ImagePrint... Really?

[deanwork]

Thanks man,

I don't seem to have any problem with gray balance with color prints with my 8300 and the X-Rite 2033 patch target and my color is right on.

But as you say I wouldn't use the normal icc workflow for black and white prints due to the metamerism failure. It is not as bad as with Epson printers that use a lot more color ink and for some reason not as good as my HPZ ( which can use a color toning method for very neutral prints with no metamerism failure that i can see, until you go warm with them then it does show up ).

That's why I use the True Black and White solution for Canon. When I have all the color inks turned off and send this grayscale file to TBW the results are totally neutral on both matte and gloss fiber media. You can see in the sliders for each color channel that no color is used. I have a feeling that the Canon driver using RGB does use color inks because when even sending a grayscale file over there, or a color file with all color zeroed out, the print comes back cooler, so it  must not be using just the black and two grays as Bowhaus does.

It's odd but that's the only reason I can see for the poor Canon results and the excellent TBW neutrality with no metamerism failure (and I"ve looked for it).

John

[aaronchan]

Dean,

I custom made my own target with not just 256 gray patches in it but also very subtle color added into the gray as well.
This is how you let the printer to define weahter it is 128 128 128 and 128 126 128
Something like that
The reason why I did this was because I had a client he shot with wet plate.
We scanned it and want to reproduce the color from the web plate which is the hardest thing I have everydone in my life........
The color shift between highlights and shadows are totally different, but not in a harsh way.

Aaron

[Stefan Ohlsson]

Dean,

I custom made my own target with not just 256 gray patches in it but also very subtle color added into the gray as well.
This is how you let the printer to define weahter it is 128 128 128 and 128 126 128
Aaron

This is exactly why the spot colour chart that I downloaded from X-Rite is so good. It is adapted to the profile that was created in the first place.

[Georgecp]

Hi Jeff,

sorry, have been off the forums for a few days..

appreciate your concern regarding longetivity of K7 selenium and other non-pure-carbon inkets..this issue has been dealt with before and there is a lot of info out there..

Please see this link:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?84883-Permanence-of-non-carbon-sepia-Piezography&highlight=cone

Aardenburg imaging further describes his criteria (which are great and very strict) where he states that all Piezo K7 inks, under "normal" collector display conditions, should last for 100+ years without "noticeable" shift...Carbon is the best at 140 ML hours but the real issue for me is how many ML hours do you really need?  I would only hope that my work is worthy to be viewed by someone for that long besides someone in my family!  I prefer the tonality of K7 selenium printed on Canson Platine (non-OBA) and Canson Baryta (some OBA) so I print.

The real story here is that Mark at Aardenburg does great work; however, a close reading of his findings is needed to understand how they relate to your printmaking needs.

To further aid your B&W exploration, there was an excellent article written by Jon posted on the agnostic print:

http://theagnosticprint.org/the-state-of-the-state-of-the-arts-in-black-white/

You will find several print makers referenced here who can make some prints for you so that you can truly see and compare before you decide.

Going back to another question regarding Imageprint and color print quality from a different poster... I agree with Stefan.  Even with contemporary Lightroom, Epson 4900, OSX, I1Profiler profiles, I find the image quality better with Imageprint.  That is why I purchased it.  For me, the real difference was in the quarter tones..I especially noticed this with portraits that had higher contrast ranges when I was striving for "translucent" shadow luminance and skin "touchability"..sorry for the cheesy words, I am trying to express what I saw - I would not part with my $$ if I didn't see a meaning (to me) difference.

Also in agreement with Stefan, I was tired of subtle changes that happened in Apple/Adobe/Epson color management as these vendors evolved their software and systems over the last X years.  I lost a fair amount of time and effort figuring out how Photoshop's latest color management behavior changed on Apple's latest version of OSX.  Imageprint took that variable away.

Anyway, hope this helps in your search...

Regards,
George

[Jager]

Thanks for the perspective (and the resource links), George.  It's always good to be reminded of the context in which issues like print permanence exist.  More is better, of course.  But to allow that issue, alone, to dictate a very narrow range of artistic materials seems perhaps a little overdone for most of us.

After countless hours over the last week researching ImagePrint, QTR, and Piezography - at one point my browser had 44 tabs open - I have decided to give Cone's ink sets (and the associated QTR RIP) a shot.  The sample images I ordered from Cone arrived in yesterday's mail and, based upon those, I placed an order for the K7 Warm Neutral ink set.  I went with the "MPS" system as the closest analog to Epson's own ABW product, allowing me to continue printing on both matte and non-matte media.  I'm excited to see what the next stage in this little adventure will produce!

[Stefan Ohlsson]

After countless hours over the last week researching ImagePrint, QTR, and Piezography - at one point my browser had 44 tabs open - I have decided to give Cone's ink sets (and the associated QTR RIP) a shot.  The sample images I ordered from Cone arrived in yesterday's mail and, based upon those, I placed an order for the K7 Warm Neutral ink set.  I went with the "MPS" system as the closest analog to Epson's own ABW product, allowing me to continue printing on both matte and non-matte media.  I'm excited to see what the next stage in this little adventure will produce!

I think that the skill of the user to extract all of the quality that's in high quality system as ImagePrint, QTR, and Piezography is more important than the actual system. After you have used the system you've chosen for some time, you learn how to optimize your image for that system.

We have all recommended different systems. It might be because we are familiar with one system and when we try out another system we don't give it enough time to get past that system's odd parts.

Stefan

[BobShaw]

Try Mirage Print. Fully functioning for 14 days. Yes, then you need the dongle.

[vjbelle]

Was surprised to read about the good results with TBW - software that I was unaware of.  I will definitely give it a try..... always a good idea to poke my nose into the printing forum.  As for IP I can't imagine it ever being worth its unbelievable cost given the newer generation of printers.  I had 7 and used it with a 7600 and always found that I could do equally well using my profiles and printing skills.  Top that off with poor support and there isn't a chance I would put my money in that direction.   Moot point now as I've switched to Canon after clogging with my 9900 which would have required a service call on my dime..... better to just throw the printer away!

Victor

[Stefan Ohlsson]

As for IP I can't imagine it ever being worth its unbelievable cost given the newer generation of printers.  I had 7 and used it with a 7600 and always found that I could do equally well using my profiles and printing skills. 

Victor

For B&W? No way. Either didn't you use the program as it's supposed, or your standards are much lower than mine.

As I said before, I do a lot of printer profiling. For that I print a chart with around 2000 patches, which I find to be the optimum test chart. More patches don't give me better quality. I then measure the chart three or four times, depending on the surface. For a smooth surface I use only three measurements, for rough surfaces I use four. I then average these measurements in a program called ColorAnt. After that I can control the quality of the measurements in that program, and perhaps change to another media type. Then I bring the measurements back to i1Profiler to build the profile. I get a perfect profile for colour prints. I don't  know how I could improve the quality of the profiles I create. The new i1Pro2 is also an improvement, with it's double light system.

Still, the differences in quality are huge when I compare a B&W print made with such a profile and a print made with ImagePrint.

[vjbelle]

For B&W? No way. Either didn't you use the program as it's supposed, or your standards are much lower than mine.

Speak only for yourself and your standards and don't make assumptions about my profile skills or my ability to use IP.  I have been printing probably longer than you've been alive and could care less about your profile skills.  When it comes to B&W the final print becomes very subjective - ya know.... eye of the beholder.  So, again, I'll speak for myself and state again that I could get as good results with my printing skills and profiles as I could with IP.  and..... I also use the latest Xrite software with i1pro2 and a minimum of 3500 patches.  Regardless..... that was then this is now.... and IP ain't worth the money..... PERIOD!

Victor

[Stefan Ohlsson]

Speak only for yourself and your standards and don't make assumptions about my profile skills or my ability to use IP.  I have been printing probably longer than you've been alive and could care less about your profile skills.  When it comes to B&W the final print becomes very subjective - ya know.... eye of the beholder.  So, again, I'll speak for myself and state again that I could get as good results with my printing skills and profiles as I could with IP.  and..... I also use the latest Xrite software with i1pro2 and a minimum of 3500 patches.  Regardless..... that was then this is now.... and IP ain't worth the money..... PERIOD!

Victor

OK, I started out in the sixties with B&W printing. Been working as a professional photographer since the mid seventies. Nowadays I make my living as a printer for some of the most demanding, quality conscious photographers in Sweden and one or two photographers in U.S.

I can see a major difference in quality between a B&W print made by Epson's normal printing path and a print made by Imageprint. If you can't, it's OK with me. But you can't say that Imageprint isn't worth the money. I do this for a living, every krona I spend I have to know that it increases my income. I've tested all of the workflow options that has been mentioned in this thread, except for QTR, and I haven't found any reason to change.

Best regards

Stefan

[Jglaser757]

OK, I started out in the sixties with B&W printing. Been working as a professional photographer since the mid seventies. Nowadays I make my living as a printer for some of the most demanding, quality conscious photographers in Sweden and one or two photographers in U.S.

I can see a major difference in quality between a B&W print made by Epson's normal printing path and a print made by Imageprint. If you can't, it's OK with me. But you can't say that Imageprint isn't worth the money. I do this for a living, every krona I spend I have to know that it increases my income. I've tested all of the workflow options that has been mentioned in this thread, except for QTR, and I haven't found any reason to change.

Best regards

Stefan

Thanks Stefan,

I'm just starting out and IP was recommended by a mentor. I didn't want to spend the money , but penny. Wise pound foolish I will " suck it up" and purchase it. However, everytime I read about alternatives and negative comments about on all threads and forums, I get nervous about it. Then I read ur posts and realize it is the right
purchase to make.

I think alternatives to the software are great for competition and believe that those options work well for others when they have the ability to "customize" or tailor the software to their own needs. I would rather be shooting and PP than fiddling with profiles, testing paper and making targets. The software will free up my time for what I enjoy doing! I get it now!

[Stefan Ohlsson]

I would rather be shooting and PP than fiddling with profiles, testing paper and making targets. The software will free up my time for what I enjoy doing! I get it now!

I'm happy to read that. And the more you print with the program, the better you will become. I think that too many is looking nervously around and asking should I use this or that program. For me, it's more important to really understand how to get the best quality out of a file. It took me some time to really understand how I should optimize my workflow for a specific paper. That's important.

[vjbelle]

OK, I started out in the sixties with B&W printing. Been working as a professional photographer since the mid seventies. Nowadays I make my living as a printer for some of the most demanding, quality conscious photographers in Sweden and one or two photographers in U.S.

I can see a major difference in quality between a B&W print made by Epson's normal printing path and a print made by Imageprint. If you can't, it's OK with me. But you can't say that Imageprint isn't worth the money. I do this for a living, every krona I spend I have to know that it increases my income. I've tested all of the workflow options that has been mentioned in this thread, except for QTR, and I haven't found any reason to change.

Best regards

Stefan

I left my post by saying IP wasn't worth the money..... Period!...... and I still mean it.  You have all the skills to easily produce a print equally as good as IP so why not just do it?  Your customers would never see the difference between what you can produce on your own and what you do with IP - and a workflow that could be just as easy.  You have only given yourself that software crutch.... expensive crutch that's not needed.  I don't know anyone who uses IP and I know a lot of printers who do a fair amount of BW.  Horses for courses...... if you gotta have it then you gotta have it.....  I don't need it..

Best in the future......

Victor

[Stefan Ohlsson]

I left my post by saying IP wasn't worth the money..... Period!...... and I still mean it.  You have all the skills to easily produce a print equally as good as IP so why not just do it?  Your customers would never see the difference between what you can produce on your own and what you do with IP - and a workflow that could be just as easy.    I don't need it..

Best in the future......

Victor

Don't you think we have tested? We've done prints both through the Epson driver with a normal colour profile, with Epson advanced B&W and with IP. Those of our customers that are skilled printers in the darkroom prefer the IP prints 8 out of 10 times. And we work faster as it easier for us to get a perfect paper size, a perfect layout and we don't have to create a profile for each and every paper we use. And we use a lot of different papers.

So if you don't like Imageprint that's OK with me. You don't need it, but I do. I can make better looking prints that will last a lot longer in a shorter time.

[Chris_Brown]

Years ago I took ownership of an Epson 9600. I had just upgraded all my Mac computers to OS 10.2 and Epson did not support that OS yet. Rather than partition a hard drive or buy an older computer, I bought ImagePrint (v6 I think) as a solution. It was expensive (~$2800) but felt I could make my money back (I did).

The B&W printing of IP is excellent, and its toning & split toning is nice. I think you'll like that feature.

The paper profiles were excellent, but I used only three or four Epson papers while using that printer. Having dozens more made no difference to my workflow.

When I switched to a Canon iPF8xxx printer, Colorbyte Software said they were only a few months away from releasing a version supporting those printers. It never happened.

[Stefan Ohlsson]

When I switched to a Canon iPF8xxx printer, Colorbyte Software said they were only a few months away from releasing a version supporting those printers. It never happened.

It's been a joke of ours for a long time, every time we ask when they will support a new printer or when they will release a new upgrade, ColorByte says that the release is just around the corner. We often ask ourselves how long is a corner in Florida.

[Chris_Brown]

It's been a joke of ours for a long time, every time we ask when they will support a new printer or when they will release a new upgrade, ColorByte says that the release is just around the corner. We often ask ourselves how long is a corner in Florida.

LOL

Yeah, I was very surprised by their carrot-on-a-stick responses. I also used their Trident scanning software for my Howtek HR8000 drum scanner. Users were promised for years that a release for OSX was coming "very soon". Never happened.

[digitaldog]

But I have to read the charts three or four times, make an average of these measurements and then smooth the values in a wonderful program called ColorAnt and then create a profile. After a few hours work I might have a better profile than the one provided by Colorbyte.

What software are you using to build the custom profiles and, how are your saturated blues compared to IP profiles?

[Stefan Ohlsson]

What software are you using to build the custom profiles and, how are your saturated blues compared to IP profiles?

I'm still using i1Profiler, but I really like the improvements I get when I use Colorant. So I have downloaded a demo of CoPrA and will run some tests with that program. I think I've read that you like the results better with CoPrA than with i1Profiler.

With some papers I can see an improvement of the blue colors with my profiles, less magentaish. I don't know why, but some of the IP profiles have this tendency of blue turns magenta. If they use the same calibrator and software, all of their profiles ought to have the same problem.