Anyone use ImagePrint RIP ?

[Ken Lee]

I've been doing some testing with the trial version, and notice that it applies a sort of micro sharpening. It makes the details look sharper, but when "demo" is printed over every image, it's hard to detrmine other aspects of image quality.

Any views pro or con ?

Please don't recommend I try QTR. I'm aware of it.

Thanks in advance

[Oren Grad]

FWIW: I bought ImagePrint, discovered that in general the available profiles did not support the 2880x1440 dpi mode on the 3880. I ran some comparative tests and found no improvement in the results compared to using the Epson driver and profiles or QTR - indeed, to my eye Epson did as well or better in color, and QTR did better in monochrome. So I sent it back within the return period for a refund, which to their credit they provided without a hassle.

In theory the advantage of ImagePrint has to do as much with color and tonal rendering as with detail rendering, but even with respect to that I didn't see anything in my initial testing to make me want to swallow the cost and continue trying to find an advantage.

It's conceivable that for some papers I didn't test, I might have found the ImagePrint profile to be better. As of last year, they had a decent set of profiles, but there were readily available papers that weren't covered. I don't know whether their coverage is more comprehensive now, but I think you can browse their download site and see for yourself before committing to a purchase.

As always, YMMV.

[Ken Lee]

Thanks Oren !

[Drewskers]

I've been using ImagePrint 7 with an Epson R2400 printer since about 2007. Before that I used IP 6 with an Epson 2200 for several years. ImagePrint is now up to version 9 and Epson has advanced their inks and printers another generation since the R2400. Bear this in mind, as things may be different now. I really haven't been keeping up, since the stuff I have works and meets my needs.

That said: my experience is that ImagePrint provides me with much more accurate color and tonality than I am able to obtain with the Epson printer driver, even using custom profiles.

But ImagePrint really comes into it's own when printing black and white. The monochrome ImagePrint profiles use only the black and gray inks and the resultant prints exhibit NO metamerism (color shift) whatsoever under any lighting condition. This advantage alone is what has made ImagePrint worthwhile to me.

On the con side is, unless you pony up the rather exorbitant yearly maintenance fees, you are at the mercy of the gods as to whether you will ever get the paper you want profiled, and in particular, I don't think there's been new profiles released for the R2400 in years, quite literally. Even when I was under contract I had to bug Colorbyte constantly to get the papers I wanted profiled, and they always acted like they were doing me a favor. Also after you have been off-contract for several years (three, as I recall), you lose your right to upgrade discounts, and have to buy IP at full retail price if you buy a new printer, even if it is to replace the old. As I am in this long expired category, when the time comes that I have to replace my printer, I will certainly re-evaluate my needs at that time.

[neil poulsen]

I tend to be biased against ImagePrint. I'm suspicious about products that make things "easy". If a product actually does that, all the better. But at the same time, Colorbyte (who makes ImagePrint) finds it necessary to buoy their "argument" by making derogatory statements about linearization, which is a good practice. Linearization involves collecting data to tailor the performance of a RIP to the particular idiosyncrasies of a given printer. It wouldn't surprise me if Colorbyte uses this "poor fit" practice behind the scenes in their product.

If I'm going to pay extra for a RIP, I want it to be a good one. And, I definitely want it to enable me to conduct linearizations. So, I purchased one of the ColorBurst RIPs, and I've been pleased with the results. Plus, this RIP enables me to use my 3880 (or 4000) as a true CMYK printer for which I can develop CMYK custom profiles. (Versus the standard RGB profiles.) If I recall correctly when I asked Colorbyte, ImagePrint does not do CMYK printing. Whether this has advantages for photography, I'm not sure. But, it definitely has advantages for graphic arts printing.

I've not done my own comparison between ColorBurst and the Epson driver. But, our local ProPhoto Supply conducted a comparison and displayed the results. They were evident: the ColorBurst RIP print for the image they used was more alive and had better color.

As for black and white printing, use QuadToneRip.

[Ken Lee]

Thanks Neil.

I own a copy of Quadtone RIP, but it supports only a limited range of papers for my printer, which is "only" a few years old. At this point, I don't want to invest in the gear to make my own profiles (I presume that equipment becomes obsolete quickly too).

I'll try the ColorBurst RIP demo.

[sanking]

Thanks Neil.

I own a copy of Quadtone RIP, but it supports only a limited range of papers for my printer, which is "only" a few years old. At this point, I don't want to invest in the gear to make my own profiles (I presume that equipment becomes obsolete quickly too).

I'll try the ColorBurst RIP demo.

You can linearize QTR profiles with the stepwedge tool and a scanner.

http://www.quadtonerip.com/html/QTRdownload.html

Sandy

[Kirk Gittings]

I used Imageprint for years and really liked it till I ran into MadMan Chan's profiles and have used them since for Epson inks. But he quit making them and its a matter of time before they are no longer useful. Now I would have to pay full price again for IP.

[Adamphotoman]

Hi Ken,
I purchased the very expensive Image Print RIP about 7 or 8 years ago. $3500 for 44 inch printer. At that time PS couldn't make prints longer than 90 some inches long and a very good client needed a couple inches longer. Yeah!Yeah!
Any way things have changed since then.
Are you Mac or PC?
Why do you want a RIP (rest in peace)?

I will not upgrade or deal with them anymore.

But, it was very intuitive. Making larger images was much better than up sizing in PS, And the layout function saved $...

If Mac look at Image Nest.

[Ken Lee]

Thanks. I've looked at ImageNest, and from what I can tell it's a RIP front-end which eventually dispatches the printer driver. So you get advanced layout features, but are on your own if you want profiles or an alternate rendering engine, 16-bit, etc.

I use a modest sized printer and don't really need the features which let us combine prints to save paper and ink on large rolls or sheets. For those who make prints for customers, I'm sure the cost of a RIP is recouped quickly, since materials are expensive.

What drew me to ImagePrint were reviews touting better image rendering. Also its supply of profiles for a wide variety of printers, papers and lighting (tungsten, daylight, incandescent, mixed) is very attractive. In years past, manufacturer-provided profiles were of questionable quality, but from the few experiments I have made with Epson and Canson papers, they are much improved.

The latest version of ImagePrint RIP also has tools for making duotones, tritones and quad tones, but I can easily get the toning I want via Photoshops's Fill Layer method.

So yes, this brings us back to ImageNest, which is quite affordable by comparison to the other RIPs. If demand for my work rises further and I get a bigger printer, then I'll likely get that.

Hold the phone: ImageNest appears to be identical to the ColorBurst "Layout" app. Say what ?