Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: [1]   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: In Search Of The Ultimate Inkjet Print  (Read 3270 times)
alfin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« on: November 03, 2010, 08:16:05 AM »
ReplyReply

The images in this article look a bit strange in different web browsers. The first image has an embedded ProPhoto RGB profile, the image called “Reflections on us” has no profile embedded, but seems to be in Adobe RGB and the last image, “Truck Near Pescadero” has an Phase One P45 profile embedded. I suppose the Phase One profile is a version 4 profile, which Firefox cannot render, because the image is all pale with no saturation in the colors.

Otherwise a good article and nice to read that others also find that upgrading to IP8 is not a waste of money!
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #1 on: November 03, 2010, 08:26:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Ditto, especially for the third ; the difference under FF3.6 with the embedded thumbnail (acceessed via ExifViewer) is dramatic. See the attachment.

And to add a bit also...
Quote from: Mark Dubovoy
In terms of longevity, I do not know what the effect might be, although basic logic would lead one to believe that more ink, which means more pigments, will also increase the longevity of the print. I wish someone like Henry Wilhelm would run a longevity comparison test using different ink densities.
Easy indeed : just send a few test prints to MMHG at AardenburgI&A!

And thinking of it, one question to Mark : could increasing ink density have adverse effects on linearity, leading to loss of detail in near-black areas eg? Or is this loss of linearity accounted for with a profile?
« Last Edit: November 03, 2010, 08:29:56 AM by NikoJorj » Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
madmanchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2100


« Reply #2 on: November 03, 2010, 08:56:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Increasing density too much can indeed lead to blocked up shadows, esp if printing on matte media. You can also get reversals, where the overinking leads to a lighter appearance, instead of a darker one. For example, when you print a gray step wedge, regardless of the exact tonality, one expects the relationships & ordering to be preserved (i.e., the black patch is darker than the next-darkest gray patch). When you put too much ink down, these orderings are not always preserved, and one will see this when the black patch becomes actually lighter than the next-darkest gray patch.
Logged

ternst
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424


« Reply #3 on: November 03, 2010, 11:19:43 AM »
ReplyReply

I wonder how well this all works with the Canon 8300 IPF using the Canon 16-bit plugin? The price of the software is only $300 less than the total delivered price of the 44" printer so it is quite an investment. Anyone using this RIP with the Canon plugin? Thanks for any comments!
Logged
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2305



WWW
« Reply #4 on: November 03, 2010, 11:21:03 AM »
ReplyReply

I found this to read a bit like a late night sales pitch and found that somewhat disappointing.    It might be a worth while addition to the article to test the touted software on the other makes of printers.  From my experience with IP v6 (admittedly two versions previous) it worked really well with Epson printers only and not so great with other makes.  If you're ready to spend that amount of money, it might be better to spend a little time + money making sure you are already doing the most you can with profiles and processing first.    Note: I have no affiliation to any RIP or printer company.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
hsmeets
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 182


« Reply #5 on: November 03, 2010, 01:04:21 PM »
ReplyReply

I found this to read a bit like a late night sales pitch and found that somewhat disappointing.    It might be a worth while addition to the article to test the touted software on the other makes of printers.  From my experience with IP v6 (admittedly two versions previous) it worked really well with Epson printers only and not so great with other makes.  If you're ready to spend that amount of money, it might be better to spend a little time + money making sure you are already doing the most you can with profiles and processing first.    Note: I have no affiliation to any RIP or printer company.

Agree, a title like "IP8, an informal review, first impressions" would have been better.
Logged

eleanorbrown
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 611


WWW
« Reply #6 on: November 03, 2010, 06:17:28 PM »
ReplyReply

I used imageprint for years on epson large format printers. Finally with the RIP advantages in Lightroom 3 I no longer use Imageprint.  I,m getting stunning results from my epson drivers on both my 7900 and 9880 printers provided my files are properly prepared. Eleanor
Logged

Josh-H
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1905



WWW
« Reply #7 on: November 03, 2010, 06:41:34 PM »
ReplyReply

I wonder how well this all works with the Canon 8300 IPF using the Canon 16-bit plugin? The price of the software is only $300 less than the total delivered price of the 44" printer so it is quite an investment. Anyone using this RIP with the Canon plugin? Thanks for any comments!

I would be VERY VERY careful before outlaying money for IP8 if you are not using an Epson Printer as per the review [read: sales pitch].

The Canon printers as you no doubt no are a totally different technology to Epson and will definitely yield different results. IP8 is a fair whack of coin to lay down for an unknown result.

Both the Canon 16 bit plugin and the 16 bit printing from Lightroom produce stunning prints. You can of course easily vary the amount of ink layed down with Canon just as you can with Epson. So I would play with that before investing in IP8.

That said.. and as noted above.. increasing the amount of ink can and will lead to blocked up shadows in a lot of cases - particularly on matt papers. I think there should be a caveat in the review about this as more ink and/or saturation is not necessarily always a good thing. It is going to vary from print to print.
Logged

ternst
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 424


« Reply #8 on: November 03, 2010, 08:30:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Yup, I went to their web site and it says that Canon printers are not even supported so I'll not bother...
Logged
John R Smith
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1357


Still crazy, after all these years


« Reply #9 on: November 05, 2010, 04:41:04 AM »
ReplyReply

One of the great strengths of Lightroom which Adobe do not seem to make enough of in their product information is indeed its printed output. The biggest improvement I have made in my inkjet prints, ever, was simply moving to Lightroom.

Something like IP probably makes perfect sense if you are working in a busy commercial environment, or you are a fine art printer who makes a living out of selling prints. But for most of us, I think this is just (very expensive) overkill.

John
Logged

Hasselblad 500 C/M, SWC and CFV-39 DB
and a case full of (very old) lenses and other bits
alfin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #10 on: November 05, 2010, 01:22:45 PM »
ReplyReply

One of the great strengths of Lightroom which Adobe do not seem to make enough of in their product information is indeed its printed output. The biggest improvement I have made in my inkjet prints, ever, was simply moving to Lightroom.

How can Lightroom improve your prints? I understand if you find the layout features improving your workflow - compared to Photoshop - but Lightroom does not add any value to the quality of the printed output, it just uses the standard Epson driver.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #11 on: November 05, 2010, 01:42:48 PM »
ReplyReply

How can Lightroom improve your prints?

Automatic output sharpening and adaptive image upsampling are two aspects of Lightroom printing not found in Photoshop nor in most rips...
Logged
alfin
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 71


« Reply #12 on: November 05, 2010, 02:05:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Automatic output sharpening and adaptive image upsampling are two aspects of Lightroom printing not found in Photoshop nor in most rips...

OK, I agree with you. However, I prefer to output from PS and use Photokit Sharpener to sharpen my images and then feed it to ImagePrint. That way I have full control over sharpening and any upsampling and I also have loads of paper profiles to choose from when I try out new fine-art papers!
Logged
NikoJorj
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1063


WWW
« Reply #13 on: November 06, 2010, 05:31:24 AM »
ReplyReply

the last image, “Truck Near Pescadero” has an Phase One P45 profile embedded. I suppose the Phase One profile is a version 4 profile, which Firefox cannot render, because the image is all pale with no saturation in the colors.
I'd just point out that the problem is still there...
Logged

Nicolas from Grenoble
A small gallery
FranciscoDisilvestro
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 323


WWW
« Reply #14 on: November 06, 2010, 08:31:10 AM »
ReplyReply

It is interesting that the last image show well in non color managed browsers like google chrome.
Logged

photopianeil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


WWW
« Reply #15 on: November 07, 2010, 09:06:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Automatic output sharpening and adaptive image upsampling are two aspects of Lightroom printing not found in Photoshop nor in most rips...
Professor Schewe,
These cited attributes both seem to be about sharpness.  Do you and Professor Reichmann talk about this in your LR tutorials (I have them all), but don't remember such a discussion?  While sharpness is important for most images, it is not that important for my work.  My main concern is COLOR.  I have considered it for the 9900 I recently purchased for school, and corresponded with Colorbyte about  different bit depths in the contrast between the ICC scheme used by LR and the IP scheme.  I was told that this was one of the major reasons why color looks better using the IP RIP.  Can you comment on this?
Neil
Logged
photopianeil
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 25


WWW
« Reply #16 on: November 07, 2010, 09:28:47 AM »
ReplyReply

I think that the notion that this informative article by a recognized expert sounded like a sleazy, commercial promotion is ludicrous.  The article title ("In search of...") indicates to me that this is just one more LULA contribution to what options we have when we print.  I feel similarly about the notion that most of us are not looking for the best prints.  Dubovoy has explained in detail two very different ways to improve our printing with his printer of choice.  Do we expect that he should purchase a Canon and an HP just to be fair? That's what I would call overkill since each machine costs more than a spectro. and aftermarket RIP combined.
Logged
Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2725


« Reply #17 on: November 09, 2010, 02:21:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Automatic output sharpening and adaptive image upsampling are two aspects of Lightroom printing not found in Photoshop nor in most rips...

But available in Qimage. It wouldn't surprise me if it is found too in ImagePrint.


met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst Dinkla

Try: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wide_Inkjet_Printers/




Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 5255


WWW
« Reply #18 on: November 09, 2010, 10:20:16 AM »
ReplyReply

But available in Qimage. It wouldn't surprise me if it is found too in ImagePrint.

It isn't in Image Print...
Logged
Pages: [1]   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad