Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Imageprint - worth the $ ? - compare to QImage? other views please!  (Read 28811 times)
tvalleau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #120 on: December 21, 2010, 07:24:59 PM »
ReplyReply

Thanks, DD. Just to be clear, I'm not talking about the -file- size, but the size of the image space, just as AdobeRGB is a smaller space than ProPhoto.  The IP spaces are all comfortably (and well) inside the other spaces. Here, for example is the Canson Baryta profile's space, and the IP version of it, inside. (Well, the yellows are larger, as are some of the deep blues, but the greens are significantly recessed, as are the rest of the colors.)

« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 08:35:10 PM by tvalleau » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #121 on: December 21, 2010, 09:12:52 PM »
ReplyReply

OK, size of the gamut. Part of this may be due to the target used to build the profile and where in color space the patches reside.
Logged

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

Posts: 29


« Reply #122 on: December 21, 2010, 09:24:39 PM »
ReplyReply

That makes sense. I can understand how that would work. The next question is, of course, is that smaller space imposing a limit (relative to the larger one) on the gamut of the output? (In my ignorance, I suppose so, but perhaps the driver is expanding it? Seems a stretch....

As we exchange here, I'm printing out many tests against the driver and Bill Atkinson's (I went to college with Bill: UCSD) standard test file. FWIW, the Ilford Smooth Pearl profiles seem fine (I prefer the IGSP11 version slightly); the Epson Premium Luster paper really needs the ep3800 PK7 UltraPremiumPhotoLuster RDay profile else the pastels are off significantly. (At least I can manage to give something back!  :-)
« Last Edit: December 21, 2010, 09:28:44 PM by tvalleau » Logged
Jeff Kott
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 117


« Reply #123 on: December 21, 2010, 11:58:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Tracy's observation on the IP profiles made me curious, so I did my own comparison of an InkJetArt Micro Ceramic gloss stock profile for the 4800 against the IP profile for the same printer/paper combination. The gamut volumes are almost exactly the same with a slight shift in colors. This is the result that I would have expected.
Logged
tvalleau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #124 on: December 22, 2010, 12:04:04 AM »
ReplyReply


Jeff & I exchanged a few emails and he was quite helpful. (Thanks, Jeff.) As I told him, I've sent off the question to ColorByte and will report their answer. (I don't see anything obvious in the resulting prints, so I'm curious as to the why of it all...)

later... well, I've just compared the 3D plot of Apple's ColorSync Utility and ColorThink 2.2 using the default sRGB and SWOP. Ummm... they only barely match. Both show the swop yellow and green outside the SRGB, but the Apple utility shows a whole bunch of red and everything toward the black well outside the sRGB frame, while Colorthink shows no such thing.

I also see that the luminosity white points don't match between the two displays, so obviously they are comparing different things, or using different techniques.

So... that might explain the gamut size difference that Jeff and I saw... and I'd be interested to learn from someone here what's going on between the two different software products... why is the axis off? why are the values shown so different?

Here's what I see:
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 01:07:18 AM by tvalleau » Logged
Sven W
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 514


« Reply #125 on: December 22, 2010, 05:59:46 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have access to MeasureTool (licensed) you can easily generate a control-strip for, say, 20 patches with familiar colors.
Sky, skin, foliage, gray, black, etc.
Print the strip (of course with the actual profile/paper/printer/settings) with Absolute Colorimetric Rendering Intent. Dry as normal.
Measure the strip, compare in Calculating in MT and voilà; you have the DeltaE for that profile.

/Sven

PS. For testing IP profiles, convert the strip from Lab to (Adobe)RGB. IP don't treat Lab in a proper way.
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 06:05:17 AM by Sven W » Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
Dan Berg
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1536



WWW
« Reply #126 on: December 22, 2010, 09:14:43 AM »
ReplyReply

And you misunderstood my comparison; that "quality and price" both are higher for that system then the OEM system.
Better prints? Different prints, I would say. But that is just one of many good reasons for using a RIP like IP.
About pricing; what's the cost for an own profiling system, e.g. EyeOne Pro with ProfileMaker?
What's the cost for custom made profiles, say, for ten different papers?

/Sven
Cost for profiles for 10 different papers is between $250 and $500
With oem profiles being so good their is no real reason to have Profilemaker or buy custom profiles.
As a lifelong business owner I am always looking at cost versus benefit ratios. Although some benefits are there the ratio is just to far off to make it cost effective. $250 to $500 range and I become a whole lot more interested.
Logged

digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #127 on: December 22, 2010, 09:45:11 AM »
ReplyReply

If you have access to MeasureTool (licensed) you can easily generate a control-strip for, say, 20 patches with familiar colors.
PS. For testing IP profiles, convert the strip from Lab to (Adobe)RGB. IP don't treat Lab in a proper way.

You can build and measure in ColorPort as well (without restrictions). If you have ColorThink, you can build a color list that can be imported as patches in ColorPort, saved out as a target and measured. Now what RGB values you select in what color space (Adobe RGB was suggested) is the next question. ColorThink will take RGB values in a color list and assign a profile to produce the Lab conversions as well. You’ll have to select a rendering intent of course! Now you have a reference set and can compare that to the measured data for a dE report or plot the vectors as well as comparing gamuts.
Logged

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

Posts: 514


« Reply #128 on: December 22, 2010, 10:11:57 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting Andrew, thanks for the tip.

/Sven
Logged

Stockholm, Sweden
tvalleau
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 29


« Reply #129 on: December 22, 2010, 01:24:48 PM »
ReplyReply

...and, as promised, here's a reply from Chromix as to the differences between the two software products:

Quote
Hi Tracy,

What a great question!  

Yes, the white points in our grapher don't match because the white points of the profiles don't match.  If you open up the two profiles in the Profile Inspector and click on the white point tab, you can see the white points of the two profiles.  sRGB is a blueish white, and SWOP is a dark and slightly warm "white".    Our 3D grapher accurately reflects this.

Also, Lab space is 255 increments wide and only 100 increments high, so to reflect Lab space as being a squared cube is incorrect.

Here's an article our president wrote that goes into this in more detail:
http://www.colorwiki.com/wiki/Color_Management_Myths_26-28



hth

Tracy
« Last Edit: December 22, 2010, 01:26:22 PM by tvalleau » Logged
I Simonius
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #130 on: July 14, 2013, 12:05:49 PM »
ReplyReply

I agree (being Joe User myself Wink )
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1234


« Reply #131 on: December 16, 2014, 06:45:17 PM »
ReplyReply

The reason they are so expensive is because they can charge large printing companies what they want. They maybe part of the SWOP group monopoly.

They price the product based on your potential profit, not on what it takes to make the software or have a good business. Not at all!  There is simple ZERO reason to charge the crazy prices they do. They want to keep prepress off the hands of the average folk and only to the industry. Remember the time when magazines only took ads with a Contract proof? Some still strongly demand it, or you sign a big waiver to release liability of color.
I would think these companies could get off their high horse and provide some reasonably priced solutions for independent designers and printers.  One could only hope. But why would they, they are still reeping gains from the med-large printing houses.

I know there is quite a bit involved in the dev of such, but Qimage could come up with a prepress version and shock the market.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 9317



WWW
« Reply #132 on: December 16, 2014, 07:12:14 PM »
ReplyReply

The reason they are so expensive is because they can charge large printing companies what they want. They maybe part of the SWOP group monopoly.
SWOP monopoly, what’s that? What has SWOP got to do with printing on an inkjet using a print driver designed primarily for ‘fine art’ photo output?

The price some may consider high. If the cost proposition isn’t for you, don’t buy it.
Quote
They price the product based on your potential profit, not on what it takes to make the software or have a good business
How would they have any idea of your potential profit?
I know a few folk who use this product and have no such potential profit, they just want to use it to make their own prints.
Logged

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

Posts: 1234


« Reply #133 on: December 16, 2014, 09:41:47 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm talking about RIP software for prepress. These are the controllers of what is considered "certified" or not.
Most of these inkjets at the time replaced "blueline" prints, Kodak or Iris prints. those were considered proofs. They came with color controllers, RIP software. This was sometimes a $150 for a single Letter size page.
Then proofing and more recently for photo printing. From what I remember, the software for accurate color worked from the prepress side first.

I think a proof now adays is less than $20. So the software side needs to correct the pricing, and they haven't.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5544


WWW
« Reply #134 on: December 16, 2014, 10:57:07 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm talking about RIP software for prepress.

And this thread is about Imageprint vs QImage...the proofing rips don't apply here.
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1234


« Reply #135 on: December 16, 2014, 11:37:51 PM »
ReplyReply

this thread is old. I read it and what I mention has more to do with it than much of the other pages of discussion.

the price stucture does apply in some of them. I paid $2K for a rip an now that I have a new printer they want another $1200....I want it for my photography prints.
« Last Edit: December 16, 2014, 11:39:55 PM by Phil Indeblanc » Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
aaronchan
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 340


« Reply #136 on: December 17, 2014, 12:21:48 AM »
ReplyReply

I personally like Q-Image a lot more.
Yes, Imageprint has somewhat like over 10 thousand profiles up on their server.
But the fact is, I never need to provide that much veriaty to my customer.
Most of the time I provide no more than 10 types of paper in all the time.
Once is a blue moon, I do have a request on some other paper that I don't always keep in stock.
But that's not a really big problem for me.
Plus sometimes, customer will bring in or request some special paper which they will not have a profile on their side such as no name uncoated fine art paper, uncoated traditional Chinese rice paper.
So no matter what, it is better off for me to create my own ICC profile.

Plus, I "personally" think Q-image has a better user interface.

aaron
Logged
Phil Indeblanc
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1234


« Reply #137 on: December 17, 2014, 01:11:59 AM »
ReplyReply

I'm going to give Qimage a deeper try. I have downloaded the tester, but 14 days is more like 3-4 days by the time I get around to it.

regarding other pricey RIPs, I rather pay $30-40 for someone who does it often to make a profile. In a pinch, I'll dust off my profile maker.
Logged

If you buy a camera, you're a photographer...
Stefan Ohlsson
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 108



« Reply #138 on: December 17, 2014, 02:00:40 AM »
ReplyReply


Plus sometimes, customer will bring in or request some special paper which they will not have a profile on their side such as no name uncoated fine art paper, uncoated traditional Chinese rice paper.
So no matter what, it is better off for me to create my own ICC profile.


aaron
You never print in B&W? I find that the quality of the B&W profiles that ImagePrint has is superior to what I can create, no matter how hard I try. And as the B&W prints in ImagePrint don't use any of the yellow ink, they will last a lot longer than a B&W print made with a colour profile or with Epson's ABW option.
Logged

Ernst Dinkla
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2911


« Reply #139 on: December 17, 2014, 04:28:53 AM »
ReplyReply

You never print in B&W? I find that the quality of the B&W profiles that ImagePrint has is superior to what I can create, no matter how hard I try. And as the B&W prints in ImagePrint don't use any of the yellow ink, they will last a lot longer than a B&W print made with a colour profile or with Epson's ABW option.

Phil most likely has an HP Z3200 printer too given his other messages in the forum. ImagePrint does not support that printer. On the other hand the combination of Qimage Ultimate + the HP Z3200 is made in heaven; the spectrometer aboard the printer keeps any media calibration up to date and delivers custom profiles for third party media, Qimage Ultimate does the right job in up and down resampling + smart print sharpening and way more. IP does not have that many features. HP documents on using third party media are nice too. The quad ink B&W matte prints of the HP Z's driver B&W mode are one of a kind within OEM solutions and can be enhanced with QTR B&W profiling if needed. The total substitution of composite grey mixes by grey ink mixes has been aboard the Z driver/firmware from day one, 2006, both for color and B&W driver modes. That novelty must have been the inspiration in 2012 for the ImagePrint engineers to create a similar black generation in today's ImagePrint so the Epson inks can deliver a better light resistance in prints than possible with the Epson drivers. The Epson ink set still lacks a decent light resistant yellow ink though and the grey inks need some color inks to be neutralised where the HP grey inks up to the PK are neutral themselves.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/the_weakest_link.shtml

The HP ink mixing is a bit more nifty than I describe it here. Mark McCormick has mentioned the compensation of the grey ink's warming up in time with a synchroneity in cyan ink color shifting. If I recall it correctly.

To profile other brand printers with the Z's spectrometer one has to check the ability of the HP Color Center or APS software for that task. I have done it for some customers with other printer models.


Met vriendelijke groet, Ernst

http://www.pigment-print.com/spectralplots/spectrumviz_1.htm
December 2014 update, 700+ inkjet media white spectral plots
« Last Edit: December 17, 2014, 05:37:18 AM by Ernst Dinkla » Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 5 6 [7] 8 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad