Mirage 4

[keithd]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

As I patiently wait for my new Epson P906 to arrive I have come across a printing package Mirage 4 it is not cheap but appears to have a lot of functionality that is appealing. I currently use the Lightroom print module to my old Epson photo 2100.

Are there any users here that use or have experience with this piece of software.

cheers Keith

[Advertisement]

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

[Steve Ash]

Hello Keith,

that is the printing software I am using. There are more powerful ones but at a totally different prices point. Mirage 4 serves my needs, solved my print problems and I am happy with it.

Steve

[Stuart Richardson]

Hi Keith,

I run a Hahnemühle Certified Studio for printing. In over ten years doing it professionally, I have not yet found a need to purchase additional software. As far as I recall, if you use Mirage you also lose access to the Advanced B&W mode in the Epson driver, which is the best way to print black and white, other than something like Quadtone RIP. I think these software can be helpful, but I do not think they are necessary. In general I think they can help companies with high volume, in particular with print layout, but to this date, I have yet to see any compelling reason to lay out money for software like this, especially in conjunction with Lightroom which has a powerful print module and vastly better processing options. The fact that they added image adjustments and sharpening to Mirage 4 is rather baffling to me...what photographer would adjust their image in a third party print module when it is invariably coming in from Photoshop or Lightroom? I can only see it making sense for minilabs and print shops where the staff is not really that trained in image processing.

It seems like I am bashing the software. I really am not, but it just seems somewhat superfluous these days. The nicest advantage I see that it has over something like Lightroom is that it can automatically do banners, so if you want to print an enormous print larger than your biggest rolls, it can do that automatically. I have done that manually with photoshop, and it is a pain in the butt, so if you ever have to do that, it is probably worth looking at.

[zeitz]

I am fond of Canon's Layout and Print Studio plugs-ins for Photoshop.  Epson has an equivalent.  Jeff, who posts frequently in this sub-forum, highly recommends Image Print.

What Stuart did not point out is that no printer manufacturer (Canon, Espon or HP) makes their own paper.  They buy the paper from 2nd tier suppliers.  So their paper qualities can change without warning.  The big paper suppliers, such as Hahnemuehle, make their own papers with amazing consistency.  So even paper choice needs to be a consideration in your workflow.

[keithd]

Thanks guys it is good to get some feedback mirage could be a bit of an over kill for my needs at this point in time and the Epson advanced b & w is a function I would not like to lose access to thanks Stuart for raising that point.

zeitz I have been printing mainly on Museo papers silver rag and portfolio rag but supplies and consistency issues will see me migrate back to hahnemuehle papers once my Museo stock is depleted.

cheers keith

[Jeff S]

On 7/28/2020 at 8:32 AM, zeitz said:

Jeff, who posts frequently in this sub-forum, highly recommends ImagePrint

Yes, I do, on both counts.

I disagree with Stuart, specifically regarding IP as worthy third party print software.  Even if it did nothing else, their superb paper profiles for virtually every paper (and for various lighting conditions, including greyscale) are alone worth the cost of entry (I would spend more on my own custom profiling gear, let alone the time and effort saved). Combine this with continuous soft proof mode, excellent tools and simple workflow, the opportunity to avoid dependence on the Apple/Adobe/Epson color management and print settings/controls chain... and bottom line great and repeatable print results... and I wouldn’t ever go back.
 

I prefer ImagePrint to the Epson advanced b/w mode, and appreciate the far greater simplicity and flexibility compared to the otherwise fine Cone Piezography process. Years ago, George DeWolfe, a respected b/w printer, wrote an article for LuLa, where he tested these same options and chose IP as his preferred method  (ignore his own product pitch and read the end section of the article).  IP has also improved in many ways since his favorable assessment. 
 

https://luminous-landscape.com/bw-master-print/

I have no vested interest in IP, and similarly made my choice after experiencing various alternatives.  YMMV, as they say.

PS  I still occasionally use Hahnemuhle papers, but now prefer Canson and others.  Different strokes...

Jeff

Edited July 30, 2020 by Jeff S

[Stuart Richardson]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

It is good to hear your experience Jeff. I don't have a vested interest either....I do this for a job, so if I really thought it would be a help, I would go for it. I think Mirage is more reasonably priced, so maybe I would consider it. At least for my printer, Image Print costs 2500 USD plus 100 dollars shipping for the dongle and then plus 24% VAT for me, which is more than half the cost of the printer itself. For me, it is a non starter, as it advertises itself as making my workflow easier and my color management better. Since I have already been doing this for years, I have a workflow that does not give me much trouble and my results are excellent. If it cost 250 dollars, I might consider trying it, but at a minimum of 699 dollars (599 plus 100) plus VAT for the version without profiles, it strikes me as overpriced. Perhaps if I were in a higher volume market, but Iceland is tiny and the market is small, so splashing out that kind of money for a convenience tool is unwarranted for me. I am sure that it has nice features, great profiles, and I have no doubt it helps people very much. But as a business decision, until I see that it can do something I cannot already do simply with the readily available tools I have, it does not make sense to me. I work mostly for museums and the international galleries here, and it is vanishingly rare that they have an issue with output I achieve using the Epson and Adobe tools. If they do, I just take their concerns and address them by tweaking the image. The profile library is not particularly compelling to me, as I try to stick to less than 10 or so types of paper due to stocking reasons...it is impractical for a small company to sit on hundreds of rolls of paper of every possible permutation. I tend to stick to a few Hahnemühle, a few Awagami and a few Fuji papers. I profiled most of them with an i1 pro2 one Saturday and that was the last I needed to worry about it as they are all consistent.

[Jeff S]

As always, no right or wrong; choices are good.  I’m just a photo enthusiast, not a professional.  If I knew enough to run my own printing business, I might not use IP either.  For me, it just makes printing easier and more efficient for personal use, and I like the results. As far as cost, I used to spend far more building my home darkrooms (4 in different houses following relocations), and then on various tools and supplies, than I do now on the digital side.  It’s a hobby for me, so I don’t need to justify expenses beyond my own satisfaction.  Others will certainly have different wants and needs.  I share my IP experiences as a satisfied customer, not as a sales promoter, and not to suggest that others will have similar needs or preferences.  I realize that these days it’s increasingly rare that people print at all. 
 

BTW, Stuart, your i1 pro2 (basic kit only) costs $1500 in the US, while the cost of IP for my printer is $900.  And I haven’t had to spend a minute making a custom profile.  Plus I trust the IP folks to do a better job, using probably better gear, than I could.  One less hassle, especially if I just want to test a new paper or two, or when my favorite paper is (again) changed or discontinued.

Jeff

Edited July 30, 2020 by Jeff S

[Stuart Richardson]

Yes, that makes sense. I bought the i1 pro2 because I am in the business. That said, it also calibrates monitors, displays, scanners and projectors and comes with useful color management charts that you can use to generate camera profiles and LUTs as well...it is not solely a printer profiler. If you are only looking for profiles, I have used Chromix in the past and found their custom profiles to be very good. They can be purchased a la carte or through a number of different options. They cost money as well, and if you had them make a lot of custom profiles it would add up, but they also have a service that is similar to image print where they will give you unlimited RGB profiles for 18 months for one printer, and that is 180 dollars, which is more reasonable.

Anyway, I recognize everyone has different priorities and requirements for time and money management. My main point in the beginning of this thread was to indicate that there is no need to reflexively seek out third party software to "fix" the output of your printer from Adobe and Epson's driver. Based on what I have seen  and heard anecdotally from the other Certified Studio master printers I know as well as the colleagues I met during my photography MFA, I would assume that the bulk of the best prints in galleries all over the world are made using the stock drivers and Lightroom and Photoshop. The exception would be at large scale print houses like Grieger, Duggal etc, where they either have their own in house solutions, or use RIPs because they have to have more consistency across a larger number of operators and are more focused on receiving files as they are without adjustment and want to just drop them onto a template that will output them without as much oversight.

[Jeff S]

I’ve used Chromix as well in the past.  Good and knowledgeable folks. But not without some back and forth mailings and occasional need for problem diagnosis, especially when Apple screwed up color management for a period. IP solved that for me.

Jeff