Today I received a print on Silver Rag, printed at 1440 8-pass. Under the 6X lupe, I could not see the difference between this print and the 4-pass print.
The 2880 print will not be ready till tomorrow. So, I wait again. My expectations, at seeing a major difference between the two prints, are probably too high. Then again, I wonder if they even changed the setting to 8-pass?
I will try one more time...
jim k
Last edited by jim kitchen; 7-Sep-2006 at 15:13.
That's great. Maybe the 4 pass banding issue is not a problem with the 800 series printers (I use a 4000). Or maybe, it is sometimes simply the different papers. It will make your lab happy as 4 pass prints much faster. The 2880 setting has a different "look" to it as it does not use variable droplets but a single size very small. It gives a kind of creamy look to the midtones, which I like for some images.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
Dear Kirk,
Today I received another proof, and this one set at 2880dpi single pass. For the life of me I can not see any difference between it and 1440 4-pass, under a 6X loupe. I am surprised, but then again I might have a really crappy loupe, or a really bad eye.
These incremental settings must be a placebos...
jim k
Last edited by jim kitchen; 8-Sep-2006 at 17:17.
So you sent a 360 ppi file out, and got back prints made at 720dpi, 1440 dpi (one 4 pass, one 8 pass), and one at 2880dpi, all made from this same 360 ppi file, and you can't tell them apart? Normal viewing distance or under 6x loupe?Originally Posted by jim kitchen
Very interesting. My inclination is to say that somebody must be lying to somebody, but I don't have nearly enough information for that. Could be that whoever is doing the printing is playing with you. It could be that ImagePrint's dither patterns are magically good to the point were there's no noticable difference. Could be a lot of things.
I can say that with my 7600 using PiezoTone inks and the StudioPrint RIP for B&W output, that 1440 blows 720 out of the water, and that 2880 is sufficiently smoother than 1440 that I always print at 2880 eventhough it takes considerably longer to print. And I can also see the differences with a loupe, although my print loupe is 10x.
Interesting indeed.
Bruce Watson
I'll add that, using the Colorburst RIP (the full version not the baddly crippled version supplied in Epson's pro packages) on a 4800 I see significant differences in 720, 1440 and 2880 settings.
Another possibility is that the machine operator really is not expert. You would be amazed at the number of folks working in "Pro Labs" including some of the best, are not experts at their craft. You might want to sit down with your local guy while he is setting up the print and talk through what he is doing ... you may both learn.
Gentlemen,
You are probably correct with your assumption that the operator might not know what the software does at the moment. Your software is different, and your support is probably a bit more excellent, compared to what I experience at the moment. Imageprint, for some unknown reason, does not divulge information, and I am at a loss as to why the images look so identical, under a 6X loupe. The operator can not answer my questions, as I mentioned earler, and the printhouse finds little comfort with Imageprint returning phone calls.
Cruising the Imageprint newsgroup, indicates that everyone has an opinion on how the software works, but I can not find a definitive answer from Imageprint themselves. I believe the different settings should give some incremental changes, but alas, these images look identical.
It seems from the Imageprint newsgroup, a few other people share my experience...
That said, I envy the fact that you can see a difference. I will sit down with the print house operator on Monday, and give this issue one last try.
jim k
Dear Group,
I received my final test prints today from the print house, where I sat and watched them work the software and the printer...
We printed three prints from the same file at 1440 4-pass, 1440 8-pass, and 2880, where all were single passes and not the high speed bidirectional passes. The images look identical. It should be noted that I used Crane's Silver Rag with the Imageprint grey curves seleceted for each setting, where there is a single curve for the 1440 prints and a curve for the 2880.
That said, we all reviewed the images, and we could not see any discernable difference between the images. They all looked great, but not different. This issue might be specific to the curve for this paper, but for the moment I am tired of testing, and I will send a few of my images off to Phil in Portland to print a carbon ink image or two for the gallery.
Anyway, I am done with my test, and I will go forward with this paper at the lower dpi setting, until the paper supply is exhausted.
Thank you for your replies...
jim k
I used the test version of Imageprint, having recently been badly burned by StudioPrint. I found that using 4 pass gave me noticeable banding, as did 2880 however the banding was nearly invisible (you'd have to seriously look for it) with 8-pass.
The B&W prints with Image Print were neutral right out of the box, dead neutral no metamerism. The print I've been getting with StudioPrint were olive in color with noticeable metamerism. This using a gretag produced linearization and StudioPrint profiles. The biggest problem I had with StudioPrint was that when I had a recent deadline, due the tuesday after Labor day, StudioPrint had bugs and refused to print. I kept getting error messages and images would not open in the program. Needless to say this happened on the Saturday of the 3 day weekend and I had to rely on the native Epson drivers to finish my project. To be fair the native Epson drivers were about as good as StudioPrint. So for me StudioPrint is a waste of $895. plus I bought a PC, (I'm a mac) just to use it.
I'm still not thrilled with the results(banding) I got with ImagePrint, although it is clearly better than StudioPrint, but I am hesitant to throw another $800 away on these boutique softwares that have little reliability and little customer support. They all seem more like a work in progress than a finished product.
Dear Brian, et al...
Some notes for the archives.
My troubles and frustration with Imageprint, stem from the fact that I am not in control of my printing, other than setting up a file to print within Photoshop, and believing what I see on my calibrated monitor would be printed properly. Imageprint is a black box, and for the moment, I consider it a Black Hole. I am a part-time Apple Developer, and I can empathize with Imageprint to a certain degree, regarding their absolute silent position with their proprietary software. I also agree with their stance about paying for information, since that is part of their revenue stream, but not quite to the degree they enforce this issue. They are notorious for not returning phone calls, and the lack of excellent knowledge among the users astounds me. This lack of knowledge, which is purely speculation on my part, could simply be a global position taken by many users that own the software, that do not wish to divulge any information, since they paid for it. I might do the same if I owned this software, but I am for the moment, a user at a print house that owns and distributes the software.
That is why I call it a Black Hole...
That said, I must admit though, this software and using Silver Rag looks quite astonishing, where the image is absolutely beautifully neutral with only a slight bit of metamersim, even if I don't know how it was printed and I can not see the difference between the image settings. Go figure...
As a side note, one kind soul contacted me directly recently that seems to know Imageprint quite well. He offered some intuitive advice, and for some unknown reason he decide to pass it on to me. He states the following, and again this is a quote from this gentleman and not Imageprint. This gentleman emphatically suggests that I should understand the following:
1. Choose the correct grey profile for the printer output, such as 1440 for 1440, and 2880 for 2880. Selecting the correct profile will automatically select the desired printer dpi;
2. Do not use the bi-directional printing option for high quality images, since it might compromise image quality;
3. Set your files to 360ppi only, with all of your attributes set, such as sharpening, etc. This effectively turns off the interpolation engine within Imageprint;
4. Do not let Imageprint upsize or downsize your images, since it is a black box, where you will lose all control of your attributes set in the file;
5. Imageprint has a radically different screening algorithm, and you must be aware when downsizing or upsizing your image. Users of heavy sharpening attributes might find that Imageprint makes it too sharp, and your image will appear lighter than expected;
6. The 2880 setting is there because too many people asked for it. The 2880 setting supposedly produces single fine dots. Whether it works is another matter;
7. Some people believe that 2880 produces better prints, but that is hard to decern on certain images.
8. Use the 2880 setting for small prints only, otherwise use the 1440 4-pass;
9. The 1440 versus 2880 discussion is image specific, where the results vary just as the image does;
10. The 1440 8-pass setting is for use with specific papers that require additional ink drying time. It seems that the 8-pass supposedly offers a higher level of micro weaving as the ink is laid down, where the ink has a chance to dry properly before the next layer is laid down. This setting has no incremental visual imapct with the print (Such an interesting comment...);
11. The 1440 4-pass setting is the preferred setting;
12. The issue with 16bit files was not spoken too, since he could not answer the issue as to whether Imageprint dropped the image back to 8bit internally or not, since this feature could be just a convenience for the larger print houses, that regularily receive 16bit files;
13. A Black Hole is God's answer to division by Zero.
I hope this information helps someone down the road, although these items are not the Gospel, according to Imageprint.
jim k
Jim thanks for the detailed response. As I have read in other posts, there are banding problems when using 1440 4 pass, I have had this problem. The only correction for it has been to work in 1440 8 pass. To be honest and as the prints I sell are silver and the inkjet prints are only for gallery catalogs and presskits, I may just use the native Photoshop/Epson print driver. I do so because all of these RIP software programs seem to be works in progress, are all black holes and I'm tired of spending $800 a pop for products this unfinished.
Good luck with your efforts.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks