Digital BW, The Print

maybe this is a rather odd question, but here goes.

 why does one wish to linearize?
 i "assume" that when this happens with QTR, the  50% patch reads 
half that of the 100%, and twice that of the 0%.
so if i linearize Velvet Fine Art, my 50% patch would be much lower 
than that of my Epson Exhibition Fiber.

 is this why many create an ICC to softproof with is Photoshop?


 the way i have always handled setting levels is as followed.

 1.there is some basic overall adjustment to the density levels to 
achieve an approximate level described in #3.
 2.use the R/G/B channels in PS to get my individual tones where i 
want them (using say UT-3D), to achieve a neutral tone (if that is 
the one desired)
 3.once #2 is done (to my satisfaction, and there is usually some 
going back and forth), i adjust the level of my digital Q-13 
according to my "understanding of the following.

  The Gray Scale, illustrated below, has densities from 0.05 to 1.95 
in twenty steps of 0.1 (1/3 f-stop), labeled 0 (A) through 19. 
(Recall, density = -log10(reflected light/incident light.) Density = 
0.05 is the reflectivity of white paper: about 90%. The step charts 
for gamma = 1.8 and 2.2 (above) have densities from 0 to 1.9 in steps 
of 0.1. When printed in a properly calibrated system they should 
closely match the Q-13 because typical paper adds about 0.05 to the 
density. 

taken from  http://www.normankoren.com/makingfineprints4.html

AND

The eye easily detects density differences as low as 0.02 in the 
average highlight density, but can detect density differences only on 
the order of 0.20 in the average shadow density."   
About the A, M and B patches the Q13 specification says: "The patches 
identified with the designations A, M and B are used in KODAK Three-
Aim Point Control methods for reproducing color reflection copy with 
traditional masking and color separations procedures. A, M and B 
patches correspond with reflection densities of 0.0, 0.70, and 1.60, 
respectively, which represent average highlight, middletone, and 
shadow values in color or black-and-white reflection copy." 

taken from http://www.aim-dtp.net/aim/calibration/middle_gray/
 
 so, my Kodak Q-13 indeed reads .70 at the M point and each step 
increases or decreases .10 points (with some minor variations + or -
).   
i print my "digital Q-13" and adjust my densities 0-B (16) in .10 
increments. from the last 1/4 of the target, i just adjust until i 
got what "appeared" to be even separation.
 i initially tried this several years back when i was using the 
original quadtones from MIS, and all of my monitor to print issues 
where gone (assuming my monitor was calibrated, and i was in GOOD 
lighting when viewing the print). 
 i found that in dim indoor lighting, all i had to do was to print 
with the 1.8 gamma selected in the Epson driver, as opposed to the 
2.2 that i use when adjusting levels. not very scientific, but  
printing with 1.8 worked in many cases. most often 2.2 looked 
wonderful to me.

 with IJC, after i linearized, i would adjust the AIMs point slider 
until my M (7) patch on my Q-13 file read as close to .70 as could be 
achieved (+or- a few points).
 from there, all looked great monitor to print.

 QTR does not have the option like IJC does (AIM's slider), but seems 
to offer better control otherwise. (plus i am using a 3800 since my 
2200 died)
 i supposed i could make a PS adjustment layer to apply to the file, 
flatten it, then print with QTR (once linearized) to achieve the same 
thing???

 is there a better way of handling this? (i know that can be 
subjective)
 have i missed the boat entirely and have a very wrong understanding 
of all the above?

 any thoughts or help would be appreciated  

 evan