I've been following discussions of ImagePrint on this site and others for several years now, without feeling there is definitive evidence one way or the other about its print quality compared to manufacturer printer drivers. I acquired an Epson Surecolor P-9000 in December 2019, so I finally decided to download ImagePrint 10's trial version and see for myself. I might add that for at least five years before acquiring my own large format printer, all my prints, including for numerous exhibitions, were printed on Epson printers through ImagePrint at a service bureau, with final files prepared and supplied by me. I loved the quality.
My testing was concerned solely with print quality, not with the myriad of other attractive features that ImagePrint offers. My standard exhibition prints are architectural images, 24 to 40 inches in height by varying widths, produced from very large Phase One stitched files. I tested images at native resolutions as I was not testing for uprezzing or interpolation either. I also tested small prints from Nikon DSLR files, portraits of family members at normal small sizes--8" x 10". I used Epson Premium Luster (260) paper for convenience for all the tests, as it emerges from the printer very flat and it makes it is easy to see fine detail in the images.
I looked primarily at resolution, fine detail, and dithering. I normally use Epson's finest photo settings: 2880x1440 dot placement, unidirectional printing and normally finest details off (as recommended for photos in the Epson manual). I used my own custom profile for the paper and and ImagePrint's supplied profile for 2880 dot placement and daylight viewing.
The results: For large images which I printed at native 360 dpi input resolution, I saw virtually no difference between the Epson driver and ImagePrint. If anything, the dither pattern in fine detail (visible to my eyes only through an 8 or 10 times loupe) was smoother with the Epson driver. Slight advantage to Epson here.
For small images which I could print with native 720 dpi input resolution, at 2880x1440 dot placement, ImagePrint produced a smoother dither pattern with more accurate detail (but again only easily seen with a magnifying loupe of 8 or 10 power). Advantage to ImagePrint here. However, when I did what Epson advises against, and turned on Finest Detail, the ImagePrint advantage was erased and the Epson dither pattern and detail rendering matched the ImagePrint version of the print. I still think ImagePrint in this case had a very slightly smoother dither, but the difference was barely visible under a magnifying loupe.
I also looked at profile differences. My own custom profile for the Epson Luster (260) paper was made with an XRite iOnePro2 measuring system using a 2033 patch set. The ImagePrint profile was very slightly different and this was visible most easily on large prints. The ImagePrint profile produced slightly lighter prints (equal to a few points higher midway on a Photoshop curve) but with less red saturation throughout the test image. I think the ImagePrint profile more closely matched the screen image on my calibrated wide gamut NEC monitor in terms of image brightness. However, the profile differences are very small.
I also tried to examine claims that ImagePrint produces a more neutral B&W image. I normally print my B&W images using an RGB workflow which I find easier to control than Epson's ABW workflow. I printed a large, full tonal range, architectural B&W image three ways: With my normal Epson RGB workflow, with Epson's ABW system (using the Dark setting), and with an ImagePrint's gray profile for the Luster paper. I found no difference in image tone visible between the three resulting prints. It was impossible to pinpoint any difference in the three prints. (As a side test, I also used Epson's print cost utility to examine the ink usage of the Epson RGB print versus the Epson ABW print. Both images used all of the inks, many in very small amounts. The Epson RGB print uses more Cyan and less Light Cyan than the Epson ABW print, and more Light black and less Photo Black as well, plus some difference in Magenta usage. But when you look at the prints it is very difficult to impossible to see any difference in print colour. Sometimes I thought the Epson ABW print was very slightly less bluish in daylight but I'm still not sure.) I saw no basis for the claim that ImagePrint's gray drive produced a more neutral image.
So to sum up, looking at the issue of print quality alone, ImagePrint may have a very tiny advantage in dithering pattern in very fine detail for high resolution images (native 720 dpi images) but it's one that would be very hard for most people with normal eyesight to see. And, of course, the supplied profile(s) from my very limited experience appears to be very good. So while I was prepared to spend the considerable sum to acquire ImagePrint, I did not find it offered any advantage in print quality that would lead me to acquire the software. Nevertheless, those who would use its many other significant features, such as layout ease, multiple profiles, etc., may come to a different conclusion than I did.
David Kaufman
(
www.davidkaufmanphotography.com)