Site Sponsors
Results 1 to 11 of 11

Thread: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    I currently use an HP Z3100PS and an Epson 3880. I was never thrilled with the Epson profiles so downloaded ImagePrint and gave it a go.

    1. Printed color and b&w on Canson Infinity Baryta, using IP and the epson profiles. IP was far more neutral in color. In comparison, the Epson profile (from Canson) over saturated the greens and added an overall yellow tone to the prints.

    2. On B&W, again IP was far better tonality and did not smudge all the dark areas.

    3. Biggest surprise was the detail. Grass and foliage that looked muddy with the ICC profile held the detail from the original image.

    4. I also tried Hahnemuhle Photo Rag Satin. This is a matte paper, and I was not as impressed. In this case, the ink appeared to be bleeding and dark areas were just terrible.

    Any thoughts on item 4?

    I am so impressed with what I printed on the Canson glossy, that I am seriously considering ditching the big HP and going with an Epson 9900 just so I can use IP. Of course, the matte paper issue would need to be addressed, but I'm sure there is something I'm missing.

    Thanks again for any help.

    Cheers.

  2. #2
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,802
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    Good choice...IP is a needed addition for printing on the Epson LF printers.

    Canson will be much more detailed than Hahnemuhle PR Satin but you should be able to correct the blacks in IP ... look at the full manual... chapters 6, 9, and 10 for Color correction and tone mapping...shadow point compensation. I think Mark Dubovoy has a bit on Wide and Narrow Gamut in IP here:

    ColorByte ImagePrint 9

    You may like Epson Cold or Hot Press as an alternative...but Canson will have the best blacks and detail.

    Bob

  3. #3
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    Thanks for tips Bob. I got it working a little better, but I think my expectations on matte papers are a little too high.

    Trying later tonight with Hahnemuhle PR Bright White to see if it's much better. In any case, the difference the Canson Inf. Baryta is enough for me to spend the 900$ on IP for the 3880. I'm going to play with a little and compare to custom profiles on the Z3100PS with APS. Switching the HP out for an Epson 9900 and 44" warrants a little more thought.

    Cheers, Jag

  4. #4
    Subscriber and Workshop Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,802
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    If the 9900 is a step too far I can recommend the 4900...night and day
    above my previous 3800. The IP cost is scaled so that you only pay for the difference as the size goes up.

    I have used IP since version 4(?) and made the upgrades over a period of years...have not regretted the decision.

    If you have not please read the link article in Mark Dubovoy's article to George DeWolf's B&W Master Print...

    I have an Eye1 profiling system (newest version) and it is not worth the effort to try and duplicate the profiling done in IP...not to mention their proprietary dithering on the Epsons.

    When I want the best black and sharpness it is not a matte paper...however for many subjects matte conveys the mood and tone that I need.

    Bob

  5. #5
    Senior Member stngoldberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    newport, RI
    Posts
    808
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    Quote Originally Posted by docmoore View Post
    If the 9900 is a step too far I can recommend the 4900...night and day
    above my previous 3800. The IP cost is scaled so that you only pay for the difference as the size goes up.

    I have used IP since version 4(?) and made the upgrades over a period of years...have not regretted the decision.

    If you have not please read the link article in Mark Dubovoy's article to George DeWolf's B&W Master Print...

    I have an Eye1 profiling system (newest version) and it is not worth the effort to try and duplicate the profiling done in IP...not to mention their proprietary dithering on the Epsons.

    When I want the best black and sharpness it is not a matte paper...however for many subjects matte conveys the mood and tone that I need.

    Bob
    Try Canson Platine with IP-sensational

    Stanley

  6. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    Yes, the Plantine is on my list to try.

    Bob, I have a 44" Z3100PS, so need to go to either 9980 or 9900. Eitherway, IP is the same cost. The Z3100 has a spectrometer built in, and comes with an OEM version of Xrite for profiling. It works quite well, but I think IP is just that much less trouble.

    Cheers...

  7. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Culver City, Ca.
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    I'd say that before making your decision, you should really try a good custom profile on your Epson and not some canned Canson profile. Too often, the profiles coming from paper companies are not what they could or should be and you get a skewed idea of what your printer can do.

    The custom profiles I make for my 9900 (and I do not use ImagePrint) make superior prints on all types of media. The custom profiles I make for friend who happen to use ImagePrint are all better than the profiles that ColorByte supplies.

    Before you spend the money on IP, at least make your decision based on good information.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,069
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    83

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    So far, IP has been great on my Epson 3880. Compared directly with with custom profiles built for the same paper on the Z3100PS, there are differences, but these would boil down to personal preferences. At the price point for the 3880, I think IP is a good solution. If I ended up replacing my 44" HP with an Epson 9980, I would have to think of the cost/benefit of IP vs custom profiles.

  9. #9
    New Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    6
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    Quote Originally Posted by pfigen View Post
    The custom profiles I make for my 9900 (and I do not use ImagePrint) make superior prints on all types of media. The custom profiles I make for friend who happen to use ImagePrint are all better than the profiles that ColorByte supplies.

    Hello pfigen, what solution/software do you use to make your profiles?

    Thxs

  10. #10
    Senior Member stngoldberg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    newport, RI
    Posts
    808
    Post Thanks / Like
    Images
    12

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    I use Imageprint on my Epson 3800 and Epson 7880
    After a great deal of experimentation with all types of paper, I have settled on Canson Platine because it affords the most detail and it is consistent from lot to lot.
    My career involved color matching in the textile printing business as well as the fabric dyeing business and I am passionate about repeating on paper what I see on my monitor (EIZO).
    Canson's paper is expensive, but any other paper just doesn't get me the best print.
    In addition to the best paper profiles, Colorbyte's customer service over the phone is terrific!
    Stanley

  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Culver City, Ca.
    Posts
    167
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Thinking about ImagePrint 9

    "Hello pfigen, what solution/software do you use to make your profiles?"

    I use a Spectrolino Spectroscan that I've had for about a dozen years. With its interchangeable filters it's still one of the best spectrophotometers out there, even if it is a bit slow.

    I used ProfileMaker for years and still have it, but have moved over to i1Profiler. The main difference is that the new X-Rite profiles have a better Perceptual rendering, and the software is compatible with the latest operating systems, while ProfileMaker will not run past Mac OS 10.6.8. There is no real difference between the Gretag and X-Rite profiles when used with Relative Colorimetric rendering. Gretag still has hands down the best profile editor I've ever used. If you need to edit profiles your SOL with Profiler, as X-Rite apparently thinks they're perfect.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •