Digital BW, The Print

> Now that we have not one but two solutions for printing bw in Mac OS 
X with
> user-defined profiles, I'd like to invite users of either QTR or 
IJC/OPM to share
> their experiences, comments and/or problems.

I got a copy of IJC/OPM on Monday and have used QTR off an on for 6 
months or so.  I have used IJC/OPM and QTR to make excellent prints 
(for me) with both systems on my 3000.  Here are my thoughts about the 
two systems:

-- Installation --

Installation of IJC/OPM was as simple as installing any commercial 
product - just click the installer select a destination and that was 
it.  

Installation and setup of QTR is more involved but won't be 
intimidating for most.  Depending on your OS X version some additional 
free software may need to be installed (links to the packages are 
included in the documentation) as well as Roy's QTR.  Then a new 
printer needs to be setup in the print center.  It's all straight 
forward stuff which would be problem free if it came with one of the 
iconically driven step-by-step picto-docs.

-- Profile Generation --

Both systems allow you to create user defined custom 'profiles' for 
different ink/printer/paper combinations.  As Carl said, they follow 
the same basic steps: determine an ink limit (the maximum amount of 
each ink to use), partition the inks (decide how much of what type of 
ink goes on the paper for a given grey value), linearize the output 
(make nice even tonal steps in the output).

IJC/OPM was a more intuitive and streamlined system for me, although 
in fairness I did all my 'learning' on earlier versions of QTR so the 
learning curve for the second system benefited from that.  Generating 
curves with IJC/OPM is visual and interactive with an almost 
'create-a-curve-wizard' feel.

Both systems have the essential linearization step which takes the 
bumps out of the curves and allows mere mortals to produce remarkably 
good results with quadtones very quickly.  For the toy-challenged 
among us IJC/OPM allows you to use a scanner and a slick piece of user 
interface to complete the linearization curve while QTR requires a 
densitometer - nothing a quick visit to your local friendly lab won't 
fix.

For the experts there seems to be more control in the shape of the 
curve in IJC/OPM.

With IJC/OPM I produced startling good results in about 30 minutes and 
5 pieces of paper.  I can now produce profiles for different papers in 
about 10 minutes and a couple sheets of paper.

With the most recent version of QTR (I tried it early on in it's 
incarnation) I was up and profiled in an hour or so.  It is more 
cumbersome to produce additional profiles but it is not difficult.

-- Printing / Output --

QTR prints from photoshop.  Print with preview, set the printer 
settings appropriately and off you go.

OPM is a stand alone program used to print.  Equally simple: open the 
file, select a profile or two profiles and blending percent, scale the 
image if you want, select a paper size, select a gamma and print.

It's like falling off a log for both systems.

OPM/IJC prints faster for me on my 3000 and the printer and QTR 
sometimes get in a snit with each other which I fix with a power down 
and a coffee.

I had no banding problems with either system.  Both produce dotless 
highlight and smooth tonal transitions.

IJC/OPM produced much better black than the piezo plug-in I had been 
using up until trying these new systems.  Using Piezotone inks with 
the portfolio black I have a DMax of 1.84 on HPR (vs 1.73 with 
piezography) and a Dmax of 1.6 on EEM (vs 1.54 with piezography).  I 
haven't measure the QTR output because the people at the lab are 
getting a little tired of me and my new densitomer hasn't arrived yet. 
 I suspect similar results might be had with QTR but I can't say for 
sure.

-- Documentation --

OPM/IJC has brief but good documentation.  The QTR documentation has 
all the relevant information but in a less accessible form - you have 
to read it, you can't just skim it.

-- Price --

QTR -> 50 USD
IJC/OPM -> 250 USD

-- Soft Proofing --

Both systems need some method of matching the printed output to the 
monitor output.  Pick your favorite method.  I create a custom dot 
gain curve (ala Tyler B.) from densitometer readings of a 21 step 
wedge.  Ray and Carl have a much more sophisticated method but that 
requires expensive tools.  Or you can do it one of the good old 
fashioned ways and create a custom dot gain curve by inspection or 
create a custom photoshop adjustment curve to add at the end of your 
image twiddling.