Digital BW, The Print

Yesterday I printed an image on my 2200 with QTR (XP) and with 
Ultrachromes using the Epson driver. As usual, the Epson print 
exhibited some slight metamerism and the QTR image did not. What I 
noticed in favor of the Epson print, however, is that it had a 
somewhat darker black and it more faithfully rendered the contrast of 
the 85%-100% range of the image vis-a-vis what I see on the monitor. 
The QTR print went somewhat flat in this range. I've printed a step 
wedge with QTR -- it's smooth and seems to capture the whole range 
from black to white. So now I'm wondering what I can do to increase 
contrast in the darker range and deepen the black. Perhaps a change 
in dot gain or an adjustment curve applied right before printing? Has 
anyone had similar experiences?

Chris Hargens

Chris Hargens wrote:

>Yesterday I printed an image on my 2200 with QTR (XP) and with 
>Ultrachromes using the Epson driver. As usual, the Epson print 
>exhibited some slight metamerism and the QTR image did not. What I 
>noticed in favor of the Epson print, however, is that it had a 
>somewhat darker black and it more faithfully rendered the contrast of 
>the 85%-100% range of the image vis-a-vis what I see on the monitor. 
>The QTR print went somewhat flat in this range. I've printed a step 
>wedge with QTR -- it's smooth and seems to capture the whole range 
>from black to white. So now I'm wondering what I can do to increase 
>contrast in the darker range and deepen the black. Perhaps a change 
>in dot gain or an adjustment curve applied right before printing? Has 
>anyone had similar experiences?
>
>Chris Hargens
>
>  
>
I also noticed that the QTR prints are less contrasty and less 
"luminous" than my BO prints.  I also would like some help in correcting 
this.  Otherwise it does work quite well.
Mike

My suspicion would be that QTR's output is more linear than the Epson
driver, particularly if your setup was hardware linearized.
Therefore, the fact that you prefer that particular file through the
Epson driver only means it hasn't been optimized for QTR.
Softproofing would help you, either a custom dot gain curve made by
eye, or a real icc softproof profile of QTR output. That would help
you get where you want faster, by adjusting your files apropriate to
the more linear output. The fact that one arbitrarily matches your
monitor better than the other is not conclusive. Is your monitor
hardware calibrated? When you say it matches better, are you using
some sort of softproof of the Epson output to compare?
You see the complications here.
The bottom line is that you should be able to tonaly come nearly
indistinguishable between output systems one way or another.
The dmax difference is another issue, but sometimes a conrastier print
only appears to have higher dmax, and I believe the gimp drivers allow
as much ink load and dot size as the Epson driver, Roy could speak to
that.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
<chargens@s...> wrote:

> Yesterday I printed an image on my 2200 with QTR (XP) and with 
> Ultrachromes using the Epson driver. As usual, the Epson print 
> exhibited some slight metamerism and the QTR image did not. What I 
> noticed in favor of the Epson print, however, is that it had a 
> somewhat darker black and it more faithfully rendered the contrast of 
> the 85%-100% range of the image vis-a-vis what I see on the monitor. 
> The QTR print went somewhat flat in this range. I've printed a step 
> wedge with QTR -- it's smooth and seems to capture the whole range 
> from black to white. So now I'm wondering what I can do to increase 
> contrast in the darker range and deepen the black. Perhaps a change 
> in dot gain or an adjustment curve applied right before printing? Has 
> anyone had similar experiences?
> 
> Chris Hargens

Thanks, Tyler, for the reply. No, my monitor is not hardware 
calibrated. When I say that the Epson output matches better, I mean 
that at 100% viewing in PS -- very large, with lots of detail -- the 
Epson print looks the same in contrast in the darker tones whereas 
the QTR has a somewhat gray-veiled look to it. I'm not softproofing. 
Anyway, your suggestions concerning softproofing make sense. I'll try 
to work up a custom dot gain curve and see where that gets me. It 
makes sense what you say: output, tonally, between the two systems 
should be capable of being nearly equal.

Chris Hargens

 --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> My suspicion would be that QTR's output is more linear than the 
Epson
> driver, particularly if your setup was hardware linearized.
> Therefore, the fact that you prefer that particular file through the
> Epson driver only means it hasn't been optimized for QTR.
> Softproofing would help you, either a custom dot gain curve made by
> eye, or a real icc softproof profile of QTR output. That would help
> you get where you want faster, by adjusting your files apropriate to
> the more linear output. The fact that one arbitrarily matches your
> monitor better than the other is not conclusive. Is your monitor
> hardware calibrated? When you say it matches better, are you using
> some sort of softproof of the Epson output to compare?
> You see the complications here.
> The bottom line is that you should be able to tonaly come nearly
> indistinguishable between output systems one way or another.
> The dmax difference is another issue, but sometimes a conrastier 
print
> only appears to have higher dmax, and I believe the gimp drivers 
allow
> as much ink load and dot size as the Epson driver, Roy could speak 
to
> that.
> Tyler
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
> <chargens@s...> wrote:
> > Yesterday I printed an image on my 2200 with QTR (XP) and with 
> > Ultrachromes using the Epson driver. As usual, the Epson print 
> > exhibited some slight metamerism and the QTR image did not. What 
I 
> > noticed in favor of the Epson print, however, is that it had a 
> > somewhat darker black and it more faithfully rendered the 
contrast of 
> > the 85%-100% range of the image vis-a-vis what I see on the 
monitor. 
> > The QTR print went somewhat flat in this range. I've printed a 
step 
> > wedge with QTR -- it's smooth and seems to capture the whole 
range 
> > from black to white. So now I'm wondering what I can do to 
increase 
> > contrast in the darker range and deepen the black. Perhaps a 
change 
> > in dot gain or an adjustment curve applied right before printing? 
Has 

> > anyone had similar experiences?
> > 
> > Chris Hargens

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Hargens"
<chargens@s...> wrote:
>...I'll try 
> to work up a custom dot gain curve and see where that gets me. It 
> makes sense what you say: output, tonally, between the two systems 
> should be capable of being nearly equal.

It just occrred to me that you may be able to use it as an output
profile when printing out of Photoshop to QTR. That way you could
leave your files alone and let color management do the job.
I seem to recall doing it successfully back when trying QTR.
Worth a try.
Tyler

Follow the instructions for setting up a soft proof.  Apply a curve to get
the look you like and then print.