Digital BW, The Print

A very interesting commentary, but I'm a tad confused. I don't see LR
as an ALTERNATIVE to QTR - it is just another output device. I've seen
other comments about not being able to use QTR from InDesign or LR and
I'm wondering if that is a Windows issue. I'm using QTR from Tiger OS
X and QTR can be used as the output device for nearly any app. 

I have the Epson 1400 with the Cone Pizeography inksets and have
printed to it from both PS and LR, so I don't quite understand your
reference to "Using LR... instead of QTR"

=Alan R.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:
>
> Using Lightroom for B&W, instead of QTR (has its own virtues, but
> offers less control) or expensive/clogging B&W inksets, and using eyes
> insted of electronic measuring devices, deserves more  exploration...
> 
> ...by those whose game is photography rather than pixel-peeping.
> 
> Using an R800 I got specifically for exploration (before I buy a 3800
> or HP or whatever): 
> 
> I've learned that 1.5 picolitre dots don't result in higher detail
> resolution on matte paper than does my elderly 2200. Maybe there's an
> advantage with fine semi-gloss, such as Moab Satine? 
> 
> Printing B&W images (neutral, split-toned, or toned) from Lightroom on
> highest-gloss paper, OEM pigments do completely eliminate B&W
> bronzing, metamerism, and gloss differential ...seemingly perfectly. 
> 
> Lightroom with OEM color inkset offers tremendous tonal control,
> split-tone B&W control, and color-filtration-for-B&W (even more than
> the R/G/Y filters of yesteryear, and you get an instant proof on your
> monitor :-)  
> 
> Split toning is incredibly easy with Lightroom, and it does need color
> pigments no matter what driver if you "want what you want".
> 
> Neither Piezo nor MIS inks can give you "want what you want" toning or
> split-toning unless you also use color pigments...in other words, you
> can't work entirely in carbon...and of course, you can't work on
> glossy stock without a lot of hassle.
> 
> Lightroom appears to offer far MORE CONTROL in most respects for
> straight photos (as opposed to graphic manipulations) than does
> Photoshop, and it's infinitely more intuitive (sliders and immediate
> on-screen evaluation). 
> 
> The only downside I've found so far is that dodging/burning (and
> probably masking), and my Intuos 3 graphic pad in particular, want 
> Photoshop...don't work directly in my version of Lightroom (don't know
> about Lightroom 2)...so I still have to switch from Lightroom to PS,
> then back to Lightroom to print from Lightroom.
> 
> Hard to believe, but Lightroom also offers superb documentation:
> Martin Evening's "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book." 
> 
> Since most of us have or will inevitably have Lightroom or equivalent,
> it's important to learn its potential. 
> 
> My claims here are personal experience, early in personal
> testing...I'm not sure I can beat all my QTR prints with Lightroom,
> but I think I can equal most of them in most cases. 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "handyman856"
> <avr@> wrote:
> >
> > It seems there are a number of ways to get a BW image from color. I'm
> > aware of most of them, and am not asking HOW to do it.
> > 
> > In Photoshop you can create a true grayscale image which drops all RGB
> > channels and has only a 'gray' (luminance?) channel. In Lightroom, you
> > can create a grayscale image, but it appears to retain the RGB
> > channels. Other techniques also use the RGB channels as filters to
> > create a BW image (Lots of controls in the color channels).
> > 
> > The question is: For =good= BW printwork, should the final image sent
> > to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
> > info? I like working in Lightroom, but I would need to take the image
> > to PS to make it a singe-channel true (by my def) grayscale image. Is
> > this worth doing? Or will the printer/QTR figure it out?
> > 
> > I'm setting up a Epson 1400/QTR/Piezo printer, and they indicate you
> > should only print grayscale. So I'm looking for clear definition of
> > grayscale. 
> > 
> > Clear (gray?) as mud??
> > 
> > =Alan R.
> >
>