Digital BW, The Print

Hello,

I am new to this group and found it while searching for information on
printing B&W.

I use an Epson 2200. From Photoshop, I can print beautiful color
prints that are fairly accurate and 95% similar to screen.

I print on Epson Enhanced Matte paper with Matte Black ink and I have
tried to print a B&W from Photoshop (RGB). The picture mostly came out
fine with beautiful sharpness and contrast. However, it seems to
suffer from what I think is metamerism. Under daylight (or PC monitor
light), it takes on an ugly greenish tint in many areas.

Tonight, I have tried to print the same picture with QTR, using the
2200 in 1440dpi, choosing a mix of UC EHM cool and warm at 50% (I
wanted a neutral print), and the print seems to not have the metamism
and is truly B&W. However, it is very washed out (besides a certain
lack of sharpness as well) and totally lacks contrast.

The picture was converted to graysclae then to 20% dot gain gray
profile (the default one), then saved before importing it into QTR.

What could give this kind of result? I do not really want to waste a
lot of paper and ink trying all combinations of settings before
learning a bit more about the program and how the different settings
work...

Thanks for any help!

David.

David

As a first step you need to adopt Roy's LAB Grey workspace and perceptual
rendering workflow.  See here:

http://homepage.mac.com/royharrington/FileSharing2.html

That will get your contrast back (I suspect the sharpness is illusory).  Try
that first.

Steve

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:32:39 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am new to this group and found it while searching for information on
> printing B&W.
> 
> I use an Epson 2200. From Photoshop, I can print beautiful color
> prints that are fairly accurate and 95% similar to screen.
> 
> I print on Epson Enhanced Matte paper with Matte Black ink and I have
> tried to print a B&W from Photoshop (RGB). The picture mostly came out
> fine with beautiful sharpness and contrast. However, it seems to
> suffer from what I think is metamerism. Under daylight (or PC monitor
> light), it takes on an ugly greenish tint in many areas.
> 
> Tonight, I have tried to print the same picture with QTR, using the
> 2200 in 1440dpi, choosing a mix of UC EHM cool and warm at 50% (I
> wanted a neutral print), and the print seems to not have the metamism
> and is truly B&W. However, it is very washed out (besides a certain
> lack of sharpness as well) and totally lacks contrast.
> 
> The picture was converted to graysclae then to 20% dot gain gray
> profile (the default one), then saved before importing it into QTR.
> 
> What could give this kind of result? I do not really want to waste a
> lot of paper and ink trying all combinations of settings before
> learning a bit more about the program and how the different settings
> work...
> 
> Thanks for any help!
> 
> David.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> David
> 
> As a first step you need to adopt Roy's LAB Grey workspace and
perceptual
> rendering workflow.  See here:
> 
> http://homepage.mac.com/royharrington/FileSharing2.html
> 
> That will get your contrast back (I suspect the sharpness is
illusory).  Try
> that first.

Thanks Steve,

I have the profiles but didn't make much sense of Roy's explanation.

What is the actual workflow? Should I convert the RGB file (which
looks fine on screen) then save as RGB with the profile for print in
QTR? Or should it be converted to Grayscale? (in which case converting
first to Roy's profile wouldn't make a difference).

David.

Make QTR Lab Grey your grey scale workspace.  Convert your image to B&W
using whatever technique you use. Work it up in QTR Lab Gray  (it is no
longer RGB).  Then convert with perceptual rendering to QTR Grey Photo Paper
or Matte Paper for a print version depending on what paper you are printing
to. This will provide a better mapping from your workspace (Lab less the a
and b) to the narrower print space.  I believe there is a workflow posted in
the files section of this group.

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>

> Thanks Steve,
> 
> I have the profiles but didn't make much sense of Roy's explanation.
> 
> What is the actual workflow? Should I convert the RGB file (which
> looks fine on screen) then save as RGB with the profile for print in
> QTR? Or should it be converted to Grayscale? (in which case converting
> first to Roy's profile wouldn't make a difference).
> 
> David.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Make QTR Lab Grey your grey scale workspace.  Convert your image to B&W
> using whatever technique you use. Work it up in QTR Lab Gray  (it is no
> longer RGB).  Then convert with perceptual rendering to QTR Grey
Photo Paper
> or Matte Paper for a print version depending on what paper you are
printing
> to. This will provide a better mapping from your workspace (Lab less
the a
> and b) to the narrower print space.  I believe there is a workflow
posted in
> the files section of this group.

I tried another ptint this morning after converting it to the QTR Grey
Matte profile. It came out better but still lacks contrast and has
some kind of banding in the dark areas that is not there on the
Photoshop print. I haven't tried the LAB Grey workspace thoughm which
I will do next. My workspace was Adobe RGB.

Thanks agin.

Settings of 1440 dpi, better cure most of the vertical
banding. 1-3% noise in the pure blacks will take care
of any remaining issue.

Guy
--- davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > Make QTR Lab Grey your grey scale workspace. 
> Convert your image to B&W
> > using whatever technique you use. Work it up in
> QTR Lab Gray  (it is no
> > longer RGB).  Then convert with perceptual
> rendering to QTR Grey
> Photo Paper
> > or Matte Paper for a print version depending on
> what paper you are
> printing
> > to. This will provide a better mapping from your
> workspace (Lab less
> the a
> > and b) to the narrower print space.  I believe
> there is a workflow
> posted in
> > the files section of this group.
> 
> I tried another ptint this morning after converting
> it to the QTR Grey
> Matte profile. It came out better but still lacks
> contrast and has
> some kind of banding in the dark areas that is not
> there on the
> Photoshop print. I haven't tried the LAB Grey
> workspace thoughm which
> I will do next. My workspace was Adobe RGB.
> 
> Thanks agin.
> 
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

But one thing at a time.  Use 1440 super.  Worry about the 100% K areas
later.  Let's get a decent print with reasonable contrast out first (well as
best as can be achieved on matte paper today).

> From: guy washburn <guido02474@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:31:21 -0800 (PST)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> Settings of 1440 dpi, better cure most of the vertical
> banding. 1-3% noise in the pure blacks will take care
> of any remaining issue.
> 
> Guy
> --- davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...> wrote:
>> 
>> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
>> Steve Kale
>> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>>> Make QTR Lab Grey your grey scale workspace.
>> Convert your image to B&W
>>> using whatever technique you use. Work it up in
>> QTR Lab Gray  (it is no
>>> longer RGB).  Then convert with perceptual
>> rendering to QTR Grey
>> Photo Paper
>>> or Matte Paper for a print version depending on
>> what paper you are
>> printing
>>> to. This will provide a better mapping from your
>> workspace (Lab less
>> the a
>>> and b) to the narrower print space.  I believe
>> there is a workflow
>> posted in
>>> the files section of this group.
>> 
>> I tried another ptint this morning after converting
>> it to the QTR Grey
>> Matte profile. It came out better but still lacks
>> contrast and has
>> some kind of banding in the dark areas that is not
>> there on the
>> Photoshop print. I haven't tried the LAB Grey
>> workspace thoughm which
>> I will do next. My workspace was Adobe RGB.
>> 
>> Thanks agin.

Steve,

I have had banding with super that going to straight
1440/better fixed.

Guy
--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:
> But one thing at a time.  Use 1440 super.  Worry
> about the 100% K areas
> later.  Let's get a decent print with reasonable
> contrast out first (well as
> best as can be achieved on matte paper today).
> 
> 
> > From: guy washburn <guido02474@...>
> > Reply-To:
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:31:21 -0800 (PST)
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> > 
> > 
> > Settings of 1440 dpi, better cure most of the
> vertical
> > banding. 1-3% noise in the pure blacks will take
> care
> > of any remaining issue.
> > 
> > Guy
> > --- davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...> wrote:
> >> 
> >> --- In
> DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com,
> >> Steve Kale
> >> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> >>> Make QTR Lab Grey your grey scale workspace.
> >> Convert your image to B&W
> >>> using whatever technique you use. Work it up in
> >> QTR Lab Gray  (it is no
> >>> longer RGB).  Then convert with perceptual
> >> rendering to QTR Grey
> >> Photo Paper
> >>> or Matte Paper for a print version depending on
> >> what paper you are
> >> printing
> >>> to. This will provide a better mapping from your
> >> workspace (Lab less
> >> the a
> >>> and b) to the narrower print space.  I believe
> >> there is a workflow
> >> posted in
> >>> the files section of this group.
> >> 
> >> I tried another ptint this morning after
> converting
> >> it to the QTR Grey
> >> Matte profile. It came out better but still lacks
> >> contrast and has
> >> some kind of banding in the dark areas that is
> not
> >> there on the
> >> Photoshop print. I haven't tried the LAB Grey
> >> workspace thoughm which
> >> I will do next. My workspace was Adobe RGB.
> >> 
> >> Thanks agin.
> 
> 
> 


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Ok well first of all you are mixing two things.  Better/faster is one option
ie speed, and "better" should be used.  Resolution is another and I get
banding with 1440 on my 2100 that doesn't occur with 1440 super.  For dither
I use Ordered.  But the issue at hand is first and foremost a very flat
looking print.

> From: guy washburn <guido02474@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:48:35 -0800 (PST)
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> I have had banding with super that going to straight
> 1440/better fixed.
> 
> Guy

I am trying to use Roy's Lab Gray procedures but am having a problem 
(which may be that I am misunderstanding the procedure).

In PS I have edited the color settings to make QTR - Lab Gray the 
working space and this shows up in Print with Preview as the 
Document Source Space.

Then (still in Print With Preview) for the print space profile I 
enter the QTR-Gray Matte Paper profile. But then as soon as I move 
to other areas of Print with Preview, the print space profile 
changes by itself to QTR-Lab Gray - the profile disappears and is 
replaced by the working space!

Have I misunderstood what Stephen Kale means by "Then convert with 
perceptual rendering to QTR Gray Photo paper or matte paper ..." 

Any advice would be appreciated.

Alan Shapiro

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Ok well first of all you are mixing two things.  Better/faster is 
one option
> ie speed, and "better" should be used.  Resolution is another and 
I get
> banding with 1440 on my 2100 that doesn't occur with 1440 super.  
For dither
> I use Ordered.  But the issue at hand is first and foremost a very 
flat

> looking print.
> 
> 
> > From: guy washburn <guido02474@y...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 09:48:35 -0800 (PST)
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> > 
> > 
> > Steve,
> > 
> > I have had banding with super that going to straight
> > 1440/better fixed.
> > 
> > Guy

You set this from your Image>Mode>Convert to Profile dialog...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "aaashapiro" 
<ashapiro@y...> wrote:
> 
> I am trying to use Roy's Lab Gray procedures but am having a 
problem 

> (which may be that I am misunderstanding the procedure).
> 
> In PS I have edited the color settings to make QTR - Lab Gray the 
> working space and this shows up in Print with Preview as the 
> Document Source Space.
> 
> Then (still in Print With Preview) for the print space profile I 
> enter the QTR-Gray Matte Paper profile. But then as soon as I move 
> to other areas of Print with Preview, the print space profile 
> changes by itself to QTR-Lab Gray - the profile disappears and is 
> replaced by the working space!
> 
> Have I misunderstood what Stephen Kale means by "Then convert with 
> perceptual rendering to QTR Gray Photo paper or matte paper ..." 
> 
> Any advice would be appreciated.
> 
> Alan Shapiro

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Ok well first of all you are mixing two things.  Better/faster is
one option
> ie speed, and "better" should be used.  Resolution is another and I get
> banding with 1440 on my 2100 that doesn't occur with 1440 super. 
For dither
> I use Ordered.  But the issue at hand is first and foremost a very flat
> looking print.

I have never used "faster". By default I went for better, as I do not
care much about speed. With the Epson drivers I also disable the speed
option.

First print I tried with QTR was 1440 super, second was 1440 I think
as I didn't want to waste ink on trials. Banding was there on the
first but more apparent on the second (1440). Ultimately I want it to
work with 2880 as it's what I use from PS and I get great sharpness
with it. Visible different.

But you are right, the first thing that is apparent on the print is
that it is just flat. Second try was improved but still doesn't come
close to the PS print, which is I would say 90% accurate (compared to
the screen it lacks a tad of contrast, and my screen looks a bit bluer
on the B&W). My goal would be to match (in a consistent way as I do
not want to play with the settings for each picture) the PS print
while getting rid of the metamerism. The PS print also looks fairly
neutral...until viewed under daylight.

Man, I like the absence of reflection that matte paper gives but if
only it could match the other papers for the rest...

David.

David,

Below is the workflow I found through a search on the forum several weeks ago.  I believe Lou Dina wrote this.  Hope it is helpful.  I follow it and have very good results.

Diane

"Here is a step by step for Windows XP Users.

First, download Roy's Lab profiles and unzip them to your desktop.
Here is the link:

http://homepage.mac.com/royharrington/FileSharing2.html

After unzipping them, copy the files to the following directory:

C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color

Start photoshop and open a file, whether it be RGB or grayscale. If
you like the tonality as it exists on your calibrated monitor, then
you will want to convert the file to the Lab Grayscale profile, as
follows:

Image > Mode > Convert to Profile > Gray-Lab.icc
Be sure rendering intent is perceptual and black point compensation
is checked. Now, you file has been converted to the generic gray lab
space. If you wish, edit the file in photoshop until you get it the
way you want it. When happy, save it with the embedded profile as a
TIF, PSD or JPG file. Now you have a "master" file which you can use
to create a file for printing.

If you want to output to matte paper, do another conversion the same
as above, but use the "Gray-Matte" profile, with perceptual and BPC
checked. Save this and import it into QTR or IJC/OPM for printing.

If you wanted to send the file to glossy or semi gloss type paper,
use your master file and convert to the "Gray-Photo" profile, using
perceptual and BPC. Save and import into QTR or IJC/OPM for printing.

When printing from QTR or IJC/OPM, you will need to select the
appropriate profile for matte or glossy paper, and your other
settings as you usually do. When the print comes off the printer, it
should be a pretty close match from a tonality standpoint to what you
saw on your calibrated monitor.

Apparently, the Mac allows you to convert on the fly. With Windows
you have to save the converted file first as documented above. Hope
that clarifies it.

Lou

  What is the actual workflow? Should I convert the RGB file (which
  looks fine on screen) then save as RGB with the profile for print in
  QTR? Or should it be converted to Grayscale? (in which case converting
  first to Roy's profile wouldn't make a difference).

  David.





  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

David, I do my b/w normal conversion working in Adobe RGB 98, convert to the LAB grey space and tweak where necessary, save as a master, then convert to grey matte for printing and print through QTR on a 2200.  I'm having no problems at all.  Perhaps there is something else going on.

Diane

  I tried another ptint this morning after converting it to the QTR Grey
  Matte profile. It came out better but still lacks contrast and has
  some kind of banding in the dark areas that is not there on the
  Photoshop print. I haven't tried the LAB Grey workspace thoughm which
  I will do next. My workspace was Adobe RGB.

  Thanks agin.






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

It was my understanding that QTR Lab Gray is intended to be the 
Grayscale Working Space.  I have made it my default for working on 
grayscale files.  You can do this by clicking on Edit/Color Settings 
and then change the Gray Working Space to QTR Lab Gray.  Early in 
the editing process I click on "View/Custom/QTR-Matte" which is my 
saved name for Roy's softproof profile for QTR with Matte papers.  
After editing is complete, save as a TIFF file and open or jump to 
QTR to print it.  

If you use QTR for most of your grayscale printing, it makes sense 
to use the Lab Gray as your default space.  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "aaashapiro" 
<ashapiro@y...> wrote:
> 
> I am trying to use Roy's Lab Gray procedures but am having a 
problem 

> (which may be that I am misunderstanding the procedure).
> 
> In PS I have edited the color settings to make QTR - Lab Gray the 
> working space and this shows up in Print with Preview as the 
> Document Source Space.
> 
> Then (still in Print With Preview) for the print space profile I 
> enter the QTR-Gray Matte Paper profile. But then as soon as I move 
> to other areas of Print with Preview, the print space profile 
> changes by itself to QTR-Lab Gray - the profile disappears and is 
> replaced by the working space!
> 
> Have I misunderstood what Stephen Kale means by "Then convert with 
> perceptual rendering to QTR Gray Photo paper or matte paper ..." 
> 
> Any advice would be appreciated.
> 
> Alan Shapiro

I'm new to QTR, but I will tell you my reason for not using it as my working space--but rather have it as my 'proof'--meaning I convert to it.  I prefer to work in Adobe RGB98, process as b/w (and use a variety of ways depending upon the image)--but I don't convert to LAB until the end (and then to gray-matte paper, my usual paper).  I can't use PKS in grayscale for one thing--and this is normally my last process before printing.   I'm watching to see how others handle this, but that was my understanding of how to handle it--as a 'conversion'.  It works well for me.  If I need to do just a bit more to the file before printing, I can still  add an adjustment layer to it, but I've done most of my work in RGB, 16 bit (and, in fact, most of it besides the b/w conversion, was done before the RAW conversion since I shoot mostly digital RAW).

Diane.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Andrew Unger 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 5:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print



  It was my understanding that QTR Lab Gray is intended to be the 
  Grayscale Working Space.  I have made it my default for working on 
  grayscale files.  You can do this by clicking on Edit/Color Settings 
  and then change the Gray Working Space to QTR Lab Gray.  

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Diane,

Thanks for this and your previous replies.

The workflow you have described is what I have done for my last print
in QTR. Convert the file to the Grey matte profile from Roy, save then
import it into QTR for printing. There, I selected the matte curves, 2
of them blended at 50% in order to get a neutral tone. Printed, and
what came out drastically lacked contrast.

David.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields"
<picnic@c...> wrote:
> I'm new to QTR, but I will tell you my reason for not using it as my
working space--but rather have it as my 'proof'--meaning I convert to
it.  I prefer to work in Adobe RGB98, process as b/w (and use a
variety of ways depending upon the image)--but I don't convert to LAB
until the end (and then to gray-matte paper, my usual paper).  I can't
use PKS in grayscale for one thing--and this is normally my last
process before printing.   I'm watching to see how others handle this,
but that was my understanding of how to handle it--as a 'conversion'.
 It works well for me.  If I need to do just a bit more to the file
before printing, I can still  add an adjustment layer to it, but I've
done most of my work in RGB, 16 bit (and, in fact, most of it besides
the b/w conversion, was done before the RAW conversion since I shoot
mostly digital RAW).

David, does your print look more or less like what you see on your monitor?  Did you try printing it in RGB (Print priview, paper profile, etc.) from PS?   How did they compare (considering the difference in blending)?  I had been processing in duotones (actually quadtones) to counteract the metamerismic effect prior to this, so printed a 'tinted/duotone' RGB image that I had processed from b/w--and it pritned as my calibrated monitor showed it--except that it had metamerism.  I printed the same convertered to LAB, then converted to gray-matte, then used a blend to print (similar tone to my duotone) and except for the metamerism (which the QTR print didn't exhibit), they were about equal in contrast, detail, etc.

I'm probably not the one to suggest any remedies for you since I"m new to QTR, but not new to printing with the 2200/PS.  Hopefully someone will have a remedy, but I would print the same image from PS and QTR and see how they compared--perhaps some of this is due to the b/w conversion process.

Diane

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: davidpichevin 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:19 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print



  Diane,

  Thanks for this and your previous replies.

  The workflow you have described is what I have done for my last print
  in QTR. Convert the file to the Grey matte profile from Roy, save then
  import it into QTR for printing. There, I selected the matte curves, 2
  of them blended at 50% in order to get a neutral tone. Printed, and
  what came out drastically lacked contrast.

  David.

  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields"
  <picnic@c...> wrote:
  > I'm new to QTR, but I will tell you my reason for not using it as my
  working space--but rather have it as my 'proof'--meaning I convert to
  it.  I prefer to work in Adobe RGB98, process as b/w (and use a
  variety of ways depending upon the image)--but I don't convert to LAB
  until the end (and then to gray-matte paper, my usual paper).  I can't
  use PKS in grayscale for one thing--and this is normally my last
  process before printing.   I'm watching to see how others handle this,
  but that was my understanding of how to handle it--as a 'conversion'.
  It works well for me.  If I need to do just a bit more to the file
  before printing, I can still  add an adjustment layer to it, but I've
  done most of my work in RGB, 16 bit (and, in fact, most of it besides
  the b/w conversion, was done before the RAW conversion since I shoot
  mostly digital RAW).






  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
  - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
  - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

  BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  Yahoo! Groups Links

    a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
      
    b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
    DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      
    c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

>There, I selected the matte curves, 2
>of them blended at 50% in order to get a neutral tone. Printed, and
>what came out drastically lacked contrast.

Have you tried a different blend? I realize of course that different
printers, papers, etc. produce different results but I get a neutral tone
with cool on the left, warm on the right and a blend of 90 (i.e. 90% cool,
10% warm).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "davidpichevin" <davidpichevin@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:19 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print




Diane,

Thanks for this and your previous replies.

The workflow you have described is what I have done for my last print
in QTR. Convert the file to the Grey matte profile from Roy, save then
import it into QTR for printing. There, I selected the matte curves, 2
of them blended at 50% in order to get a neutral tone. Printed, and
what came out drastically lacked contrast.

David.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields"
<picnic@c...> wrote:
> I'm new to QTR, but I will tell you my reason for not using it as my
working space--but rather have it as my 'proof'--meaning I convert to
it.  I prefer to work in Adobe RGB98, process as b/w (and use a
variety of ways depending upon the image)--but I don't convert to LAB
until the end (and then to gray-matte paper, my usual paper).  I can't
use PKS in grayscale for one thing--and this is normally my last
process before printing.   I'm watching to see how others handle this,
but that was my understanding of how to handle it--as a 'conversion'.
 It works well for me.  If I need to do just a bit more to the file
before printing, I can still  add an adjustment layer to it, but I've
done most of my work in RGB, 16 bit (and, in fact, most of it besides
the b/w conversion, was done before the RAW conversion since I shoot
mostly digital RAW).







Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Diane,

As I mentioned in my first post, I am comparing the QTR prints to a
Photoshop print I first made. The PS print comes out as it is on
screen (there's just a tad less contrast but it's the same for my
color print as well and not important, CRT versus matte paper...).
It's the same as on screen except for the metamerism. Without that
phenomenon I'd be very happy with the print.

It was printed from an Adobe RGB space picture.

Something bugs me in what you are saying though. You say that you
converted to LAB then converted to Gray matte. I am not sure that the
2 steps conversion is useful. You can very well convert directly to
the grey matte and it sholdn't make a difference (actually in theory
some quality gets lost during a profile conversion so you don't want
to have too many of them).

But in anycase, yeah, the PS print is equal to the on-screen result
but with metamerism.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields"
<picnic@c...> wrote:
> David, does your print look more or less like what you see on your
monitor?  Did you try printing it in RGB (Print priview, paper
profile, etc.) from PS?   How did they compare (considering the
difference in blending)?  I had been processing in duotones (actually
quadtones) to counteract the metamerismic effect prior to this, so
printed a 'tinted/duotone' RGB image that I had processed from
b/w--and it pritned as my calibrated monitor showed it--except that it
had metamerism.  I printed the same convertered to LAB, then converted
to gray-matte, then used a blend to print (similar tone to my duotone)
and except for the metamerism (which the QTR print didn't exhibit),
they were about equal in contrast, detail, etc.
> 
> I'm probably not the one to suggest any remedies for you since I"m
new to QTR, but not new to printing with the 2200/PS.  Hopefully
someone will have a remedy, but I would print the same image from PS
and QTR and see how they compared--perhaps some of this is due to the
b/w conversion process.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "B. Ellis"
<bellis60@v...> wrote:
> >There, I selected the matte curves, 2
> >of them blended at 50% in order to get a neutral tone. Printed, and
> >what came out drastically lacked contrast.
> 
> Have you tried a different blend? I realize of course that different
> printers, papers, etc. produce different results but I get a neutral
tone
> with cool on the left, warm on the right and a blend of 90 (i.e. 90%
cool,
> 10% warm).

I did not try that, but I feel the tone is pretty neutral. Really what
I want to fix is the contrast and general flatness of the shot. When I
get that right I'll be happy to try the different tones, but right now
those prints are not good at all (especially if we add the banding issue).

David.

Diane 

I bring an image into PS as Adobe RGB.  Use  Split Channels to get to a B&W
composite,  Assign my working space - QTR Grey Lab - (because after
splitting the channels the image does not have an embedded ICC profile) and
then edit away in Grey Lab.  Most B&W conversion techniques that I am aware
of leave the file in your grey space anyway so you have left Adobe RGB.  I
use Photokit Sharpener Pro.  Capture sharpening is done while the image is
still colour.  Print sharpening is done with a simple conversion to Adobe
RGB (and back again) once I have finished editing and am ready to print.
People might argue that this is destructive but given I use 16bit and it is
the very last step I don't care.  While editing I can proof to either matte
or photo paper but will typically only do this at the last step and apply a
"print curve" (none is really needed for photo paper).  A good reason to use
Lab or Roy's L as a workspace is that because it is Lab's L channel L=50 (ie
the 50% step) corresponds to Kodak grey.  So if you know that you want a
certain part of the image to be 18% reflectance then you can work towards it
easily.  The bottom line is I find Lab (less the a and b) to be more
intuitive.  

Of course, perceptual rendering won't necessarily leave image L=50 luminance
at L=50 reflectance but you can print an L step wedge to see where each step
gets mapped to - I think....someone who understands Perceptual rendering a
lot better than me can chime in here: is it image dependent or a mapping of
greyscale that can be measured by printing a Lab step wedge?  BTW is there a
way to read the proof image values ie the pro forma image values for a given
proof?  My understanding is that there is not and that PS will only display
(Info palette) the image values.

So all my B&W files are tagged QTR Grey Lab.  I use a Mac and can have PS do
the conversion on the fly to Matte or Photo Paper profiles at printing.

Steve

> From: Diane Fields <picnic@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 18:36:12 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> I'm new to QTR, but I will tell you my reason for not using it as my working
> space--but rather have it as my 'proof'--meaning I convert to it.  I prefer to
> work in Adobe RGB98, process as b/w (and use a variety of ways depending upon
> the image)--but I don't convert to LAB until the end (and then to gray-matte
> paper, my usual paper).  I can't use PKS in grayscale for one thing--and this
> is normally my last process before printing.   I'm watching to see how others
> handle this, but that was my understanding of how to handle it--as a
> 'conversion'.  It works well for me.  If I need to do just a bit more to the
> file before printing, I can still  add an adjustment layer to it, but I've
> done most of my work in RGB, 16 bit (and, in fact, most of it besides the b/w
> conversion, was done before the RAW conversion since I shoot mostly digital
> RAW).
>

Good thinking

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:51:30 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "B. Ellis"
> <bellis60@v...> wrote:
>>> There, I selected the matte curves, 2
>>> of them blended at 50% in order to get a neutral tone. Printed, and
>>> what came out drastically lacked contrast.
>> 
>> Have you tried a different blend? I realize of course that different
>> printers, papers, etc. produce different results but I get a neutral
> tone
>> with cool on the left, warm on the right and a blend of 90 (i.e. 90%
> cool,
>> 10% warm).
> 
> I did not try that, but I feel the tone is pretty neutral. Really what
> I want to fix is the contrast and general flatness of the shot. When I
> get that right I'll be happy to try the different tones, but right now
> those prints are not good at all (especially if we add the banding issue).
> 
> David.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
...
> 
> Of course, perceptual rendering won't necessarily leave image L=50
luminance
> at L=50 reflectance but you can print an L step wedge to see where
each step
> gets mapped to - I think....someone who understands Perceptual
rendering a
> lot better than me can chime in here: is it image dependent or a
mapping of
> greyscale that can be measured by printing a Lab step wedge?

Not image dependent. Perceptual rendering is characterized by the
nature of the two spaces involved, regardless of image content.
For example, perceptual conversion from a large color to small color
space will shrink gamut based on the spaces, even if there are no
(destination) out of gamut colors in the file.
Hope that wording makes sense.

>  BTW is there a
> way to read the proof image values ie the pro forma image values for
a given
> proof?  My understanding is that there is not and that PS will only
display
> (Info palette) the image values.

One hack might be to load your eventual print space as your working
space but leave your file in it's original space when opening, but it
must be tagged. Then info palette should show the destination numbers,
just as CMYK does for rgb files. I'm assuming this will happen, but
not positive. Obviously rgb to cmyk is a color model difference as
well, and what you want is between two gray spaces.
A bit inconvenient, but if you were really curious at some point in
the workflow, you could check it out.

Tyler

Have you setup a soft proof to Gray Matte Paper with perceptual rendering
and black point compensation checked and simulate ink black checked?  Simply
put, there is no way for even the Epson driver to "match the display" unless
you are looking at a good soft proof.  The dynamic range of matte paper
simply isn't wide enough.

A couple of other points.  Leaving a greyscale image in Adobe RGB doesn't
make a lot of sense to me.  You just use 3x the disk space.  This was the
rationale behind QTR Grey Lab - it is Lab but with the a and b channels
discarded because they are unnecessary for B&W.  But be that as it may.

With the ICC profile-based soft proof you should then get a very good match
(assuming your monitor is properly profiled) to the QTR print. I use a Mac
and so the QTR print stage is a lot easier for me - I simply print from PS
with an on the fly conversion from my workspace (QTR Grey Lab) to my print
space (QTR Matte/Photo paper) - much in the same way that you do with colour
work.  With the PC version of QTR you need to manually do the conversion
from your "master" image to the "print" image and save this version for
print. Make sure that when you do the conversion you use Perceptual Intent
and Use Black Point Compensation.

If you are not getting a good match to your screen then either the display
isn't calibrated and being used by PS properly or there is a problem at the
printer end.  I assume you have left all the other QTR settings untouched -
ink limit and gamma etc.  What inks are you using?  (Sorry if you have
mentioned this before).

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 00:49:57 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> 
> Diane,
> 
> As I mentioned in my first post, I am comparing the QTR prints to a
> Photoshop print I first made. The PS print comes out as it is on
> screen (there's just a tad less contrast but it's the same for my
> color print as well and not important, CRT versus matte paper...).
> It's the same as on screen except for the metamerism. Without that
> phenomenon I'd be very happy with the print.
> 
> It was printed from an Adobe RGB space picture.
> 
> Something bugs me in what you are saying though. You say that you
> converted to LAB then converted to Gray matte. I am not sure that the
> 2 steps conversion is useful. You can very well convert directly to
> the grey matte and it sholdn't make a difference (actually in theory
> some quality gets lost during a profile conversion so you don't want
> to have too many of them).
> 
> But in anycase, yeah, the PS print is equal to the on-screen result
> but with metamerism.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "davidpichevin"
<davidpichevin@y...> wrote:
...
> Something bugs me in what you are saying though. You say that you
> converted to LAB then converted to Gray matte. I am not sure that the
> 2 steps conversion is useful. You can very well convert directly to
> the grey matte and it sholdn't make a difference...


That's correct, though if converting from a color file that hasn't
been desaturated may make some sort of difference.
If your working space is very similar to your print space, I suppose
that last conversion could have less loss. But from scan (or capture)
to the final print space all those tonal moves are going to be made on
way or another anyway, so there you go...

If you are starting in RGB, and doing a number of mode conversions
along the way that have considerably different gammas, particularly up
and down, by the time you get to print space, loss could theoretically
become an issue.

Tyler

Thanks Tyler.  Given the step wedge will give the answers I need that's
fine.  I can simply measure where each L step will end up for a "matte
print" and for a "photo print".

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> ...
>> 
>> Of course, perceptual rendering won't necessarily leave image L=50
> luminance
>> at L=50 reflectance but you can print an L step wedge to see where
> each step
>> gets mapped to - I think....someone who understands Perceptual
> rendering a
>> lot better than me can chime in here: is it image dependent or a
> mapping of
>> greyscale that can be measured by printing a Lab step wedge?
> 
> Not image dependent. Perceptual rendering is characterized by the
> nature of the two spaces involved, regardless of image content.
> For example, perceptual conversion from a large color to small color
> space will shrink gamut based on the spaces, even if there are no
> (destination) out of gamut colors in the file.
> Hope that wording makes sense.
> 
>>  BTW is there a
>> way to read the proof image values ie the pro forma image values for
> a given
>> proof?  My understanding is that there is not and that PS will only
> display
>> (Info palette) the image values.
> 
> One hack might be to load your eventual print space as your working
> space but leave your file in it's original space when opening, but it
> must be tagged. Then info palette should show the destination numbers,
> just as CMYK does for rgb files. I'm assuming this will happen, but
> not positive. Obviously rgb to cmyk is a color model difference as
> well, and what you want is between two gray spaces.
> A bit inconvenient, but if you were really curious at some point in
> the workflow, you could check it out.
> 
> Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Have you setup a soft proof to Gray Matte Paper with perceptual
rendering
> and black point compensation checked and simulate ink black checked?
 Simply
> put, there is no way for even the Epson driver to "match the
display" unless
> you are looking at a good soft proof.  The dynamic range of matte paper
> simply isn't wide enough.
> 
> A couple of other points.  Leaving a greyscale image in Adobe RGB
doesn't
> make a lot of sense to me.  You just use 3x the disk space.  This
was the
> rationale behind QTR Grey Lab - it is Lab but with the a and b channels
> discarded because they are unnecessary for B&W.  But be that as it may.
> 
> With the ICC profile-based soft proof you should then get a very
good match
> (assuming your monitor is properly profiled) to the QTR print. I use
a Mac
> and so the QTR print stage is a lot easier for me - I simply print
from PS
> with an on the fly conversion from my workspace (QTR Grey Lab) to my
print
> space (QTR Matte/Photo paper) - much in the same way that you do
with colour
> work.  With the PC version of QTR you need to manually do the conversion
> from your "master" image to the "print" image and save this version for
> print. Make sure that when you do the conversion you use Perceptual
Intent
> and Use Black Point Compensation.
> 
> If you are not getting a good match to your screen then either the
display
> isn't calibrated and being used by PS properly or there is a problem
at the
> printer end.  I assume you have left all the other QTR settings
untouched -
> ink limit and gamma etc.  What inks are you using?  (Sorry if you have
> mentioned this before).

At this point I am totally against changing anything in my screen
calibration for the simple reason that my color prints come out with
*exact* colors and the right brightness. It is mostly wysiwyg, and I
understand that the slight difference in contrast is a a
characteristic of the matte paper. 

Also, PS is printing my B&W photo the right way. The only thing I want
to get rid of is the metamerism. The rest comes out fine, contrasty,
sharp etc.

I just tried to softprof my image using Roy's grey matte profile in
PS. It looks identical until I click "simulate ink black". Then the
contrast is lost and the photo is washed out, I guess just like the print.

I am using Enhanced Matte paper from Epson and the Ultrachrome ink
with the matte black ink.

I convert to LAB gray as a 'proofing' (more or less) ala Roy's instructions--just as I would do to check tonality, contrast, etc. when I do view/proof with a paper profile for a PS print.  I adjust contrast, etc. if needed at this stage--and then save as my 'master'--which I can then print a matte or semigloss from using the curve for each of those papers.  My 2 prints (PS/QTR) are difficult to tell apart except for the metamerism.

I included the 2 quotes--that you would be happy if the print came out like your PS print--but you are saying that it doesn't.  Perhaps someone else can come up with a better answer, but all I know is that both of mine are very close to my calibrated monitor's image (or as close as it can from illuminated to paper).  

Diane
  sm. Without that
  phenomenon I'd be very happy with the print.
  <snip>



  <snip>
  But in anycase, yeah, the PS print is equal to the on-screen result
  but with metamerism.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

My b/w conversions are not gray scale--usually work in channel mixer/mono as a beginning, perhaps hue/saturation layers, dodge/burn layer with overlay/18% grey, adjustment layers, etc. but almost always working in 16 bit RGB (and in my normal ARGB98 working space).  Consequently, I am not in grayscale until I convert to LAB-gray and I use this as my 'proofing' --where I can tweak a bit more for tonality, contrast, etc. if needed (usually not).  I'll try your method--I'm on PC so can't dothe conversions on the fly like Mac though.

Diane

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  good reason to use
  Lab or Roy's L as a workspace is that because it is Lab's L channel L=50 (ie
  the 50% step) corresponds to Kodak grey.  So if you know that you want a
  certain part of the image to be 18% reflectance then you can work towards it
  easily.  The bottom line is I find Lab (less the a and b) to be more
  intuitive.  



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

> 
> With the ICC profile-based soft proof you should then get a very
good match
> (assuming your monitor is properly profiled) to the QTR print. I use
a Mac
> and so the QTR print stage is a lot easier for me - I simply print
from PS
> with an on the fly conversion from my workspace (QTR Grey Lab) to my
print
> space (QTR Matte/Photo paper) - much in the same way that you do
with colour
> work.  With the PC version of QTR you need to manually do the conversion
> from your "master" image to the "print" image and save this version for
> print. 

Actually, I'd like to reformulate the question differently.

While I'm sure there are many experienced people that get great
results with QTR, I feel like I am currently creating new issues while
trying to fix another one.

Let's go back to the start. Instead of looking at it as QTR giving me
low contrast prints, is there another way to fix the metamerism
problem on the Photoshop print? Since the Photoshop print has the
right contrast and all the rest, eliminating the metamerism while
keeping the rest equal would be pretty good.

Is there any 3rd-party profile that could be used in PS when going
through the "print with preview" instead of the ones I am using right
now (SP2200 EHM 1440MK or 2880MK) that would eliminate the metamerism?

Also, if using an external program, by-passing any nice but
unnecessary thing such as toning etc...is there any program that would
print the same way as PS (if PS can do it simply, why is it so
complicated with QTR?) without the metamerism?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "davidpichevin" <davidpichevin@y...> wrote:
 
> Actually, I'd like to reformulate the question differently.
> 
> While I'm sure there are many experienced people that get great
> results with QTR, I feel like I am currently creating new issues while
> trying to fix another one.
> 
> Let's go back to the start. Instead of looking at it as QTR giving me
> low contrast prints, is there another way to fix the metamerism
> problem on the Photoshop print? Since the Photoshop print has the
> right contrast and all the rest, eliminating the metamerism while
> keeping the rest equal would be pretty good.

No. Metamerism is caused by the mix of inks that the Epson drivers use to print grays. They use as much colored ink as black and light black. All the colored ink causes metamerism.
 
> Is there any 3rd-party profile that could be used in PS when going
> through the "print with preview" instead of the ones I am using right
> now (SP2200 EHM 1440MK or 2880MK) that would eliminate the metamerism?

Not if you're using the Epson drivers. You need a program that gives you full control over the cyan, magenta, yellow, and black channels. Then you need the 3rd party profile to reduce the CMY used in the grays, and try to make them mostly from black and light black.

> Also, if using an external program, by-passing any nice but
> unnecessary thing such as toning etc...is there any program that would
> print the same way as PS (if PS can do it simply, why is it so
> complicated with QTR?) without the metamerism?

Short answer, printing with PhotoShop is like shooting with a point and shoot camera. Auto everything, and little control. (It's no coincidence that PhotoShop and "point and shoot" are both initialed "PS"). QTR, ICM/OCP, ImagePrint, etc. are like using the camera on manual, exposing via the zone system, and paying attention to your darkroom procedures. You don't get a "master print" from the drug store.

But most folks don't seem to see QTR as being quite as difficult as you seem to be finding it. I'm having trouble "debugging" you on the forum. If you want to mail me a print, I might have more insights...

Ciao!

Joe

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "koloshor"
<wiz@n...> wrote:

> Short answer, printing with PhotoShop is like shooting with a point
and shoot camera. Auto everything, and little control. (It's no
coincidence that PhotoShop and "point and shoot" are both initialed
"PS"). QTR, ICM/OCP, ImagePrint, etc. are like using the camera on
manual, exposing via the zone system, and paying attention to your
darkroom procedures. You don't get a "master print" from the drug store.
> 

I disagree. Photoshop gives me extremely good color prints. Perhaps it
is hampered by the Epson driver for the black and white. There is no
reason why Photoshop will give me an accurate print (accurate=close to
the work I have done on my picture) and a 3rd-party program will be so
far off out of the box and will require so much tweaking. Photoshop
gives me enough control to do whatever I want with my picture and thn
print it exactly the way I see it. Unfortunately the Epson driver
mangles it and doesn't want to output black and white as black and
white. As far as I know Photoshop is not responsible for the
metamerism effect and doesn't apply any automatic treatment to my
picture besides ICC profile conversion. I could use any other with as
much control as I want, as long as the Epson drivers (and therefore
all the Epson inks) are used, I'll get the metamerism, so this is not
helping.

----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>

>Perceptual rendering is characterized by the
>nature of the two spaces involved, regardless of image content.
>For example, perceptual conversion from a large color to small color
>space will shrink gamut based on the spaces, even if there are no
>(destination) out of gamut colors in the file.
>
>Tyler

One thing has always seemed strange tome. The printer profile's perceptual
rendering lookup table is created when the printer ICC profile is created,
but there is no knowledge at that time of what the image's source color
space will be. It seems like the proportional gamut compression that occurs
with perceptual rendering intent is not only independent of the image
content, it's independent of the size of the source color space. It's
determined before the source color space is known.

Steve





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Steve, the destination profile doesn't need to know the source gamut,
nor can it as you say. The conversion engine takes care of that,
utilizing the info from both source and destination profile.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "steve_bye"
<steve_bye@c...> wrote:
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
> 
> >Perceptual rendering is characterized by the
> >nature of the two spaces involved, regardless of image content.
> >For example, perceptual conversion from a large color to small color
> >space will shrink gamut based on the spaces, even if there are no
> >(destination) out of gamut colors in the file.
> >
> >Tyler
> 
> One thing has always seemed strange tome. The printer profile's
perceptual
> rendering lookup table is created when the printer ICC profile is
created,
> but there is no knowledge at that time of what the image's source color
> space will be. It seems like the proportional gamut compression that
occurs
> with perceptual rendering intent is not only independent of the image
> content, it's independent of the size of the source color space. It's
> determined before the source color space is known.
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed
from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner and
> Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
> GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED
OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE
INABILITY
> TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED
ACCESS TO OR
> ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
CONDUCT OF ANY

> THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links

However way you do your conversion, once it is grey it is a waste of disk
space (CPU, RAM etc) to have 3 channels storing a single channel image.

> From: Diane Fields <picnic@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:22:50 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> My b/w conversions are not gray scale--usually work in channel mixer/mono as a
> beginning, perhaps hue/saturation layers, dodge/burn layer with overlay/18%
> grey, adjustment layers, etc. but almost always working in 16 bit RGB (and in
> my normal ARGB98 working space).  Consequently, I am not in grayscale until I
> convert to LAB-gray and I use this as my 'proofing' --where I can tweak a bit
> more for tonality, contrast, etc. if needed (usually not).  I'll try your
> method--I'm on PC so can't dothe conversions on the fly like Mac though.
> 
> Diane

Diane

One other thing.  I always save a pre-print-sharpening master file which has
not gone through the profile conversion to Adobe RGB and back.  It is easy
enough to redo the print sharpening again - and you have to if you change
image dimensions anyway.  So I keep my master and print version.

Steve

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 11:24:50 +0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> However way you do your conversion, once it is grey it is a waste of disk
> space (CPU, RAM etc) to have 3 channels storing a single channel image.
>

I think you misinterpreted his response.  A RIP like QTR gives YOU (via
curve construction) full control over the individual ink jets - as though
you could control each ink with the Epson driver.  You can't do this with
the Epson driver.  You are using the canned QTR profiles and don't see this.
Nonetheless you should be getting prints better than the Epson ones.  This
is possible with QTR and the inks you are using - we all wouldn't spend so
much time with it if it didn't.

First things first.  A soft proof with "simulate ink black" checked is
REALITY.  You should be doing this for your colour work as well - in fact
you should have "Simulate Paper White" checked for colour.  Without these
checked you are not looking at a proper soft proof.  Why?  Because the black
point (and white point) of your display is much darker (whiter) than ink (or
no ink) on matte paper.  Neither the Epson driver nor QTR can match the
darkness of your display.  So first make sure you are proofing correctly -
colour or B&W.  

(As a test, you can set up a proof for matte paper and then photo paper.
Toggle between the two and you can see the effect of getting better colour
gamut and density - there is less image "degradation" because you can get
better dMax on photo paper.)

Satisfy yourself also that the same thing happens with the Epson driver.
Set up a softproof to EEM (using the Epson colour ICC profile) and do it
properly, checking simulate paper white (and ink black).

Sounds like you also need to check how your screen is calibrated.  Without
that, you are simply shooting in the dark.

When you send your image to print with the Epson driver you no doubt input
the print space profile and use perceptual rendering with black point
compensation checked - no colour adjustment in the driver.  This is standard
ICC profile based printing with the profile conversion being done by PS and
not the driver.  You can think of the QTR workflow in the same way.  We need
to manage the transition from a broad workspace such as Lab or Adobe RGB (or
their single channel equivalents QTR Grey Lab and Grey Gamma 2.2) to the
much narrower (at least as far as B&W is concerned) print space.  Roy has
made two generic print space ICC profiles - one for Matte paper and one for
Photo paper (much in the same way that you have an ICC profile for EEM and
one for Epson Premium Semi-gloss, albeit these profiles are colour).  Prior
to printing (manually on a PC and on-the-fly with a Mac) we must convert
from the workspace to the print space.  When you print with the Epson driver
this conversion is done on-the-fly (as it is always done with a Mac) by PS
before the image hits the Epson driver (and is done, typically, with
perceptual rendering and black point compensation checked) - for PC QTR you
need to do this step manually so that you can open the converted image in
QTRGui.

So far you should see that there is little difference between the workflow
of the Epson driver and QTR.

When the person who did the QTR curves that you are using, they used QTR's
curve design features to strictly control which inks were used and in what
quantity.  They told the printer to use a certain set of inks in certain
order and in increasing density to create a range of tone from no ink (paper
white) to full ink (dMax).  The Lab readings (back to Lab again as a
measurement base) were then taken and the gradation linearised so that there
were even steps in density from white to black.  (In essence, the Epson
driver does the same thing but you can't control the inks.)

Average paper white and dMax numbers were used to produce the ICC profile
QTR Matte Paper and QTR Photo Paper.  So now you should see that you have
converted to a print space which has a linear progression in density from
paper white to full black.

The point of all this is to explain that the workings behind QTR and the
workflow we are trying to take you through are not gobbledygook but really
very sensible (and quite in keeping with what the Epson driver does).
IJC/OPM uses exactly the same methodology.

The only way you can get greater dynamic range (your perception of greater
contrast) for a given paper from the Epson driver would be if it could
generate a darker black - you can't do anything about the white.  (There is
some debate that the Epson driver can generate a darker black with the same
inks but this is at the margin only and not the source of your problem.)

So start by checking your workflow.  Have you printed a step wedge - QTR
alongside the Epson?  How are you printing with the Epson?

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:10:29 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "koloshor"
> <wiz@n...> wrote:
> 
>> Short answer, printing with PhotoShop is like shooting with a point
> and shoot camera. Auto everything, and little control. (It's no
> coincidence that PhotoShop and "point and shoot" are both initialed
> "PS"). QTR, ICM/OCP, ImagePrint, etc. are like using the camera on
> manual, exposing via the zone system, and paying attention to your
> darkroom procedures. You don't get a "master print" from the drug store.
>> 
> 
> I disagree. Photoshop gives me extremely good color prints. Perhaps it
> is hampered by the Epson driver for the black and white. There is no
> reason why Photoshop will give me an accurate print (accurate=close to
> the work I have done on my picture) and a 3rd-party program will be so
> far off out of the box and will require so much tweaking. Photoshop
> gives me enough control to do whatever I want with my picture and thn
> print it exactly the way I see it. Unfortunately the Epson driver
> mangles it and doesn't want to output black and white as black and
> white. As far as I know Photoshop is not responsible for the
> metamerism effect and doesn't apply any automatic treatment to my
> picture besides ICC profile conversion. I could use any other with as
> much control as I want, as long as the Epson drivers (and therefore
> all the Epson inks) are used, I'll get the metamerism, so this is not
> helping.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>

> 
> Is there any 3rd-party profile that could be used in PS when going
> through the "print with preview" instead of the ones I am using right
> now (SP2200 EHM 1440MK or 2880MK) that would eliminate the metamerism?

No.  You need greater control over the use of the inks.  The Epson driver
does not permit this - you can't, for example, say to the Epson driver
"balance LM and LC and don't use M or C or Y."  You can do this with QTR.
> 
> Also, if using an external program, by-passing any nice but
> unnecessary thing such as toning etc...is there any program that would
> print the same way as PS (if PS can do it simply, why is it so
> complicated with QTR?) without the metamerism?
> 


QTR's workflow is essentially the same as using the Epson driver on a Mac.
With a PC, you have just one or two interim steps - a small price - (1) you
must do the conversion to print space manually and save a print version for
opening in QTRGui, and (2) you must open the print file with QTRGui and
print from there.  

No pain no gain ol' son.


OR just print "black only" with the Epson driver.  See here:

http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn3.htm

>I did not try that, but I feel the tone is pretty neutral. Really what
>I want to fix is the contrast and general flatness of the shot. When I
>get that right I'll be happy to try the different tones, but right now
>those prints are not good at all (especially if we add the banding issue).

Right, I understood that. My thought was just to see what effect, if any, a
change in your proportions might make as a possible clue to what is going
wrong. It probably wouldn't matter but it's so easy to do I thought it might
be worth doing just to see what happned when you did it (i.e. did the print
remain equally flat but with a different tone or did the contrast improve).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "davidpichevin" <davidpichevin@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2005 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "B. Ellis"
<bellis60@v...> wrote:
> >There, I selected the matte curves, 2
> >of them blended at 50% in order to get a neutral tone. Printed, and
> >what came out drastically lacked contrast.
>
> Have you tried a different blend? I realize of course that different
> printers, papers, etc. produce different results but I get a neutral
tone
> with cool on the left, warm on the right and a blend of 90 (i.e. 90%
cool,
> 10% warm).

I did not try that, but I feel the tone is pretty neutral. Really what
I want to fix is the contrast and general flatness of the shot. When I
get that right I'll be happy to try the different tones, but right now
those prints are not good at all (especially if we add the banding issue).

David.






Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

>Prior
>to printing (manually on a PC and on-the-fly with a Mac) we must convert
>from the workspace to the print space.

I've been following this thread with interest but not always understanding,
partly because (rightly or wrongly) I do so few of the things being
mentioned in it and am wondering whether I should be (I do use black and
white film so I never have to convert from color to black and white and
never have anything in rgb, which may be part of the reason for the
difference between what I do and some of the steps mentioned in this
thread).

I won't ask for a complete explanation of things I don't follow, with a
little time and study I probably can figure them out, but the above
statement particularly puzzles me. I use a PC and do everything in Photoshop
from opening the image after scanning to all editing to saving the two files
(one for the unsharpened version, the other the final sharpened version). I
then open QTR/gui, select the image, make any chages necessary in the other
QTR/gui options for the particular print I'm making,  then hit the print
button.  The first print usually looks fine, occasionally I have to make a
minor adjustment in Photoshop or the gui screen and print again. I don't
consciously "convert from the workspace to the print space." Is QTR/gui
doing that for me when I choose the various options there or is this step
something I should be doing manually myself?

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 7:15 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print



I think you misinterpreted his response.  A RIP like QTR gives YOU (via
curve construction) full control over the individual ink jets - as though
you could control each ink with the Epson driver.  You can't do this with
the Epson driver.  You are using the canned QTR profiles and don't see this.
Nonetheless you should be getting prints better than the Epson ones.  This
is possible with QTR and the inks you are using - we all wouldn't spend so
much time with it if it didn't.

First things first.  A soft proof with "simulate ink black" checked is
REALITY.  You should be doing this for your colour work as well - in fact
you should have "Simulate Paper White" checked for colour.  Without these
checked you are not looking at a proper soft proof.  Why?  Because the black
point (and white point) of your display is much darker (whiter) than ink (or
no ink) on matte paper.  Neither the Epson driver nor QTR can match the
darkness of your display.  So first make sure you are proofing correctly -
colour or B&W.

(As a test, you can set up a proof for matte paper and then photo paper.
Toggle between the two and you can see the effect of getting better colour
gamut and density - there is less image "degradation" because you can get
better dMax on photo paper.)

Satisfy yourself also that the same thing happens with the Epson driver.
Set up a softproof to EEM (using the Epson colour ICC profile) and do it
properly, checking simulate paper white (and ink black).

Sounds like you also need to check how your screen is calibrated.  Without
that, you are simply shooting in the dark.

When you send your image to print with the Epson driver you no doubt input
the print space profile and use perceptual rendering with black point
compensation checked - no colour adjustment in the driver.  This is standard
ICC profile based printing with the profile conversion being done by PS and
not the driver.  You can think of the QTR workflow in the same way.  We need
to manage the transition from a broad workspace such as Lab or Adobe RGB (or
their single channel equivalents QTR Grey Lab and Grey Gamma 2.2) to the
much narrower (at least as far as B&W is concerned) print space.  Roy has
made two generic print space ICC profiles - one for Matte paper and one for
Photo paper (much in the same way that you have an ICC profile for EEM and
one for Epson Premium Semi-gloss, albeit these profiles are colour).  Prior
to printing (manually on a PC and on-the-fly with a Mac) we must convert
from the workspace to the print space.  When you print with the Epson driver
this conversion is done on-the-fly (as it is always done with a Mac) by PS
before the image hits the Epson driver (and is done, typically, with
perceptual rendering and black point compensation checked) - for PC QTR you
need to do this step manually so that you can open the converted image in
QTRGui.

So far you should see that there is little difference between the workflow
of the Epson driver and QTR.

When the person who did the QTR curves that you are using, they used QTR's
curve design features to strictly control which inks were used and in what
quantity.  They told the printer to use a certain set of inks in certain
order and in increasing density to create a range of tone from no ink (paper
white) to full ink (dMax).  The Lab readings (back to Lab again as a
measurement base) were then taken and the gradation linearised so that there
were even steps in density from white to black.  (In essence, the Epson
driver does the same thing but you can't control the inks.)

Average paper white and dMax numbers were used to produce the ICC profile
QTR Matte Paper and QTR Photo Paper.  So now you should see that you have
converted to a print space which has a linear progression in density from
paper white to full black.

The point of all this is to explain that the workings behind QTR and the
workflow we are trying to take you through are not gobbledygook but really
very sensible (and quite in keeping with what the Epson driver does).
IJC/OPM uses exactly the same methodology.

The only way you can get greater dynamic range (your perception of greater
contrast) for a given paper from the Epson driver would be if it could
generate a darker black - you can't do anything about the white.  (There is
some debate that the Epson driver can generate a darker black with the same
inks but this is at the margin only and not the source of your problem.)

So start by checking your workflow.  Have you printed a step wedge - QTR
alongside the Epson?  How are you printing with the Epson?




> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 04:10:29 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "koloshor"
> <wiz@n...> wrote:
>
>> Short answer, printing with PhotoShop is like shooting with a point
> and shoot camera. Auto everything, and little control. (It's no
> coincidence that PhotoShop and "point and shoot" are both initialed
> "PS"). QTR, ICM/OCP, ImagePrint, etc. are like using the camera on
> manual, exposing via the zone system, and paying attention to your
> darkroom procedures. You don't get a "master print" from the drug store.
>>
>
> I disagree. Photoshop gives me extremely good color prints. Perhaps it
> is hampered by the Epson driver for the black and white. There is no
> reason why Photoshop will give me an accurate print (accurate=close to
> the work I have done on my picture) and a 3rd-party program will be so
> far off out of the box and will require so much tweaking. Photoshop
> gives me enough control to do whatever I want with my picture and thn
> print it exactly the way I see it. Unfortunately the Epson driver
> mangles it and doesn't want to output black and white as black and
> white. As far as I know Photoshop is not responsible for the
> metamerism effect and doesn't apply any automatic treatment to my
> picture besides ICC profile conversion. I could use any other with as
> much control as I want, as long as the Epson drivers (and therefore
> all the Epson inks) are used, I'll get the metamerism, so this is not
> helping.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
and
> Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
> \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
\ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF
SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL
BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON
THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO
THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I think you misinterpreted his response.  A RIP like QTR gives YOU (via
> curve construction) full control over the individual ink jets - as
though
> you could control each ink with the Epson driver.  You can't do this
with
> the Epson driver.  You are using the canned QTR profiles and don't
see this.
> Nonetheless you should be getting prints better than the Epson ones.
 This
> is possible with QTR and the inks you are using - we all wouldn't
spend so
> much time with it if it didn't.

I understand this. However, my point is that even if it can be tweaked
to give better prints in the end, it should be so far off to start wit
when the lesser program (in terms of printing, if I believe what you
are saying) manages to be fairly accurate, despite the worse drivers.

I'm ok to tweak and get it better, but spending so much time getting
it...acceptable?

> First things first.  A soft proof with "simulate ink black" checked is
> REALITY.  You should be doing this for your colour work as well - in
fact
> you should have "Simulate Paper White" checked for colour.  Without
these
> checked you are not looking at a proper soft proof.  Why?  Because
the black
> point (and white point) of your display is much darker (whiter) than
ink (or
> no ink) on matte paper.  Neither the Epson driver nor QTR can match the
> darkness of your display.  So first make sure you are proofing
correctly -
> colour or B&W.  
> 
> (As a test, you can set up a proof for matte paper and then photo paper.
> Toggle between the two and you can see the effect of getting better
colour
> gamut and density - there is less image "degradation" because you
can get
> better dMax on photo paper.)
> 
> Satisfy yourself also that the same thing happens with the Epson driver.
> Set up a softproof to EEM (using the Epson colour ICC profile) and do it
> properly, checking simulate paper white (and ink black).
> 
> Sounds like you also need to check how your screen is calibrated. 
Without
> that, you are simply shooting in the dark.

We are looking in the wrong direction. Soft proofing has always given
me results that are so far off that it is unusable no matter what I
Print. Soft proofin even gives me solarization on the photos despite
the fact that in the end the color ones come out perfect. It is so far
off that no amount of bad camibration could cause that.

Once again, I am getting great color prints, which tells me my
calibration is good.

> When you send your image to print with the Epson driver you no doubt
input
> the print space profile and use perceptual rendering with black point
> compensation checked - no colour adjustment in the driver.  This is
standard
> ICC profile based printing with the profile conversion being done by
PS and
> not the driver.  You can think of the QTR workflow in the same way.
 We need
> to manage the transition from a broad workspace such as Lab or Adobe
RGB (or
> their single channel equivalents QTR Grey Lab and Grey Gamma 2.2) to the
> much narrower (at least as far as B&W is concerned) print space. 
Roy has
> made two generic print space ICC profiles - one for Matte paper and
one for
> Photo paper (much in the same way that you have an ICC profile for
EEM and
> one for Epson Premium Semi-gloss, albeit these profiles are colour).
 Prior
> to printing (manually on a PC and on-the-fly with a Mac) we must convert
> from the workspace to the print space.  When you print with the
Epson driver
> this conversion is done on-the-fly (as it is always done with a Mac)
by PS
> before the image hits the Epson driver (and is done, typically, with
> perceptual rendering and black point compensation checked) - for PC
QTR you
> need to do this step manually so that you can open the converted
image in
> QTRGui.
> 
> So far you should see that there is little difference between the
workflow
> of the Epson driver and QTR.

I have followed that workflow. This is why I am surprised by the
result, lack of contrast, banding and all.

> When the person who did the QTR curves that you are using, they used
QTR's
> curve design features to strictly control which inks were used and
in what
> quantity.  They told the printer to use a certain set of inks in certain
> order and in increasing density to create a range of tone from no
ink (paper
> white) to full ink (dMax).  The Lab readings (back to Lab again as a
> measurement base) were then taken and the gradation linearised so
that there
> were even steps in density from white to black.  (In essence, the Epson
> driver does the same thing but you can't control the inks.)
> 
> Average paper white and dMax numbers were used to produce the ICC
profile
> QTR Matte Paper and QTR Photo Paper.  So now you should see that you
have
> converted to a print space which has a linear progression in density
from
> paper white to full black.
> 
> The point of all this is to explain that the workings behind QTR and the
> workflow we are trying to take you through are not gobbledygook but
really
> very sensible (and quite in keeping with what the Epson driver does).
> IJC/OPM uses exactly the same methodology.
> 
> The only way you can get greater dynamic range (your perception of
greater
> contrast) for a given paper from the Epson driver would be if it could
> generate a darker black - you can't do anything about the white. 
(There is
> some debate that the Epson driver can generate a darker black with
the same
> inks but this is at the margin only and not the source of your problem.)
> 
> So start by checking your workflow.  Have you printed a step wedge - QTR
> alongside the Epson?  

I haven't printed the wedge.

> How are you printing with the Epson?

I"m not sure I understand this one :)

Thank you for your lenghty explanation!

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "B. Ellis"
<bellis60@v...> wrote:
> >I did not try that, but I feel the tone is pretty neutral. Really what
> >I want to fix is the contrast and general flatness of the shot. When I
> >get that right I'll be happy to try the different tones, but right now
> >those prints are not good at all (especially if we add the banding
issue).
> 
> Right, I understood that. My thought was just to see what effect, if
any, a
> change in your proportions might make as a possible clue to what is
going
> wrong. It probably wouldn't matter but it's so easy to do I thought
it might
> be worth doing just to see what happned when you did it (i.e. did
the print
> remain equally flat but with a different tone or did the contrast
improve).

It makes sense. I will try when I get a chance. Thanks.

Hi David,

--- davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...> wrote:
> 
> We are looking in the wrong direction. Soft proofing
> has always given
> me results that are so far off that it is unusable
> no matter what I
> Print. Soft proofin even gives me solarization on
> the photos despite
> the fact that in the end the color ones come out
> perfect. It is so far
> off that no amount of bad camibration could cause
> that.

Actually this pretty much confirms that your monitor
calibration is way off.

> 
> Once again, I am getting great color prints, which
> tells me my
> calibration is good.
> 
Are you making color changes to your color images?
Could be you are just getting decent input that prints
clean through the Epson Driver.

What are you using for a monitor and what system are
you using to calibrate?

Guy


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

A side note, probably of interest to no one here but me...
There have been rumors of the developement of so called "smart cmm's",
that would have the ability to determine compression amount on a per
image basis, depending on image "gamut".
So a low saturation image with colors that all easily fit within the
destination space gamut may not be compressed at all, just remapped.
It remains wishful vaporware at this point
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, guy washburn
<guido02474@y...> wrote:
> Hi David,
> 
> --- davidpichevin <davidpichevin@y...> wrote:
> > 
> > We are looking in the wrong direction. Soft proofing
> > has always given
> > me results that are so far off that it is unusable
> > no matter what I
> > Print. Soft proofin even gives me solarization on
> > the photos despite
> > the fact that in the end the color ones come out
> > perfect. It is so far
> > off that no amount of bad camibration could cause
> > that.
> 
> Actually this pretty much confirms that your monitor
> calibration is way off.
> 
> > 
> > Once again, I am getting great color prints, which
> > tells me my
> > calibration is good.
> > 
> Are you making color changes to your color images?
> Could be you are just getting decent input that prints
> clean through the Epson Driver.
> 
> What are you using for a monitor and what system are
> you using to calibrate?

Respectfully, I do not want to look in that direction. Once again, my
color prints are perfect on matte paper and I am not willing to change
that for the less than 10% B&W that I will be printing. I am using a
trinitron CRT monitor that is fairly close to sRGB.

The soft proofing is so far off and destroyed that no amount of
monitor calibration can fix that. But once again, that is not the
issue. My color prints are beautiful, and PS is printing my B&W with
the right contrast and neutral tones. The only thing I want to get rid
of is metamerism. Fine if QTR allows me in the end to even improve on
Epson, but that will be for later. A print coming out with right
contrast and tones out of PS but worse out of QTR tells me this has
nothing to do with my monitor settings but some settings in QTR that I
would need to change to get an acceptable output. That's what I'm
looking for help on. For example, how do I get my blacks from QTR as
dark as the blacks from the Epson driver? What setting do I need to
change for that? Would the ink limit slider do the trick? Would 2880
dpi use more ink and make it blacker? (I read something analog to
that). What can I do to get rid of the banding? As far as I know my
monitor calibration has nothing to do with the fact that QTR prints
with banding. Actually, if there was a full documentation for the
different QTR settings that would be perfect :)

That sort of thing...

David,

Have you read "Making Curves for QuadToneRip - A Tutorial"?  This 
document is available for download from the page where QTR is 
downloaded. It goes into great detail on all the variables as well as 
linearization.

Once you have a linearized/optimized curve, you can take a look at what 
you're outputting vs what you think you seen on your monitor. If 
converting to Gray Matte space, for example,"flattens" your image, try 
applying an S curve to punch it up a bit, just as you would with a color 
image.

I've been using QTR since it was released for WXP, and through a lot of 
T&E have produced B&W images with no  color casts that are equal, and 
some superior, to anything I ever produced from a wet  process. But like 
everything else, it does take some tweaking to get it where you 
ultimately want it to be.

>
>

Well then I don't think we can help you.  I get great prints from QTR.  I
get accurate soft proofs for both B&W and colour.  I get no banding with
1440 super/ordered dither.  We were trying to narrow down the issues. 2880i
won't make it blacker.  The ink slider is generally not used.  Have you
bothered to print a step wedge and compared it with one printed with the
Epson driver?   Sounds like you have so much going on that it's all a bit of
a mess.  I think your colour work is pure luck - either that or you aren't
doing your soft proof correctly.  I'm assuming you have no way of reading
density patches so we can't get insight that way.  If I were you I would
just give up and print "black only" with the Epson driver (I pointed you in
that direction with an earlier post).  The 2200 driver with Black checked
will just use the K ink.  Your prints will reflect the tone of the ink -
quite warm but to get better requires some investment in time on your part.

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>

> 
> Respectfully, I do not want to look in that direction. Once again, my
> color prints are perfect on matte paper and I am not willing to change
> that for the less than 10% B&W that I will be printing. I am using a
> trinitron CRT monitor that is fairly close to sRGB.
> 
> The soft proofing is so far off and destroyed that no amount of
> monitor calibration can fix that. But once again, that is not the
> issue. My color prints are beautiful, and PS is printing my B&W with
> the right contrast and neutral tones. The only thing I want to get rid
> of is metamerism. Fine if QTR allows me in the end to even improve on
> Epson, but that will be for later. A print coming out with right
> contrast and tones out of PS but worse out of QTR tells me this has
> nothing to do with my monitor settings but some settings in QTR that I
> would need to change to get an acceptable output. That's what I'm
> looking for help on. For example, how do I get my blacks from QTR as
> dark as the blacks from the Epson driver? What setting do I need to
> change for that? Would the ink limit slider do the trick? Would 2880
> dpi use more ink and make it blacker? (I read something analog to
> that). What can I do to get rid of the banding? As far as I know my
> monitor calibration has nothing to do with the fact that QTR prints
> with banding. Actually, if there was a full documentation for the
> different QTR settings that would be perfect :)
> 
> That sort of thing...
>

Steve,

>...  A RIP like QTR gives YOU (via
> curve construction) full control over the individual ink jets - as though
> you could control each ink with the Epson driver.  You can't do this with
> the Epson driver.

No, but you get indirect control.  Moreover, the Epson built-in crossovers
simplify the curves.  Total control can have its advantages, but it also
carries some baggage.

> Nonetheless you should be getting prints better than the Epson ones...

I wonder what you mean by this.

I've used the rips and strongly encourage their continued development.
However, so far there are only three advantages I see with them over the
Epson driver, and the ultimate quality is not better with the rips.

These are the advantage I see.  First, with the OEM UltraChrome inkset they
allow good B&W printing in the UC printers without the metamerism that Epson
driver & color inks cause.  However, the UC light black does cause some dots
in the highlights.  Looking just at the B&W inkset, the LK ink is over twice
the concentration of the light UT2 & UT7 inks.  For those who want the
ultimate in smooth highlights, the UT-FS-Y ink can be put in the UT2 & UT7
Yellow position.  This gives highlights that are dotless even under a loupe
when appropriate curves are used. 

Second, the rips allow one to add UC cyan, or UT7/UT2 dark gray inks to the
100% black spot to get better dmax on the 7600 with matte paper.  Just using
Eboni instead of UC MK is the easiest way to raise the 7600 dmax, however.
This gets you about half of the potential improvement over the UC MK.
Nonetheless, the dmax issue is probably one factor that will cause me to
start using a rip for the 7600, but in the meantime I'll make the usual RGB
curves.  PhotoRag with the Epson driver is getting a 1.67 dmax, which is
very respectable.

Third, the semi-automatic linearization that the rips can do make it easier
for most to correct for differences between printers, inksets and papers.  I
suspect that this is the primary reason those with the equipment to utilize
this feature would use the affordable rips.  This is the main reason I'll
probably start using these software packages for the 7600.

That said, the bottom line quality of the image the rips can make with
dedicated B&W inksets is not superior to what the Epson driver can
accomplish on all desktop printers I've tried.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

With all due respect to Bill, David you have a ways to go before you try
doing your own curves.  The canned curves should produce a reasonable image
out-of-the-box.  I doubt you would notice too much difference if you did
your own linearization which requires a densimeter or photospectrometer.
Work through the dialogue we have given you so far and try to get your
workflow setup correctly.  And try to get your monitor calibrated.  The
proofing workflow I described is correct and you can preview both QTR and
Epson output.  The QTR print driver settings are really very easy and
shouldn't require a lot of fussing with (1440 super, better, ordered dither,
mix 65% cool/35% warm for "roughly neutral", matte paper).  The only other
thing you need concern yourself with is the profile conversion which is
important.  In the same way that you do a profile conversion on the fly with
the Epson driver (from Adobe RGB to your Enhanced Matte paper profile) you
need to do it with QTR - it's just that you must do it manually with PC QTR.

With BOTH the Epson driver and QTR you will see the reduction in dynamic
range associated with printing to matte paper.  This is nothing to do with
the driver per se but to do with the fact that the greyscale that can be
represented on your screen exceeds significantly the greyscale that can be
printed on matte paper.  Do the two softproofs as I said and see that they
have roughly the same impact on an image.  BOTH ways of printing require a
little addition of contrast via a curve to make up for the matte paper.
Much less if any is required for printing to photo paper.

> From: Bill Cheadle <wpcheadle@...>
> 
> 
> 
> David,
> 
> Have you read "Making Curves for QuadToneRip - A Tutorial"?  This
> document is available for download from the page where QTR is
> downloaded. It goes into great detail on all the variables as well as
> linearization.
> 
> Once you have a linearized/optimized curve, you can take a look at what
> you're outputting vs what you think you seen on your monitor. If
> converting to Gray Matte space, for example,"flattens" your image, try
> applying an S curve to punch it up a bit, just as you would with a color
> image.
> 
> I've been using QTR since it was released for WXP, and through a lot of
> T&E have produced B&W images with no  color casts that are equal, and
> some superior, to anything I ever produced from a wet  process. But like
> everything else, it does take some tweaking to get it where you
> ultimately want it to be.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Well then I don't think we can help you.  I get great prints from
QTR.  I
> get accurate soft proofs for both B&W and colour.  I get no banding with
> 1440 super/ordered dither.  We were trying to narrow down the
issues. 2880i
> won't make it blacker.  The ink slider is generally not used.  Have you
> bothered to print a step wedge and compared it with one printed with the
> Epson driver?   Sounds like you have so much going on that it's all
a bit of
> a mess.  I think your colour work is pure luck 

It did take some calibrating work, but now my color prints are
perfect. No matter how it was obtained, I have a workflow where what I
have on my screen is reproduced on paper.

My best test for this was this image:

http://www.pichevinphoto.com/popped.php?id=0384

Every single color comes out perfectly, the way I see it on screen.
The pink is pink, the purples are the same purples, the shadow areas
are good and the orange is beautiful. Based on this, I decided that my
setup is right.

But that's not all, the B&W result from PS is also just as good
(except for the metamerism due to the yellow ink of course).

That's not luck, that's just called something that works well.

Without the metamerism I would not even have tried another program.

> If I were you I would
> just give up and print "black only" with the Epson driver (I pointed
you in
> that direction with an earlier post).  The 2200 driver with Black
checked
> will just use the K ink.  Your prints will reflect the tone of the ink -
> quite warm but to get better requires some investment in time on
your part.

I think that if I cannot get to a satisfying result I will let a pro
lab take care of my B&W shots.

I am beginning to think that doing your own printing is mostly a waste
of time and effort, as well as money, that detracts from the
photography part. If not for the fact that I can better control my
print sizes and that I figured out the color part...I'd be very close
to going to other route right now.

In any case, thanks for your efforts.

Paul

This guy is simply trying to get his current Epson UC inks to work better
for him.  10% of his work is B&W and so I doubt he is interested in
dedicating his printer to B&W ink sets.  I was generalising but I suspect it
would be very difficult to use your curves workflow with the Epson UC inks.
He is a long way away from your workflow and is simply trying to use the
existing QTR curves - which should produce better results than he seems to
be getting. 


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:49:58 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
>> ...  A RIP like QTR gives YOU (via
>> curve construction) full control over the individual ink jets - as though
>> you could control each ink with the Epson driver.  You can't do this with
>> the Epson driver.
> 
> No, but you get indirect control.  Moreover, the Epson built-in crossovers
> simplify the curves.  Total control can have its advantages, but it also
> carries some baggage.
> 
>> Nonetheless you should be getting prints better than the Epson ones...
> 


I meant that QTR can produce metamerism free prints with the Epson UC - his
chief complaint.

Yes we could intro a whole different level of complexity here but I don't
think it is going to be all that helpful.

Steve

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Paul
> 
> This guy is simply trying to get his current Epson UC inks to work
better
> for him.  10% of his work is B&W and so I doubt he is interested in
> dedicating his printer to B&W ink sets.  I was generalising but I
suspect it
> would be very difficult to use your curves workflow with the Epson
UC inks.
> He is a long way away from your workflow and is simply trying to use the
> existing QTR curves - which should produce better results than he
seems to
> be getting. 

You are right. There will be time for the tweeking and getting the
ultimate quality after I get the basic results right. As said I am
happy with the PS results. Only the metamerism needs to be eliminated.
The rest, custom curves, different inks, that can come later if need be.

Anyway, it is hard to diagnose that kind of issues online and I will
be playing with different ways and settings until I get it right and
post my findings.

Thanks,
David.

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>

> 
> It did take some calibrating work, but now my color prints are
> perfect. No matter how it was obtained, I have a workflow where what I
> have on my screen is reproduced on paper.

But when you try to soft-proof it all goes haywire- something is very wrong.
Sounds like rather than profiling the screen and using a colour managed
workflow and using soft proofing to preview print output you have tweaked
the screen to match the print and abandoned a colour-managed workflow.
Makes switching papers difficult.  Really not the right path to follow.  I
can pull up any colour image and do a soft proof to my Epson Enhanced Matte
paper profile and see the impact of that matte paper on screen.  It's
important to realise that the difference is much more noticeable with B&W
because you are working in a single dimension - ink density - and the impact
to tonal range is much more obvious.

> 
> My best test for this was this image:
> 
> http://www.pichevinphoto.com/popped.php?id=0384

Nice image. 


> 
> Every single color comes out perfectly, the way I see it on screen.
> The pink is pink, the purples are the same purples, the shadow areas
> are good and the orange is beautiful. Based on this, I decided that my
> setup is right.
> 
> But that's not all, the B&W result from PS is also just as good
> (except for the metamerism due to the yellow ink of course).
> 
> That's not luck, that's just called something that works well.

Doesn't seem to work well else you would use the Epson driver with your EEM
profile for B&W.  BTW we don't think yellow is the culprit - more likely
poor balance of magenta and cyan.


> 
> Without the metamerism I would not even have tried another program.

You are simply trying another print driver.


> 
>> If I were you I would
>> just give up and print "black only" with the Epson driver (I pointed
> you in
>> that direction with an earlier post).  The 2200 driver with Black
> checked
>> will just use the K ink.  Your prints will reflect the tone of the ink -
>> quite warm but to get better requires some investment in time on
> your part.
> 
> I think that if I cannot get to a satisfying result I will let a pro
> lab take care of my B&W shots.

That is always one option but seriously you should be getting much more
sensible output with QTRGui.  You just need to take the time and effort to
work through the issues.

On 3/23/05 7:03 PM, "davidpichevin" sent the following verbage:

> I just tried to softprof my image using Roy's grey matte profile in
> PS. It looks identical until I click "simulate ink black". Then the
> contrast is lost and the photo is washed out, I guess just like the print.


Two things, in case they haven't been mentioned. I'm sorry I haven't read
all the posts recently.

Above, is how I ready my QTR files, in QTR-Lab, using QTR-matte and simulate
ink black as the soft proof view. Then you have to apply corrections to your
file, the file won't work the same as it did printing it with the epson
driver, primarily because the QTR 'profiles' have a more linear approach,
they don't compress your tones like the epson driver/profiles tend to do. So
you have to make sure your levels and curves are manipulated properly until
you get the contrast and tonal response you want for your print.

Also, try desaturating your monitor view in the color settings by 30 to 40%
for another better representation of the print. Work your file from the soft
proof you've set up. You are seeing what the print looks like from your
description above, so work from that view. One thing that I'm confused by
though, is why your soft proof in matte is identical to the same image in
lab, even without 'simulate black ink', it should be different.

Carolyn

On 3/24/05 8:09 AM, "Tyler Boley" sent the following verbage:

> 
> 
> A side note, probably of interest to no one here but me...
> There have been rumors of the developement of so called "smart cmm's",
> that would have the ability to determine compression amount on a per
> image basis, depending on image "gamut".
> So a low saturation image with colors that all easily fit within the
> destination space gamut may not be compressed at all, just remapped.
> It remains wishful vaporware at this point
> Tyler

Vaporware, I hope not.. Would solve a lot of soft transition banding here.

Carolyn

You should be doing it yourself if you are on a PC.  A while back we had a
big debate about the fact that our workspace (then typically Gray Gamma 2.2)
looks nothing like our print space (a linear transition in Lab's L value -
luminosity/density - from paper white to a weak ink black, particularly with
matte paper) and not a good methodology for making the transition - the
typical workflow was "same as source".  Roy came up with a way to automate
the transition using the perceptual intent colour engine.  With a Mac you
can print using QTR driver straight from PS and ask PS to do the conversion
from workspace to printspace on the fly - just as you do for colour work.
With the PC version this has to be done manually.  So when you get your
image looking good, save it as your master, convert to the print space (QTR
matte or photo), turn on the soft proofing (as I have described about 6
times in the last 24 hours ;-)  ) and adjust with a print contrast curve to
your liking, do your print sharpening and then save as a print version.
From QTRGui open this image and print it.

> From: "B. Ellis" <bellis60@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:22:00 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
>> Prior
>> to printing (manually on a PC and on-the-fly with a Mac) we must convert
>> from the workspace to the print space.
> 
> I've been following this thread with interest but not always understanding,
> partly because (rightly or wrongly) I do so few of the things being
> mentioned in it and am wondering whether I should be (I do use black and
> white film so I never have to convert from color to black and white and
> never have anything in rgb, which may be part of the reason for the
> difference between what I do and some of the steps mentioned in this
> thread).
> 
> I won't ask for a complete explanation of things I don't follow, with a
> little time and study I probably can figure them out, but the above
> statement particularly puzzles me. I use a PC and do everything in Photoshop
> from opening the image after scanning to all editing to saving the two files
> (one for the unsharpened version, the other the final sharpened version). I
> then open QTR/gui, select the image, make any chages necessary in the other
> QTR/gui options for the particular print I'm making,  then hit the print
> button.  The first print usually looks fine, occasionally I have to make a
> minor adjustment in Photoshop or the gui screen and print again. I don't
> consciously "convert from the workspace to the print space." Is QTR/gui
> doing that for me when I choose the various options there or is this step
> something I should be doing manually myself?
> 
>

You'd think that that was the way all those colour engineers would have
started in the first place!

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:26 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: CM conversions was Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> 
> A side note, probably of interest to no one here but me...
> There have been rumors of the developement of so called "smart cmm's",
> that would have the ability to determine compression amount on a per
> image basis, depending on image "gamut".
> So a low saturation image with colors that all easily fit within the
> destination space gamut may not be compressed at all, just remapped.
> It remains wishful vaporware at this point
> Tyler
> 
>

Whoa - I would not do this.  There is NO - repeat NO - substitute for a well
profiled (aka calibrated - you don't actually calibrate it) monitor and
proper softproofing.

> From: Carolyn Frayn <carolyn@...>

> Also, try desaturating your monitor view in the color settings by 30 to 40%
> for another better representation of the print.

It was a suggestion Steve, keeping the fellows current situation in mind. If
he's getting a 'good' match with his screen to print using epson driver and
profiles.. All that compressed, vivid glory... Without a calibrated system.
Then he might get a good match using what I "suggested" in order to
visualize his QTR output. Not everyone is going to go run out and buy more
equipment when their current situation works most of the time for them,
there are work arounds.

C

On 3/24/05 10:29 AM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:

> 
> Whoa - I would not do this.  There is NO - repeat NO - substitute for a well
> profiled (aka calibrated - you don't actually calibrate it) monitor and
> proper softproofing.
> 
> 
>> From: Carolyn Frayn <carolyn@...>
> 
>> Also, try desaturating your monitor view in the color settings by 30 to 40%
>> for another better representation of the print.
>

As someone pointed out previously on the list, 
if you install QTRgui as an 'editing' graphics app in the appropriate PS settings location, you can print 'directly from PS'  viz:

AFTER you have assigned Gray Lab -Matte or other Roy/GrayLab profile to the image (WITHOUT saving it in that form)
while in PS you can click on 'Edit in QTR', which will open QTRgui with the appropriate image selected, and you can make your QTR settings and print from there.  You must remember to keep UNCHECKED the 'autoprint when image is selected' option in your QTR default settings, else the PS/QTR combo will hang.

I've done it, and found it was basically about as convenient for me to save a Gray-Matte copy of my image and then open QTR separately for printing.  PS hogs so much memory the way I have it set that there's not much RAM left to run other apps at the same time, but that may not be true for others.

BTW-- for whatever reason, I don't find it necessary or useful to use soft proofing when I am using the Gray Lab work space and Gray Matte print space.  After some adjustment of the QTR gamma setting, what I get on the screen (monitor profiled) is very close to what I get out of the printer.  I keep my room lights on while working, which may have the effect of changing my perceptual visual contrast enough to make this method work.  With room lights off, obviously a CRT can present a far greater range of densities than any paper and ink could hold.  

I would quote the method of setting up PS if I remembered it, but if you do a search on 'QTR' with 'PS' and 'edit in' or some such, I bet it would work.

ted

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Kale 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 9:24 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print


  [...] With a Mac you
  can print using QTR driver straight from PS and ask PS to do the conversion
  from workspace to printspace on the fly - just as you do for colour work.
  With the PC version this has to be done manually.  So when you get your
  image looking good, save it as your master, convert to the print space (QTR
  matte or photo), turn on the soft proofing (as I have described about 6
  times in the last 24 hours ;-)  ) and adjust with a print contrast curve to
  your liking, do your print sharpening and then save as a print version.
  From QTRGui open this image and print it.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

not as easy as it may at first appear.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:

> You'd think that that was the way all those colour engineers would have
> started in the first place!
> 
> 
> > From: Tyler Boley <tyler@t...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:09:26 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: CM conversions was Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > A side note, probably of interest to no one here but me...
> > There have been rumors of the developement of so called "smart cmm's",
> > that would have the ability to determine compression amount on a per
> > image basis, depending on image "gamut".
> > So a low saturation image with colors that all easily fit within the
> > destination space gamut may not be compressed at all, just remapped.
> > It remains wishful vaporware at this point
> > Tyler
> > 
> >

Tyler wrote:
> A side note, probably of interest to no one here but me...
> There have been rumors of the developement of so called 
> "smart cmm's", that would have the ability to determine 
> compression amount on a per image basis, depending on image "gamut".
> So a low saturation image with colors that all easily fit 
> within the destination space gamut may not be compressed at 
> all, just remapped.
> It remains wishful vaporware at this point Tyler

For now, why not just print such images (to hang on the wall opposite
the b&w prints, of course...) with relative colorimetric intent?

Richard Wolfson

Hi Richard, yes certainly that takes care of most of the dilemma,
assuming Adobe's black point compensation is used for K points that
don't match, and assuming there are few colors (if any) in the image
that are out of gamut.
I have been disapointed in relcol conversions with gretag (Eye-one)
conversions though. ProfilerPro, particularly the newest versions,
seem to be better.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Wolfson"
<rw@r...> wrote:

> Tyler wrote:
> > A side note, probably of interest to no one here but me...
> > There have been rumors of the developement of so called 
> > "smart cmm's", that would have the ability to determine 
> > compression amount on a per image basis, depending on image "gamut".
> > So a low saturation image with colors that all easily fit 
> > within the destination space gamut may not be compressed at 
> > all, just remapped.
> > It remains wishful vaporware at this point Tyler
> 
> For now, why not just print such images (to hang on the wall opposite
> the b&w prints, of course...) with relative colorimetric intent?
> 
> Richard Wolfson

David,

I must chime in here, with some simple thoughts, as I am probably 
one of the least technologically informed people in this group (and, 
that may even be an advantage).

I am dismayed that you are having such a problem, and everyone is 
trying to offer sincere help here, but I believe it is very 
difficult to understand each person's offerings EXACTLY as intended 
due to the unique way each person articulates his own experiences, 
and each with a different level of accuracy in their ability to 
present the issues as they perceive them.

Personally, after following this thread since the beginning, I 
believe your problem is a very simple one, not complicated at all 
The QTR implementation requires very little effort (certainly no 
more than preparing a cup of tea), so I am compelled to offer my own 
two cents.

FWIW, I want you to know that I am using the very same setup as you, 
and have NEVER had even the slightest problem with QTR, as it 
delivers exactly the same contrast/density/sharpness as when I print 
from the Epson driver, except that it delivers perfectly neutral 
metamerism-free prints! You should be having the same results as me, 
as it is a very simple process, made complicated by many settings 
that may sound or look the same, but which really are not. Here is 
how I do it, my settings, opinions and some suggestions:

1. I do not believe your monitor is so out of calibration that it is 
the cause of this specific problem. If you are getting close to what 
you want printing b/w & color through the Epson driver, you should 
get approximately the same accuracy through QTR. This seems a simple 
deduction. 

2. For me, I approach my b/w workflow in several different ways, 
none of which are important here. The big difference from what I am 
reading of other workflows, is that I DO NOT convert to the QTR 
workspace until I have completely finished working on my image. 
Then, just before I print with QTR, I convert to the QTR workspace. 

I convert by going into Image-> Mode-> Convert-to-Profile (at the 
very BOTTOM of the list. I have a feeling you are not doing this 
correctly, and are simply clicking the wrong selection). The profile 
dialog that opens up should read "QTR - gray matte paper." Use Adobe 
(ACE) engine, Perceptual, Black point, and Dither.

3. Save the file as a .TIF file, open the QTRGui program and select 
the image. Select the 2200 printer, use QUAD 2200, Type: Matte 
Paper, 1440 Super, Better (not "faster").

4. Curves should be set to (on the left) UC-EEnhMatte Warm and (on 
the right) UC-EEnhMatte Cool, with a blend of 50. Leave both Ink 
Limit sliders below at "0."

5. Select your paper size and print!

Now, if this doesn't solve your problem, UNINSTALL QTR COMPLETELY 
(there is a link to a complete "cleanout" utility at 
http://www.sbillard.org/Shareware/QTRCleanout.exe). Then, reinstall 
QTR from a fresh download, reinstall the profiles, and try it again. 
I'm using 2.2.0.

I hope this helps you pinpoint your problem. QTR is a great program, 
and there is no reason on earth why you should not benefit from it 
like the rest of us. Please let me know if any of this helps!

Best wishes,

Jeff Singer
htp://pbase.com/k2kv   


> You are right. There will be time for the tweeking and getting the
> ultimate quality after I get the basic results right. As said I am
> happy with the PS results. Only the metamerism needs to be 
eliminated.
> The rest, custom curves, different inks, that can come later if 
need be.
> 
> Anyway, it is hard to diagnose that kind of issues online and I 
will
> be playing with different ways and settings until I get it right 
and

> post my findings.
> 
> Thanks,
> David.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "k2kv" <js@r...>
wrote:
> 
> David,
> 
> I must chime in here, with some simple thoughts, as I am probably 
> one of the least technologically informed people in this group (and, 
> that may even be an advantage).
> 
> I am dismayed that you are having such a problem, and everyone is 
> trying to offer sincere help here, but I believe it is very 
> difficult to understand each person's offerings EXACTLY as intended 
> due to the unique way each person articulates his own experiences, 
> and each with a different level of accuracy in their ability to 
> present the issues as they perceive them.
> 
> Personally, after following this thread since the beginning, I 
> believe your problem is a very simple one, not complicated at all 
> The QTR implementation requires very little effort (certainly no 
> more than preparing a cup of tea), so I am compelled to offer my own 
> two cents.

I didn't think it would require a lot of effort to get an acceptable
result (at least equal to my PS print) with it, and I am not talking
about using it to its full potential to *improve* on the quality.
That's why I thought that I had some QTR settings wrong, and the
banding issue adds to that feeling. Surely the banding doesn't have
anything to do with my PS workflow.

> FWIW, I want you to know that I am using the very same setup as you, 
> and have NEVER had even the slightest problem with QTR, as it 
> delivers exactly the same contrast/density/sharpness as when I print 
> from the Epson driver, except that it delivers perfectly neutral 
> metamerism-free prints! You should be having the same results as me, 
> as it is a very simple process, made complicated by many settings 
> that may sound or look the same, but which really are not. Here is 
> how I do it, my settings, opinions and some suggestions:
> 
> 1. I do not believe your monitor is so out of calibration that it is 
> the cause of this specific problem. If you are getting close to what 
> you want printing b/w & color through the Epson driver, you should 
> get approximately the same accuracy through QTR. This seems a simple 
> deduction. 

Thank you :) That is the idea I was trying to send. I would look at my
montiro settings if the results were a bit of, but the difference
could not be big enough to mess up the proofin that way. In any case I
am happy to live without proofing, even though some might think
differently.

> 2. For me, I approach my b/w workflow in several different ways, 
> none of which are important here. The big difference from what I am 
> reading of other workflows, is that I DO NOT convert to the QTR 
> workspace until I have completely finished working on my image. 
> Then, just before I print with QTR, I convert to the QTR workspace. 

That's how I would do it too, the same way I convert to sRGB right
beofre saving a web version. Everything else is done in AdobeRGB.
 
> I convert by going into Image-> Mode-> Convert-to-Profile (at the 
> very BOTTOM of the list. I have a feeling you are not doing this 
> correctly, and are simply clicking the wrong selection). The profile 
> dialog that opens up should read "QTR - gray matte paper." Use Adobe 
> (ACE) engine, Perceptual, Black point, and Dither.

I have done that. I use the profile conversion method all the time for
web display.

> 3. Save the file as a .TIF file, open the QTRGui program and select 
> the image. Select the 2200 printer, use QUAD 2200, Type: Matte 
> Paper, 1440 Super, Better (not "faster").

I have done that.
 
> 4. Curves should be set to (on the left) UC-EEnhMatte Warm and (on 
> the right) UC-EEnhMatte Cool, with a blend of 50. Leave both Ink 
> Limit sliders below at "0."

Done that.
 
> 5. Select your paper size and print!

That too :)
 
> Now, if this doesn't solve your problem, UNINSTALL QTR COMPLETELY 
> (there is a link to a complete "cleanout" utility at 
> http://www.sbillard.org/Shareware/QTRCleanout.exe). Then, reinstall 
> QTR from a fresh download, reinstall the profiles, and try it again. 
> I'm using 2.2.0.

I can do that. However, this is the first version of the program that
I ever use...so there aren't any remnants in there.
 
> I hope this helps you pinpoint your problem. QTR is a great program, 
> and there is no reason on earth why you should not benefit from it 
> like the rest of us. Please let me know if any of this helps!

Thanks for your message. I will go through this again, and I will also
try some slight gamma adjustment in QTR and see if it changes anything.

David.

As a sidebar, what do you guys use as your general intent  ie not when
printing but in PS' colour settings?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> As a sidebar, what do you guys use as your general intent  ie not when
> printing but in PS' colour settings?

Within the context of the original discussion, QTR, I can't comment.
But for color printing, I generally use perceptual, or, sometimes
not... err...
Often I preview it both ways to decide. There are some situations one
is definitely required, press proofing for example. With Eye-One RGB
profiles, always perceptual as the relcol conversions looked bad, this
may have been fixed with recent updates but I don't use it for color
profiles anymore so can't say for sure.
Color space and input profile conversions are always colormetric, even
though PS appears to give you a perceptual option, it's an illusion.
So it you are refering to the color settings pref, I believe it's only
relevant to CMYK conversions since they are really output profiles.
Tyler

On 3/24/05 2:16 PM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:

> 
> As a sidebar, what do you guys use as your general intent  ie not when
> printing but in PS' colour settings?
> 
>

Don't know about the guys, but I don't use the general intent. When
converting it's wise not to rely on the color settings in the prefs.  That
setting, and the working space settings, are only used if you are converting
using the very basic method available in mode menu, or wish PS to convert on
the fly when opening a file (not a good idea).
Carolyn

Err... So to be clear, your colour settings default intent is relative
colormetric?  Ie you use this for switching generally from say the scanner
profile to Adobe RGB or whatever your workspace is.   The reason I ask is
that I use relcol for general use and then perceptual for printing.

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>

> Often I preview it both ways to decide. There are some situations one
> is definitely required, press proofing for example. With Eye-One RGB
> profiles, always perceptual as the relcol conversions looked bad, this
> may have been fixed with recent updates but I don't use it for color
> profiles anymore so can't say for sure.
> Color space and input profile conversions are always colormetric, even
> though PS appears to give you a perceptual option, it's an illusion.
> So it you are refering to the color settings pref, I believe it's only
> relevant to CMYK conversions since they are really output profiles.
> Tyler
>

Carolyn

Not sure I understand you.  I have PS set to ask what to do when it
encounters a profile mismatch, eg importing a file that is tagged
differently from the workspace (eg a scanner profile).  I convert to my
workspace.  In Color Settings I have the conversion settings set as relative
colormetric (black point and dither etc).  So this gets used when dealing
with space conversions or when switching, say, between QTR Grey Lab and
Adobe RGB for sharpening - actually for everything except when it comes to
printing.  I was asking what others used for this setting.

Steve

> From: Carolyn Frayn <carolyn@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:14:40 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: CM conversions was Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> On 3/24/05 2:16 PM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:
> 
>> 
>> As a sidebar, what do you guys use as your general intent  ie not when
>> printing but in PS' colour settings?
>> 
>> 
> 
> Don't know about the guys, but I don't use the general intent. When
> converting it's wise not to rely on the color settings in the prefs.  That
> setting, and the working space settings, are only used if you are converting
> using the very basic method available in mode menu, or wish PS to convert on
> the fly when opening a file (not a good idea).
> Carolyn
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Err... So to be clear, your colour settings default intent is relative
> colormetric?  Ie you use this for switching generally from say the
scanner
> profile to Adobe RGB or whatever your workspace is.

Relcol will be used no matter what your setting is for that
conversion. There is no perceptual conversion available between input
profiles and working spaces. Sorry that wasn't clear. The settings
lead you to think otherwise.
I think it should be available, scanner spaces are often larger than
AdobeRGB, and colors can get clipped. So I use a larger RGB working space.

>   The reason I ask is
> that I use relcol for general use and then perceptual for printing.

I'm sure that is fine. But sometimes I preview the different intents
even for printing, looking for potential problems.

Tyler

Thanks, I'll try that.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 12:24 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print



You should be doing it yourself if you are on a PC.  A while back we had a
big debate about the fact that our workspace (then typically Gray Gamma 2.2)
looks nothing like our print space (a linear transition in Lab's L value -
luminosity/density - from paper white to a weak ink black, particularly with
matte paper) and not a good methodology for making the transition - the
typical workflow was "same as source".  Roy came up with a way to automate
the transition using the perceptual intent colour engine.  With a Mac you
can print using QTR driver straight from PS and ask PS to do the conversion
from workspace to printspace on the fly - just as you do for colour work.
With the PC version this has to be done manually.  So when you get your
image looking good, save it as your master, convert to the print space (QTR
matte or photo), turn on the soft proofing (as I have described about 6
times in the last 24 hours ;-)  ) and adjust with a print contrast curve to
your liking, do your print sharpening and then save as a print version.
From QTRGui open this image and print it.

> > I did not try that, but I feel the tone is pretty neutral. Really 
what
> > I want to fix is the contrast and general flatness of the shot. 
When I
> > get that right I'll be happy to try the different tones, but 
right now
> > those prints are not good at all (especially if we add the 
banding issue).
> > 
> > David.

I went through the entire thread, and apparently nobody has suggested 
playing with the 'gamma' slider.  When I started using QTR with UT2 
inks, i had very flat muddy shadows with poor separation.  I wasted 
quite a while playing with profile blends and max black settings, 
then out of desperation tried the gamma slider.  Using a setting of -
7 i was able to produce a very close match of printer output with my 
screen images, without changing max black or mixing profiles.

Since your problem seems to be the opposite, ie too little contrast 
in the midtones, perhaps *increasing* gamma toward 'darker' with the 
slider will solve your problem.

ted

I have the same monitor (if I recall the post correctly) and I calibrate with Monaco Optix re and get prints that match my softproofed color images correctly (allowing for 'illumination' vs. paper).  I use paper profiles for each paper and I'm working toward a good 'proofing' for the QTR.  I, too, was going to suggest an adjustment layer of curves---but felt maybe I was too presumptious since I'm new to QTR (but certainly not to PS or printing).  It would be what I would do--while working with the proofing/profiles that Roy outlined.

Diane

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Kale 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 11:54 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print


  With all due respect to Bill, David you have a ways to go before you try
  doing your own curves.  The canned curves should produce a reasonable image
  out-of-the-box.  I doubt you would notice too much difference if you did
  your own linearization which requires a densimeter or photospectrometer.
  Work through the dialogue we have given you so far and try to get your
  workflow setup correctly.  And try to get your monitor calibrated.  The
  proofing workflow I described is correct and you can preview both QTR and
  Epson output.  The QTR print driver settings are really very easy and
  shouldn't require a lot of fussing with (1440 super, better, ordered dither,
  mix 65% cool/35% warm for "roughly neutral", matte paper).  The only other
  thing you need concern yourself with is the profile conversion which is
  important.  In the same way that you do a profile conversion on the fly with
  the Epson driver (from Adobe RGB to your Enhanced Matte paper profile) you
  need to do it with QTR - it's just that you must do it manually with PC QTR.

  With BOTH the Epson driver and QTR you will see the reduction in dynamic
  range associated with printing to matte paper.  This is nothing to do with
  the driver per se but to do with the fact that the greyscale that can be
  represented on your screen exceeds significantly the greyscale that can be
  printed on matte paper.  Do the two softproofs as I said and see that they
  have roughly the same impact on an image.  BOTH ways of printing require a
  little addition of contrast via a curve to make up for the matte paper.
  Much less if any is required for printing to photo paper.



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3"
<egosfield@c...> wrote:
> 
> > > I did not try that, but I feel the tone is pretty neutral. Really 
> what
> > > I want to fix is the contrast and general flatness of the shot. 
> When I
> > > get that right I'll be happy to try the different tones, but 
> right now
> > > those prints are not good at all (especially if we add the 
> banding issue).
> > > 
> > > David.
> 
> I went through the entire thread, and apparently nobody has suggested 
> playing with the 'gamma' slider.  When I started using QTR with UT2 
> inks, i had very flat muddy shadows with poor separation.  I wasted 
> quite a while playing with profile blends and max black settings, 
> then out of desperation tried the gamma slider.  Using a setting of -
> 7 i was able to produce a very close match of printer output with my 
> screen images, without changing max black or mixing profiles.
> 
> Since your problem seems to be the opposite, ie too little contrast 
> in the midtones, perhaps *increasing* gamma toward 'darker' with the 
> slider will solve your problem.

I thought about the gamma but as my ink is getting lower and lower I
am getting a bit chicken in terms of fiddling and trying. I'll try that.

Thanks,
David.

> 
> Carolyn
> 
> Not sure I understand you.  I have PS set to ask what to do when it
> encounters a profile mismatch, eg importing a file that is tagged
> differently from the workspace (eg a scanner profile).  I convert to my
> workspace.  In Color Settings I have the conversion settings set as relative
> colormetric (black point and dither etc).  So this gets used when dealing
> with space conversions or when switching, say, between QTR Grey Lab and
> Adobe RGB for sharpening - actually for everything except when it comes to
> printing.  I was asking what others used for this setting.
> 
> Steve

You asked what people were using for general intent, and I expressed
basically that I don't use that setting at all. In my opinion it's best to
use 'convert to profile' and indicate what space and what intent you wish to
use for each circumstance.  I also never allow PS to convert on the fly when
opening a file. Also, if you are relying on your color settings for
conversions, you aren't given the opportunity to assign rather than convert.
Which I use at times.

You do a lot of conversions from your description. Even in 16 bit your files
are subject to rounding errors during conversion. I try not to convert a
file very often during my workflow. I'm unclear why you are converting back
to RGB for sharpening.

Also by your description you have set your gray space in color settings as
QTR Lab.  The only time the general intent is used is if you are going to
the mode menu and choosing a space available (which in turn uses what spaces
you have selected in the color settings) I use different spaces for
different work, requiring a choice within those spaces when converting... So
again, I was just saying that I, and others, don't use the general intent.

As for printing... I use relcol usually. I prefer the way it maps my white
points, and keeps the values where intended. That said, I keep my gamut
between the two in check prior to conversion so there isn't a great deal of
mapping required.
Carolyn

On 3/24/05 10:41 PM, "davidpichevin" sent the following verbage:

>> Since your problem seems to be the opposite, ie too little contrast
>> in the midtones, perhaps *increasing* gamma toward 'darker' with the
>> slider will solve your problem.
> 
> I thought about the gamma but as my ink is getting lower and lower I
> am getting a bit chicken in terms of fiddling and trying. I'll try that.
> 

I'll just reiterate that you need to manipulate your file properly in the
space (converted or softproofed) that you are using to print..  If the file
is properly readied, levels control, curves to add contrast or finesse areas
of concern as has been stated, it will print very well with QTR. Gamma
controls will not add contrast.
Carolyn

Experiment with step wedges first.

> From: davidpichevin <davidpichevin@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 05:41:15 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3"
> <egosfield@c...> wrote:
>> 
>>>> I did not try that, but I feel the tone is pretty neutral. Really
>> what
>>>> I want to fix is the contrast and general flatness of the shot.
>> When I
>>>> get that right I'll be happy to try the different tones, but
>> right now
>>>> those prints are not good at all (especially if we add the
>> banding issue).
>>>> 
>>>> David.
>> 
>> I went through the entire thread, and apparently nobody has suggested
>> playing with the 'gamma' slider.  When I started using QTR with UT2
>> inks, i had very flat muddy shadows with poor separation.  I wasted
>> quite a while playing with profile blends and max black settings,
>> then out of desperation tried the gamma slider.  Using a setting of -
>> 7 i was able to produce a very close match of printer output with my
>> screen images, without changing max black or mixing profiles.
>> 
>> Since your problem seems to be the opposite, ie too little contrast
>> in the midtones, perhaps *increasing* gamma toward 'darker' with the
>> slider will solve your problem.
> 
> I thought about the gamma but as my ink is getting lower and lower I
> am getting a bit chicken in terms of fiddling and trying. I'll try that.
> 
> Thanks,
> David.
>

The bit I am puzzled about is that the difference between the Epson driver
print and the QTR print - both without curves.  Because they each are going
to matte paper each require quite a lot of dynamic range compression. The
perceptual rendering workflow of both should take care of that in equal
measure - you use perceptual rendering and black point compensation to go
from your Adobe RGB workspace to the Epson Matte paper profile and the same
for QTR to go from Adobe RGB to the QTR Matte Paper profile.  Yet you say
there is a massive difference between the two prints.  Something doesn't
make sense there.  Hence I haven't gotten to the point of saying try a
contrast curve for the QTR print - you would need one for the Epson print as
well.

> From: Diane Fields <picnic@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 20:19:14 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> I have the same monitor (if I recall the post correctly) and I calibrate with
> Monaco Optix re and get prints that match my softproofed color images
> correctly (allowing for 'illumination' vs. paper).  I use paper profiles for
> each paper and I'm working toward a good 'proofing' for the QTR.  I, too, was
> going to suggest an adjustment layer of curves---but felt maybe I was too
> presumptious since I'm new to QTR (but certainly not to PS or printing).  It
> would be what I would do--while working with the proofing/profiles that Roy
> outlined.
> 
> Diane
>

Got it.  BTW I just map from QTR Lab to Adobe RGB (and afterwards back
again) for sharpening with Photokit Sharpener Pro.  It is a final step and
doesn't affect my master file.  Otherwise about the only conversions I am
doing are scanner tagged input or sRGB from my pocket digital (my 1Ds MK II
shoots Adobe RGB) to Adobe RGB and perhaps the odd Adobe RGB to QTR Lab.
For all of that I have been using the general intent relative colormetric
for the moment.  When might one not want to use relcol in these instances?

For printing (workspace to printspace), I always use Perceptual.

> From: Carolyn Frayn <carolyn@...>

> You asked what people were using for general intent, and I expressed
> basically that I don't use that setting at all. In my opinion it's best to
> use 'convert to profile' and indicate what space and what intent you wish to
> use for each circumstance.  I also never allow PS to convert on the fly when
> opening a file. Also, if you are relying on your color settings for
> conversions, you aren't given the opportunity to assign rather than convert.
> Which I use at times.
> 
> You do a lot of conversions from your description. Even in 16 bit your files
> are subject to rounding errors during conversion. I try not to convert a
> file very often during my workflow. I'm unclear why you are converting back
> to RGB for sharpening.
> 
> Also by your description you have set your gray space in color settings as
> QTR Lab.  The only time the general intent is used is if you are going to
> the mode menu and choosing a space available (which in turn uses what spaces
> you have selected in the color settings) I use different spaces for
> different work, requiring a choice within those spaces when converting... So
> again, I was just saying that I, and others, don't use the general intent.
> 
> As for printing... I use relcol usually. I prefer the way it maps my white
> points, and keeps the values where intended. That said, I keep my gamut
> between the two in check prior to conversion so there isn't a great deal of
> mapping required.
> Carolyn
>

> When might one not want to use relcol in these instances?

Steve,

In color work, I probably use RelCol as much or more than perceptual, 
but it varies by image.  I will soft proof each rendering intent to 
see which looks the best initially, then decide.

RelCol is often best when there are few out of gamut colors.  In 
these cases, the in gamut colors are left pretty much alone and the 
out of gamut colors are remapped to the closest printable color in 
the output gamut.  RelCol changes the relationships between colors, 
but the accuracy of the in gamut colors is preserved.  If there are a 
lot of out of gamut colors, RelCol can often look lousy, since the 
relationships are all wrong, and the eye is pretty sensitive to 
relationships, especially when it comes to "memory colors", such as 
skin tones, neutrals, sky blue, green grass, etc.  

Perceptual is often a good choice when there are a lot of out of 
gamut colors.  Perceptual will attempt to preserve the relationships 
between colors, at the sacrifice of absolute color accuracy, so all 
colors are remapped to some extent.  Sometimes, there are big shifts 
in overall brightness level and saturation as a result.  

In either case, I will usually soft proof both, choose the one that 
works best with my current image, then make final brightness and 
saturation corrections before printing.  This describes my color work 
flow.

For B&W, I almost always use Perceptual.  I don't have to worry about 
color and saturation relationships in monochrome printing, and I do 
want to maintain the relative relationships between shades of gray.  

Lou

The gamma adjustment primarily affects the midtones as can be seen if
several 21 step wedges are printed at various gamma settings. It has little
or no effect on the blacker blacks and whiter whites (i.e. on overall print
contras). Also, even in the midtones different gamma settings within reason
don't produce really dramatic differences and shouldn't turn the washed out
shadows and highlights (plus banding) that you say you're now getting into
nice prints with good contrast and no banding. And if it did do all of those
things I'd think it was just a bandaid that was obscuring some more
fundamental problem. I don't mean to be critical of the suggestion, at this
point you probably should try anything that isn't difficult to do or
expensive, I just don't think it's going to cure your problems.

I'm not a computer/digital expert but I was able to get excellent prints
with QTR/gui within a few minutes after installing them. It only took a
little playing around with the cool and warm blend. Given all you've said
about your lack of problems with color and with black and white using the
Epson driver, plus the various things you've already tried, my uneducated
guess is that you may just have some oddball incompatability between your
computer and QTR (I never was able to get it to work right on an older
computer using ME, it only works for me on XP).

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "davidpichevin" <davidpichevin@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 12:41 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tgos3"
<egosfield@c...> wrote:
>
> I went through the entire thread, and apparently nobody has suggested
> playing with the 'gamma' slider.  When I started using QTR with UT2
> inks, i had very flat muddy shadows with poor separation.  I wasted
> quite a while playing with profile blends and max black settings,
> then out of desperation tried the gamma slider.  Using a setting of -
> 7 i was able to produce a very close match of printer output with my
> screen images, without changing max black or mixing profiles.
>
> Since your problem seems to be the opposite, ie too little contrast
> in the midtones, perhaps *increasing* gamma toward 'darker' with the
> slider will solve your problem.



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

> From: "B. Ellis" <bellis60@...>
 
> The gamma adjustment primarily affects the midtones as can be seen if
> several 21 step wedges are printed at various gamma settings. It has little
> or no effect on the blacker blacks and whiter whites (i.e. on overall print
> contras). 

Just as an fyi, contrast IS gamma.  You mean dynamic range which, yes, is
determined by dMin and dMax and not gamma/contrast.

>Just as an fyi, contrast IS gamma.  You mean dynamic range which, yes, is
>determined by dMin and dMax and not gamma/contrast.

Thanks but I'm not sure what your point is. I know what gamma is. I was
saying that since the gamma adjustment in QTR doesn't affect the overall
contrast of the print (i.e. the dynamic range) and instead affects only the
contrast within the midtone areas, it was unlikely that changes in it would
cure the flat print problem the OP was having (i.e. it wouldn't change the
overall contrast or dynamic range of the print).  Are you saying that was
inaccurate (or just that instead of using the term "overall contrast" I
should have used the term "dynamic range")?

Or were you perhaps saying that since "gamma" by definition is a measurement
made only on the straight line portion of a curve (ignoring the toe and
portions beyond the shoulder) my statement about it affecting only the
midtones was redundant? I do know how gamma is measured and I'd agree my
statement may have been redundant. However my basic point was just that
QTR's gamma adjustment was unlikely to cure the OP's problem of having an
excessively flat print with washed out shadows and highlights, I wasn't
trying to explain what gamma was or how it was measured or why other
measurements (e.g. average gradient or contrast index) are perhaps
preferable when describing a print's overall contrast or dynamic range.
----- Original Message ----- 

From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 8:21 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print

I was making a rather simple point that contrast is not "dynamic range".  So
your point:

> the gamma adjustment in QTR doesn't affect the overall
> contrast of the print (i.e. the dynamic range)

is technically wrong.  You can't say "i.e. the dynamic range".  The gamma
adjustment will affect contrast, the rate of change of density as you move
from dMin to dMax.  But it won't affect the dynamic range ie dMin and dMax
remain the same.  In constructing the QTR curves we typically linearise Lab
L values.  Lab does not have a fixed constant gamma but 2.2 is a pretty good
approximation.  You can alter the way you get from dMin to dMax but the end
points are fixed.  So gamma, ie contrast, is a function of the rate of
change in density as you move from dMin to dMax - I can have the same gamma
but two completely different dynamic ranges.

I don't know what David's exact problem is but it seems to be a jumble of
things.  The perceptual intent rendering should take care of the
"gamma/contrast" issue (after all, it is a process common to the Epson and
QTR workflows) - at least enough for the two prints to look comparably the
same. (I would still typically accentuate contrast further with a "s-curve"
for matte paper but would do more or less the same for either driver.)
Maybe the issue is a more mechanical one ie not enough ink on paper with QTR
(less dynamic range) but that too seems unlikely - at least to an extent
great enough to provoke a cry for help.

Before Roy came up with using perceptual intent rendering and his ICC
profiles for matte and photo paper, gamma was a big issue with QTR.  The
print space had a completely different gamma than that of the work space.
You can plot this out for yourself by calculating the density values of Lab
vs those of a printspace where 0 (black) was mapped to L=16 and 256 (white)
was mapped to L=96 and the line in between was straight.  The latter is a
linear QTR curve.  Presumably (someone with a greater knowledge of colour
ICC profiling than I can jump in here), when we profile a printer for colour
there is a measurement of paper white and full black and points in between
are linear in some way (regardless of what inks are used) - ie not TOO
dissimilar from the manual process we go through with QTR or IJC/OPM. So
then each has a linear or relatively linear grey scale and we use, for both,
perceptual intent rendering to manage the transition from workspace to
printspace.  A long way of saying that if your workflow is right there isn't
that much difference between the two  - except that with QTR (or IJC/OPM)
you get to decide which inks are used and how in the construction of the
grey scale.

> From: "B. Ellis" <bellis60@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:06:47 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
>> Just as an fyi, contrast IS gamma.  You mean dynamic range which, yes, is
>> determined by dMin and dMax and not gamma/contrast.
> 
> Thanks but I'm not sure what your point is. I know what gamma is. I was
> saying that since the gamma adjustment in QTR doesn't affect the overall
> contrast of the print (i.e. the dynamic range) and instead affects only the
> contrast within the midtone areas, it was unlikely that changes in it would
> cure the flat print problem the OP was having (i.e. it wouldn't change the
> overall contrast or dynamic range of the print).  Are you saying that was
> inaccurate (or just that instead of using the term "overall contrast" I
> should have used the term "dynamic range")?
> 
> Or were you perhaps saying that since "gamma" by definition is a measurement
> made only on the straight line portion of a curve (ignoring the toe and
> portions beyond the shoulder) my statement about it affecting only the
> midtones was redundant? I do know how gamma is measured and I'd agree my
> statement may have been redundant. However my basic point was just that
> QTR's gamma adjustment was unlikely to cure the OP's problem of having an
> excessively flat print with washed out shadows and highlights, I wasn't
> trying to explain what gamma was or how it was measured or why other
> measurements (e.g. average gradient or contrast index) are perhaps
> preferable when describing a print's overall contrast or dynamic range.

Thanks

> From: Louis Dina <lbdina@...>

> Steve,
> 
> In color work, I probably use RelCol as much or more than perceptual,
> but it varies by image.  I will soft proof each rendering intent to
> see which looks the best initially, then decide.
> 
> RelCol is often best when there are few out of gamut colors.  In
> these cases, the in gamut colors are left pretty much alone and the
> out of gamut colors are remapped to the closest printable color in
> the output gamut.  RelCol changes the relationships between colors,
> but the accuracy of the in gamut colors is preserved.  If there are a
> lot of out of gamut colors, RelCol can often look lousy, since the
> relationships are all wrong, and the eye is pretty sensitive to
> relationships, especially when it comes to "memory colors", such as
> skin tones, neutrals, sky blue, green grass, etc.
> 
> Perceptual is often a good choice when there are a lot of out of
> gamut colors.  Perceptual will attempt to preserve the relationships
> between colors, at the sacrifice of absolute color accuracy, so all
> colors are remapped to some extent.  Sometimes, there are big shifts
> in overall brightness level and saturation as a result.
> 
> In either case, I will usually soft proof both, choose the one that
> works best with my current image, then make final brightness and
> saturation corrections before printing.  This describes my color work
> flow.
> 
> For B&W, I almost always use Perceptual.  I don't have to worry about
> color and saturation relationships in monochrome printing, and I do
> want to maintain the relative relationships between shades of gray.
> 
> Lou

Hi.
Question in regard to these issues.

When first beginning use of soft proofing, I was astounded to see that
,when I had a file fully prepared for printing, the onscreen
appearance between views when switching the proofing view on and off
was not really all that much different aside from, of course, the
lessor dynamic range of the proof view. Presumably that is the whole
point of softproofing and what is being seen are the actual file
modifications for that particular paper/ink/printer profile.

Is this the same as others experience with softproofing?

I also assume that one should always retain a master nee: unadjusted
file and work with copies so as to avoid future difficulties if forced
to switch paper/ink/printer etc.

Thanks.
Duane

If soft proofing a B&W image to a matte print space you would, in most
instances, see quite a large change - definitely if your image uses the full
range of your workspace (ie the full histogram).  Do you check "simulate ink
black" for B&W and "simulate paper white" for colour work?  If you don't you
are not seeing the impact of reduced black and duller white.

> From: dlruckus <dlruckus@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 20:01:07 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: soft proofing wasCM conversions was Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP
> Faded print
> 
> 
> 
> Hi.
> Question in regard to these issues.
> 
> When first beginning use of soft proofing, I was astounded to see that
> ,when I had a file fully prepared for printing, the onscreen
> appearance between views when switching the proofing view on and off
> was not really all that much different aside from, of course, the
> lessor dynamic range of the proof view. Presumably that is the whole
> point of softproofing and what is being seen are the actual file
> modifications for that particular paper/ink/printer profile.
> 
> Is this the same as others experience with softproofing?
> 
> I also assume that one should always retain a master nee: unadjusted
> file and work with copies so as to avoid future difficulties if forced
> to switch paper/ink/printer etc.
> 
> Thanks.
> Duane

On 3/25/05 4:19 AM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:

> 
> The bit I am puzzled about is that the difference between the Epson driver
> print and the QTR print - both without curves.  Because they each are going
> to matte paper each require quite a lot of dynamic range compression. The
> perceptual rendering workflow of both should take care of that in equal
> measure - you use perceptual rendering and black point compensation to go
> from your Adobe RGB workspace to the Epson Matte paper profile and the same
> for QTR to go from Adobe RGB to the QTR Matte Paper profile.  Yet you say
> there is a massive difference between the two prints.  Something doesn't
> make sense there.  Hence I haven't gotten to the point of saying try a
> contrast curve for the QTR print - you would need one for the Epson print as
> well.

The same file going thru the two different workflows do indeed require
different manipulations to print correctly. Here they sure do.

Carolyn

On 3/25/05 4:28 AM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:

> 
> Got it.  BTW I just map from QTR Lab to Adobe RGB (and afterwards back
> again) for sharpening with Photokit Sharpener Pro.  It is a final step and
> doesn't affect my master file.  Otherwise about the only conversions I am
> doing are scanner tagged input or sRGB from my pocket digital (my 1Ds MK II
> shoots Adobe RGB) to Adobe RGB and perhaps the odd Adobe RGB to QTR Lab.

You stated a scanner profile in the earlier post. I assumed you were
scanning color positive film. Scanner tagged input? You are choosing a color
space from your scanner driver controls and then converting to Adobe RGB
once the file is in PS? If it is not a scanner profile you have created for
your particular transparency, why not just choose adobeRGB as your tag in
the first place? Just curious. I don¹t use scanner profiles, I shoot
primarily BW or color film.


> For all of that I have been using the general intent relative colormetric
> for the moment.  When might one not want to use relcol in these instances?

Tyler explained that well I think.

> 
> For printing (workspace to printspace), I always use Perceptual.

I never say always...  relcol suits my workflow for most things, but, as
with everything, it's image and output dependent.

Carolyn

On 3/25/05 6:21 AM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:

> 
> Just as an fyi, contrast IS gamma.  You mean dynamic range which, yes, is
> determined by dMin and dMax and not gamma/contrast.

Adjusting the gamma slider is not going to add contrast to your midtones. It
darkens or lightens the mid tones, placing the midpoint in a different place
along the range, stretching or bunching either end of the tonal range, and
if used to extreme will lend posterization.

In levels you can set your endpoints, thereby defining your dynamic range
best within your file. Adjusting the gamma slider within levels, a small
amount if desired, will lighten or darken the mids.. But I prefer to do that
in curves as well. Compressing your tonal range will also give more
contrast, but can be detrimental to your intent.

In curves, an s-curve will add contrast to your mid range without blowing
out your highs, or clipping blacks.. Keeping your dynamic range in tact..
but adding contrast to the image file.

So I'm not sure why you keep saying gamma equals contrast.
Carolyn

On 3/25/05 12:44 PM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:

> I was making a rather simple point that contrast is not "dynamic range".

Nor is contrast "gamma". But compressing your dynamic range adds contrast..
So I understood his point. Adjusting your gamma does not in my opinion add
contrast.. It only sets your mid point...
Carolyn

From: "Carolyn Frayn" <carolyn@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>

Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 1:25 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print



>Adjusting the gamma slider is not going to add contrast to your midtones.
It
>darkens or lightens the mid tones, placing the midpoint in a different
place
>along the range, stretching or bunching either end of the tonal range, and
>if used to extreme will lend posterization.

Maybe the issue is the definition of contrast. The dynamic range does not
change since Dmax and Dmin stay the same. But the "stretching or bunching
either end of the tonal range" causes the stretched range to have higher
contrast and the bunched range to have lower contrast. Contrast is the slope
of the curve.

Steve

Yes.

I do use both although I sometimes toggle the white point simulation
off/on because I'm more comfortable editing without it in general.
D'min and near it, is what it is and it won't get brighter by editing.
I do in fact see the huge difference in the beginning before editing
for specific profiles. I do both B&W and color work using several
printers with multiple papers and have found soft proofing to be a
huge help. I also keep an eye on absolute #s just to be on the safe
side of things. It helps as a small check against nasties like starved
print heads and monitor changes and so on. I also have found that it
takes a considerable amount of time for a print to actually completely
dry down and stabilise, sometimes several days even. I've occasionaly
made changes and reprinted too quickly, much to my chagrin.

Regards

Duane





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> If soft proofing a B&W image to a matte print space you would, in most
> instances, see quite a large change - definitely if your image uses
the full
> range of your workspace (ie the full histogram).  Do you check
"simulate ink
> black" for B&W and "simulate paper white" for colour work?  If you
don't you
> are not seeing the impact of reduced black and duller white.
>

On 3/25/05 2:54 PM, "steve_bye" sent the following verbage:

> Maybe the issue is the definition of contrast. The dynamic range does not
> change since Dmax and Dmin stay the same. But the "stretching or bunching
> either end of the tonal range" causes the stretched range to have higher
> contrast and the bunched range to have lower contrast. Contrast is the slope
> of the curve.

I just can't visualize a contrast change when adjusting gamma, in PS, or in
a print driver control panel. Contrast to my eyes is achieved when you are
manipulating the relation between the high and low values, not the midpoint
adjustment. When adjusting the gamma via a curve adjustment I don't see a
contrast relation unless you are also putting points down in highs and low
values adjusting that as well.

Anyway, I like that, the definition of contrast. Thanks... And I'm rambling.
C

>I was making a rather simple point that contrast is not "dynamic range".
So
>your point:

>> the gamma adjustment in QTR doesn't affect the overall
> contrast of the print (i.e. the dynamic range)

>is technically wrong.  . . . So gamma, ie contrast, is a function of the
rate of
change in density as you move from dMin to dMax - I can have the same gamma
but two completely different dynamic ranges.

Actually I was just describing what happens when you adjust the gamma slider
in QTR. I made a bunch of prints of 21 step wedges with the slider in
various different positions from minus 15 to plus 15. The overall contrast
of the step wedges remained the same (i.e. the darker blacks and whiter
whites didn't visibly change regardless of where the slider was placed).
Only the midtones changed. Whether that's "technically wrong" or not I don't
know, it is however an accurate description of what happened when the
sliders were moved and a 21 step wedge was printed.

I think you must be using the term gamma differently than it has
historically been used in photography because gamma isn't simply "contrast."
In photography the term "gamma" has been used to describe the slope of the
straight line portion of a curve. Gamma is determined by dividing density
range by subject brightness range.  It therefore would be impossible to have
the same gamma but two completely different dynamic ranges (unless, of
course, you're using the term "dynamic range" to mean something other than
"density range," in which case I don't know what you mean by "dynamic
range)."

Dmin and dMax don't enter into the determination of gamma except in the
indirect sense that density range is one of the numbers used to derive gamma
and dMax and dMin enter into the determination of density  range (under the
ANSI standard IIRC density range equals 90% of dMax minus 0.04% of paper
white).  So I don't know what you mean when you say that "gamma i.e.
contrast is a function of the rate of change in density as you move from
dMax to dMin." What you've described by that statement is more akin to
density range than it is a desription of gamma. As noted above, density
range enters into the determination of gamma but it isn't "gamma," at least
not in the traditioal photographic meaning of that term.

Since we're getting pretty far afield from the OP's original question, and
from the topic of this group, I'll stop here. Thanks for responding to my
questions, both in this thread and in others. I've learned a lot from
reading your various messages in the time I've participated here.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, March 25, 2005 2:44 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print



I was making a rather simple point that contrast is not "dynamic range".  So
your point:

> the gamma adjustment in QTR doesn't affect the overall
> contrast of the print (i.e. the dynamic range)

is technically wrong.  You can't say "i.e. the dynamic range".  The gamma
adjustment will affect contrast, the rate of change of density as you move
from dMin to dMax.  But it won't affect the dynamic range ie dMin and dMax
remain the same.  In constructing the QTR curves we typically linearise Lab
L values.  Lab does not have a fixed constant gamma but 2.2 is a pretty good
approximation.  You can alter the way you get from dMin to dMax but the end
points are fixed.  So gamma, ie contrast, is a function of the rate of
change in density as you move from dMin to dMax - I can have the same gamma
but two completely different dynamic ranges.

I don't know what David's exact problem is but it seems to be a jumble of
things.  The perceptual intent rendering should take care of the
"gamma/contrast" issue (after all, it is a process common to the Epson and
QTR workflows) - at least enough for the two prints to look comparably the
same. (I would still typically accentuate contrast further with a "s-curve"
for matte paper but would do more or less the same for either driver.)
Maybe the issue is a more mechanical one ie not enough ink on paper with QTR
(less dynamic range) but that too seems unlikely - at least to an extent
great enough to provoke a cry for help.

Before Roy came up with using perceptual intent rendering and his ICC
profiles for matte and photo paper, gamma was a big issue with QTR.  The
print space had a completely different gamma than that of the work space.
You can plot this out for yourself by calculating the density values of Lab
vs those of a printspace where 0 (black) was mapped to L=16 and 256 (white)
was mapped to L=96 and the line in between was straight.  The latter is a
linear QTR curve.  Presumably (someone with a greater knowledge of colour
ICC profiling than I can jump in here), when we profile a printer for colour
there is a measurement of paper white and full black and points in between
are linear in some way (regardless of what inks are used) - ie not TOO
dissimilar from the manual process we go through with QTR or IJC/OPM. So
then each has a linear or relatively linear grey scale and we use, for both,
perceptual intent rendering to manage the transition from workspace to
printspace.  A long way of saying that if your workflow is right there isn't
that much difference between the two  - except that with QTR (or IJC/OPM)
you get to decide which inks are used and how in the construction of the
grey scale.




> From: "B. Ellis" <bellis60@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 11:06:47 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Quadtone RIP Faded print
>
>
>> Just as an fyi, contrast IS gamma.  You mean dynamic range which, yes, is
>> determined by dMin and dMax and not gamma/contrast.
>
> Thanks but I'm not sure what your point is. I know what gamma is. I was
> saying that since the gamma adjustment in QTR doesn't affect the overall
> contrast of the print (i.e. the dynamic range) and instead affects only
the
> contrast within the midtone areas, it was unlikely that changes in it
would
> cure the flat print problem the OP was having (i.e. it wouldn't change the
> overall contrast or dynamic range of the print).  Are you saying that was
> inaccurate (or just that instead of using the term "overall contrast" I
> should have used the term "dynamic range")?
>
> Or were you perhaps saying that since "gamma" by definition is a
measurement
> made only on the straight line portion of a curve (ignoring the toe and
> portions beyond the shoulder) my statement about it affecting only the
> midtones was redundant? I do know how gamma is measured and I'd agree my
> statement may have been redundant. However my basic point was just that
> QTR's gamma adjustment was unlikely to cure the OP's problem of having an
> excessively flat print with washed out shadows and highlights, I wasn't
> trying to explain what gamma was or how it was measured or why other
> measurements (e.g. average gradient or contrast index) are perhaps
> preferable when describing a print's overall contrast or dynamic range.





Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Take a look here about half way down under Why Gamma?  His stuff makes very
interesting reading.

http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints1A.html

> From: Carolyn Frayn <carolyn@...>
> 
>> 
>> Just as an fyi, contrast IS gamma.  You mean dynamic range which, yes, is
>> determined by dMin and dMax and not gamma/contrast.
> 
> Adjusting the gamma slider is not going to add contrast to your midtones. It
> darkens or lightens the mid tones, placing the midpoint in a different place
> along the range, stretching or bunching either end of the tonal range, and
> if used to extreme will lend posterization.
> 
> In levels you can set your endpoints, thereby defining your dynamic range
> best within your file. Adjusting the gamma slider within levels, a small
> amount if desired, will lighten or darken the mids.. But I prefer to do that
> in curves as well. Compressing your tonal range will also give more
> contrast, but can be detrimental to your intent.
> 
> In curves, an s-curve will add contrast to your mid range without blowing
> out your highs, or clipping blacks.. Keeping your dynamic range in tact..
> but adding contrast to the image file.
> 
> So I'm not sure why you keep saying gamma equals contrast.
> Carolyn

> From: Carolyn Frayn <carolyn@...>

> You stated a scanner profile in the earlier post. I assumed you were
> scanning color positive film. Scanner tagged input? You are choosing a color
> space from your scanner driver controls and then converting to Adobe RGB
> once the file is in PS?

Because the scanner (an Imacon 848) has been accurately profiled and has its
own colour profile, much in the same way one profiles a printer.

David et al

Last night I printed a Lab step wedge four times on EEM on my 2100
(workspace QTR Grey Lab).  Once with the Epson driver using an Eye-One made
colour profile for my printer and perceptual intent etc, using Black Only
with gamma 1.8, then Black Only with gamma 2.2, and finally using the canned
QTR profiles 50:50 warm/cool (which would have had linearised Lab values and
hence a rough gamma of 2.2) using the perceptual intent workflow.  I will
read the results with my Eye-One later today when I get the chance and post
them.  Visually, though, the QTR and the Epson colour print look very
similar in density distribution (I won't comment on hue as we know the BO
will be off).  The BO step wedges, I suspect, are going to show a real
bunching of density up around 90-100.

I don't have the Epson inks installed but rather MIS' UC equivalents with
Eboni in the K position.  This should provide, though, a more accurate
comparison of the various workflows.  In no case did I apply a "contrast
curve" to the step wedge ie it is a straight out of the box print.

Steve

> From: Carolyn Frayn <carolyn@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:24:40 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> On 3/25/05 4:19 AM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:
> 
>> 
>> The bit I am puzzled about is that the difference between the Epson driver
>> print and the QTR print - both without curves.  Because they each are going
>> to matte paper each require quite a lot of dynamic range compression. The
>> perceptual rendering workflow of both should take care of that in equal
>> measure - you use perceptual rendering and black point compensation to go
>> from your Adobe RGB workspace to the Epson Matte paper profile and the same
>> for QTR to go from Adobe RGB to the QTR Matte Paper profile.  Yet you say
>> there is a massive difference between the two prints.  Something doesn't
>> make sense there.  Hence I haven't gotten to the point of saying try a
>> contrast curve for the QTR print - you would need one for the Epson print as
>> well.
> 
> The same file going thru the two different workflows do indeed require
> different manipulations to print correctly. Here they sure do.
> 
> Carolyn
> 
>

Ok here are the results from the tests mentioned below ­ L measurements
first then density:

     
 Step Image L QTR L Epson L BO 2.2 L BO 1.8 L  QTR D    Epson D      BO 2.2
D    BO 1.8 D
 0      100     97.09   97        97.04     96.98         0.033
0.034       0.034       0.034
 5       95      92.02   92.8     93.31     94.38         0.093
0.083       0.077       0.065
 10     90      87.08   87.87    88.72    91.04         0.154         0.144
0.133        0.105 
 15     85      82.46   83.22    84.69    87.36         0.214         0.204
0.184        0.15  
 20     80      77.76   78.72    80.47    84.11         0.277         0.264
0.24          0.192
 25     75      73.35   74.46    76.77    80.93         0.34           0.324
0.291        0.234 
 30     70      68.67   69.65    72.49    77.57         0.41           0.395
0.353        0.28  
 35     65      64.1     65.67    69.27    73.76         0.482         0.457
0.401        0.334 
 40     60      59.7     61.86    65.19    70.52         0.556         0.519
0.465        0.382 
 45     55      55.82   57.5      61.97    66.97         0.625         0.594
0.518        0.437 
 50     50      51.98   53.05    58.03    62.87         0.696         0.676
0.585        0.503 
 55     45      47.68   48.43    54.89    59.53         0.781         0.766
0.642        0.559 
 60     40      43.54   44.3      51.33    55.5           0.869
0.852       0.709       0.63
 65     35      39.66   39.76    47.99    51.42         0.957         0.954
0.775       0.707  
 70     30      36.76   35.93    44.91    48.45         1.026         1.047
0.84         0.766 
 75     25      33.96   32.26    41.69    43.97         1.097         1.143
0.91         0.86  
 80     20      31.12   29.06    38.24    40.38         1.174         1.232
0.991        0.94  
 85     15      28.72   25.18    35.06    36.37         1.242         1.35
1.069       1.036  
 90     10      26.41   22.99    30.6      32.17         1.311         1.42
1.188       1.145  
 95      5       23.69   19.04    22.21    23.71         1.397         1.559
1.447       1.397  
 100    0       18.32   18.1      16.86    16.93         1.587         1.595
1.644       1.64

(hopefully the formatting will stay there)

Some observations:

QTR and the Epson colour profile are very close but with some separation,
particularly we approach the darkest steps.

The Epson colour profile may be affected by the fact that I formulated the
profile for post spraying of Lascaux fixitive which I did not apply in this
case.

BO with gamma 1.8 is way off ­ as expected since we have used a Same as
Source workflow and chose a gamma quite different from the workspace.  BO
users would be advised to use gamma 2.2 rather than 1.8 particularly if
prepping their grey scale images in Adobe RGB, Lab QTR Grey Lab or Grey
Gamma 2.2.

BO 2.2 is better but still quite off and will generally print ³light² - note
the mid grey value of 58 vs a file value of 50.

QTR prints mid grey the best ­ QTR is actually less ³flat² than the others.

Remember that linearity for the Epson and QTR prints will be overridden
somewhat by the perceptual rendering.



> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>

> 
> David et al
> 
> Last night I printed a Lab step wedge four times on EEM on my 2100
> (workspace QTR Grey Lab).  Once with the Epson driver using an Eye-One made
> colour profile for my printer and perceptual intent etc, using Black Only
> with gamma 1.8, then Black Only with gamma 2.2, and finally using the canned
> QTR profiles 50:50 warm/cool (which would have had linearised Lab values and
> hence a rough gamma of 2.2) using the perceptual intent workflow.  I will
> read the results with my Eye-One later today when I get the chance and post
> them.  Visually, though, the QTR and the Epson colour print look very
> similar in density distribution (I won't comment on hue as we know the BO
> will be off).  The BO step wedges, I suspect, are going to show a real
> bunching of density up around 90-100.
> 
> I don't have the Epson inks installed but rather MIS' UC equivalents with
> Eboni in the K position.  This should provide, though, a more accurate
> comparison of the various workflows.  In no case did I apply a "contrast
> curve" to the step wedge ie it is a straight out of the box print.
> 
> Steve
> 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Well so much for the formatting.  A pdf of the data can be downloaded from
here:

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

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 13:09:18 +0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Quadtone RIP Faded print
> 
> 
> Ok here are the results from the tests mentioned below ­ L measurements
> first then density: