ImagePrint Review and Demo

[foxhole510]

 I have been using ImagePrint since version 5 ( I think ) and at the core are the consistently finest icc profiles I have used. If you've profiled and calibrated your monitor and use IP your prints are as close to WYSIWYG than anything else out there. I have often found other print drivers failing to match certain colors especially blues and yellows but IP does. I know a few people who use IP and I don't hear any complaints. Tech support is excellent. Yes its expensive but so is any other good piece of equipment. S

[N80]

$695 for small format. It is true that good tools can be expensive. It can also be true that a tool can cost more than it is worth.

I'm curious and this question is made in ignorance, but is Print Tool, by the QTR folks, compare in any way with IP?

[FrankStark]

A quick response to N80 and Bart. Thanks for your comments.

N80, a separate post or thread might be a good idea. I will leave that for the time being. My purposes are practical and not polemic, but such a thread would not have to be the lattter.   

Bart, thanks for suggestions about alternative software. Both products you mention are on my radar. For Parallels one also needs a copy of the Windows operating system. Since I  prefer 7 to 10, that would have to be sorted that out, but I may go in this direction. I have Bootcamp on my old late 2009 iMac, but I am not sure if I want to print from that machine rather than my newer and faster one, and in some ways it would be less convenient than Parallels.   

Thanks
Frank

[narikin]

I have used Imageprint on 11880, and found their color profiles to be inferior to what I (a non expert - i1 Pro and iSiS) could build with x-rite*.

They are, after all,  canned profiles. Fancy ones, but canned - not your specific machine, unless you pay for them.

I sold my licence on. Colorbyte didn't even have an 11880 (which was then current) to profile on anymore.

No wish to denigrate them too much, I'm happy they exist, but their color profiles need(ed) a serious upgrade. If I were printing b/w, maybe feel very differently.

(*that said X-Rite seem to have given up on releasing updates for this, probably going to announce something new we all have to pay for over again!)

[gigdagefg]

I've commented before, so I repeat
If you have a perfectly calibrated monitor (I have EZIO), and you have Imageprint, your Epson printer will produce exactly what is on your monitor on every paper that they have created a profile.
To me that is worth the cost

Stanley

[Martin Kristiansen]

I have used IP for many years. Images I printed 8 years ago I can print today and they look exactly the same. 

Most importantly I have never had to jump through the hoops of changing operating systems and Adobe upgrades that break things and take teams of paper, testing, time on forums, mailing adobe and waiting for solutions. That frustration ended for me with my first purchase of IP.

I place the image. Choose the profile and make a print. No problems at all, not even one for all those years. Adobe and Mac can do what they like. I am sorted. Without going into quality issues, where I actually think IP is better than what I was getting on home profiling systems back when I still used them, the sheer reliability and immunity from the regular issues I see on forums around the world makes it a no brainer for me. I don't have weeks to figure out what went wrong when Adobe change something. I either get the print to my client and get paid or it all goes tits up. Simple.

[dchew]

Boy am I glad I did this! It helped with my original question about sizing algorithms and also confirmed something I though about IP. I don't think it will be meaningful to post images of the prints since they will go through multiple gyrations from camera to web. You will have to rely on my descriptions.

I took Bart's rings and placed them on a 13x19 custom layout in LR at various sizes:
1.389" (720 ppi)
2" (500 ppi)
2.778" (360 ppi)
4" (250 ppi)
8" (125 ppi)

I printed it on my 7900 three ways:

• Through LR without "print resolution" checked so it went to the printer @ native sizes listed above.
• With "print resolution" checked at 360ppi so LR resized everything to 360.
• I imported the file into PS and converted it from png to tif without resizing (I don't think IP will print a png). Then I opened up IP and dropped the image into a 13x19 sheet and resized them "on the fly" to the same sizes, just like Kevin did in the video.

What I see:
It is obvious that Schewe's recommendation in LR to check that little "print resolution" box improves results of this test dramatically, especially when upsizing the image. The two small images, 1.389" and 2", look close, but you can see a few "extra" rings in the 2" image printed natively (print #1). The 2.778" image looks exactly the same either way. But the 4" and 8" images have quite a few added rings when native resolutions are sent to the printer. By my count 24 extra rings appear on the 8" image (printer upsized from 125 to 360).

As for the IP test, the output looks exactly like #2; printing through LR with "print resolution" set to 360. The main difference is the IP version is more neutral, which is of course why I like IP in the first place for B&W printing.

So this test supports Kevin's workflow. There seems to be no reason to output images to the exact size for IP. Sharpening may be a different thing, but that will be a tougher test for me to think about.

There is a "but." I've always felt that IP's screen renderings, while very color-accurate, are not very detail-accurate. Attached is a screen shot of what these rings look like in IP. Just ridiculous. This may be because I am on a MBP retina, but it looks the same regardless of whether I move it over to my NEC PA241w or on the MBP screen. So when I get to the sharpening question, I won't be able to judge anything from the screen. It will have to be 100% via test prints. Edit: When you go into the sharpening mode in IP, it does render a very nice accurate image.

Thanks again Bart, the image really helped.

Dave

Note: I used Canson's canned profile through LR and IP's profile through IP. I did not use my own profile through LR.

Hi Dave,

The attached file will tell you if down-sampling is done well, non-linear gamma can cause artifacts at 100% size.

Cheers,
Bart

[dchew]

BTW, this is what the rings look like in LR. Several artifacts, but not nearly as bad as the view inside IP.

Dave

[Kevin Raber]

I am sorry I am not been able to respond to this warm topic earlier. Chris and I have been traveling and while he is now home I am on my way to Photokina and working on another project or two. There is good discussion on this topic and thank you to everyone for your contributions and suggestions and especially to David who's done some serious testing. For me ImagePrint works and fits ito my workflow very well. It's not for everyone, and it does cost a bit. But, I am very busy, I travel, work on the website and many other projects. I well I love to get into the technical side of things with printing I just don't have the time. So, for me as well as photographers such as Mark Dubovoy and many others ImagePrint is my solution.

 As I've always said find what works best for you. In a few weeks Chris and I will be producing a new master video with a heavy emphasis on fine art printing. I don't want to give too much away at this point but I assure you that this video should be a lot of fun and all of us can learn something. In the meantime look for a lot of news and posts from Photokina next week.