Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2009/01/19

[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]

Subject: [Leica] re: Imageprint vs Colorburst
From: dnygr at cshore.com (Douglas Nygren)
Date: Mon Jan 19 13:13:52 2009

Bob,
Thank you for your reply. Your sentiments echo one friend's who bit the 
  bullet and bought Imageprint and reflects another friend's who bought 
Colorburst but is too busy to figure it out.

Everything i read and hear points to Imageprint. I'm sure that won't be 
easy, but it seems the better way to go.

Thanks again,

Doug



Doug,

I have Colorburst. The primary difference between them is that with the 
full version of Colorburst you can create your own RIP profiles with 
Coloburst and you cannot with Imageprint.

The Colorburst that comes with Epson printers is limited and does not 
allow you to create your own profiles. You would need to pay an upgrade 
fee to do that. So it's only the limited version of Colorburst that is 
less expensive than Imageprint, and you will get a lot more out of the 
box profiles with your imageprint than with the Epson Colorburst 
version.

Imageprint comes with LOTS of profiles for various papers, inks and 
lighting situations. Coloburst's canned profiles are more limited.

With Colorburst, if you want to create your own profiles, you need a 
spectrophotometer (read another expense), and not just one that can 
calibrate monitors.

Honestly, if I had to do it again, I'd probably pick Imageprint over 
the full or Epson bundled version. It is not easy (for me) to make a 
profile with Colorburst and their documentation is horrid. I had to 
call them and use their support board; they finally posted, on their 
support board, the right way to make a profile. The manual was totally 
wrong.

I have no complaints about the output from my Colorburst profiles. I 
enjoyed the learning curve, but it is not for the faint of heart.
Best,
Bob
  Bob Adler
Palo Alto, CA