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.