Digital BW, The Print

As I proposed this some time ago I guess I owe an explanation as to why I
haven't offered QTR ICC profiles to paid up QTR users.  The reason is I use
a 4800 with Eboni ink in the K slot so my setup is different.  Eboni makes a
big difference (vs Epson MK).  The other factor is that like any profile
it's really only good for the printer that printed the test strip.
Nonetheless I think people would see benefit from a profile even if it's not
perfect for their printer.  There are likely more 2400 users than 4800 users
though so how about someone with a 2400 and a spectrophotometer pitching in
some work for the paid up QTR users that don't own a densitometer!

Probably the right solution is for people to post their QTR ICC profiles for
download (if they can).  I'm not sure Roy wants to manage a library!!  Those
who download the profiles and use them - even if they are not using QTR -
owe Roy his shareware fee.

I did the 4800 QTR curves that come with the download - they also assume the
use of Eboni ink in the K slot - and I have QTR ICC profiles for each curve.
I'll post these for download later today here:

http://homepage.mac.com/stevekale/stevekale2/FileSharing37.html

I have not finished doing QTR ICC profiles for Adv B&W.


> From: wwodets <odets@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 16:57:57 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Solving this BW tonal management issue . . .
> 
> I've followed this entire thread about workspaces, tonal management,
> etc. and what is most striking is how convoluted the non-managed
> workflow is and how simple and reliable the QTR ICC workflow is.
> 
> Clayton's recent experiment with gamma 2.2 is a laudable effort (the
> highlights are this, the midtones are flat,etc.), but it is so
> complex.  The reason it is complex is that it is an effort to use a
> workspace as a printer profile, or said differently to try to make
> the screen look like the printer output (with a given set of driver
> settings like "light.").  What we really want to do is make the
> printer output look like the screen.
> 
> I have been through three workflows on the 2400, the last the QTR
> Create ICC.  The first was an attempt to use the Epson ABW driver
> controls to make the printer output match the screen.  This was very
> complicated, very time-consuming and quite unreliable, and it had to
> be repeated for each different paper.  The second workflow was more
> like Clayton's, a "Gamma 2.2" workflow in which I used a PS "viewing
> curve," a layer curve, to make the screen look like the printer
> ouput.  Again, this was very time consuming to create, I was
> constantly tweaking it because different images didn't display quite
> right, and a new curve was needed for each paper.  Conceptually, the
> first attempt was an effort at making the printer output look the
> screen, but it was much too complex, inflexible and unreliable.  The
> second attempt was an effort to make the screen look like the printer
> output.  The third flow is the QTR Create ICC flow.  This is dead
> simple to create and to use, and results are dead stable.  For a new
> paper, a new profile is made, about a five minute job.  I feel like
> I've been released from purgatory with this solution and I am saving
> a small fortune in ink and paper.
> 
> As nearly as I can discern, the resistance to the QTR Create ICC flow
> is that it is unfamiliar, seems too technical and, most importantly,
> requires the purchase of a densitometer or spectrometer.  The
> familiarity should be there from color management, as the function is
> the same.  The ICC workflow, in fact, requires a lot less technical
> fiddling than other solutions, certainly for anything like the same
> level of reliability and consistency.  The cost of the instrument
> remains a problem.
> 
> So, is there not someone out there with the time and inclination to
> provide BW profiles for printer/ink/paper combinations?  This could
> be done by charging a customer a "first time" or "royalty" fee of $50
> for a profile, with this money going to Roy.  On top of that would be
> an additional fee for the first profile and any additional profiles
> (for other papers, etc.).  This is an idea whose time has come.  It
> would expand Roy's income, it would relieve a tremendous amount of
> suffering on earth, and it would cut into Epson's profits on wasted
> ink and paper.
> 
> Any takers on this?
> 
> Walt
> 
> P.S.  The one thing my suggestion leaves out is the issue of monitor
> calibration, but I suspect the Adobe Gamma is plenty good enough for
> this.  I have always used a calibrated monitor, so I'm not sure about
> this.