Advise needed : Imageprint or not for a new printer

[Ernst Dinkla]

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

[deanwork]

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

[PeterAit]

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.

[digitaldog]

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

[dgberg]

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 Dinkla]

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

[deanwork]

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

[Ernst Dinkla]

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

[BobShaw]

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.

[ruud]

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