Printing Software

[Guest stnami]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Many of us are still in the woods with printing. getting great results with profiles etc for specific printers etc.

Is software worth the cost? I figure the hit and miss technique could cost just as much!!

Or is it that these printing software companies are like consultans, borrow your watch and then everytime you need tgo know the time you pay them?

Generally I am happy with what I get but it could be better......................

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[hdrmd]

The top software is expensive, but quite good. My experience is using the ImagePrint RIP from Colorbyte Software. They provide an almost limitles set of profiles. B&W prints using this software on Epson printers are matchless in my experience. DR

[Guest malland]

Imants:

 

I also use ImagePrint on my Epson 9800. Expensive, but very good.

 

—Mitch/Bangkok

http://www.flickr.com/photos/10268776@N00/

[nzav]

RIPs are expensive, but deliver better results than the OEM printer drivers. You need to keep in mind that your printer, like your display, is an output device and subject to variations from unit to unit. They will also change their color output characteristics with time, change of inks, or different papers.

 

There are several printer profiling systems that will calibrate your printer to the ink, and more importantly, the paper that you are using and will build a profile for that combination.

 

Many photographers do not stick with the OEM papers and when they stray from those, all bets are off on color accurate prints. RIPs have canned profiles for many more papers, but they are still generic and open to errors due to age of papers, manufacturing batch, ink batch, print head deterioration, etc.

 

The bottom line is if you want consistant color accuracy, and are very picky about your prints, then you want to check out the printer profiling systems from companies like GretagMacbeth (X-Rite). Avoid the scanner-based profilers; they are just not as reliable as the spectrophotometer-based systems.

[R10dreamer]

Sorry NZAV but I will have to disagree with you. NO WAY that even a $1,500 program can compete with the thousands of dollars and years of knowledge that a RIP service provides. Todays inks and papers ARE very very consistent and the microscopically subtle differences from unit to unit are imperceptible. If you care about your prints spend the $800-$1,500 and buy the profiles from ImagePrint or equal. It will be the best money you ever spent if printing a print that meets your vision is your goal. Spending hours clicking on hundreds of little squares just doesn't cut it when you are dealing with millions of colors.

[Guest stnami]

I figured that information would be scant in regards to printing, I suppose there is a heap of us in the dark and wishing the problem away.

So we have ImagePrint expensive and possible the answer, with a calibrated monitor of course, Any others

We have the manufacturers paper profiles, they seem to work after a bit of playing around

The scanner type ie sIlverfast a bit of a no go zone

At 1500 or so plus ink, printer for many a pro Lab would be cheaper, considering the number of prints made per year.

I never had a real problem as most was done by the end user, my prints in B&W with rag paper and manufacturers profiles have been very good( could be heaps better), colour a bit poorer. Real big stuff has been farmed out to labs.

I guess it's back to searching.....thanks for the info, it does help

[nzav]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Sorry NZAV but I will have to disagree with you. NO WAY that even a $1,500 program can compete with the thousands of dollars and years of knowledge that a RIP service provides. Todays inks and papers ARE very very consistent and the microscopically subtle differences from unit to unit are imperceptible. If you care about your prints spend the $800-$1,500 and buy the profiles from ImagePrint or equal. It will be the best money you ever spent if printing a print that meets your vision is your goal. Spending hours clicking on hundreds of little squares just doesn't cut it when you are dealing with millions of colors.

 

Obviously, Gary, it is your prerogative to disagree with me. It is also obvious to me you have never tried any of the better profiling applications with a decent spectrophotometer system. I have never spent "hours clicking on hundreds of little squares" to produce excellent profiles that match my (profiled) display very closely. I have however, spent more time learning about printing and why custom profiles are important.

 

Some systems perform all the readings automatically, while others read a line of patches in a single pass. I must also disagree with you regarding the consumables (ink & paper). They do vary, and change with age as well as batch runs. Have you ever noticed the expiration dates on the packaged consumables?

 

I am not saying that ImagePrint, or whatever your favorite RIP may be, is not a viable method of getting good looking prints, and I will grant you that it is better than the bundled OEM printer profiles which address only the printer's own papers. But I am also saying there are other ways that may produce better and more accurate profiles.

 

The advantage of doing your own profiling is complete freedom to use any paper, in any surface, with any printer and ink, and be able to produce a good profile in minutes, not hours.

 

I offered my comments as a point of view, not as an argument. If you find the canned profiles in a RIP fill your needs completely, then great; it works for you! Please don't assume they are the answer to my needs or everyone else's on this forum. I am not advocating or even recommending any specific system, but clearly a profile built with my printers, inks, and paper selections are going to fit my needs better. Just as clearly, this method may be ideal for others interested in making the best prints their printers can produce.

[R10dreamer]

So Nzav, which printer/paper profiler do you use?

[nzav]

So Nzav, which printer/paper profiler do you use?

 

Gary,

 

The short answer is several. You asked a direct question and I must apologize for not giving you a direct response, but there are valid reasons why I cannot be more specific. What I can say is there are several systems I have tested that can do an excellent job; some of them are used by the companies producing RIP software in its development.

 

One disadvantage to using a RIP I can't emphasize enough is it locks you into one specific printer/ink combination with a limited selection of papers. If you change printers, you need another RIP, if you switch to a paper that is not included in your original RIP package, you must buy a module for it; and so it goes for a change in ink. A decent RIP can also cost almost as much as a high-end desktop printer.

 

A profiling system is open ended; you can switch printers, inks, and papers without concern whether a RIP will handle them. For example, I may be using an Epson printer, but may need to print on Hahnemühle, Kodak, Moab, Ilford, Somerset, or any other non-Epson paper. If I decide I decide to try a third party ink like Lyson for example, again the profiling system will handle it. All I have to do is print a color patch test sheet, let it dry thoroughly, then spend several minutes running the patches through the spectrophotometer. This results in a very accurate profile reflecting my printing conditions exactly, not conditions in a lab somewhere else.

 

To be fair, a RIP has an advantage in the printing of gang prints such as wedding, portrait, sports teams, etc. You can do the same in Photoshop with a bit more effort. But since my work is limited to commercial and fine art, I do not need that capability, and if I do need to print multiple images, I can still do it.

 

As I said before, profiling may not be for everybody, but it is the most flexible method for accurate printer output that I know of.

[fjmcsu]

I hae used a RIP(PosterPrint-Ergosoft) & profiling software(Color GPS-Ergosoft) now since version 9.0(now on 12.4) for about 5-6 years.I have done thousands of spectrophotometer readings, spent countless hours linearizing & have developed what I think are excellent profiles for my papers.Even once done I still update them with peridic linearizations-especially B & W pigment printing). To that end, it's ALOT of work & if you aren't into it then I would think it would be better to purchase profiles.I love this end of the spectrum almost as much as the photographic side but it is time consuming, expensive & requires a steep learning curve(although there are simpler & newer software programs released periodicaly).In the end, I guess it's up to each person to decide to go that route.From my mind it has been challenging but worth the effort!

[35mmSummicron]

just want to add my two cents.

 

i have been using an Epson 2200 printer for a few years now for my commercial portfolio and art prints for private sale.

 

for the first few years of owning the 2200 i thought that having a custom profile produced the quality images i was after in inkjet printing (i have owned several generations of Epson printers)

 

several months ago i FINALLY purchased imageprint v6 because i wanted to print on different papers and getting additional custom profiles made would have been costly compared to the software purchase.

 

i will have to say that HANDS DOWN prints made through imageprint are in another league of printing compared to the standard epson driver+custom profile. not only are the prints sharper, cleaner in gradiations and tones, but black and white prints are COMPLETELY neutral. whatever algorthms they are using, they have done an AMAZING job. this is an expensive piece of software, but in my opinion, is well worth the cost.

 

prior to purchasing the RIP i had contemplated on upgrading to the 3800 w/K3 inks, but i am now satisfied that my 2200 w/ImagePrint will last me a lot longer because of the quality images i am able to produce.

 

hope this helps.

 

andy

[xrogers]

I used ImagePrint v6 on a 2200 for several years, and it does indeed provide far better results than the standard Epson drivers. It not only improves color prints, but also makes quality black and white results possible (not possible on the 2200 with color inks and the standard driver, in my opinion).

 

It took me some time to understand how IPv6 black and white interacts with an image's source profile---the grayscale can be off if the source profile isn't what IP expects (I think it wants a gray gamma 2.2 source profile, but it's been a while and I may be misremembering). It seemed like IP didn't take the source profile into account when printing. Once I converted to the proper source profile in PS, I got a predictable grayscale and all was well.

 

The 3800, on the other hand, provides prints with excellent color using generic profiles (available both for Epson and many other papers) and the stock driver. Black and white prints using these generic color profiles are surprisingly good. I'm going to use these profiles for a while, and see if they are good enough---they just might be. The Epson drivers have clearly greatly improved in the past few years.

 

The 3800's Advanced Black and White mode is smooth and neutral, but needs some sort of curve correction or profile to match the screen. I prefer ABW tonality (to printing b&w using the color profiles), so am about to go through a round of calibration for black and white.

 

With the 2200, IPv6 seemed necessary to get good performance (and then it was quite good). I think the 3800 performs as well on matte and better on gloss right out of the box. I don't plan on getting IP for the 3800, it doesn't seem so necessary any more.

 

Until later,

 

Clyde Rogers

[35mmSummicron]

i will add that soon after i purchased ImagePrint 6 for my 2200, i was able to put some tests with a colleague who bought the 3800 w/imageprint.

 

our findings were that yes the 3800 w/ standard epson drivers are REALLY good.

 

however imageprint w/ 3800 does make a difference and is generally more accurate than the 2200 w/imageprint, however at this point the differences (outside of the obvious K3 ink differences) are VERY subtle. you need to have the two prints side by side and made aware which is which in order to see differences.

 

at the end of the day i HIGHLY, HIGHLY recommend imageprint. they just came out with version 7.0 but i think the changes are only in layout/interface, not print quality.

 

/a

[Guest stnami]

Andy are you using the full version or The Lite version of Imageprint?

What is a the average price of a spectrophotometer and which on?

Thanks

[35mmSummicron]

both full and lite versions of IP for the 2200 will produce the same results if all you are doing is sending your final image to print.

 

the difference is a few layout features and some colouring adjustments within imageprint are disabled in the lite version. i prefer doing ANY sort of editing/adjusting within photoshop.

 

as for a monitor calibrator, i got one of the very last LaCie ElectronBlue CRT's when they stopped making them so i have an older Pantone OptiCal Spyder.

 

 

hope this helps.

 

 

Andy are you using the full version or The Lite version of Imageprint?

What is a the average price of a spectrophotometer and which on?

Thanks

[jscottyk]

We're big fans of Colorburst's RIP. Been using XProof for several years now. I custom build each environment and profile using XRite's Monaco Profiler and an DTP-70. The results are spectacular, if a say so myself.

 

Be forewarned though, stepping off into the full featured RIP abyss is not for the faint hearted. IMO, the results are more than worth it, but it's a long way from the OEM path.