Digital BW, The Print

Fair enough, and maybe I need to stop posting messages and send Roy my 
$50 (it's been on my to do list for a few days now).

Your last question reveals and interesting part (and perhaps flaw) or my 
approach to digital printing.  I do indeed print a lot of color.  My color 
calibration consists of the following: (a) get the image ready for printing using 
soft proofing with the proper profile in photoshop; (b) print the photograph on 
my 9600 or 4000; (c) hold the photograph up to my 23 inch Apple Cinema 
Display (calibrated using the limited ColorSync screen calibration tools) and 
see if it looks like the image on screen; (d) if it does, I'm done; (e) if it doesn't, 
try again.  I seldom find that I need to go to step (e) if the prior steps are done 
correctly because it either looks dead-on to me or the difference is so slight 
that it's not worth worrying about.  (My alternate workflow for (a)-(c) for prints 
on my 2200 w. ImagePrint is (a) open the file in IP (after prepping it in P'Shop, 
of course); (b) look at the preview in IP and see if I like it; if not, tweak as 
necessary; (c) print the image and hold it up to the IP preview.  I find the IP 
preview to be pretty accurate for color)

Of course, that's both for personal printing and for making prints for sale to 
clients who are not photographers (not output for other photographers).  If I 
begin offering output to photographs who need precise scientific color 
accuracy, e.g., not just tweaking the skin tones or making the sky look a bit 
warmer, but printing a product shot where the blue value of the product must 
fall at a scientifically exact point in the blue spectrum of the print, then my seat 
of the pants approach won't work.  Which means I need a screen and printer 
calibration thingy.  Which leads me to ask this: is the tool you would use to 
create a QTR curve the same as the color calibration tool(s) you would use for 
your screen and printer anyway (the Spyder stuff)?


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <
stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I don1t want to argue with you (I am essentially agreeing with you) but my
> point is that the sooner Roy gets paid $50 a person (the current 3donation2
> for QTR) the more likely he will be able to get a broader array of profiles
> up for different machines.  I think QTR is fantastic and I have paid my $50.
> I encourage those that would like to use QTR or get additional QTR profiles
> prepared to pay $50 - if on spec.  Roy has an order in for a 4000 (I
> believe) and I am sure would love to have QTR earn him enough money to 
also
> afford a 7600.  So pile on in and let1s help him out!
> 
> (I would caution though that it is unrealistic to expect Roy to be able to
> profile every possible ink set.  One of the beauties of QTR is that it is
> infinitely flexible.  Others have the ability to profile as well and may
> kindly pitch in for various ink and printer combinations.  But the more
> people who pay the small amount Roy has asked then the more resources 
Roy
> has to work with.  And also, I think you will find that if you can borrow a
> photospectrometer (which may be a big if) then profiling is not as hard as
> you might think.  I am not a technophile but am starting to get the hang of
> it with Roy and Carl1s help.  I wish I had a 7600.  BTW, how do you
> calibrate your work or do you not do any colour work at all?)
> 
> :-)
> 
> 
> From: "chipcarterdc" <chipcarterdc@h...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Wed, 21 Apr 2004 17:49:37 -0000
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: BW inks for 7600
> 
> 
> "Then buy QTR and pay your $50...."
> 
> You miss my point.  I already have QTR.  What I don't have is the time,
> ability 
> or desire to learn how to use a spectrometer or whatever in order to use 
QTR
> to drive the Piezo or other grayscale inkset.  Not everyone will agree with
> my 
> perspective, of course, but I'm willing to bet there are a lot of
> photographers 
> who are not technophobes but are also not technophiles, and feel the same
> way.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]