• Please use real names.

    Greetings to all who have registered to OPF and those guests taking a look around. Please use real names. Registrations with fictitious names will not be processed. REAL NAMES ONLY will be processed

    Firstname Lastname

    Register

    We are a courteous and supportive community. No need to hide behind an alia. If you have a genuine need for privacy/secrecy then let me know!
  • Welcome to the new site. Here's a thread about the update where you can post your feedback, ask questions or spot those nasty bugs!

ColorByte-ImagePrint now available for Epson 2400

Ross Stockwell

New member
Hello

Thought I'd post this in case people are not aware. ImagePrint is now available (finally) for the Epson 2400 - I believe the url is www.colorbytesoftware.com for more information.

I've had a copy on back order for over 1 year so I am looking forward to working with this - so far have been using Qimage with good results, but have been wowed by examples of what Imageprint can do.

Alain -- do you have any thoughts or suggestions regarding the use of the RIP in the overall work flow? Are there preferred ways to apply sharpening, for example?
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Personally I do everything in Photoshop then print through IP.

Sharpening is a complex topic though as there are a lot of options.
 

Ross Stockwell

New member
Thanks Alain

I have since figured out that, unlike Qimage (which I am more used to) Imageprint (Lite) does not have much in that way of pre-print corrections/sharpening - I have answered my own question. It looks like 'get your image 'perfect' in PS (or whatever) then print through Imageprint'. Right?
 

Alain Briot

pro member
That's one option. I haven't used Qimage a whole lot but from what I remember it is also an image editor. ImagePrint is solely a RIP. You can't process your image in ImagePrint. However you can do a lot of things with it when it comes to print quality.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
You get what you pay for, as usual. As I said, my experience with Qimage is limited and I haven't compared print quality with that of ImagePrint. But in regards to IP, the cost of the profiles alone more than cover the purchase price.

PS
I'm not sure how I got to edit your previous post. It definitly wasn't intentional! You may want to retype the whole message.
 

Harvey Moore

New member
hehe..You are a moderator, thats why Alain.

I well understand the concept of "you get what you pay for". I preach it.

What I asked is in the case of the R-2400, what is it that is obtained in IP lite for $495 over Qimage for $50. One factor I saw was that no printer profiles are available for Qimage/R2400.

Thanks
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Harvey Moore said:
hehe..You are a moderator, thats why Alain.
One factor I saw was that no printer profiles are available for Qimage/R2400.

Which basically means you have to make your own profiles or buy custom profiiles, and at the end of the day you spent --hopefully-- as much money as what IP costs.
 

Harvey Moore

New member
Alain Briot said:
Which basically means you have to make your own profiles or buy custom profiiles, and at the end of the day you spent --hopefully-- as much money as what IP costs.

I understand that Alain, that is not my question.

What factors make ImagePrint Lite superior to Qimage when printing on the R-2400

My processing is done with PS CS2, ACR etc.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Harvey Moore said:
I understand that Alain, that is not my question.

You were asking why the difference in price. It's in part the profiles. Just those alone are worth the cost of IP as I explained in my previous post. Then there is the practical, time-saving aspects of the RIP, and finally the refinement of the printing engine, dot pattern algorithm, ink control and so on.
 
Last edited:
Alain Briot said:
You were asking why the difference in price. It's in part the profiles. Just those alone are worth the cost of IP as I explained in my previous post.

Which may be worth while for those who don't have the capability of creating their own profiles. In fact, creating your own has the benefit of optimizing to your specific printer/ink/paper combination. I use the EyeOne Pro Spectrophotometer and am quite satisfied with the output it allows to produce.

Then there is the practical, time-saving aspects of the RIP, and finally the refinement of the printing engine, dot pattern algorithm, ink control and so on.

The only thing that seems to be technically different from Qimage is what they mention as "ImagePrint uses an exclusive Micro-Weave technology that is matched with its own screening algorithm". I have no idea how much different its results are, if any, from what can be achieved with Qimage and the built-in dithering functionality of IJ printers. I found it suspiciously difficult to find this difference on their website. If it makes such a difference, it would seem more logical to magnify the benefits, samples and all.

Some of the banding artifacts they mention as being addressed may just have originated from sending data to the printer driver that was not previously resampled to the printer's native resolution. Non-resampled data will be resampled by the printer/driver to its native resolution, and that does not necessarily involve the most advanced algorithms (in fact some seem to use bi-linear).

Bart
 

Ross Stockwell

New member
Imageprint-Qimage some early comparisions

Hi - since I started this -- I thought I'd share my early observations - since I now have both Qimage and Imageprint to play with ;) I am still pretty new to all this so hope this will not be too convoluted ;) forgive the typos please.

My editing/printing environment is simple and self-contained. I also use a GTI viewing booth. Printer is a epson 2400 I bought when they first came out (June 2005) - no issues I can tell with the printer - it works fine.

I have made some test prints using a boring, but standard test image, that I have used to establish a reliable color-managed situation for myself. I also made comparision prints using a nature/scenic image with plenty of subtle tones and colors (early morning light/fog/mist/water) just to see how any difference show up in a realistic image.

Images (adobe rgb 1998) were printed at their own size/resolution so there are no major up/down sizing issues at play .

I have been using Qimage with the epson (best photo) drivers available from their web site (enhanced matte). Vector method - standard settings/sharpening applied. (aside from specifying the printing profile all settings are at their default values. [though rendering intent was set to relative colormetric - see below]

Similarly with Image print - I am using standard/default settings (profile is the enhanced matte-photo- daylight) -pretty much out of the box situation. [perceptual rendering intent - see below]


Overall observation -

both Qimage and Imageprint produce beautiful output. Really - without a side by side comparision - I would be happy with either rendering of the images. But there are differences:


Test image results -

the main difference I can see is that Qimage produced a print that corresponded most accurately to my monitor (more about this below as profiles/softproofing are (of course) important). Imageprint also produces a beautiful sharp renderring but pure blue (255) prints as somewhat a purple/magenta; pure green/red print as a bit muddy (may be a result of extra magenta). Imageprint shows more details especially in the mid-dark areas of the image.

Scenic image

Again - both prints are very nice - but Imageprint clearly produces details and subtlty (again in tones darker than mid range - but not black) - Really it is gob-smackingly obvious. I can't even see these details on my monitor! However the same magenta/purple shift is evident (see it most in a foggy/misty sky (though this is not displeasing-at least for this image)).

On to the importance of the profiles/softproofing:

Curious about the magenta thing, I setup softproofing profiles (imageprint) in PSCS2 to compare them with the epson (best photo) profiles. Sure enough when I look at the IP profile (perceptual) the monitor shows the magenta shift. Changing this to Relative Colormetric brings the image in line with the epson profile (not exact - but much closer).

At this point - I realized that I have set up my phootshop/epson softproofs/qimage to reflect relative colormetric image rendering (adobes' recommended default). Imageprint's default is Perceptual rendering. As I brought these factors in to line - it is clear that the 'purple thing' has more to do with profile selection, setting and usage [no surprise I am sure to veterns - who no doubt are laughing at me now ;)]

My conclusion

Assumming the printer profiles settings are appropriately/consistently selected, the major difference between Qimage and Imageprint is the later appears to produce WAY more detail in the print.

My main reason for buying imageprint was because (as Alain points out) Colorbyte has a sizable library of printer/paper profiles already available to its userbase. This opens up a new range of possibilites in terms of using new (non epson papers) These profiles (I am told) are of very high quality and since I have no equipment/or time to build my own profiles it is easy to justify the cost of the software for the access to these. I have seen other prints output by Imageprint (from photographers far more capable than I am) and they are really impressive to look at. Having now seen the incremental detail possible - from my own images - I have to say I do not at all have any regrets in adding this RIP to my my workflow.
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Personally, I use IP with the 4800 and 9800. Besides the profiles, it allows me to use these printers in Phatte Black mode (see my Image Print review on my site if you are not familiar with this option) and saves me a huge amount of time in regards to production. With the 2400, not needing Phatte black and not (hopefully) using it as a production machine, the main benefit becomes the profiles and the print quality. The cost is much lower, making it a viable option.

Ross: you forgot to mention that QImage is PC only. IP works on both Macs and PCs. I use a Mac primarily.
 
Ross Stockwell said:
Again - both prints are very nice - but Imageprint clearly produces details and subtlty (again in tones darker than mid range - but not black) - Really it is gob-smackingly obvious. I can't even see these details on my monitor! However the same magenta/purple shift is evident (see it most in a foggy/misty sky (though this is not displeasing-at least for this image)).

Ross, first of all, thanks for an actual eye-witness report ;-)

Second, it seems to me from your descriptions that the difference in profiles, the Epson and the Imageprint one, is what is making the real distinction here. As you said, some details were not visible on your monitor, which might also indicate a profile of gamut difference. Maybe setting Qimage to 'Pyramid' interpolation (with default smart sharpening), would make some difference as well, since 'Vector' is rather smooth except on edges. I prefer 'Pyramid' for most subjects because it's results look more 'organic'.

Are the Imageprint profiles accessable for use in Qimage? That way you could reduce the number of variables, and check if there really is an interpolation quality difference. I realize that you've already made a choice for your situation, but it would help to reduce that nagging feeling I have; everything else being equal (profiles/rendering intent) which interpolation engine produces better quality ...? Afterall, profiles can be tweaked to give a bit of additional shadow detail.

Bart
 

Ross Stockwell

New member
Bart

I had a chance to experiment some more and attempted your suggested approach. Somewhere in the IP manual it says that only CB-IP profiles will work with IP. The implication being that CB-IP profiles are not likely to work with the normal printer driver (or Qimage) --- but what the heck I did it anyway ;)

In Qimage I set interpolation to Pyramid; smart sharpening and set the printer profile appropriatly to enhance-matte-photo-day; perceptual rendering (to match my prior IP print). I printed the 'nature scene' image, as that showed the most dramtic results from my prior trial.

The results, sad to say were dismal - the print looked like it had been held over a smudge-pot for half a day. Black and sooty - dark and midtones all blocked up. Essentally no color at all.

So - Imageprint's effectiveness is based either on its profiles or the interaction of these with whatever proprietary alogrithms they use. I doubt the CB-IP profiles are of any use outside of IP.


BTW - the ability if IP to pull detail out of an image can backfire! -- In another experient, I printed a portrait (a low-key image- n___ against a dark background). I had worked on this image quite a bit so that when printing via Qimage there was just a hint of a rim light defining the shape of the models body (shadow side) against the black background.

When I printed the same image via IP, the result was 'great' but I got details showing places I really did not want! They are totally obtrusive in this particular image -- I will need to rework this image (and others) with the knowledge that IP will pull much more information in print that I will see in my monitor - or apprantly will be printed via Qimage.

But I don't see this as a contest - I like Qimage a lot and I expect to use both programs depending on what I want to do. Qimage's file management, layout, sharpening and editing features are great to have and they are nonexistent in the Lite version of IP.

thanks for listening ;) again please forgive the typos - I am in a bit of a rush lately .....
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Ross Stockwell

New member
Alain

BTW-I am a hobby photgrapher - no big comercial runs - so the 2400 serves me well. I 'lust' for one of the bigger models but I just don't have the real estate in my office to put one in -- I'd have to move in to a bigger house! My cost per print (already appallingly high) would really be out of line then ;).
 

Alain Briot

pro member
Ross Stockwell said:
Alain
BTW-I am a hobby photgrapher - no big comercial runs - so the 2400 serves me well. I 'lust' for one of the bigger models but I just don't have the real estate in my office to put one in -- I'd have to move in to a bigger house! My cost per print (already appallingly high) would really be out of line then ;).

I completely understand, and the 2400 is a very good printer, it's just more difficult to justify the expense of Image Print with it. With the 4800/7800/9800, it is a lot easier because the ink cartridge change is so time consuming and expensive due to the wasted ink. But, as I said, the profiles are great. In a way, once you have IP, you no longer have to worry about profiles being the reason why your print doesn't match your monitor or your vision. That aspect is taken out of the loop.
 
Ross Stockwell said:
I had a chance to experiment some more and attempted your suggested approach. Somewhere in the IP manual it says that only CB-IP profiles will work with IP. The implication being that CB-IP profiles are not likely to work with the normal printer driver (or Qimage) --- but what the heck I did it anyway ;)

LOL, that's the spirit, a mild touch of anarchy/scepticism, rather than parotting, should be the preferred avenue to knowledge.

In Qimage I set interpolation to Pyramid; smart sharpening and set the printer profile appropriatly to enhance-matte-photo-day; perceptual rendering (to match my prior IP print). I printed the 'nature scene' image, as that showed the most dramtic results from my prior trial.

The results, sad to say were dismal - the print looked like it had been held over a smudge-pot for half a day. Black and sooty - dark and midtones all blocked up. Essentally no color at all

So - Imageprint's effectiveness is based either on its profiles or the interaction of these with whatever proprietary alogrithms they use. I doubt the CB-IP profiles are of any use outside of IP.

Sincere thanks for the effort, it kind of confirms (at least, sofar doesn't disprove) my assumptions that it's the profile that makes the difference (I can't wrap my mind to 'detail' being created from nothing). To be sure, I'd like to be educated/proven wrong on my assumptions by anyone with plausible contrary evidence.

BTW - the ability if IP to pull detail out of an image can backfire! -- In another experient, I printed a portrait (a low-key image- n___ (unclothed) against a dark background). I had worked on this image quite a bit so that when printing via Qimage there was just a hint of a rim light defining the shape of the models body (shadow side) against the black background.

When I printed the same image via IP, the result was 'great' but I got details showing places I really did not want! They are totally obtrusive in this particular image -- I will need to rework this image (and others) with the knowledge that IP will pull much more information in print that I will see in my monitor - or apprantly will be printed via Qimage.

For others to file their own judgement, it might be useful to use a publicly available image for testing (Test Targets), in particular the http://www.drycreekphoto.com/tools/test_images/DCP-TestImage.zip (for a Windows based platform), will provide an IMHO useful reference.

But I don't see this as a contest - I like Qimage a lot and I expect to use both programs depending on what I want to do. Qimage's file management, layout, sharpening and editing features are great to have and they are nonexistent in the Lite version of IP.

I do see it as a challenge ;-). Qimage apparently also works with the Mac OS, if used with the 'Virtual PC' application for the MAC OS (still seems an economical proposition).

thanks for listening ;) again please forgive the typos - I am in a bit of a rush lately .....

Hey, in the search of 'truth', what are a few typos other than insignificance ...? ;-)

Bart
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Top