Re: RIPs: ImagePrint or Colorburst
Re: RIPs: ImagePrint or Colorburst
- Subject: Re: RIPs: ImagePrint or Colorburst
- From: "Cris Daniels" <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:34:26 -0400
First things first, the fact that Xphoto is in a state of virtually
constant development is a good thing, but my observations are based on
what the shipping products do at this time. I hope that development
continues in the right direction and that it is good that another OSX
RIP has hit the market.
Back to ImagePrint,
<ImagePrint works best as RGB to get the gray balance feature everyone
touts from the CMM. I ain't a big fan of any product that does an
automatic analysis of image data (or profiling charts) in order to
separate to CMYK.>
Colorbyte simply feels that their black generation is better than what
the average user is going to guess at. I've profiled ImagePrint CMYK and
RGB and get no benefit from running it CMYK. ImagePrint also doesn't
automatically do anything to the targets, otherwise you'd never be able
to profile the RIP at all. Turning of the Color Mangement gets you the
device behavior you need to profile with. Now you can argue the merits
of CMYK vs. RGB profiling, but there is no automated color correction
per se.
<My point in the original post was ImagePrint works best with their
custom ICC profiles to get the gray balance tint option that is the
selling point of the product.>
Its one of the selling points, but the target and profiling software
that reads the custom gray targets is not standard stuff. It is not a
simple little grayscale profile that any other package can make. Perhaps
this is more proprietary than some would like, but for that's the way it
is I suppose.
<No doubt many on this list get great results using the Atkinson ICC
profiling diet. <g> Seriously, some require CMYK print path way for many
reasons you don't agree with. That's fine.>
Actually I was just referring to the fact that some people do feel like
these profiles work with many other like devices, the point was
independent of whether the workflow was CMYK or RGB.
If you are a photographer or in Fine Art however, you have no business
in CMYK, but that's my opinion based on experience.
<A more appropriate question would be do you and others all share the
same color tolerance? Probably not.>
Ahhhhh, but that's the rub isn't it? Anyone reading this list is likely
to demand more accuracy in their color or B+W output than the average
user. Lots of people are perfectly happy with "acceptable" color. We
also get into the entire workflow issues like quality scans, 16 bit
editing, monitor calibration, experience, blah.
<With proper process control in a RIP you can minimize color variance be
it however large or small. ImagePrint does not offer a way to
compensate. I can tell you from LOTS of experience that ambient
conditions do affect how quickly ink is absorbed into paper.>
Well honestly I just roll my own profiles most of the time, at least
this is the way I compensate. Colorbyte's 7600 is just not close enough
to mine. There are many that will work very well though because these
printers are not all over the map like the 7000 series was. That having
been said, I don't consider myself a color god by any means, I just am
looking for the best I can get with what I'm using. Of course with the
constant introduction of new color gadgets I spend a large amount of
time simply chasing my tail. At some point you just have to make some
prints to pay for all of this crap, perfect color or not.
<I have yet to find an art media, or any media for that mater, that can
handle 400% coverage.>
Slow down, the ink limiting is essentially done in the print recipe.
This is why you don't have to run ink limiting targets like Onyx where
half the page is swamped with ink. The recipe is a very complex version
of a "print environment". Because Colorbyte know the cartridge values
and the blending characteristics of the inks (they don't build them with
simple density ramps), they are creating a situation where this "print
environment" is a fixed entity. The software used and the time put into
the examination of these recipes is enormous. The downside is if you
switch to non-supported inks where they will deviate greatly from say
Epson inks. The recipes are built on matte and photo papers, and it is
rare but some papers might need to be ink limited (BrightCube Satine
comes to mind) where you get some mottling unless you throttle it back
to 90%. ImagePrint however will not allow you to run full 400% and soak
the paper, there is no point in offering this "flexibility" as nothing
will withstand that inkload anyway. From the pre-determined inking
limits in the recipe, you can ink limit from that point down.
I see this two ways, some users may find this too "black box", so be it.
Overall I'm still most interested in what works best. Now if Colorbyte
added this recipe building capabilities, the average end user would be
overwhelmed and of course they would need tons of time, a spectrolino,
and experience. You can argue that their approach is more real-world
practical and certainly works, even if it flies in the face of
conventional RIP workflows. Lets also remember that it is childs play to
add this whole linearization stuff, Colorbyte could and would have done
it if it was really a benefit to their product. Then of course you get
the complaints that "it requires a further investment in equipment" by
the end users. People already complain that ImagePrint is complicated
which I always find funny, but this just shows you the type of user that
is coming into this market. They won't buy complicated, they want fast,
simple, and easy to learn so that they can spend their time on photo
shoots, not learning color theory.
<Auto-something behind the scenes? I agree the RGB charts look better
but I don't profile CMYK devices as RGB. I guess I have a phobia about a
CMM performing an auto gray balance and ink limiting based on the image
data. I am looking for consistency not just pretty pictures.>
There is no auto anything, in fact I would prefer the nice native gray
balance of the Colorbyte recipes because it is a hell of a lot less work
for the profile to fix a device that isn't all over the map. Their
approach does not create an inconsistent print environment.
<P.S. If you need special placement on the printer paper then just drag
your image into a new document in Photoshop with the printing paper
dimensions. Don't forget to use the same ICC profile in your new layout
doc as the image! Super easy workaround. Photoshop has several tools for
nesting and packages if you were unaware>
I know that I can do this but lets be real, why should I need to. So if
I have a 30"x40" image at 300ppi and I need a 6" border all the way
around now I have to create a huge document just to give me the
additional white space? This is silly and I just don't see how people
would not prefer a real interface with a preview. I know that Xphoto
will get this stuff eventually and I think it will really help sales for
people who need more than a queue based RIP.
Cris Daniels
_______________________________________________
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.