Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 7880/9880 RIP neccesity  (Read 4085 times)
silverhalide
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« on: December 03, 2007, 06:11:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Gentle people,
   I have been reading this thread with respectful interest once I encountered it. As I told a friend
"I felt I found the spot where the heavys are"
   I am about to purchase a 7880 Epson to replace one of the 7600s in my studio. The one I am replacing is driven by ImageReady VI while the other utilizes Cone K7 inks, StudioPrint 12 & an i1 photospectrometer which is about as close to a tactile photographic printing experience I can get since going "chemical free" about 4+ years ago & having taught fine printing/Zone System for 25 years.
   For the past 14 years I have printed through a RIP (Birmy, Adobe, ImagePrint, StudioPrint) as they eliminated the banding problems & offered a visibly improved proprietary ink lay down algorhythm plus multipass (ImagePrint, StudioPrint) over the Epson driver.
   From reading this thread I have picked up the attitude that a number of individuals feel a RIP no longer offers any advantage over the new 7880/9880 driver other than spooling up jobs for
continuious printing which I have no need for.
   So, is it possible to equal the output of ImagePrint7 & 4 & 8 pass printing with the Epson driver & its proprietary ink lay down pattern? What about the accuracy of the Epson profiles (not that the ColorByte profiles are right on but they can be tweaked & the tweak saved)?
   Also, several individuals have indicated they can not tell any difference in the new enhanced magenta K3 inks. I have searched the web for any sort of comparison between the two inksets to no avail. What do you as users have to say about the comparison?

Sincerely & thanks,
                           Michael Dickey
Logged
photo570
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 153


WWW
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2007, 09:18:46 PM »
ReplyReply

I would respectfully disagree with your conclusion.

Yes the Epson driver is very good. Yes the canned profiles are good. But do you really want "Good" or do you want "Great". I DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE FOR ONE RIP OVER ANOTHER.

So please don't flame me. :-).

I have recently purchased a 7800 at a discount because the dealer wanted to make room for the newer models, and decided that the discount was enough to forgo the Vivid magenta ink. :-)

So I was in a quandary as you are now. Most if not all of the rip vendors have a demo available, try them out and you will see the difference for yourself.

The main point that swung me was the linierization and ink limiting features of most rips are much more sophisticated than the color density setting in the Epson printer driver.

You really are selling yourself short if you don't spend a few hundred bucks more on a rip when these printers cost thousands.

Cheers
Jason Berge.
Quote
Gentle people,
   I have been reading this thread with respectful interest once I encountered it. As I told a friend
"I felt I found the spot where the heavys are"
   I am about to purchase a 7880 Epson to replace one of the 7600s in my studio. The one I am replacing is driven by ImageReady VI while the other utilizes Cone K7 inks, StudioPrint 12 & an i1 photospectrometer which is about as close to a tactile photographic printing experience I can get since going "chemical free" about 4+ years ago & having taught fine printing/Zone System for 25 years.
   For the past 14 years I have printed through a RIP (Birmy, Adobe, ImagePrint, StudioPrint) as they eliminated the banding problems & offered a visibly improved proprietary ink lay down algorhythm plus multipass (ImagePrint, StudioPrint) over the Epson driver.
   From reading this thread I have picked up the attitude that a number of individuals feel a RIP no longer offers any advantage over the new 7880/9880 driver other than spooling up jobs for
continuious printing which I have no need for.
   So, is it possible to equal the output of ImagePrint7 & 4 & 8 pass printing with the Epson driver & its proprietary ink lay down pattern? What about the accuracy of the Epson profiles (not that the ColorByte profiles are right on but they can be tweaked & the tweak saved)?
   Also, several individuals have indicated they can not tell any difference in the new enhanced magenta K3 inks. I have searched the web for any sort of comparison between the two inksets to no avail. What do you as users have to say about the comparison?

Sincerely & thanks,
                           Michael Dickey
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158033\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Jason Berge
www.shoot.co.nz
D White
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 74

Don White


WWW
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2007, 10:35:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

I case you did not notice, RIP's are more than a few hundred dollars. They can be up to half the cost of the printer.

Still I would pay the fee if I really saw a difference. The problem is that after a trial version of Imageprint and Colorburst I actually felt that the dither and general look of the standard epson driver looked significantly better to me. Unless I really screwed things up, the trail tests answered it for me.
Logged

Dr D White DDS BSc
Brian Gilkes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 431


WWW
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2007, 12:55:24 AM »
ReplyReply

This thread may take a while to work itself out as Epson is now supplying , at a cost less than that of half the printer, an Onyx RIP. Currently this is for the 11880, but shortly for the 7880 and 9880. This RIP is supposed to be specifically made for the particular printer type. I would be very interested in reports in how quality might be improved with this product.
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
Logged
silverhalide
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 20


WWW
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2007, 07:47:43 AM »
ReplyReply

Photo570,
   Yes, I am in a quandary like you were as I have been offered a 7800 @ $500 off a discounted price. Hence the desire for an unbiased opinion of the visual difference the new magenta ink set & new head technology makes. I had not to come to any conclusions re RIP vs driver. Like I said,
it was like an attitude I was picking up from this thread:).  I have always used a RIP & was really curious as to whether upgrading to ImagePrint7 would be a foolish expenditure for the new printer. I find the ImagePrint RIP to be an incredible piece of software. Just my opinion.

Thanks, Michael
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 625


WWW
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2007, 08:28:52 AM »
ReplyReply

I am also interested in this topic.  I will take delivery of an epson 9880 tomorrow and am really struggling with whether I can do as well as Imageprint using the epson driver for this printer along with the new dither/screening epson talks about.  My primary paper will be the epson exhibition fiber and I've downloaded the profile for that from the Pixel Genius site.  I'm wondering whether the epson driver using this profile, for instance, will be all as good as using Imageprint.  I've used IP on all my printers for years and am very used to it, but not so sure about this new generation of epson printers and whether I'll continue to need IP or not.  Eleanor


Quote
Photo570,
   Yes, I am in a quandary like you were as I have been offered a 7800 @ $500 off a discounted price. Hence the desire for an unbiased opinion of the visual difference the new magenta ink set & new head technology makes. I had not to come to any conclusions re RIP vs driver. Like I said,
it was like an attitude I was picking up from this thread:).  I have always used a RIP & was really curious as to whether upgrading to ImagePrint7 would be a foolish expenditure for the new printer. I find the ImagePrint RIP to be an incredible piece of software. Just my opinion.

Thanks, Michael
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158139\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

JesseSpeer
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


WWW
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2007, 10:13:58 AM »
ReplyReply

I bought ImagePrint to work with my new 7880. I am now returning the RIP, after working with it extensively for a few weeks. Let me first say that it is a wonderful application. I have no problems with it. The built-in profiles were wonderful, the b/w printing was truly amazing, and the "ease" factor was very nice. And I thought I was going to use the Phatte option. Nevertheless, I find it overkill for my relatively low volume fine art printing. I don't need most of the functionality (layout, etc.) and I've decided I won't need the Phatte option. And the 7880 is capable of producing stunning prints on its own.

This is my first large format printer, so maybe I am too easily impressed. I have to admit that I don't care as much about screening, patterns, etc (even though I'm a graphic artist trained to obsess about such details). Even so, I found little difference when using the epson driver vs. RIP. Maybe if I inspected with a loupe I'd find something to worry about. I didn't do any testing - besides pressing my nose up to some Premium Luster prints. And 2880 printing through the Epson driver offered the finest quality, to my eye. If I can get stunning results out of the box, I'm off and running! Color and tonal capability are what I care about. The Epson profiles are good, but I am confident that I can get some outstanding results using custom profiles - which I may or may not have to tweak to equal the RIP output.

So, I'm getting my $1500 back ("few hundred"?!!), and buying some high end custom profiles for the few papers I've selected ... and plenty of ink and paper rolls. And I can "get by" with the decent output options of Lightroom.

And if RIPs really were only a few hundred, I'd certainly own ImagePrint. Or if I were doing mostly b/w printing, I'd own it - at full price.

I'd say, just test it for yourself. Even if you buy a RIP, you can always return it if you decide you don't need it - at least with the good people at Colorbyte.

By the way, the Onyx option is only available for Windows - as things stand now.
Logged
eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 625


WWW
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2007, 02:57:23 PM »
ReplyReply

You bring up an interesting point here....I do look at my prints through a loupe and to my eye the prints done with Imageprint are more "grainy" than those using the epson driver.  The IP "grain" is more even and there is no banding as is sometimes visible in my epson 7800 driver.  But I'm wondering, with the new screening in the 880 series epson drivers, whether the screening might even be better than the IP screening.  Think I'll do a comparison with a demo version of IP on the 9880 and compare it to the epson screening...under a loupe.  I'm a former darkroom printer and am probably a bit too obsessive about things like too much grain, etc!  eleanor



Quote
I bought ImagePrint to work with my new 7880. I am now returning the RIP, after working with it extensively for a few weeks. Let me first say that it is a wonderful application. I have no problems with it. The built-in profiles were wonderful, the b/w printing was truly amazing, and the "ease" factor was very nice. And I thought I was going to use the Phatte option. Nevertheless, I find it overkill for my relatively low volume fine art printing. I don't need most of the functionality (layout, etc.) and I've decided I won't need the Phatte option. And the 7880 is capable of producing stunning prints on its own.

This is my first large format printer, so maybe I am too easily impressed. I have to admit that I don't care as much about screening, patterns, etc (even though I'm a graphic artist trained to obsess about such details). Even so, I found little difference when using the epson driver vs. RIP. Maybe if I inspected with a loupe I'd find something to worry about. I didn't do any testing - besides pressing my nose up to some Premium Luster prints. And 2880 printing through the Epson driver offered the finest quality, to my eye. If I can get stunning results out of the box, I'm off and running! Color and tonal capability are what I care about. The Epson profiles are good, but I am confident that I can get some outstanding results using custom profiles - which I may or may not have to tweak to equal the RIP output.

So, I'm getting my $1500 back ("few hundred"?!!), and buying some high end custom profiles for the few papers I've selected ... and plenty of ink and paper rolls. And I can "get by" with the decent output options of Lightroom.

And if RIPs really were only a few hundred, I'd certainly own ImagePrint. Or if I were doing mostly b/w printing, I'd own it - at full price.

I'd say, just test it for yourself. Even if you buy a RIP, you can always return it if you decide you don't need it - at least with the good people at Colorbyte.

By the way, the Onyx option is only available for Windows - as things stand now.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158162\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged

Marty C
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


WWW
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2007, 03:33:13 PM »
ReplyReply

Eleanor:
 I have used a 9800 for the last two years with just the Epson driver and no one is complaining about my work. I get good ink coverage along with accuracy because I make all my own profiles using the Atkinson targets. This is not to say the the standard profiles are bad, they are very good compared to what was out there three years ago.
I have used the new EFF paper from Epson along with the Pixel Genius profile created for it and I wont bother build one for that material, it's about as perfect as you can get.
Thanks Andrew.

As for Imageprint I really do not think you will need it, nor the expense. As for the bundled rip that Epson supplies, the one big flaw I find with that is you can only use Epson profiles ONLY! till you buy the upgrade.

You will love the machine and the prints you get out of it.

 
Logged
LA30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2007, 10:46:49 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have used the new EFF paper from Epson along with the Pixel Genius profile created for it and I wont bother build one for that material, it's about as perfect as you can get.

 
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158222\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Where's the profile at PG?

I am looking for a good 7880 profile or a custom one.

Thanks,

Ken
« Last Edit: December 05, 2007, 10:51:07 AM by kenscott30 » Logged
Marty C
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 65


WWW
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2007, 10:55:47 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Where's the profile at PG?

I am looking for a good 7880 profile or a custom one.

Thanks,

Ken
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
[a href=\"http://pixelgenius.com/epson/]Pixel Genius Epson Profile for EFF[/url]


Here is the link, Have fun
Logged
LA30
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 206


« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2007, 03:39:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Pixel Genius Epson Profile for EFF
Here is the link, Have fun
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=158427\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Thanks!
Logged
neoprinter
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 21


« Reply #12 on: December 13, 2007, 08:18:30 PM »
ReplyReply

"As for the bundled rip that Epson supplies, the one big flaw I find with that is you can only use Epson profiles ONLY! till you buy the upgrade."

Not true.  You can make your own input (RGB) profiles.  There are many output (CMYK) profiles available from Colorburst, that they call "environments", that put you well in the ballpark, and a custom input profile is the icing on the cake.  If you don't have the software and spectrophotometer do make your own profiles, you can get them made inexpensively by cathysprofiles.com or another custom service.

I compared the output from Colorburst LE to Photoshop on a 9800, and the 4-pass was noticeably better.  The 8-pass was fantastic.  Since I had the use of Onyx Profilemaker and an X-Rite spectro it was real easy to get great color prints.  Poeple who think it's better to do linearization and ink limiting are trying to reinvent the wheel.  It's not necessary to incorporate custom profiling in the CMYK output build, just do it on the input, and save yourself a lot of money.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad