Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Getting best color: Epson or Canon  (Read 6140 times)
sdemetri
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« on: November 14, 2006, 01:46:29 PM »
ReplyReply

Our small commercial photography studio has been using an Epson 4000 but we have not been sufficiently satisfied with color to provide contract proofs to clients. Only a couple of clients require strict color so it hasn’t been a huge problem, but it is on occasion a good thing. We have had custom profiles made for three paper stocks but each of them are deficient in some aspect. One question, is anyone using good profile editing software to make the necessary tweaks? I used Color Blind some years ago but didn’t find it particularly responsive to the edits I was trying to make. Has software gotten better for this? Or, should I think about replacing the printer all together for the larger gamut on the Canon IPF5000, and get high-end custom profiles for this?
Logged
WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 14, 2006, 02:52:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Are you sure it's your printer and not your monitor? Or both?

Who made your profiles?

Is it a case of making a print and then making small tweaks or is it worse?

Have you also considered the HP?
« Last Edit: November 14, 2006, 02:54:54 PM by WarrenRoos » Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
sdemetri
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #2 on: November 15, 2006, 11:29:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Monitor (apple cinema display) is tightly calibrated with ColorEyes software. Custom profiles were made by Dry Creek, and Profile City. The Profile City profile is better but not perfect. Also the profile was their lower price offering. I think they have a premium profile that can be made.

Prints lack the warmth I see on my display, and have a slight magenta cast in skintones mostly.  

Haven't looked at the HP.
Logged
ddubler
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1


« Reply #3 on: November 16, 2006, 01:33:19 PM »
ReplyReply

I have been using an Epson 4800 with the Colorburst RIP(full version) for quite some time and have no problems creating CMYK match prints for clients and having my outputs on the 4800 match my Eizo monitor perfectly.  I also use Color Eyes.  My advice would be to upgrade the printer,add the Colorburst RIP(the tech support people at Colorburst are fantastic) and your problems will be over.  I hope this has been helpful.

                                        Douglas Dubler
Logged
sdemetri
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 5


« Reply #4 on: November 17, 2006, 08:23:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Thanks for the reply.

I seem to remember this RIP, or a limited version of it, was bundled with the 4000 for awhile, but only ran on the Windows platform. Are you on Windows or Mac? I think we might upgrade printers as the K3 inks are more desirable but not if we are forced into the Windows environment. We are Mac based and always have been.

I have printed monochromes with the QTR on the 4000 with good results, and would need a rip to get around the matt black issue with the 4800.


Looking at the Colorburst site now.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8608



WWW
« Reply #5 on: November 17, 2006, 09:02:25 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have been using an Epson 4800 with the Colorburst RIP(full version) for quite some time and have no problems creating CMYK match prints for clients and having my outputs on the 4800 match my Eizo monitor perfectly. 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85650\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

For CMYK cross rendering, this RIP can make all the differences in the world. It runs fine on a Mac.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 17, 2006, 03:42:23 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For CMYK cross rendering, this RIP can make all the differences in the world. It runs fine on a Mac.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85795\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hey Andrew.. long cyber time...
What printer do you think would be the best choice to go with (with a rip I take it)?

It looks like there are three choices (as of today) the Canon, Epson and HP's.

thanks

-w
Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8608



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 17, 2006, 03:49:41 PM »
ReplyReply

For CMYK, ColorBurst's RIP would probably be the ticket. That's what I use for CMYK simulations. I like ImagePrint for RGB work.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #8 on: November 17, 2006, 08:59:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
For CMYK, ColorBurst's RIP would probably be the ticket. That's what I use for CMYK simulations. I like ImagePrint for RGB work.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85851\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Great...We’ll go after his and hers rips. I'll give RGB the male gender.  The old aximon of Roy G Biv is also male. Boo Yah.

Should I interpret this as (aside from the bronzing) that any of the better new printers is a great choice if yah get riped first? I really want to know what ya’ll think(s).

Let's pretend that it's years end and I bought zilch for equipment in this calendar year and could actually buy something with out having to hit the credit card and have it hit me back.

Old poor beleaguered sdemetri and I have worked together for five quick years and he runs the pixel wrangling side of the (I like to get in the way there) business. Since day one with profiles but no rip the 4000 has been an uneven preformer. We would like to try something else. I still use our Fuji pictography 3000 and despite its punchy color with Matte paper I get great WYSWIG and (touch wood) no any guff from printers, clients or the need to adjust and reprint several times.
« Last Edit: November 17, 2006, 09:01:05 PM by WarrenRoos » Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
K.C.
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 650


« Reply #9 on: November 18, 2006, 12:21:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Image Print will be available for the iPF5000 in a couple of weeks. Considering the difference it makes with an Epson the potential for it to optimize the Canon is something you may want to see before you invest.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8608



WWW
« Reply #10 on: November 18, 2006, 09:57:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Image Print will be available for the iPF5000 in a couple of weeks. Considering the difference it makes with an Epson the potential for it to optimize the Canon is something you may want to see before you invest.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85903\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Agreed, get a demo. If you're concerned with overall printing (not CMYK simulation) then ImagePrint would be worth waiting for. I saw the new version at PPE and more interesting stuff coming. I just find the ColorBurst RIP is easier to use (less options) and for CMYK proofing, a better product since you can work with true CMYK output profiles etc. But short of needing to turn your printer into a true "SWOP Certified" device the ColorBurst RIP is aimed at providing an easy to use proofing experience while IP has many more options and functionality that you'll have to decide you want after playing with their demo.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #11 on: November 18, 2006, 12:58:46 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Agreed, get a demo. If you're concerned with overall printing (not CMYK simulation) then ImagePrint would be worth waiting for. I saw the new version at PPE and more interesting stuff coming. I just find the ColorBurst RIP is easier to use (less options) and for CMYK proofing, a better product since you can work with true CMYK output profiles etc. But short of needing to turn your printer into a true "SWOP Certified" device the ColorBurst RIP is aimed at providing an easy to use proofing experience while IP has many more options and functionality that you'll have to decide you want after playing with their demo.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85932\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Only downside of the demo version of IP under Windows is that you cannot print. The Mac version of the demo lets you print, but the Windows version does not. Just FYI ...

Eric
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8608



WWW
« Reply #12 on: November 18, 2006, 01:13:55 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Only downside of the demo version of IP under Windows is that you cannot print. The Mac version of the demo lets you print, but the Windows version does not. Just FYI ...

Eric
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85948\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Really? That's incredibly stupid. On the Mac, it writes "demo" all over the print. I'd prefer a fully functional timed out demo but that's not too bad. A demo that doesn't print? Absolutely useless.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 18, 2006, 06:47:06 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Really? That's incredibly stupid. On the Mac, it writes "demo" all over the print. I'd prefer a fully functional timed out demo but that's not too bad. A demo that doesn't print? Absolutely useless.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=85953\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I am running IP version 6 under Windows, and my first demo version was version 5.something, which did let you print, with "DEMO" all over the print. I can't imagine they've taken that feature out of the demo version. I would contact LexJet and ask about this point.

Eric
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Craig Murphy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 19, 2006, 11:54:14 AM »
ReplyReply

They are trying to punish Windows users by not letting you print with the software.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 02:25:24 PM by Craig Murphy » Logged

CMurph
WarrenRoos
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 46



WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 21, 2006, 09:35:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Had an interesting conversation with Mitch @ Inkjet arts this AM. He really knows his stuff and he tests and tests and tests.

We concluded that if running an Epson, Rips are needed and if running the Cannon (and perhaps the not as yet tested HP) no rips are needed. Having used Canon software for the camera I can only wonder what the software must be like for the Canon printer. When The cost of the RIP is folded in they all are close enough in price.

With The micro ceramic papers there’re there is less bronzing on the Canon than the Epson(s). At this point in our research I'm now leaning towards the Canon (or just maybe the HP).
« Last Edit: November 21, 2006, 11:17:32 AM by WarrenRoos » Logged

[span style='color:red']Roos Photo Inc.[/span]
Craig Murphy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 22, 2006, 01:30:16 PM »
ReplyReply

Just found out why ImagePrint has no Windows demo.  They had major piracy problems  in Europe so decided they could not continue to allow a demo.  Too many windows programs allowing people to bypass 'demo' printing on the prints.  They do have a 30 day money back guarantee however.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2006, 01:32:11 PM by Craig Murphy » Logged

CMurph
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2101


« Reply #17 on: November 22, 2006, 02:26:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Really? That's incredibly stupid. On the Mac, it writes "demo" all over the print. I'd prefer a fully functional timed out demo but that's not too bad. A demo that doesn't print? Absolutely useless.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Hi Andrew, yes, that's the way the IP demo on Windows used to work -- with "demo" splashed on the print. But unfortunately the latest versions of the Windows IP demo don't print at all. See the description here:

[a href=\"http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/trial.htm]http://www.colorbytesoftware.com/trial.htm[/url]

Even though there's a 30-day MBG, there's definitely a difference (from a customer's point of view like mine!) between downloading a demo and fiddling for 30 days vs. shelling out $495+ then trying to get it back after 30 days.

Eric
Logged

Craig Murphy
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 312


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 22, 2006, 03:44:03 PM »
ReplyReply

Yeah.  I have a 9800.  No way am I going to spend $2500 without trying first regardless of MBG.
Logged

CMurph
Stephen Best
Guest
« Reply #19 on: November 22, 2006, 06:22:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Yeah.  I have a 9800.  No way am I going to spend $2500 without trying first regardless of MBG.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=86631\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I wouldn't bother. In my testing with a demo that does allow output, the results weren't on a par with what I can achieve with my own profiling, nor even up to the standard of some canned profiles readily available for download from paper manufacturer's sites. It didn't help that the software kept on falling over either. The only thing I can think of is that ImagePrint made a name for itself in the days of the 4000/7600/9600 and has been banking on this ever since. The layout features may be handy for some though. For the price they're asking for the wider carriage printers, there's plenty of other options that permit linearization etc.
« Last Edit: November 22, 2006, 10:37:01 PM by Stephen Best » Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad