a few hours work I might have a better profile than the one provided by Colorbyte.
What software are you using to build the custom profiles and, how are your saturated blues compared to IP profiles?
-
What software are you using to build the custom profiles and, how are your saturated blues compared to IP profiles?
I'm still using i1Profiler, but I really like the improvements I get when I use Colorant. So I have downloaded a demo of CoPrA and will run some tests with that program. I think I've read that you like the results better with CoPrA than with i1Profiler.
With some papers I can see an improvement of the blue colors with my profiles, less magentaish. I don't know why, but some of the IP profiles have this tendency of blue turns magenta. If they use the same calibrator and software, all of their profiles ought to have the same problem.
-
I'm still using i1Profiler, but I really like the improvements I get when I use Colorant.
Haven't used IP since version 6. But all their profiles appeared to me to exhibit an issue with saturated blues shifting a bit magenta which I never saw on my custom profiles in either X-rite or GMB software. Maybe it got fixed, I bitched to them about it many years ago.
-
Haven't used IP since version 6. But all their profiles appeared to me to exhibit an issue with saturated blues shifting a bit magenta which I never saw on my custom profiles in either X-rite or GMB software. Maybe it got fixed, I bitched to them about it many years ago.
But today you prefer CoPrA, I've read. What are the advantages that you see over i1Profiler? I hate their interface, I miss a lot of features that we had in ProfileMaker, but is the quality of the profiles improved?
-
But today you prefer CoPrA, I've read.
For CMYK output to a very specific kind of press, yes.
-
For CMYK output to a very specific kind of press, yes.
OK, so you don't see any quality advantage with profiles for inkjet printing? I will do my own comparison, but good to hear your opinion.
-
OK, so you don't see any quality advantage with profiles for inkjet printing? I will do my own comparison, but good to hear your opinion.
I did an initial test for RGB inkjet and both looked good, but 99% of the work was CMYK with that product. I’m still using i1P for RGB profiles for the time being.
-
I love ImagePrint, especially for B&W printing using custom B&W paper profiles. Think of it--you can accurately soft proof grayscale images, something that is not possible with ABW. I prefer to do the soft proofing in Photoshop, which is a simple matter with IP's Profile Manager. Also, when selecting a B&W profile in Photoshop, be sure to check the "Preserve Numbers" box. This gives extremely deep and rich shadows, which can show tremendous detail after proper adjustment of contrast and shadows. Of course, as with any software, there is a learning curve. Don't expect perfect results right from the start.
Rob
-
I love ImagePrint, especially for B&W printing using custom B&W paper profiles. Think of it--you can accurately soft proof grayscale images, something that is not possible with ABW.
Rob
You can still softproof using QTR prepared ABW profiles and Windows OS. We've been around this issue a lot of times since MacOS locked users out of this ability.
-
You can still softproof using QTR prepared ABW profiles and Windows OS. We've been around this issue a lot of times since MacOS locked users out of this ability.
Windows :(
-
You can still softproof using QTR prepared ABW profiles and Windows OS. We've been around this issue a lot of times since MacOS locked users out of this ability.
As I understand it, soft proofing with QTR is only available for Windows users inside PS, but even so, it requires invoking a program other than LR or PS to accomplish the task. Regardless, like some other folks in this thread, the B&W output from ImagePrint is superior to anything that I am able to get from ABW. You just have to take time to learn how to get the most from it. However, once you have mastered that, it is really fast and simple to use.
Rob
-
As I understand it, soft proofing with QTR is only available for Windows users inside PS, but even so, it requires invoking a program other than LR or PS to accomplish the task.
Only to prepare the profile. Once you have the profile, soft proofing works just fine in either PS or LR. Eric Chan prepared ABW profiles once upon a time that were excellent but stopped right about the time that Mac OS blocked their use. Making QTR profiles is pretty easy and can be done with either an i1Pro or ColorMunki.
-
QTR profiles in PS on the Mac just dandy
-
Only to prepare the profile. Once you have the profile, soft proofing works just fine in either PS or LR. Eric Chan prepared ABW profiles once upon a time that were excellent but stopped right about the time that Mac OS blocked their use. Making QTR profiles is pretty easy and can be done with either an i1Pro or ColorMunki.
But I have to create them, validate them, probably do some minor adjustments to them and I have to do this for each and every paper that I use. For those of you that have one or two papers that you use for all of your images, for those of you that enjoy making your own profiles, it's probably OK. I think I would use QTR if I didn't have to print on 10-15 different papers, if time saved for me equals more job that I can charge my customers, if I haven't been printing with ImagePrint since more that 12 years and really know how to get the best out of the program.
Often this discussions on which program is the best ends up in a ”My father is stronger than your father” level. There's room for different solutions as we all have different workflows, place different demands on quality vs. ease of use and so on.
-
@Stefan - no question that if you are running a printing business ImagePrint makes sense. I print on maybe 3 papers total so I can take the time to generate the best possible profiles using ArgyllCMS. For me the cost of ImagePrint cannot be justified.
-
@Stefan - no question that if you are running a printing business ImagePrint makes sense. I print on maybe 3 papers total so I can take the time to generate the best possible profiles using ArgyllCMS. For me the cost of ImagePrint cannot be justified.
Of course, as I said, if I just did this for my own prints I would look into QTR. We've been looking interested in Piezography, but haven't had the possibility to have one printer dedicated to B&W. Also we have to be able to reprint an image months, maybe years after the first print. As we save such jobs so that we can later reprint them with exakt the same settings, the only thing that can vary is the ink. We've found that the Epson original inks are very stable from batch to batch. Is it the same with Piezography inks? Anyone who has reprinted a job with new inks and really compared the two prints?
-
as one of many who have provided custom B&W large format ink printing for many years, and in my case several iterations of Cone inks, from the 1st, to Piezotones, to the current K7 sets, which have also evolved since introduction, I can state unequivocally I have never had batch inconsistency with their ink, and I've gone through a lot if it.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/
-
as one of many who have provided custom B&W large format ink printing for many years, and in my case several iterations of Cone inks, from the 1st, to Piezotones, to the current K7 sets, which have also evolved since introduction, I can state unequivocally I have never had batch inconsistency with their ink, and I've gone through a lot if it.
Is this a visual or instrument (measured) analysis?
-
measured, definitely.. linearized custom ink setups in Ergosoft.. and continually relinearized and check against the previous state.
I'm sure there have been inconsistency instances, even with OEM inks or any inks. Obvioulsy the initial sundance ink is a long and very old story and no longer fair burdening on Cone. . . But my experiences with their inks have been great. Can't say the same for a few others, and no I won't name them.
-
as one of many who have provided custom B&W large format ink printing for many years, and in my case several iterations of Cone inks, from the 1st, to Piezotones, to the current K7 sets, which have also evolved since introduction, I can state unequivocally I have never had batch inconsistency with their ink, and I've gone through a lot if it.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/
Interesting, I was really curious about this, not questioning them.
Best
Stefan
www.profiler.nu
-
I'll have more to say a little bit down the road - which I'll likely post in a separate thread - but as the OP I'd just like to say that after several days of printing with Cone's Piezography K7 Warm Neutral inkset, I am deeply impressed.
This was not a road I expected to be on. I started this thread out of the - rather casual - wonder if a RIP made a difference. And now I'm here.
Epiphanies find us when we least expect them...
-
Try taking a look at LaserSoft's New mac based print solution for Epson and Canon printers. PrinTao 8 is much like a RIP but much easier to learn. Very straight forward interface. ICC profiles from the major paper manufacturers are already in the software making them easily accessible. There are many features to explain but trying the demo might be the best solution. Read the User guide as it provides more info. Plus, did I mention, there is not a dongle in sight.
printao8.com
-
I have to agree. I've been through about 12 years of Cone bw ink permutations and I have never had any color inconsistencies with any of the ink sets. I have had color differences with a couple of batches of Hahnemuhle rag papers years ago. It was minor difference but it was there. I was told that the difference was the result of the paper being produced in different countries and that the water used in the paper manufacture was the variable. I confirmed it was the paper by printing the same print with various printers and inks on the different batches of paper.
As to making a warm neutral print. I have recently discovered that using the Epson Hot Press and Cold Press media with the Carbon K7 inkjet gives me a beautiful warm neutral result. I personally like the look of these inks on the Canson media, which is warmer, but it's nice to have two great distinct hues to work with in this one mono inkset. That has made me think that there might be a whole other area of research to be done producing papers with coatings to neutralize many of the existing ink formulations out there. We know that some can give cooler results and some warmer with the same ink set up. Of course not much research goes into developing media specific hue for monochrome printing but it would be cool if someone did.
You know we bitch about all kinds of things with all of these inkjet systems, but it is really pretty remarkable that you can buy a cart of Epson, HP, Cone, or Canon ink from one year to the next and not see troubling batch inconsistency. That has to be difficult for them and they deserve a lot of credit. Remember how everything changed from batch to batch back in our analogue darkroom days, especially color. I have heard of significant color inconsistency with Mis and some of the other inexpensive color pigments out there however. Guess you get what you pay for.
john
-
Try taking a look at LaserSoft's New mac based print solution for Epson and Canon printers. PrinTao 8 is much like a RIP but much easier to learn. Very straight forward interface. ICC profiles from the major paper manufacturers are already in the software making them easily accessible. There are many features to explain but trying the demo might be the best solution. Read the User guide as it provides more info. Plus, did I mention, there is not a dongle in sight.
printao8.com
By definition a RIP becomes the driver, among other things creating the printer language from the image data... Printao8, like some other products that have come out, utilizes the OEM drivers, so not technically a RIP. There are many advantages to using these tools nonetheless, layout options, multiple image placement, sizing, etc.. the most desirable feature in my opinion is taking control of color management to the printer, avoiding imaging app or OS color management confusions. Printao8 may be wonderful, I haven't tried it, I can say from experience though that the QTR Print Tool is also great for these tasks, including the ability to confidently print profile charts with no conversions.
-
Yea it's a lot like Q-Image which has been around long enough to have worked out the quirks. I wonder how the output sharpening that is so good in Q-Image compares to this.
-
Try taking a look at LaserSoft's New mac based print solution for Epson and Canon printers. PrinTao 8 is much like a RIP but much easier to learn. Very straight forward interface. ICC profiles from the major paper manufacturers are already in the software making them easily accessible. There are many features to explain but trying the demo might be the best solution. Read the User guide as it provides more info. Plus, did I mention, there is not a dongle in sight.
printao8.com
I did try PrinTao 8 (Epson 3880 OEM ink) and found that compared to QTR and ImagePrint, I liked the results the least with both matte and luster papers. Midtone gray seemed to suffer the most, it just didn't have the pop that I was able to get with QTR or ImagePrint.
-
Has anyone tried Printfab? I take it it is an actual RIP. I've been fooling around with the new version and it appears to give more detailed shadows and deeper blacks than the Epson driver. I'll need to measure to find out for sure. Another interesting feature that Printfab has (and I guess Imageprint has) is the ability to limit and substitute colors. Maybe limiting the Epson yellow?
-
Has anyone tried Printfab? I take it it is an actual RIP. I've been fooling around with the new version and it appears to give more detailed shadows and deeper blacks than the Epson driver. I'll need to measure to find out for sure. Another interesting feature that I guess Imageprint has is the ability to limit and substitute colors. Maybe limiting the Epson yellow?
This is how it works. The profiles that ColorByte builds uses less of the yellow and more of the orange ink. We found out that this made that the prints didn't fade as fast when we sent some samples to Aardenburg. Here is what John from Colorbyte wrote about it: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_weakest_link.shtml
For us that's an important difference.
-
I used the GMG Oris, and the EFI, and they both do the job I need. The Oris is a pro volume RIP, and the EFI is a pain in the rear to deal with, but does a decent job. But I am changing printers and I have to pay lots for upgrades, so looking for a alternate solution. I too have a spectro and swatches, but if I can afford it, I would take the RIP over 2-3 days of testing re- linearization etc. But lately the well is dry, so we will see :-)
Both also SWOP certified contract proofers.
-
I used the GMG Oris, and the EFI, and they both do the job I need. The Oris is a pro volume RIP, and the EFI is a pain in the rear to deal with, but does a decent job. But I am changing printers and I have to pay lots for upgrades, so looking for a alternate solution. I too have a spectro and swatches, but if I can afford it, I would take the RIP over 2-3 days of testing re- linearization etc. But lately the well is dry, so we will see :-)
Both also SWOP certified contract proofers.
I use both EFI and ImagePrint, but for different purposes. For me ImagePrint is a fine art RIP, a RIP I use when the inkjet print is the final product. EFI is a product I use for proofing. As ImagePrint doesn't support my SureColor 70600, I have to use the EFI t drive that printer. Would I use ImagePrint if it supported that printer? Of course. I would change within a minute after Colorbyte releases a version that supported that printer, no matter what price.
I've spent too many hours trying to build a good linearization and profile for different medias. To be able to download a good profile and just print, instead of spending hours of work, which I can't charge, would be a blessing.
-
This is how it works. The profiles that ColorByte builds uses less of the yellow and more of the orange ink. We found out that this made that the prints didn't fade as fast when we sent some samples to Aardenburg. Here is what John from Colorbyte wrote about it: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_weakest_link.shtml
For us that's an important difference.
Following that development then on the Aardenburg-Imaging and the LuLa sites I thought; quite like the HP engineers arranged the ink mixing in the HP Z models that were introduced in 2006. Actually they did it more refined with 11 inks including a yellow pigment that is more fade resistant + (one) light cyan pigment with adapted fade properties.
Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst
http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
November 2014 update, 680+ inkjet media white spectral plots