Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I think you misinterpreted his response.  A RIP like QTR gives YOU (via
> curve construction) full control over the individual ink jets - as
though
> you could control each ink with the Epson driver.  You can't do this
with
> the Epson driver.  You are using the canned QTR profiles and don't
see this.
> Nonetheless you should be getting prints better than the Epson ones.
 This
> is possible with QTR and the inks you are using - we all wouldn't
spend so
> much time with it if it didn't.

I understand this. However, my point is that even if it can be tweaked
to give better prints in the end, it should be so far off to start wit
when the lesser program (in terms of printing, if I believe what you
are saying) manages to be fairly accurate, despite the worse drivers.

I'm ok to tweak and get it better, but spending so much time getting
it...acceptable?

> First things first.  A soft proof with "simulate ink black" checked is
> REALITY.  You should be doing this for your colour work as well - in
fact
> you should have "Simulate Paper White" checked for colour.  Without
these
> checked you are not looking at a proper soft proof.  Why?  Because
the black
> point (and white point) of your display is much darker (whiter) than
ink (or
> no ink) on matte paper.  Neither the Epson driver nor QTR can match the
> darkness of your display.  So first make sure you are proofing
correctly -
> colour or B&W.  
> 
> (As a test, you can set up a proof for matte paper and then photo paper.
> Toggle between the two and you can see the effect of getting better
colour
> gamut and density - there is less image "degradation" because you
can get
> better dMax on photo paper.)
> 
> Satisfy yourself also that the same thing happens with the Epson driver.
> Set up a softproof to EEM (using the Epson colour ICC profile) and do it
> properly, checking simulate paper white (and ink black).
> 
> Sounds like you also need to check how your screen is calibrated. 
Without
> that, you are simply shooting in the dark.

We are looking in the wrong direction. Soft proofing has always given
me results that are so far off that it is unusable no matter what I
Print. Soft proofin even gives me solarization on the photos despite
the fact that in the end the color ones come out perfect. It is so far
off that no amount of bad camibration could cause that.

Once again, I am getting great color prints, which tells me my
calibration is good.

> When you send your image to print with the Epson driver you no doubt
input
> the print space profile and use perceptual rendering with black point
> compensation checked - no colour adjustment in the driver.  This is
standard
> ICC profile based printing with the profile conversion being done by
PS and
> not the driver.  You can think of the QTR workflow in the same way.
 We need
> to manage the transition from a broad workspace such as Lab or Adobe
RGB (or
> their single channel equivalents QTR Grey Lab and Grey Gamma 2.2) to the
> much narrower (at least as far as B&W is concerned) print space. 
Roy has
> made two generic print space ICC profiles - one for Matte paper and
one for
> Photo paper (much in the same way that you have an ICC profile for
EEM and
> one for Epson Premium Semi-gloss, albeit these profiles are colour).
 Prior
> to printing (manually on a PC and on-the-fly with a Mac) we must convert
> from the workspace to the print space.  When you print with the
Epson driver
> this conversion is done on-the-fly (as it is always done with a Mac)
by PS
> before the image hits the Epson driver (and is done, typically, with
> perceptual rendering and black point compensation checked) - for PC
QTR you
> need to do this step manually so that you can open the converted
image in
> QTRGui.
> 
> So far you should see that there is little difference between the
workflow
> of the Epson driver and QTR.

I have followed that workflow. This is why I am surprised by the
result, lack of contrast, banding and all.

> When the person who did the QTR curves that you are using, they used
QTR's
> curve design features to strictly control which inks were used and
in what
> quantity.  They told the printer to use a certain set of inks in certain
> order and in increasing density to create a range of tone from no
ink (paper
> white) to full ink (dMax).  The Lab readings (back to Lab again as a
> measurement base) were then taken and the gradation linearised so
that there
> were even steps in density from white to black.  (In essence, the Epson
> driver does the same thing but you can't control the inks.)
> 
> Average paper white and dMax numbers were used to produce the ICC
profile
> QTR Matte Paper and QTR Photo Paper.  So now you should see that you
have
> converted to a print space which has a linear progression in density
from
> paper white to full black.
> 
> The point of all this is to explain that the workings behind QTR and the
> workflow we are trying to take you through are not gobbledygook but
really
> very sensible (and quite in keeping with what the Epson driver does).
> IJC/OPM uses exactly the same methodology.
> 
> The only way you can get greater dynamic range (your perception of
greater
> contrast) for a given paper from the Epson driver would be if it could
> generate a darker black - you can't do anything about the white. 
(There is
> some debate that the Epson driver can generate a darker black with
the same
> inks but this is at the margin only and not the source of your problem.)
> 
> So start by checking your workflow.  Have you printed a step wedge - QTR
> alongside the Epson?  

I haven't printed the wedge.

> How are you printing with the Epson?

I"m not sure I understand this one :)

Thank you for your lenghty explanation!