Hello Douglas,
I have a different opinion of QTR in that the deep shadow detail,
which is my criteria for evaluation, has much more detail than
curves, sliders, or the standard Epson driver; when used with proper
soft proofing. I use a calibrated NEC 97F 19" monitor and an Epson
1280 printer along with PhotoshopCS to produce the prints using MIS
UT2 inks in refillable cartridges. The images are created with a
Nikon Coolpix 8700 and printed on various papers, mostly Epson
Heavyweight Matte. The print and monitor match very well using my
old eyes as the measuring device. A particular image I use for
evaluation is one of a leaf covered forest floor with three bright
white mushrooms poking through the leaves. It was made in shade and
has a myriad of shadows of varying levels of darkness. Within these
shadow areas are leaves and twigs that do show very well with QTR
but not as well with sliders or curves. I can't thank Paul Roark
enough for the work he has done for BW printing buffs like myself,
but for now the QTR tool has satisfied my needs for what I
call "pregnant" shadow detail. None of this is very scientific but
more of the seat-of-the-pants kind of procedure for me; but I know
what I like to see, and now I can see it in my prints. With the aid
of Steven Billards QTRGui interface, I can now prodice images that
I'm pleased to share with others.
Your friend in Photography,
Johnny Eades
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Douglas
Meeuwsen <lipshurt@m...> wrote:
> Hello...I have been reading all the qtr stuff, and downloaded the
mac
> version. Right now I have been using the simple driver sliders
method
> to print with UT2 inks on my 1280. I like the results. I also have
> tried the roark curves, and like the sliders just as well, and
they are
> more intuitive for me. I also tried some prints with QTR, and they
were
> good too, but definitely not better. So am i I missing something?
does
> anyone else think the sliders do just as good a job? I have 5
different
> shades from neutral to warmer than I would ever use. I always use
my
> second coolest setting which is neutral as I see it. I use Lumijet
> radiant white (anybody know what that "really" is??) and H. German
> etching, and museo, and Permajet matt plus, permajet parchment
classic,
> and ilford smooth pearl w/printguard spray (and a diferent
transfer
> curve to get the black right), and for big 12x18 i use velvet fine
art
> with a bump in contrast to +4. All of these work great every time.
What
> might be better with qtr? I see no diference, and the QTR and
curves
> still need to be dialed in pretty extensively. The setting for
ilford
> smooth pearl in QTR was bad.