Imageprint, Scaling and Output Sharpening

[Jeff Kott]

I've been using Imageprint with my 17 inch Epson printers for over 10 years.

After reading Dan's article, it seems I've been wasting lots of storage space as I do exactly what Dan says I don't need to do.

I always resize each image to the print size at 360 dpi and output sharpen using Photokit Output Sharpener (remember that) at 70% strength. I couldn't be happier with my results, but I end up with multiple files of the same image at different print sizes with different output sharpening. 

Dan suggests that I should be editing the raw file to taste at camera resolution, open the file in Imageprint and have Imageprint resize the image. But what about output sharpening which I thought was dependent on print size and resolution?

[digitaldog]

Yes, output sharpening is (should be based) on the size/resolution of the final image for print and the kind of print and paper used. But that isn't to say it can't be recalculated as we see in say Lightroom and of course, it's based (should be based) on the capture sharpening.
Been years and years since I had to use ImagePrint. It doesn't even conduct or 'know' anything about capture sharpening, again as say LR does. So it's sharpening workflow is to me, questionable.
In terms of the workflow, let's start at the very beginning of the concept:
http://creativepro.com/out-of-gamut-thoughts-a-sharpening-workflow/

[JeffS]

I have used IP for years, and agree with all of Dan's points.  But unless I missed them in the very long essay, there are other notable advantages for me. 

First is the inclusion of full time soft proofing, which works much better than Lightroom’s implementation, and which is a real time and paper saver. And the option to choose paper profiles based on different lighting conditions (and including greyscale) likewise makes printing more precise and efficient.

IP also gets me out of the interdependent Apple-Adobe-Epson chain.  This avoids many past problems created when one or more of these companies changed some aspect of their operating system or functionality, as when Apple screwed up color management, which couldn’t be turned off, and didn’t notify users. Now I don’t worry about forgetting or messing up any printer setting or control, or dealing with any other unknown background variable.  I can contact IP for any issues or concerns, and their technical team is highly responsive, sometimes even hearing directly from John Pannozzo, the owner. 

Jeff

[digitaldog]

” Apple screwed up color management, which couldn’t be turned off, and didn’t notify users.”?
I don't recall that; when and what happened.

[rdonson]

When I read Dan's article it came across to me as an advertisement.  Just me probably.  It would have been more meaningful to me if he'd compared it to Qimage One or another product.  Something that won't break my piggy bank. 

IP is likely a solid product but I don't do professional printing.   I've ditched my HP Z3100 and these days I'm happy to print on my Epson SC P800 which may seem like a toy to some. 

[JeffS]

” Apple screwed up color management, which couldn’t be turned off, and didn’t notify users.”?
I don't recall that; when and what happened.

After 10.6 or so, I think...

https://www.xrite.com/en/service-support/printer_driver_not_allowing_color_management_to_be_controlled_or_shut_off_on_the_mac_os_x_system

The folks at Chromix will tell you about their (and their customer’s) frustrations. Apple either didn’t admit, recognize or address the issue for quite some time.

This was just one example where a change in the operating system or product version made communications between hardware/software difficult, requiring the user to become sleuth and to become very cautious about ‘upgrades’ before checking forums for problems.

Jeff

[digitaldog]

It is true that beginning in Mac 10.6 and higher some printer drivers do not allow you to switch off the Color Management.

Bug: some printer drivers.
I don't recall my customers having those frustrations but over the years Epson/Apple/Adobe, it could get messy.

[John Hollenberg]

In the article I see unsupported statements such as:

"ColorByte has written their own drivers and dithering algorithms for ImagePrint Black, and they are significantly better than what the manufacturers have done."

"There is a noticeable difference between an image sent through ImagePrint Black and the same image through manufacturer drivers. ImagePrint’s version is less grainy and has more color depth, even with every precaution taken to avoid the detrimental effects of the manufacturer driver."

I would like to see a test using one of the latest printers comparing Imageprint Black against the manufacturer driver using custom profiles for the paper.  Blind evaluation of the prints would determine the truth or falsity of the above statements. Absent that these statements are hearsay.  I don't doubt that ImagePrint may have been better a decade or more ago.  The question is whether it is still true today.

[John Hollenberg]

I don't doubt that ImagePrint may have been better a decade or more ago.  The question is whether it is still true today.

I did find an article on LL from 10 years ago doing just such a comparison.  At that time the author did a careful blind comparison and found Imageprint slightly better to clearly better:

https://luminous-landscape.com/in-search-of-the-ultimate-inkjet-print/

Again, the question is whether that holds true today.

John

[Dan Wells]

I've done exactly those tests - the problem is that it's impossible to show the result on a 1000-pixel JPEG... I looked carefully at prints from IP Black and the same image off the Canon driver, and IP had a very noticeable advantage. Once you take a picture of the print and compress it onto the web, you can no longer see it. Once you're looking at it on a phone or tablet screen, it's worse.

[Jeff Kott]

Hi Dan,
Could you please reply to my original question as to how you deal with output sharpening when you edit your images at camera resolution and use IP to resize?
Thanks,
Jeff

[Dan Wells]

I do the capture sharpening in DxO, my raw converter (using Nik Sharpener), and let IP handle the output sharpening (which it's good at).

For all except REALLY big prints, it works great (and avoids the multiple files). For prints above 24x36" (especially 40x60"), I use Perfect Resize to output size and resolution, then use Nik for the output sharpener, and feed it into IP set not to touch anything.

IP's internal functions make everything SO much easier, and the only time there is any quality at all to be gained by bypassing some of them is in the largest prints on the sharpest papers. For the few times per year I make a truly oversize print, I use things like Perfect Resize and run it through Nik's output sharpening.

[Jeff Kott]

Thanks - I think I'll run a couple test prints at my normal print size (16x24) to see if I see a difference.

[ramd41@gmail.com]

Bug: some printer drivers.
I don't recall my customers having those frustrations but over the years Epson/Apple/Adobe, it could get messy.

Andrew - It was well reported at the time and gave quite a few printers fits.  While your comments are knowledgeable and usually helpful, there is some obvious hostility to everything positive stated about ImagePrint whether by Dan Wells or others.  Not sure where that comes from, but it comes across with a level of arrogance that is really unbecoming.

[digitaldog]

Andrew - It was well reported at the time and gave quite a few printers fits.  While your comments are knowledgeable and usually helpful, there is some obvious hostility to everything positive stated about ImagePrint whether by Dan Wells or others.  Not sure where that comes from, but it comes across with a level of arrogance that is really unbecoming.

No such hostility; I'll bet you I was using IP before nearly anyone here was including Dan. As I said, I worked with John P. in the days it only ran under OS9. ColorByte was a sponsor and involved with the Digital Learning Center I setup and several PDN PhotoExpo's a decade + ago.

I do sometimes provide hostility towards statements that are geared more for marketing than factual data about products.
IP was a must have product in the day. It's less necessary today but I still believe it's a good product. I think that's a positive statement but again, it's expensive and functionality that was unique to it is no longer close to unique.