Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jarrrush" <johnr@v...> wrote:
> 
> I am wondering is someone can compare QTR to Paul Roark's methodology 
> of making B and W prints from both an ease of use and technical 
> standpoint (print quality as you define it).

i use an epson 2200 under OS X. i tried QTR with only moderate success. i recently 
switched to UT7 inks with the Roark curves, and i'm thrilled with the results. for me, the 
Roark approach is better in the following respects:

1. the prints look better. my QTR prints came out looking flat; the Roark ones seem to 
have more life to them. also, the UT7 inks have a lovely look to them which i find much 
more appealing than the ultrachrome inks. in bright light, the ink has a slight sparkle to it. 
nothing like a traditional darkroom print, but i love it.

2. QTR was much less reliable. i couldn't use the envelope feeder at all, which meant that i 
couldn't print on heavy papers, and often the print job would get stuck. this lack of 
reliability was almost certainly due to the gimp driver. the great advantage of the Roark 
approach is that you can use the epson driver, which despite its stupid bugs (eg, the 
failure to center prints properly), is much more reliable.

it's possible that bugs in the gimp driver were responsible for the flat look of the QTR 
prints. it might also have been my lack of experience. when i tried QTR, a few months ago, 
i didn't know how to apply S-curves properly.

/daniel