New "affordable" version of Imageprint

[marcg]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Yes, but RED doesn't offer profiles

[Guest]

 

Colorbyte software have now released two "affordable" (read – more-affordable" versions of their print software.

 

They are available in demo versions and the R. E. D. version will apparently run every printer.

 

I have no idea whether I need this kind of thing or not – but I enjoy printing out my images (I wonder whether those of us who do are in the minority of photographers???) – and so I've downloaded the demo copy and I am trying it out. I should say that I'm trying to try it out – because so far I find it completely unintuitive.

 

I'd be interested to hear what other people's experiences are. It is not time-limited software but I understand that prints carry a watermark – – which if I ever manage to get a printout, I suppose that I will be able to see.

 

The ImagePrint is meant to be the Rolls-Royce program. If it turns out to be really good and eventually understandable and usable then I might even think about splashing out for a copy.

 

 

https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/print-red.shtml

 

 

Marc

I went round and round with image Print and then someone somewhere told me about the Epson free software that I am now using with my Epson P807.......amazing piece of gear. I only use Epson papers so I already have all the CCI files needed for that paper and the Epson software allows you to place multiple pictures onto whatever paper you have assigned to use and it just prints............simple simple simple

 

Neil

[Jeff S]

Yes, but RED doesn't offer profiles

I know, but you made it seem as though IP benefits resulted totally from the profiles and offered nothing similar to a RIP like QTR. My point is that it does both.... and even more.

 

Jeff

[marcg]

Thanks. That's exactly what I am trying to figure out.  What else other than profiles does RED offer?

[Jeff S]

Read my posts. Read docmoore’s post.

 

Jeff

[Exodies]

I find it hard to believe that profiles from a paper manufacturer differ in a human viewable way from those created by an independent lab.

[Jeff S]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

I find it hard to believe that profiles from a paper manufacturer differ in a human viewable way from those created by an independent lab.

Specific to each printer and ink set, not generic to suit all. Why do you think there is expensive gear to generate custom profiles? And even then, one can use the gear in ever increasing levels of accuracy depending on passes, etc.

 

Jeff

Edited April 29, 2018 by Jeff S

[ianman]

I find it hard to believe that profiles from a paper manufacturer differ in a human viewable way from those created by an independent lab.

 

As mentioned before, I'm not an IP user, but I find it equally hard to believe that a company would survive for decades if the only - and expensive - product they sold offered no benefit.

[Jeff S]

Regarding comparisons to QTR, Epson ABW, Piezography, etc, here is the older IP comparison test from George DeWolfe that I referenced earlier...see the Section on Printing at the end...

https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/Ver10/Reviews/BandW_Master_Print.htm

 

George is a discerning printer, and he lists all the advantages of IP compared to these other b/w printing approaches. Many of these benefits can easily be extended to color printing. And IP 10 is much better than the version he tested.

 

Again, I have no understanding of the new IP products, only the full IP 10.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

I bought IP 10 some time ago and at the time had a very useful exchange with Jeff S who is always very generous with his knowledge and expertice. I find the programne very easy to use on a iMac which is my main computer and only once had to email the help line for a little advice which I recieved within one hour of sending. It is well worth having the trial and don’t forget to Read The F______Manual (RFM) . I rarely scrap any paper which saves me money in paper and ink. IP 10 is not cheap but as a % of my investment in my hobby plus the quality of printing it gives me I consider the cost great value for money.

Edited May 1, 2018 by Guest

[LocalHero1953]

Regarding comparisons to QTR, Epson ABW, Piezography, etc, here is the older IP comparison test from George DeWolfe that I referenced earlier...see the Section on Printing at the end...

https://www.colorbytesoftware.com/Ver10/Reviews/BandW_Master_Print.htm

 

George is a discerning printer, and he lists all the advantages of IP compared to these other b/w printing approaches. Many of these benefits can easily be extended to color printing. And IP 10 is much better than the version he tested.

 

Again, I have no understanding of the new IP products, only the full IP 10.

 

Jeff

I read that summary review - basically just his conclusions - and wasn't much the wiser.

 

I can understand that for some people having IP manage settings and profiles makes sense. Frankly, that is not a problem I'm trying to solve.

 

I can also understand that you get better prints by having a better profile - again, I don't perceive this as a big problem for me. I accept I may be ignorant about the quality I am missing, but I use a limited range of papers (Canson for serious work, typically BFK Rives, Rag Photographique, and Platine) and once I have the custom profiles made by a third party, I don't change them much. I have a colour managed printing system that works to my standards. When I look at great photos in print, I see a failure in my photography or post processing, not usually a failure in my printing.

 

What I'd like to see is a full review side by side of IP10 and a 'normal' printing system (preferably on an Epson printer), describing how the output differs, explaining whether that is down to the profiles or the clever tech inside IP10, and whether the pros and cons are different for colour (most or my printing) or B&W.

Have you done this Jeff? Or can you point me to such a review?

[Exodies]

Well said.

[Guest]

Like I mentioned before.........I am now using the Epson free printer software that can be downloaded for free and I am delighted with what comes out of the printer...........surly thats good enough isn't it??

 

Neil

[ianman]

I think it would depend on what is "good enough" :-)

[Guest]

I think it would depend on what is "good enough" :-)

 

Good enough for me.

[ianman]

Then for your the answer to your question is "yes" 

Different people have different standards. I'm not saying at all that your standards are not good, but others may choose to go the extra mile.

[Jeff S]

I read that summary review - basically just his conclusions - and wasn't much the wiser.

 

I can understand that for some people having IP manage settings and profiles makes sense. Frankly, that is not a problem I'm trying to solve.

 

I can also understand that you get better prints by having a better profile - again, I don't perceive this as a big problem for me. I accept I may be ignorant about the quality I am missing, but I use a limited range of papers (Canson for serious work, typically BFK Rives, Rag Photographique, and Platine) and once I have the custom profiles made by a third party, I don't change them much. I have a colour managed printing system that works to my standards. When I look at great photos in print, I see a failure in my photography or post processing, not usually a failure in my printing.

 

What I'd like to see is a full review side by side of IP10 and a 'normal' printing system (preferably on an Epson printer), describing how the output differs, explaining whether that is down to the profiles or the clever tech inside IP10, and whether the pros and cons are different for colour (most or my printing) or B&W.

Have you done this Jeff? Or can you point me to such a review?

Google is your friend.....

 

http://www.ronmartblog.com/2017/01/review-colorbyte-imageprint-10-discount.html?m=1

 

There are other reviews.

 

In the end, it’s not relevant to me what reviewers think, or frankly those of any forum or other critics. I base my decisions on my results and have long past doing any side by side testing. There is always room for print improvements, but there are myriad variables in the total chain from initial image capture and lighting to final print display and lighting conditions, and I love that IP10 at least helps me reduce and control many of those variables. The most important link in the chain remains me, and that’s always a work in progress.

 

Trial software is free. People have different needs, preferences and desires.

 

Jeff

[Guest]

Then for your the answer to your question is "yes" 

Different people have different standards. I'm not saying at all that your standards are not good, but others may choose to go the extra mile.

 

Exactly Ian.............crap in equals crap out, so I am always trying to have less crap in and hopefully have better prints coming out. In other words the print is the final step in the process.........if we don't take care of the stuff before the printer then it doesn't matter what printer or printer software you have, it will come out crap.

 

Since I started printing my own stuff (3 years ago maybe). I have seen so much crap come out of the printer. When I recently looked back at prints in my fancy portfolios, I had conversations with my self like WTF was I thinking when I printed that, that kind of conversation. I have tossed away many many prints because the more I get into this photography lark the more I learn and the more I learn to see. I still have my fancy portfolios but only my very best prints make it into the nice (Elephant Ear) leather bound portfolios..........   :)

 

So after that long explanation what I am trying to say is take care of making sure you get a correct exposure in camera first and foremost. Then slowly move forward to PP and hopefully have a beautiful print to either hang on a wall or place in a nice leather bound portfolio.

 

Neil

[Guest]

Worth bearing in mind that there are several people on this forum who have been printing for considerably longer than 3 years. Two come to mind who,s combined experience is possibly approaching 100 years. The longer you do it the more you learn each time you print.

Exactly Ian.............crap in equals crap out, so I am always trying to have less crap in and hopefully have better prints coming out. In other words the print is the final step in the process.........if we don't take care of the stuff before the printer then it doesn't matter what printer or printer software you have, it will come out crap. Since I started printing my own stuff (3 years ago maybe). I have seen so much crap come out of the printer. When I recently looked back at prints in my fancy portfolios, I had conversations with my self like WTF was I thinking when I printed that, that kind of conversation. I have tossed away many many prints because the more I get into this photography lark the more I learn and the more I learn to see. I still have my fancy portfolios but only my very best prints make it into the nice (Elephant Ear) leather bound portfolios.......... :) So after that long explanation what I am trying to say is take care of making sure you get a correct exposure in camera first and foremost. Then slowly move forward to PP and hopefully have a beautiful print to either hang on a wall or place in a nice leather bound portfolio. Neil

Worth bearing in mind that there are several people on this forum who have been printing for considerably longer than 3 years. Two come to mind who,s combined experience is possibly approaching 100 years. The longer you do it the more you learn each time you print. Edited May 2, 2018 by Guest

[Advertisement]

Hallo,

Look here: Interesting Leica gear

[Guest]

Worth bearing in mind that there are several people on this forum who have been printing for considerably longer than 3 years. Two come to mind who,s combined experience is possibly approaching 100 years. The longer you do it the more you learn each time you print.

exactly mate. There have been many people on this forum that have helped me tremendously with my printing skills and I’m still learning now

Neil