ImagePrint
ImagePrint
- Subject: ImagePrint
- From: Nick Wheeler <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2003 11:36:26 -0500
Eric:
I ran ImagePrint under OS 9 on an original iMac (a teenaged daughter reject)
and it worked fine. The only issues were processer and memory intensive
functions such as file rotations. These would fail on such an old computer.
Do all that stuff in PhotoShop and it worked great.
Essentially the OS 9 product was a series of modules that would be assembled
whole in OS X. This made the OS 9 version confusing as there were times when
about a half dozen mini apps were firing away all at once. Much potential
for disaster. But if you dedicated an OS 9 computer with minimal extensions
to the task it would work fine. TCP/IP has to be set up manually in OS 9.
I actually experienced more difficulty under OS X prior to the 10.2.3
update. As of 10.2.3 Image print seems quite stable. One particular bug to
beware of is if you do the printer "Network Install" routine without a
proper TCP/IP address it will croak the app. Nothing short of a complete
software reinstall will fix the problem. I believe a corrupted hidden
preferences file is the culprit but I'll be damned if I can find it.
As to the ongoing profiling debate a few notes about ImagePrint software
architecture as an aid to anyone interested in doing more tests:
Note 1: Any four channel (cmyk) file sent to ImagePrint is converted to Lab
via either the embedded profile or the default specified in ImagePrint. So I
would imagine (but I surely do not know) that any K generation or ink
limiting as related to output is illusory. This information was provided to
me by John Panozzo about six months ago. Ditto rgb btw. Seems to me the idea
of sending Lab to ImagePrint therefore has some real merit.
Note 2: ColorByte first develops a "recipe" (their word) for a particular
printer and ink combination. I have asked if this isn't the same thing as
linearization and John continues to say not quite:
>
on 9/17/02 2:39 PM, John Pannozzo at email@hidden wrote:
>
>
> The recipe encompasses many steps of which linearization is one of. Just
>
> because a printer is made linear does not mean it's gamut has been maximized
>
> or that the blending points are optimal. The problem we see with the
>
> traditional workflow is that after the user ink limits, nothing else changes
>
> and the blending points are so wrong with the new linearization that the
>
> output looks bad.
>
>
John was actually answering a question about providing a linearization
routine like some other vendors. As you can see he doesn't think that is
such a good idea. It seems to me that something like Epson's "color density"
slider would still be a good feature for those wanting to roll their own
profiles. Different matte medias exhibit markedly different ink absorption,
someway to compensate would be nice.
Once the recipe is perfected they then profile specific papers. One might
conclude that a recipe is something like the media selection in the Epson
driver. I don't think so.
There may be something to the contention that the output profile selected in
"Color Settings - Bitmap" still plays a role. Bruce Fraser's measurements
would suggest no way, and I tend to agree with Bruce. But who knows, more
information on this point would be valuable. We need to hear from the
horse's mouth.
Anyway, some additional comments....
The way the end user selects a "recipe" is a combination of the choice of
printer driver initially and then the proper ink specification in the
printer setup drop down menu. The problem as I see it at the moment is that
for some printers there are limited recipe choices. For the Epson 7600 there
are really only "recipies" for the Epson matte black and photo black inks.
I would assume they have tuned the matte black recipe for matte media and
the photo black for glossy media. But I would imagine that there would be a
need for more fine tuning of the "recipes" than that. They have tuned the
Photo K "recipe" to reduce bronzing by changing the K generation curve
substantially from the Epson driver iteration.
If you are interested in printing on glossy media this would be well worth a
look.
The limited choice of "recipes" (again read linearization) probably accounts
for the wildly different accounts one hears about success or failure with
ImagePrint. I have personally tested ImagePrint on a variety of media using
both the Epson 7000 with the MIS Full Spectrum neutral inks and on the Epson
7600 with the matte K inks.
Once Colorbyte software supplied me with the correct recipe/profile
combination for the 7000/MIS setup the results were truly exceptional. The
prints were a significant order of magnitude superior to any other quadtone
process I had tried (Cone, Lyson, Epson Driver, all the quadtone curves I
could generate as well as those done by others). However a change somewhere,
either ink or paper I know not which, rendered the system completely
useless. Since the original process took six months I was not eager to
repeat the exercise, nor was ColorByte. My 7000 is now a paperweight.
With the 7600 results have been spectacular on some media and dismal on
others. This may be related to a problem with media consistency at the
moment. For instance Hahnemuhle had a bad batch of Photo Rag and Epson has
changed its coatings some over the past 18 months, so who knows what
profiles are accurate and proper for what paper.
I have sent samples to ColorByte but never got any definitive answers back.
My suspicion is they are pretty busy at the moment, therefore somewhat
unresponsive.
On the Epson 7600 I can say that if you are using a brand new Hahnemuhle
PhotoRag in color or the "old" Epson Archival Matte (now called enhanced
matte but maybe not the same coating) in b/w that you owe it to yourself to
download the demo version of ImagePrint and try it. The results are
spectacular, gives you a feel for the potential here. Strange to say the
results on Epson Smooth Fine Art media in color and Hahnehuhle PhotoRag in
b/w here have been dismal.
What this suggests to me is that a mature version of ImagePrint would put
far more linearization (calibration) and profiling (characterization)
control in the hands of the end user. Relying on some kind of subscription
based custom profiling service is too inconvenient at the moment (read six
month wait) for the end user and may overwhelm ColorByte's resources.
If Colorbyte can reduce the custom profiling lead time to a one week type of
thing then their subscription service would be a phenomenal bargain. But I
think end users that already have a significant investment in profiling
harware/software would appreciate a viable alternative.
ImagePrint's potential is incredible - it's all in the execution now.
Best wishes,
Nick Wheeler
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.