Epson Printing: LR vs PS vs Qimage revisited

[bjanes]

There was an older thread discussing Qimage vs Lightroom for printing and that discussion devolved mainly to differences in the interface rather than quality of the results. Printer make was not discussed in any detail.

Epson printers are widely used and the general consensus is that one should send the image to the printer at the native resolution of the printer (360 and 720 pixels/inch) so as to avoid having the image resized by the printer driver which uses an inferior algorithm (? bilinear). I have been printing to my Epson 3880 mainly from LR mainly because of convenience and have generally been satisfied with the results.

A very well done series of studies on printing to the Epson 3880 was posted by Jim Kasson beginning on January 27, 2011. He confirmed that one should resize to the native resolution of the printer prior to printing and also demonstrated that there were significant differences in the quality of the resizing algorithms with these 3 software products.

In general, he obtained the best results with Qimage and the worst with LR. This was surprising to me, since I have been led to believe that LR uses excellent resizing algorithms, albeit with no user control. PS offers a number of resizing algorithms and Qimage has an extensive choice of algorithms.

That study is now 6 years old and the LR algorithms may have been updated in the interim, and Epson may have updated the algorithms for the latest printers. It is time to revisit this topic and I invite discussion. I haven't used Qimage, but it received excellent reviews and I plan to try it.

Bill

[Rand47]

I'm very interested to have Jeff Schewe and others weigh in on this.  Thanks for re-launching the topic.



Rand

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

There was an older thread discussing Qimage vs Lightroom for printing and that discussion devolved mainly to differences in the interface rather than quality of the results. Printer make was not discussed in any detail.

Epson printers are widely used and the general consensus is that one should send the image to the printer at the native resolution of the printer (360 and 720 pixels/inch) so as to avoid having the image resized by the printer driver which uses an inferior algorithm (? bilinear). I have been printing to my Epson 3880 mainly from LR mainly because of convenience and have generally been satisfied with the results.

A very well done series of studies on printing to the Epson 3880 was posted by Jim Kasson beginning on January 27, 2011. He confirmed that one should resize to the native resolution of the printer prior to printing and also demonstrated that there were significant differences in the quality of the resizing algorithms with these 3 software products.

In general, he obtained the best results with Qimage and the worst with LR. This was surprising to me, since I have been led to believe that LR uses excellent resizing algorithms, albeit with no user control. PS offers a number of resizing algorithms and Qimage has an extensive choice of algorithms.

Hi Bill,

My assumption is that the differences were/are due to the Resampling algorithms and the post-resampling 'Output sharpening' (if any is used). Lightroom's upsampling attempts to avoid halos, and as such produces results that are slightly less sharp / lower micro-contrast.

While Qimage offers many different methods, in practice one is likely to use only 'Hybrid SE' or Fusion resampling in most cases, the first being halo free and the latter with slight halos (which can counter softening due to resampling) but also good at sharp and curved edges.

Lightroom offers a few preset amounts of Output-sharpening, while Qimage offers a large range of settings and a choice between a USM type of sharpening and a very effective halo-free proprietary method called Smart Deep Focus Sharpening (DFS). So, besides the final effects, Qimage offers more choice (if needed).

That study is now 6 years old and the LR algorithms may have been updated in the interim, and Epson may have updated the algorithms for the latest printers. It is time to revisit this topic and I invite discussion. I haven't used Qimage, but it received excellent reviews and I plan to try it.

Good idea. There may have been some improvements in the software output algorithms and dithering/weaving quality used by the printer driver and, besides the mechanical properties of the printer (paper feed mechanism and head positioning), the media/ink interaction more than likely has also improved.

It would be useful to compare upsampled/downsampled/native resolution output quality. Also, not just bi-tonal (horizontal/vertical) bars, but also (edges) at an angle, and sinusoidal patterns, and random organic detail (like leafs against the sky and against other leafs, or grass, or rocks, or tree bark). Also, the sensitivity to banding/posterization of smooth gradients is worthwhile to keep an eye on.

Cheers,
Bart

P.S. There might also be subtle differences between 8-bit/channel and 16-b/ch driver input data, since most print paths are 8-b/ch. Rounding or truncating to 8-b/ch makes a difference, but maybe the ink dithering patterns hide or overshadow it.

[bjanes]

I'm very interested to have Jeff Schewe and others weigh in on this.  Thanks for re-launching the topic.

I agree that Jeff's input would be most welcome. Perhaps his latest thoughts in print are in Chapter 3 of The Digital Print (copyright 2014), starting at page 130. There might be online updates of which I am unaware. He confirms that one should change the resolution of the print (360 or 720 ppi) before sending the image to the printing pipeline. As I understand Jeff's presentation, the resizing is done in the operating system's printing pipeline rather by the printer driver itself, which merely reports the native resolution of the printer. I have read elsewhere that the re-sampling algorithm's location may differ between the Mac and Windows. This site is important, since, depending on its location, one would need to update the operating system, the printer driver, or perhaps the printer firmware to get the latest re-sampling algorithms.

Bill

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

I agree that Jeff's input would be most welcome. Perhaps his latest thoughts in print are in Chapter 3 of The Digital Print (copyright 2014), starting at page 130. There might be online updates of which I am unaware. He confirms that one should change the resolution of the print (360 or 720 ppi) before sending the image to the printing pipeline. As I understand Jeff's presentation, the resizing is done in the operating system's printing pipeline rather by the printer driver itself, which merely reports the native resolution of the printer. I have read elsewhere that the re-sampling algorithm's location may differ between the Mac and Windows. This site is important, since, depending on its location, one would need to update the operating system, the printer driver, or perhaps the printer firmware to get the latest re-sampling algorithms.

Yes, this could perhaps introduce some difference between MacOS drivers and Windows print path or drivers. MacOS drivers relegate part of the processing to OS functionality, which then sends the resampled data to the printer's dithering functionality and for mechanical control, while Windows OS drivers usually do the resampling processing themselves if not fed by 300/360 or 600/720 PPI input for the requested output size.

The printing application can first resample the data to the native printer driver's resolution before sending it to the drivers, thus theoretically taking out that variable.

Cheers,
Bart

[Schewe]

I'm very interested to have Jeff Schewe and others weigh in on this.  Thanks for re-launching the topic.

Actually, I think Jim's comparison was done before some tweaking of the LR resampling algorithms but I can't be too sure...I'm also pretty sure that was before Photoshop got the Preserve Details on the resampling...

In any event, regardless of which of the app you use to print and regardless of the printer you are using, you are ALWAYS better to use a quality resampling method to get the PPI to match the reported resolution of the printer to avoid resampling of the system's print pipeline's nearest neighbor or bilinear–I never got a coherent answer from Apple/MSFT which one it was...so, for Epson pro it's 360/720PPI and for Canon/HP it's 300/600PPI.

The primary reason is to avoid high frequency interference patterns (moiré) and edge chattering with diagonal or circle edges. It's also optimal to do the final output sharpening AFTER the image is set to the correct output resolution.

As for picking a winner in the best of breed app, sorry, I've given up doing that stuff :~) I'm perfectly happy using Lightroom's printing module and with careful processing and sharpening I get excellent results–good enough that I don't feel a compulsion to see if the grass is greener.

As for The Digital Print, there are no updates as there's really been very little if any changes to the art of digital printing since the book was released. Maybe someday there'll be a need for a revision, but not yet.

Happy printing!

[jrsforums]

Actually, I think Jim's comparison was done before some tweaking of the LR resampling algorithms but I can't be too sure...I'm also pretty sure that was before Photoshop got the Preserve Details on the resampling...

In any event, regardless of which of the app you use to print and regardless of the printer you are using, you are ALWAYS better to use a quality resampling method to get the PPI to match the reported resolution of the printer to avoid resampling of the system's print pipeline's nearest neighbor or bilinear–I never got a coherent answer from Apple/MSFT which one it was...so, for Epson pro it's 360/720PPI and for Canon/HP it's 300/600PPI.

The primary reason is to avoid high frequency interference patterns (moiré) and edge chattering with diagonal or circle edges. It's also optimal to do the final output sharpening AFTER the image is set to the correct output resolution.

As for picking a winner in the best of breed app, sorry, I've given up doing that stuff :~) I'm perfectly happy using Lightroom's printing module and with careful processing and sharpening I get excellent results–good enough that I don't feel a compulsion to see if the grass is greener.

As for The Digital Print, there are no updates as there's really been very little if any changes to the art of digital printing since the book was released. Maybe someday there'll be a need for a revision, but not yet.

Happy printing!

Just curious, Jeff....Have you ever tried Qimage?

[bjanes]

As for picking a winner in the best of breed app, sorry, I've given up doing that stuff :~) I'm perfectly happy using Lightroom's printing module and with careful processing and sharpening I get excellent results–good enough that I don't feel a compulsion to see if the grass is greener.

As for The Digital Print, there are no updates as there's really been very little if any changes to the art of digital printing since the book was released. Maybe someday there'll be a need for a revision, but not yet.

Happy printing!

Jeff,

Thanks for your input. I know that you are pretty picky about image quality and it is reassuring that the LR printing pipeline is good enough for you, so it is likely good enough for me as well. As I said, I have been using the LR printing pipeline and have been satisfied with the results and do not look forward to changing my printing methods for some very minor advantage that would require a lot of additional work.

Regards,

Bill

[jrsforums]

Jeff,

Thanks for your input. I know that you are pretty picky about image quality and it is reassuring that the LR printing pipeline is good enough for you, so it is likely good enough for me as well. As I said, I have been using the LR printing pipeline and have been satisfied with the results and do not look forward to changing my printing methods for some very minor advantage that would require a lot of additional work.

Regards,

Bill

With all respect....A picky guy....Good enough without ever trying the alternative....I find that a strange response.

BTW...There may be some effort to learn Qimage, but the ease of use benefits and increased print quality easily offset the little effort of learning.

You started this asking to revisit the discussion and you propose ending it on the statement of a pro Adobe person who has been putting down Mike Chaney and Qimage for years? 

Jeff now recommends resampling to meet the printer reported resolution.  Chaney/Qimage had been proposing that for years and Jeff was one of the strongest proponents against it.....Because he never tried or tested it!

[Schewe]

Jeff now recommends resampling to meet the printer reported resolution.  Chaney/Qimage had been proposing that for years and Jeff was one of the strongest proponents against it.....Because he never tried or tested it!

With all due respect, I guess you haven't been paying attention lately...The Digital Print came out in 2013 and in it I mention Qimage Ultimate as well as a couple of other RIPs like ImagePrint and Quad Tone RIP for B&W. So, yes, I tested all of the products I wrote about in the book.

Regarding the resize/resample, heck I wrote about that back in 2011 in this article: The Right Print Resolution

And yes, at one point in time I disagreed with resampling. Decided to test it and proved to myself that it is indeed better to upsample or resize to supply the reported resolution to the print head. And that up sampling and then applying output sharpening is optimal and that outputting 720 with Finest Detail turned on for Epson or 600 with the proper high rez output for HP/Canon. I credit that debate and Mike Chaney for leading the charge regarding resize/resample and optimal output resolution. Pardon me if I didn't just accept it without actually testing it and proving it to myself :~)

I still prefer to print from Lightroom :~)

[etrigan63]

Hi all.

I use LR and Qimage and I have an Epson P5000. For my professional work, Qimage gives me excellent print quality and color rendition. I prefer the output from Qimage over that of LR. Plus, by using Qimage as my printing application, I don't have to learn a new way of printing if I switch between RAW processors (LR, C1Pro, On1 Photo RAW, Topaz Studio, and Macphun Luminar for Windows (future)).


This is, of course, an extremely unscientific comparison.

Carlos Echenique
Carlos Echenique Photography
Blog | Gallery | Flickr
OLYMPUS PEN F (BLACK) | OLYMPUS OM-D E-M1 II | A bunch of lenses and gear

[jrsforums]

With all due respect, I guess you haven't been paying attention lately...The Digital Print came out in 2013 and in it I mention Qimage Ultimate as well as a couple of other RIPs like ImagePrint and Quad Tone RIP for B&W. So, yes, I tested all of the products I wrote about in the book.

Regarding the resize/resample, heck I wrote about that back in 2011 in this article: The Right Print Resolution

And yes, at one point in time I disagreed with resampling. Decided to test it and proved to myself that it is indeed better to upsample or resize to supply the reported resolution to the print head. And that up sampling and then applying output sharpening is optimal and that outputting 720 with Finest Detail turned on for Epson or 600 with the proper high rez output for HP/Canon. I credit that debate and Mike Chaney for leading the charge regarding resize/resample and optimal output resolution. Pardon me if I didn't just accept it without actually testing it and proving it to myself :~)

I still prefer to print from Lightroom :~)

Jeff, thanks for the update.  In the Digital Print, you mention Qimage Ultimate on one page (315).  Lots of pictures, few words and a note that Q is windows only and you use Mac.  No mention of testing.

I had read the Right Print Resolution....When you made the big change, saw the light, came out of the closer....Whatever 🤣😀😂🙃  You do make a quick reference in the last line on Qimage.

I follow you pretty closely (no, not stalking😁) as I respect your knowledge. We have not always agreed, but that what eventual gets us closer to better understanding.

In all my readings, including above, I have and had never seen any reference to your testing and/or sharing output of QU vs LR or PS.  Also, to my knowledge, this is the first time I have seen you discuss that the driving force to your change was the debate (very long, years, with a lot of down putting) and for Mike Chaney for leading the way with the workflow and software for easy optimal output.

Those who have tested have found the work flow easy and superior output for initial print or multiples of differnt sizes.  Or does a good job of allowing you to sharpen for the screen and allowing resampling and output sharpening to be under the cover.  So areas it misses on is knowing what resolution is needed (Q figures out and sets it for you) with different paper, profile, driver settings, etc and remembering them so they pop-up the next time you chose those components...Just easy.  not to mention the great, easy to use flexible layouts and templates and borders to name afew. 

These capabilities in QU are available to PS.  Just prepare image up to output, but no resize or output sharpen.  Create a tiff for Q to use....All resizing and smart sharpening is automatically done on the way to the printer, with no change to original file....This can then be use for as many different sizes or variation you wish.

People who are happy with what they are doing either because the are just happy or don't want to spend the time trying out....So be it...Stay happy. For those willing to explore, thing about Qimage, listen to the people who are using it and have really done testing.  A little time will bring you big dividend in output and flexibility. And the Q community, including Mike is accessable and helpful to get you started and solve any misunderstandings

Ok. Good night. Thanks again for getting backJeff

[Schewe]

Lots of pictures, few words and a note that Q is windows only and you use Mac.  No mention of testing.

My mother always said if you can't say anything nice, keep your friggin' mouth shut. Obviously I don't always take her advice.

I tested ImagePrint for color vs custom profiles and Lightroom...I didn't see a benefit to IP's workflow for what was only a nominal difference (not even better on most images). I did test Qimage...and the workflow is complicated and convoluted. I did not test Qimage against low rez images, I tested printing the same high rez images I normally print. I really didn't see a huge difference...

I understand why the fans are fanatical for both RIPs. Qimage isn't technically a RIP because it still uses the printer's driver and doesn't directly control the print head. If the only other alternative was to print out of Photoshop I would take a closer look at both the IP and Qimage workflows because both are superior to the old tired one image at a time primitive method of printing from Photoshop. I can run Qimage well in Bootcamp or Parallels (which is what I did to do the tests and screenshots).

[jrsforums]

If you took umbrage with my remarks...Sorry.  your mom and mine were similar.  But she allowed active discussion and disagreement as long as civil.

Without knowing the details of you workflow and what you did on each side, features used , etc. It is impossible to comment on whether you optimally used what was available in Q. It's not difficult, just different.  Becomes very obvious and easy to use with just a little learning.

Agree, LR much better flow to PS.  LR resampling interpolation and sharpening are weak relative to Q.  Not the logic, PixefGenius had great concepts....Just use old tools and algorithms....And requires more effort to set up and reset up jobs.

[Ernst Dinkla]

The Qimage Plug-in for Photoshop and Lightroom make it easier to print Qimage style with both applications. If I read between the lines the Mac QU version might be more aimed at the printing features and less into image editing. Which would be a good marketing strategy.

Ernst, op de lei getypt.

[JimT1]

It's also optimal to do the final output sharpening AFTER the image is set to the correct output resolution.

Does this mean taking your image to Photoshop for resizing to your dimensions and setting the resolution to Canon 300/600PPI first, then sharpen and then finally print?

P.S. Just started reading The digital negative and plan to read the digital print next.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Does this mean taking your image to Photoshop for resizing to your dimensions and setting the resolution to Canon 300/600PPI first, then sharpen and then finally print?

Hi,

Depends on where your image comes from. If Lightroom is your source application, you could upsample to 300/600PPI with that.Then you could either use the LR sharpening presets, or proceed in Photoshop and apply sharpening there. If you'd use Qimage, then there is no need to upsample, just send the original output size and let Qimage handle everything from there on. The latter also has the benefit of smaller file size and better management of the print buffer memory (in addition to superior resampling and sharpening).

Cheers,
Bart

[Schewe]

Does this mean taking your image to Photoshop for resizing to your dimensions and setting the resolution to Canon 300/600PPI first, then sharpen and then finally print?

I do all my "normal" work on digital negatives in Lightroom and print from there using the Develop module's capture sharpening and then set the image size in the Print module. If the native resolution at the specified print size is below 300ppi then set the output resolution to 300 if above 300ppi at the print size, set the output resolution to 600ppi.The exact settings on the Canon to get the optimal resolution may very depending on the printer.

However, if I need to take the image from Lightroom > Photoshop to do more retouching than can be done in Lightroom, I'll save the layered image and bring it back into Lightroom for printing.

Hope the books help!

[JimT1]

The "right print resolution" article really drove the resampling in LR message home.  If you've stumbled this far into the thread looking for answers, I highly recommend the read.  I assume this info still holds true today from your response Jeff.  Thanks for reaffirming. 

Getting my images optimized for the best quality is a constant priority.  With changing technology, a lack of transparency sometimes on the best methods or ways to use software and even misinformation lurking the net, I many times wonder if I could be doing it a better way.  It's a bit of a struggle but a fun one at that.  I'm finally optimistic that I have most of the pieces in place to print images from the past few years to their potential. 

[Ernst Dinkla]

Hi,

Depends on where your image comes from. If Lightroom is your source application, you could upsample to 300/600PPI with that.Then you could either use the LR sharpening presets, or proceed in Photoshop and apply sharpening there. If you'd use Qimage, then there is no need to upsample, just send the original output size and let Qimage handle everything from there on. The latter also has the benefit of smaller file size and better management of the print buffer memory (in addition to superior resampling and sharpening).

Cheers,
Bart

Not to forget the border choices possible in QU at print time that do not add to the original file size. A 50mm border added to a 500x700 mm print image means 37% more data.

BTW, it looks like the QU website is crashed today. Edit; Home pages online again, fora still off.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
March 2017 update, 750+ inkjet media white spectral plots