Digital BW, The Print

I have spent the last 12 months doing a lot of printing on a 4800 
with the Epson K3 inks and the ABW driver – about 600, mostly Super 
A3, prints.  I have used some Velvet Fine Art for its excellent dmax 
(routinely in the 1.75 density range), but mostly Epson Ultrasmooth 
Fine Art for its superb consistency and quality, lack of OBA's and 
smooth surface (with a dmax around 1.69).  Having been a black and 
white printer for almost 40 years, I found the results with this 
setup excellent.

A few months ago I began to think about Cone's K7 inks and finally 
decided to try them with either Studioprint or QTR.  I was persuaded 
by one of our luminaries on the board to go with QTR and that's what 
I did.   My motivation to try the K7 system was influenced by the 
excellent visual reports of experienced printers; by the possibly 
greater stability (permanence) of the K7s; and because of my 
discomfort with the *idea* of color dots in the highlights with K3 
(visible only at 7X or more magnification in my experience).  All 
more-or-less in that order.  The K7 is also slightly cheaper than the 
Epson inks, but not much ($600 vs. $655 for a full set of 220ml 
carts, the Epson inks purchased from IT Supplies).

I have used QTR Create ICC profiles with both setups, and here are my 
impressions to date.

1. The changeover of inks was relatively easy and the Cone people 
were extraordinarily responsive on the few issues I need clarified.
2. The Cone profiles for QTR are excellent, obviously very carefully 
done.  In measuring targets for ICC profiles, they are ruler straight 
(very linear) and almost obviate the need for ICC profiling.
3. The provided profiles cover a decent range of papers, but not the 
two I've used with the K3 inks.
4. The dmax of the K7 fall measurably and visibly short of what I'm 
used to with the Epson ink/paper combinations.  On HPR, the 
K7/Cone/QTR turns in about 1.656 and EEM (which I use only for 
proofing) about 1.572.  I find the HPR figure acceptable, but not the 
best.
5. The K7's do a have a smooth, "photographic" look that makes the 
Epson system look a very, very tiny bit artificial compared to a 
silver print.  This is an extremely small difference.
6. The highlights of the K7's seem a bit dull compared to the K3 
prints.   I am guessing that this is a product of one of 
the "advantages" of the K7: because of the extra ink tones, the 
highlights are composed of a more even inking (less dottiness) than 
the Epson system.  The K3 highlights allow some paper to show 
through, creating a slight split-toning effect because of the 
different grays of ink and paper.  At the moment, I visually favor 
the Epson look in this regard.   The print is simply livlier and more 
nuanced.  The K7/HPR prints seems a little dead in comparison, but 
probably more like a silver print.
7. The highlight issue (in #6) is the biggest difference between 
visual observation of the two systems.   Otherwise the results are 
very, very similar.
8. My impressions are influenced by use of different papers with the 
two ink sets.  With the K3 inks, HPR was never one of my favorites.  
It seemed mediocre compared to the two Epson papers.  Dmax for the 
K3/HPR typically ran about 1.657 (which is virtually identical to 
what I get from the K7/HPR) and it displayed no other special 
virtues, other than its name, to my eyes.
9. Producing custom profiles for the QTR/K7 setup looks like a lot of 
work, particularly because of the number of inks.  For me this 
suggests staying with Cone-produced profiles.

So at this point I'm going to stay with and work with the K7's for a 
while (the ink changeover wasn't *that* easy).   The K7 prints look 
excellent alone or compared to a silver print, but not compared to a 
K3 print.

Good wishes,
Walt

Hello Walt,

Thanks for the detailed report.  I have some sample K7 prints someone
sent me awhile back, and your observations are right in line with my
own impressions: beautiful smoothness, but slightly less dmax and
slightly duller highlights.  The K3 prints do have a more "alive"
look, and I agree it's because of the bare paper showing between the
dots.  You know how much I love the BO luminance, and I was very
pleasantly surprised with the K3 look - much better than most full ink
systems I've seen.  I have been convinced for a long time that the
full ink "dotless" systems dulled the highlights.

Also same for HPR - very nice, but lacks the nice "edge" that VFA has.
 I haven't tried the Ultrasmooth, but have heard many good reports.

Have you used QTR with K3?  If so, how do you like it compared to ABW?

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Very interesting thread, as I have been thinking about experimenting with
Cones K7. Thanks for sharing Walt.

I am using K3 on Silver Rag and the challange I find with ABW is the amount
of colour it uses.
This can cause a "rainbow effect" under directional lighting. I have found
that Imageprint uses much less colour.
Though it has its own challanges, mainly the tendency to close up the
shadows. Solved that by a combination of lowering the gamma and adjusting
the black point slider.

Mike


On 20/10/06, Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:
>
>   Hello Walt,
>
> Thanks for the detailed report. I have some sample K7 prints someone
> sent me awhile back, and your observations are right in line with my
> own impressions: beautiful smoothness, but slightly less dmax and
> slightly duller highlights. The K3 prints do have a more "alive"
> look, and I agree it's because of the bare paper showing between the
> dots. You know how much I love the BO luminance, and I was very
> pleasantly surprised with the K3 look - much better than most full ink
> systems I've seen. I have been convinced for a long time that the
> full ink "dotless" systems dulled the highlights.
>
> Also same for HPR - very nice, but lacks the nice "edge" that VFA has.
> I haven't tried the Ultrasmooth, but have heard many good reports.
>
> Have you used QTR with K3? If so, how do you like it compared to ABW?
>
> Regards,
> Clayton
>
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>
> 
>


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

Richard, Clayton and Michael--

Thanks for the input.

At this point I have a few other thoughts and items on the K7 
experiment.
1.  Short of doing my own QTR profiles, using the K7 means using a 
paper that Cone has provided profiles for.  So I'm going to give a 
few of the profiled Innova and Ink Press papers a try and see how 
they look.  I don't believe the dmax will improve over what I've seen 
on HPR, but perhaps the "livliness" will.
2.  Cone may provide a custom profile service, but is not doing so 
right now.  I tried both VFA and Ultrasmooth with a few "likely" 
existing Cone profiles and the results are dismal.  The QTR profiling 
is very specific.
3.  While the Cone QTR profiles for the K7/4800 are excellent and 
pretty much make obviate the the need for ICC profiling, I did not 
find this with the K3/ABW.  I think this Epson system pretty much 
needs ICC profiling for both best results and an easy, reliable, 
consistent workflow image to image.  I know that Clayton and others 
do PS curves for this purpose, but this seems like an ongoing hassle 
to me.  The ICC profiles are a do-it-and-forget-it deal and are very 
accurate and I would highly encourage it.  The need to do this (and 
to own a densitometer) is the weakness of the K3/ABW system in my 
appraisal.
4.  I am struck at this point about the amount of apparently 
reflexive prejudice against Epson materials and processes.  With an 
ICC profile, this is a remarkably good system and at least 
competitive with the K7s.  In discussing these issues with a Cone 
representative this morning, he informed me that the K3/VFA/USFA 
figures I report are because Epson is using dyes in these inks.  I 
don't think that's true and I hope that the Cone people can be a 
little more constructive.
5.  In 50 years we'll know if the color content of the K3 system is 
an issue, but I don't think we know that right now.  The K7 system is 
a better idea, but I don't know if it is actually a better process in 
terms of longevity.

Good wishes,
Walt

 




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Michael King" 
<drmrking@...> wrote:
>
> Very interesting thread, as I have been thinking about 
experimenting with
> Cones K7. Thanks for sharing Walt.
> 
> I am using K3 on Silver Rag and the challange I find with ABW is 
the amount
> of colour it uses.
> This can cause a "rainbow effect" under directional lighting. I 
have found
> that Imageprint uses much less colour.
> Though it has its own challanges, mainly the tendency to close up 
the
> shadows. Solved that by a combination of lowering the gamma and 
adjusting

> the black point slider.
> 
> Mike
> 
>

wwodets wrote:
> ...the K3/VFA/USFA 
> figures I report are because Epson is using dyes in these inks.  I 
> don't think that's true and I hope that the Cone people can be a 
> little more constructive.
I believe the Cone conjecture is correct. The Epson inks do not appear 
to be 100% pigment inks. I don't believe that Epson claims that they are 
either. I suspect that Epson uses a statistically significant amount of 
dyes in the K3 inks. You can of course do some analysis and determine 
the truth yourself.

The problem with using color inks to make B&W prints, as I see it, is 
that the color inks can introduce problems like subtle color casts, 
color shifting from dark to light, and color casts due to differential 
fading (different colors fade at different rates). While the prints 
might look fine today, what will they look like tomorrow?

It's not worth the risk to me. Clearly, YMMV.
-- 
Bruce Watson/
/

Hello Walt,

>In discussing these issues with a Cone 
>representative this morning, he informed me that the K3/VFA/USFA 
>figures I report are because Epson is using dyes in these inks.  I 
>don't think that's true and I hope that the Cone people can be a 
>little more constructive.

I also don't think there are dyes in K3 inks.  I've been doing
windowsill torture rests of various inks for several years now, and I
know what happens to inks containing dyes in just a short period. A K3
print has been on my windowsill (unprotected and with some direct
sunlight every day) for over a year now, and I can detect only the
barest hint of change in a middle gray area.  


>I think this Epson system pretty much needs ICC profiling for both 
>best results and an easy, reliable, consistent workflow image to
>image.  I know that Clayton and others do PS curves for this purpose, 
>but this seems like an ongoing hassle to me...The need to do this 
>(and to own a densitometer) is the weakness of the K3/ABW system in 
>my appraisal.

I just want to say that I don't consider it a hassle at all.  The PS
curves are very simple and quick, and once done they are saved with
the image and reused.  There is a great freedom in being able to
quickly try various papers and do experiments without having to use a
densitometer to make an icc curve for every ink/paper combination.  I
find this approach to be very simple and efficient.

I hope this won't become a debate.  I respect your views and
understand what you are saying re the need for icc profiles, and don't
really disagree - just that you and I are working with slightly
different perspectives and preferences.  I am responding to this only
to ensure that some reader who is new to all this might not get a
wrong impression that the non-icc workflow produces inferior results.
The results are top notch: excellent dmax, open shadows, luminous
highlights.  It's just a different preference for how one wishes to
work. 
  

4. I am struck at this point about the amount of apparently 
>reflexive prejudice against Epson materials and processes.  

Same here.  I find the Epson papers I use to be very fine, and the
inks are stable.  Withstanding a year on the windowsill with some
direct south Florida sunlight every day without fading or color
shifting is a remarkable feat, and Wilhelm rates K3/ABW from 110 -
300+ years, depending on conditions.  That's pretty impressive.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

In a message dated 10/20/2006 12:35:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,  
odets@... writes:

3.   While the Cone QTR profiles for the K7/4800 are excellent and 
pretty much  make obviate the the need for ICC profiling, I did not 
find this with the  K3/ABW.  I think this Epson system pretty much 
needs ICC profiling  for both best results and an easy, reliable, 
consistent workflow image to  image.  I know that Clayton and others 
do PS curves for this purpose,  but this seems like an ongoing hassle 
to me.  The ICC profiles are a  do-it-and-forget-it deal and are very 
accurate and I would highly  encourage it.  The need to do this (and 
to own a densitometer) is the  weakness of the K3/ABW system in my 
appraisal.



Hi Walt:
 
I've been using the ColorVision PrintFixPro for profiling my color  printers, 
and I'm waiting for their v 2.0 software to release which will give us  B/W 
profiling capability as well. 
Perhaps CD Tobie will add to this very interesting thread to give us his  
perspective on what the future holds. This is a low-cost system that does an  
excellent job without the hassle and expense associated with the Hi-end  
software-hardware products out there.
Although I've been able to make prints that I find comparable to the same  
negative printed in my old darkroom and exhibited years ago, there is a need to  
be able to adjust print quality to lighting in exhibition spaces, just as we 
had  to do before. My biggest adjustment was to accept the matte paper look 
(I'm  still tempted to apply a coat of wax to some prints, remember the green 
boxes?).  The gloss finish papers are even harder to adjust to. They call them 
photo  papers, but they fall short of the selection we had available in the 
darkroom.  The Luster papers seem to offer the best finish, but they are too thin 
and  creases are too easy to make if you don't mount them quickly. I just 
wish that  Bill Atkinson would make profiles for the 4800 K 3 ABW, and Epson 
would add some  weight to their Prem Luster.
 
Richard (Brooklyn)


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

From my limited experience with K7 (four months), I find the hghlights too light.  K7 has 
problems with high contrast images that have a quick transition from shadow to highlight.  
Even though the transtiions are quick they still should be smooth.  K3 has no problem with 
this but K7 does.  I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.   

I would like to see more ink thrown down on the highlights and midtones but Cone profiles 
are hotwired into QTR so I have no idea how to alter them.  Does anyone know how to alter 
the Cone profiles or are we stuck with creating our own?  I threw this question out at the 
Piezography list but no one could respond.  Ditto at the QTR list.  Maybe the luminarites here 
could shed some light.  

Thanks in advance.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joemulligan_68"
<joemulligan_68@...> wrote:
>
> Does anyone know how to alter 
> the Cone profiles or are we stuck with creating our own?  I threw
this question out at the 
> Piezography list but no one could respond.  Ditto at the QTR list. 
Maybe the luminarites here 
> could shed some light.  
> 
> Thanks in advance.
>

I don't use either the inks or the RIP, but is making the profiles
that hard?

If you aren't getting the results you need, then maybe try something
like IJC/OPM. In either case if you really want to take full advantage
of the software and inks, you really need to make your own configurations.

Richard,  I would add that there are some that always pick up the same box
of paper and try and make it work for a particular image, rather than pick
up the more appropriate box and let it do the work.

 

I have not used the K7 or K6 inks and only dabbled with QTR. I have been
using the ABW on my 4800 with K3 for almost a year now. I can certainly see
where it fails and where it works great. I also run the Piezotone Sepia set
with a 7000 and Image Print and have been using that set up for coming up on
4 years.  The set ups certainly have their sweet spots, just like a film and
paper combination did from years ago. It is tough getting a sweet spot as
there are a lot more choices in this arena than in the old days, of 4 or 5
major flavors. 

 

The older printers need more help, and I don't consider the X600 that old.
The biggest problem that exists is the Dmax melt down. This is where the
Epson driver just pours down the black, hiding the detail you tried so hard
to maintain. And it is not restricted to Epson drivers, but also to those in
pursuit of the ultimate Dmax. My reason for staying away from the K7, is
that it just doesn't have the color I need or at least I have not seen it. 

 

But back to the paper in a box,.   Matching scene to paper is quite
important as is ink to paper and scene. We all have a lot of playing to do
for a few years.   

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
CorrPro96@...
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 5:36 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Hands-on impressions K3/ABW versus K7/QTR

 


In a message dated 10/20/2006 12:35:03 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time, 
odets@comcast. <mailto:odets%40comcast.net> net writes:

3. While the Cone QTR profiles for the K7/4800 are excellent and 
pretty much make obviate the the need for ICC profiling, I did not 
find this with the K3/ABW. I think this Epson system pretty much 
needs ICC profiling for both best results and an easy, reliable, 
consistent workflow image to image. I know that Clayton and others 
do PS curves for this purpose, but this seems like an ongoing hassle 
to me. The ICC profiles are a do-it-and-forget-it deal and are very 
accurate and I would highly encourage it. The need to do this (and 
to own a densitometer) is the weakness of the K3/ABW system in my 
appraisal.

Hi Walt:

I've been using the ColorVision PrintFixPro for profiling my color printers,

and I'm waiting for their v 2.0 software to release which will give us B/W 
profiling capability as well. 
Perhaps CD Tobie will add to this very interesting thread to give us his 
perspective on what the future holds. This is a low-cost system that does an

excellent job without the hassle and expense associated with the Hi-end 
software-hardware products out there.
Although I've been able to make prints that I find comparable to the same 
negative printed in my old darkroom and exhibited years ago, there is a need
to 
be able to adjust print quality to lighting in exhibition spaces, just as we

had to do before. My biggest adjustment was to accept the matte paper look 
(I'm still tempted to apply a coat of wax to some prints, remember the green

boxes?). The gloss finish papers are even harder to adjust to. They call
them 
photo papers, but they fall short of the selection we had available in the 
darkroom. The Luster papers seem to offer the best finish, but they are too
thin 
and creases are too easy to make if you don't mount them quickly. I just 
wish that Bill Atkinson would make profiles for the 4800 K 3 ABW, and Epson 
would add some weight to their Prem Luster.

Richard (Brooklyn)

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

 



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

I hope this does not sound to silly, but make absolutely certain the correct
ink is in each slot.  Call support to be sure.
K7 _is_ smooth, so there must be some issue with your setup or workflow.

If the K7 is setup and working correctly, then what you are describing is a
monitor to print matching problem.  You will find lots of information on how
to address that in past messages.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of
joemulligan_68
Sent: Friday, October 20, 2006 8:28 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Hands-on impressions K3/ABW versus K7/QTR

From my limited experience with K7 (four months), I find the hghlights too
light. K7 has
problems with high contrast images that have a quick transition from shadow
to highlight.
Even though the transtiions are quick they still should be smooth. K3 has no
problem with
this but K7 does. I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.

I would like to see more ink thrown down on the highlights and midtones but
Cone profiles
are hotwired into QTR so I have no idea how to alter them. Does anyone know
how to alter
the Cone profiles or are we stuck with creating our own? I threw this
question out at the
Piezography list but no one could respond. Ditto at the QTR list. Maybe the
luminarites here
could shed some light.

Thanks in advance.


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

In a message dated 10/20/06 5:19:07 PM, bwyg@... writes:


> The problem with using color inks to make B&W prints, as I see it, is
> that the color inks can introduce problems like subtle color casts,
> color shifting from dark to light, and color casts due to differential
> fading (different colors fade at different rates). While the prints
> might look fine today, what will they look like tomorrow?
> 
The quantity of color ink used in the latest "two gray" printer's drivers is 
minimal, and the pigment inks involved are very stable. So both illuminant 
metamerism and color shift over time are also very minimal. And the issue of 
"color casts" is the strength as well as the weakness of these systems: you can 
potentially control that subtle color, and make it do what you want.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "John Moody"
<moodymz3@...> wrote:
>
> I hope this does not sound to silly, but make absolutely certain the
correct
> ink is in each slot.  Call support to be sure.
> K7 _is_ smooth, so there must be some issue with your setup or workflow.
> 
> If the K7 is setup and working correctly, then what you are
describing is a
> monitor to print matching problem.  You will find lots of
information on how
> to address that in past messages.
> 


Or that the printer is far enough away from the printer that made the
linearization that the prints are coming out with a big flat spot. I
know everyone wants a simple prepackaged solution, but the truth is
that you really need to take the next step and go through
linearization and set up for each printer in use.

>... In discussing these issues with a Cone 
> representative this morning, he informed me that 
> the K3/VFA/USFA figures I report are because Epson is using 
> dyes in these inks.

I do not think the Epson UC K2 or K3 inks have dyes in them, at least in the
meaning of the term as it is usually used.  The comment above about the
numbers presumably is about the dmax.  Epson matte black in the k3 printers
gets an outstanding dmax on some papers, and not so great on others.  It
appears to be not only because of the quality of the ink, but also because
Epson has done an excellent job of matching the printer's characteristics --
dither and ink loading -- to the papers Epson thinks are most important.  

In fade testing the Epson MK, like MIS's Eboni, did very well.  If I wanted
the most lightfast print possible, regardless of smoothness or tone, a black
only print using one of these inks would probably be the route I'd take.  

The hybrid pigment-dye blacks are obvious in fade testing.  They go through
a fast initial fade.  Then when the dyes burn off, they settle into a slower
fade rate for a long time.  Neither Epsom MK or Eboni show that fade
pattern.  In fact, both become a hair more dense at first.  Ironically, the
original Epson "Archival" black did act like a hybrid ink in fade testing.

The K3 "carbon" core pigments are actually about half carbon and half
"proprietary pigments and dyes."  (I think that is the catch phrase Epson
uses on its MSDSs.)  But, this phrase does not mean that there are dyes in
solution.   The color pigments we use are often referred to as "dye stacks."
They are often chemically the same as the dyes, but they do not dissolve in
the water base like the dyes that fade fast.  The dye stacks are solids in
suspension; they're legitimate pigments.  With respect to the carbon, I'm
not sure what Epson is doing.  Lots of the action is at the edges of the
graphite plates.  That is about the only place that form of carbon has any
open bonds, and they are used by the companies to give the pigments
favorable characteristics, like staying in suspension and not aggregating.

>The problem with using color inks to make B&W prints ... is 
>that the color inks can introduce problems like subtle color
> casts, color shifting from dark to light, and color 
> casts due to differential fading ...

Yes, which is why I always want the least amount of color and the most
carbon.  However, carbon is too warm for me in most instances.  So, the use
of some color pigments is necessary to get the tones I prefer.  Among the
color pigments, cyan is about the most lightfast.  I don't worry about if
fading from light, although air pollution might be a problem.  The magenta
is more of a concern.  I specified the MIS R800 Blue clone pigment in the
MIS mixes because it is more lightfast and stays in suspension better.  In
my new 7500 setup I'm using Epson UC LM.  I have some tests that suggest it
is very good.

C. David Tobie noted: 

>The quantity of color ink used in the latest "two gray" printer's 
>drivers is minimal, and the pigment inks involved are very stable. 
>So both illuminant metamerism and color shift over time are also 
>very minimal. ...

To give some quantification of this, in the IJC curves used in my new 7500
setup, the highest ink load I use is 22 for the LK.  The LM and LC (at 50%
dilution) have ink loads of 3.

I sometimes wish we had a totally neutral, pure carbon, but as far as I can
tell, no one has developed one yet.  Some of the black inks will print cool
when they are applied in high loads, but in the midtones and when diluted,
they all are still warm as far as I know.  The k3 LK and LLK are less warm
than the MIS versions, but I think they're too green.  In most respects I
like the warmth of the MIS carbon.  It allows that ink to be used as a
low-gamut yellow in a CMY color space, and I like the ability to profile my
papers or choice to the tones I want.  The MIS carbon, LM and LC combination
gives me what I want from a B&W inkset.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joemulligan_68"
<joemulligan_68@...> wrote:
>
> From my limited experience with K7 (four months), I find the
hghlights too light.  K7 has 
> problems with high contrast images that have a quick transition from
shadow to highlight.  
> Even though the transtiions are quick they still should be smooth. 
K3 has no problem with 
> this but K7 does.  I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.   
> 
> I would like to see more ink thrown down on the highlights and
midtones but Cone profiles 
> are hotwired into QTR so I have no idea how to alter them.  Does
anyone know how to alter 
> the Cone profiles or are we stuck with creating our own?  I threw
this question out at the 
> Piezography list but no one could respond.  Ditto at the QTR list. 
Maybe the luminarites here 
> could shed some light.  
> 
> Thanks in advance.
>
This sounds like a profile problem. What's your workflow?

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "joemulligan_68" 
<joemulligan_68@...> wrote:
>
> From my limited experience with K7 (four months), I find the hghlights too light.  K7 has 
> problems with high contrast images that have a quick transition from shadow to 
highlight.  
> Even though the transtiions are quick they still should be smooth.  K3 has no problem 
with 
> this but K7 does.  I'm wondering if anyone else has noticed this.   
> 
> I would like to see more ink thrown down on the highlights and midtones but Cone 
profiles 
> are hotwired into QTR so I have no idea how to alter them.  Does anyone know how to 
alter 
> the Cone profiles or are we stuck with creating our own?  I threw this question out at the 
> Piezography list but no one could respond.  Ditto at the QTR list.  Maybe the luminarites 
here 
> could shed some light.  
> 
> Thanks in advance.
>

Unfortunately it's not possible to modify Cone's K7 QTR profiles.  However it's quite
easy to build onto them.  Use the QTR-Create-ICC feature to make custom B&W ICC
profiles.  This way you get the full color management capabilities of printing (matching
the source embedded space to the print space) and soft-proofing to show the print
ink tones on the screen.

The advantage is that you can use the existing smooth profiles for any paper since
the ICC profile gives another level of linearization/correction.

Roy

In confirmation of what Roy has suggested here, I have actually had a 
very good result using VFA with the Cone-supplied curve for HPR and 
an ICC (QTR Create ICC) profile on top of that.  I am also using ICC 
profiles for even the Cone-curved papers because this corrects small 
differences in the individual printer, etc.

What was not obvious to me (but explained by Roy and others on the 
board) is that before printing, the image needs to be *converted* to 
the ICC profile and saved that way.  (With PS/Epson driver, this 
conversion occurs automatically upon printing.)  The same image can 
thus be used for any paper simply by converting to the profile for 
that paper.  It doesn't matter what the embedded profile or workspace 
is before conversion.

Walt 


> 
> Unfortunately it's not possible to modify Cone's K7 QTR profiles.  
However it's quite
> easy to build onto them.  Use the QTR-Create-ICC feature to make 
custom B&W ICC
> profiles.  This way you get the full color management capabilities 
of printing (matching
> the source embedded space to the print space) and soft-proofing to 
show the print
> ink tones on the screen.
> 
> The advantage is that you can use the existing smooth profiles for 
any paper since

> the ICC profile gives another level of linearization/correction.
> 
> Roy
>