Digital BW, The Print

Bill,

I did not mean to side-step your question. With QTR curve creation
tools - the curve 
creation happens in two steps. First you make a preliminary profile
that identifies the 
different ink densities. Then the linearization process on top of
that makes it appropriate 
for the paper and printer combination.

QTR's curves and its curve creation tools are really nice. However,
we put you in a very 
good situation. Our tool for making these curves is much more
sophisticated and uses 
very advanced technology that we have developed. We could have had
Roy make our 
curves at no cost. Rather we invested to produce something that could
better our previous 
products (which we have a solid track-record of doing.) So we look at
this as a 
collaboration between Piezography products and Roy Harrington's
products.

One example is that we do much more ink blending with our profiling
tool than QTR's 
curve creator would allow anyone to do. Our profiles are more
impervious to small flaws in 
a printer than to QTR's curves. Our curves are far superior, and the
small benefit of being 
able to "linearize" your own printer isn't as essential when compared
to the benefit of 
using the superior curves created with our technology. 

If you want the best possible profile go with ours. But try it out
for yourself. Print with one 
of ours. then make one of your own, and post your results to this
website. Although our 
profiles "seem" generic, we think you will be surprised at how well
they perform in 
comparison to the sophisticated tools of QTR. You be the judge and
let us know.


best regards,


Jon Cone
The Piezography guy


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@a...
wrote:
> John-
> 
> Incidentally, the linearization question is a very interesting one.
So 
> far, Cone has sidestepped this. I have a few thoughts about this
and 
> would appreciate hearing other opinions: the last two generation of 
> Epson photo printers seem to operate, out of the box, to a much
higher 
> standard. I assume this is a combination of better software
(including 
> ICC profiles and things like ABW) and better hardware (and, to some 
> extent, better media; the K3 inks are better than the K2's, for 
> example). This reduces, but does not elimenate, the need to
linearize a 
> printer. The "need" to linearize, it seems to me, is directly
connected 
> to how much control the photographer thinks is necessary to produce
the 
> kind of prints they find satisfying and successful.
> 
> I know there has to be a wide range of opinon about the "need" to 
> linearize on this list. From my perspective, linearization is 
> fundamental and any system or approach that does not, or cannot, 
> include or accomodate user linearization is inherently limited. For 
> example, as an inkjet printer ages and it's calibrated state
changes 
> you either linearize the machine or must resort to manipulating the 
> image file data to compensation for the machine's drift.
> 
> So, how do proprietary systems, which now apparently include Cone's
K7 
> profiles for QTR, address this?
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Kennedy
> Austin, Texas