Giclee printing... Where to begin

[Colin]

I guess my point is that saving a JPG (of whatever quality) as a TIF isn't going to improve it. Would that be correct?

 

[Bill Modzel]

Saving it as a tiff won't improve it but it will sustain it. JPEG is a lossy format so if you keep working on a file and keep re-saving it as a jpeg it will degrade. If you work on a tiff and maybe save a copy to reduce file size and print from you probably won't notice the difference.

 

[Rooster]

That's a relative statement, some museums are ditching their Cruse scanners and going back to their BetterLight setups. All sorts of issues with color, softness, etc. Of course here we're discussing commercial situations, not museums, but the point remains--they aren't an "industry killer" like they were so wildly exclaimed. The less flat the object is the more problems they have--I'd still love to play with one though. Fantastic for large documents and flatter canvases--does anyone know if they output proper RAW files yet?

For the giclee market they have been an industry killer. Since 99.99% of giclees are reproductions of a flat canvas, board, etc. For general photography, yeah they're not so hot. You definitely have more flexibility with the scanning backs.

I don't know about the RAW files. I started outsourcing my photos to the local cruse system owner once I realized I wasn't going to be able to make a nickle off the shots I did with my betterlight back. They supplied me with a 16bit RGB file and a custom input profile so it was all I needed to get accurate colors.

 

[Colin]

Then there's "Iris Giclee"..........Google that.

 

[bob]

Saving it as a tiff won't improve it but it will sustain it. JPEG is a lossy format so if you keep working on a file and keep re-saving it as a jpeg it will degrade. If you work on a tiff and maybe save a copy to reduce file size and print from you probably won't notice the difference.

Perhaps eventually, of you keep opening it and resaving it perhaps until the next ice age, a jpg might show some detectable deterioration but for normal everyday use, jpg's are just fine. Especially if you make them with 0 compression and smoothing.

A tiff is gratuitously enormous and unless you actually have some specific use for some feature of a tiff, dubious as that might be, you might as well use a jpg.

You have to realize that the unaided human eye is hard pressed to detect a visual difference in most anything over, say, one part in 125 or so. That's a lot of room for undetectable degradation.

 

[ProWraps]

A tiff is gratuitously enormous

how do you tell bob from earth he is wrong? man im stumped.

 

[GAC05]

Bob is not wrong but I think he is also not 100% right.

With the dirt cheap cost of hard drives/memory & the power of current chips tiff file size is not really an issue.
Tiffs multiple alpha channels can be useful and are not available in a jpg as far as I know.

>>
Saving an image to JPEG format, always introduces some loss in quality, though the loss at a quality setting of 100 is barely detectable by the average naked eye. In addition, using a quality setting of 100 compared to a quality setting of 90-95 or so will result in a considerably higher file size relative to the degree of image loss. If your software doesn't provide a JPEG preview, try saving several copies of an image at 90, 95, and 100 quality and compare file size with image quality. Chances are, there will be no distinguishable difference between the 90 and 100 image, but the difference in size could be significant. Keep in mind, though, that subtle color shifting is one effect of JPEG compression--even at high quality settings--so JPEG should be avoided in situations where precise color matching is important.
>>

wayne k
guam usa

 

[ProWraps]

bob is wrong. lzw flattened tifs are not GRATUITOUSLY large. that was a definate mis step on his part.

but i catch your drift. so much so as to question what is large now? where is the benchmark anymore?

 

[bob]

bob is wrong. lzw flattened tifs are not GRATUITOUSLY large. that was a definate mis step on his part.

but i catch your drift. so much so as to question what is large now? where is the benchmark anymore?

True. My concept of large probably differs somewhat from the popular notion of large. Understand that the first computer I ever worked with, back when your parents were still making in their pants, had a massive 4K of memory. Hand-strung core memory.

We doubled if to 8k and figured we could run through it barefoot. That being the case, talking to me about large is much like talking to a child of the great depression about unpleasant times.

Regardless, I still maintain that you, or anyone else, couldn't tell the difference unaided between a print from a tiff and a print from a properly constructed jpg. I find tiff's to be excessively anal.

 

[ProWraps]

True. My concept of large probably differs somewhat from the popular notion of large. Understand that the first computer I ever worked with, back when your parents were still making in their pants, had a massive 4K of memory. Hand-strung core memory.

We doubled if to 8k and figured we could run through it barefoot. That being the case, talking to me about large is much like talking to a child of the great depression about unpleasant times.

Regardless, I still maintain that you, or anyone else, couldn't tell the difference unaided between a print from a tiff and a print from a properly constructed jpg. I find tiff's to be excessively anal.

i sort of feel you. i have tryed it, and for some reason, i always see some sort of data loss when printing the jpeg. i dont know why, and for gods sakes, i wanted it to work. i like jpegs much better. then again i jumped on the PNG bandwagon when it was hot. loved them to. the 24bit ones anyways.

if its any constellation, i ran a one line BBS out of my bedroom on my atari 520stfm when i was 12. ive been around. ascii art bro. ascii art.

http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/16bits/stmenu/atarist.htm

 

[Mosh]

.syntax error

 

[bob]

...if its any constellation, i ran a one line BBS out of my bedroom on my atari 520stfm when i was 12. ive been around. ascii art bro. ascii art.

http://www.atarimuseum.com/computers/16bits/stmenu/atarist.htm

ASCII art? Way too modern. You have to go back to a time when a computer filled a room and the phrase 'face down nine edge first' meant something.

 

[signswi]

Keep your punch cards in your pants, old man.

 

[ruckusman]

Back on topic, which RIP and printer combination can potentially run up to 12 colour...

My list is for printer with 12 ink channels;
Roland FJ-540
Mutoh RJ-8100
Mimaki JV4
Any others that should be on that list.

As for RIPS than can run 12 individual ink channels I don't have a list so which ones can run custom inksets which might include Lc, Lm, Or, Gr, plus Red and Blue.

Obviously the Evolution RIP can, but it's more expensive than say Wasatch for examle for the Roland/Mutoh/Mimaki printers...

This would leave me 2 extra channels for medium and light black.

I've played with the setup on Wasatch 5.1.4 but on the above printers it limits it to the number of heads for custom inksets, so limits the inks to 6 in each case.

thanks

Glenn

 

[artbot]

here's one dedicated 12 actual color rip.

http://www.americaninkjetsystems.com/symphonic_12color_evolution_rip.html

i'm settling on either the ipf8300 or z3200 (most likely will go canon). hopefully these new printers can get some ink from this company. it's strange that they recommend old roland proII's for their inkset with thousands of new 12 color printers are shipping from hp an canon.

look at these insane ink sets!

Light Black, Dynamic Photo Black, Matte Black, Deep Deep Cyan , Light Aqua , Crimson , Bright Pink , Sapphire Blue , Lime Green , Golden Yellow , and Orange , Burnt Sienna

or (mix and match?)

Extra Colors: Light Light Black, Sunflower , Emerald Green , Aqua , Violet, Powder Blue , Dark Red , Red , Bright Pink , Hot Pink , and Universal Black.

 

[massivegraphics]

Giclee......

I have been printing large format for almost 20 years and can honestly say Epson is the best of the best at this point.

The 9900 Is Phenominal at color reproductions and the life span is well above that of HP.

If you want to do true color reproduction this is the machine for you. The ink wasted for cleanin is minimal compared to what the machine can produce. It is not the fastest machine on the market but in my personal opinion it is the best machine for the price.

If you want to spend 100K you can do better but for the 6Kish it will cost you cannot do better.

 

[artbot]

as far as life span, i visited the hp support message boards and i did get a weird feeling reading the "issues". a lot of issues that i'd categorize as coming from a less trustworthy printer. error codes, failed hard drives, bad boards, quirky things that i'd never see in my roland or mimaki.

i love the switchable black, also the option of running epson water based white, the straight path. if the 9900 was to sit for two weeks, how much ink does it throw away purging the heads? and would it be ready to print with no missing nozzles? from what i've heard it would need some cleanings to get it started.

 

[artbot]

@massivegraphics

big question...! just saw this video of a 9900. how on earth does this printer have a straight paper path with the data/link lines crossing in front of the platen? does the paper's "straight" path run vertically or at an angle?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K054Jl-Pdho

 

[noregrets]

MassiveGraphics

Havent been doing it quite as long as you, but am interested in your comments on the Epson. We have been doing it for a few years now, and I would go as far as to recommend not getting an Epson.

We have a 9880 (the one just before the 9900), while I am aware the 9900 is a different machine, the 9880 is a dog compared to our Canons. It is slow, nozzles continually clog and its colour gamut doesnt even compare to the Canon.

It does look like they have made big changes though, but I would still be very reluctant to go back to Epson based on the success I have had with Canon

 

[sfr table hockey]

@massivegraphics

big question...! just saw this video of a 9900. how on earth does this printer have a straight paper path with the data/link lines crossing in front of the platen? does the paper's "straight" path run vertically or at an angle?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K054Jl-Pdho

Looks like the print heads are on the back side ( not like our typical print heads pointing down). Those sit vertical. I guess gravity does not have any effect on the spray. So the paper runs straight down as the heads pass in front, but again print toward the back side of the printer.