Digital BW, The Print

I am fairly new to this, and have also at times felt that my QTR
prints are also a little flat looking.

Would you describe adding an S curve, in PS to help with this if you
don't mind taking the time?

Please pretend like I do not know anything, which at times feels like
a pretty accurate assessment.

Thanks!

Brad 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> In fairness to QTR you will have no problem with the rear feeder if you
> follow the Epson instructions properly - it has nothing to do with
QTR!  (I
> have used it without problem with OS-X for two years.) The "flat
look" can
> be managed with an S curve in PS.  Paul effectively embeds an S
curve in his
> calibration of his curves.
> 
> 
> > From: daniel <dnj@m...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 14:12:36 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: roark vs qtr - newbie q.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- 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
> >