Digital BW, The Print

Hello Douglas,

I have a different opinion of QTR in that the deep shadow detail, 
which is my criteria for evaluation, has much more detail than 
curves, sliders, or the standard Epson driver; when used with proper 
soft proofing. I use a calibrated NEC 97F 19" monitor and an Epson 
1280 printer along with PhotoshopCS to produce the prints using MIS 
UT2 inks in refillable cartridges. The images are created with a 
Nikon Coolpix 8700 and printed on various papers, mostly Epson 
Heavyweight Matte. The print and monitor match very well using my 
old eyes as the measuring device. A particular image I use for 
evaluation is one of a leaf covered forest floor with three bright 
white mushrooms poking through the leaves. It was made in shade and 
has a myriad of shadows of varying levels of darkness. Within these 
shadow areas are leaves and twigs that do show very well with QTR 
but not as well with sliders or curves. I can't thank Paul Roark 
enough for the work he has done for BW printing buffs like myself, 
but for now the QTR tool has satisfied my needs for what I 
call "pregnant" shadow detail. None of this is very scientific but 
more of the seat-of-the-pants kind of procedure for me; but I know 
what I like to see, and now I can see it in my prints. With the aid 
of Steven Billards QTRGui interface, I can now prodice images that 
I'm pleased to share with others.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny Eades

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Douglas 
Meeuwsen <lipshurt@m...> wrote:
> Hello...I have been reading all the qtr stuff, and downloaded the 
mac 
> version. Right now I have been using the simple driver sliders 
method 
> to print with UT2 inks on my 1280. I like the results. I also have 
> tried the roark curves, and like the sliders just as well, and 
they are 
> more intuitive for me. I also tried some prints with QTR, and they 
were 
> good too, but definitely not better. So am i I missing something? 
does 
> anyone else think the sliders do just as good a job? I have 5 
different 
> shades from neutral to warmer than I would ever use. I always use 
my 
> second coolest setting which is neutral as I see it. I use Lumijet 
> radiant white (anybody know what that "really" is??) and H. German 
> etching, and museo, and Permajet matt plus, permajet parchment 
classic, 
> and ilford smooth pearl w/printguard spray (and a diferent 
transfer 
> curve to get the black right), and for big 12x18 i use velvet fine 
art 
> with a bump in contrast to +4. All of these work great every time. 
What 
> might be better with qtr? I see no diference, and the QTR and 
curves 
> still need to be dialed in pretty extensively. The setting for 
ilford 
> smooth pearl in QTR was bad.