Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

If available, I would suggest using the 1440 profiles from IP for comparing
to QTR at 1440...seems like to is more apples-to-apples, yes? I'm on a PC,
but, I agree, the user interface rates Grade C, at best; workable, but it
could be much better!

Response to your initial comments in para2:

1. You're not missing anything regarding landscape layout. They seem to have
a "LetterLand" for 8.5x11, but all other sizes seem to require that you work
in portrait mode. I haven't found this to be a real problem, for me, because
the image is in a finished state when I drop it onto IP. IP, at this point,
is simply the vehicle to print.

2. Agreed on the Embedded set to Prompt in Color Mgt. It's a real pain. If
it knows what profile has been embedded--which it does otherwise no
prompt--then, why couldn't the software simply compare the embedded profile
to the RGB profile as set up on the Bitmap tab, and bypass the prompt if the
same. I decided that since I set RGB (Bitmap tab) to Adobe (1998) and,
therefore, should be getting the same color mgt as in PS I set this prompt
to: Ignore. To ensure that the IP work area was showing me the same image as
PS, I ran both side-by-side with the same color image open and measured
several points (actually, 3x3 avg) using the eyedropper. In all cases, the
Red/Green/Blue values were identical.

3. Preview image...double-click the image in the work area and you should
get a high-res preview. Haven't actually tried this myself, but it's in the
manual.

4. Paper sizes...A3 is definitely not Epson (or anybody else's that I know
of) A3 size. I set up a User Defined paper type for 11.7x16.5. Have you
noticed that Letter is not, according to the rulers, 8.5x11 in the layout
area? But, I set a User Defined paper size to 8.5x11 and it appears the same
as the pre-defined one.

None of these are insurmountable problems, but for $400-$500 (nearly the
price of PS!) it seems like it should be a whole lot better. If decided,
today, that if I do buy IP it will be primarily for these two reasons:

1. I could run one printer for both color and B&W, and not have all the
maintenance issues (like my 1160 is totally clogged at the moment!) from
printers that sit just a little to long between uses, and

2. Access to the many, many paper profiles available. I find it somewhat of
a pain when I want to try a different paper that I'll be compromising image
quality because the X workflow was designed with EEM (for example) and
really works best with that paper. Sure...others will work, but... Have you
checked out all the profiles available on ColorByte's website? Considering
that a custom made printer profile will run anywhere from $100-$250 it
doesn't take long to convince myself that the cost of the software ain't
that bad! ColorByte's profiles probably aren't as good as the best custom
profiles, but they're certainly in the running. I gotta believe that Epson
spent quite a bit of effort and $ on the color profiles supplied with the
2200, and the appropriate IP profile matches Epson's almost exactly. I can't
really say that Epson's are better...just different.

Just my .02 cents, again...OK...maybe .04.... ;>)

Alan Huntley

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 2:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ImagePrint 5.6


> Very tough call on the B&W to my eye.  Again it is a bit frustrating as
the watermark
> for B&W has, again to my eye, a slight purple tint to it and it is so
dominant across a
> page.  In the couple of prints I have done thus far, IP prints seem more
saturated in
> the darkest parts of the image (without a noticeable loss of detail across
the image...)
> and so the QTR versions appear a little "washed out" by comparison.  I
would be really
> interested in what others (Carl?) think as my testing here is by no means
scientific.
> For completeness, I have been printing to Hahnemuhle Photorag using the
> ep2200mkb_grayPhRag308_2880 profile in IP and comparing it with QTR at
> 1440x720HQ.  (I am a bit worried that printing at 2880dpi is saturating
the page too
> much...?)
>
> Some other initial comments:   I find the IP user-interface a little
"cheap and clunky".
> The look is more OS9 rather than OS-X.  If you have a landscape print you
have to
> look at the thing by twisting your neck - the image rotates rather than
the page
> layout. (Am I missing something here?)  Setting Embedded to Prompt in
Color
> Management produces a result that is nothing short of annoying.   The
preview image
> is of very low quality.  I don't think they have bothered to get their
paper sizes right,
> eg, unless I am mistaken, A3 is actually set up for A3+ dimensions.  All
liveable with I
> guess but not what you would expect for a large pile of crisp, albeit
falling-in-value,
> greenbacks....