Message
Re: Lightroom and QTR for Windows -- advice for an export for QTR strategy
2016-02-10 by brian_downunda@...
"Quadtone RIP uses a straight line color space, whereas Lightroom uses curved color spaces (e.g., Adobe RGB, ProPhotoRGB, Adobe 1998)" By straight line I assume you mean Grey Gamma 2.2. AdobeRGB has a gamma of 2.2 and for B&W purposes can be thought of as the RGB equivalent of GG22. Convert an image from GG22 to AdobeRGB and watch what happens, or doesn't happen, to the histogram. It doesn't change. So you can use AdobeRGB instead of GG22 if you need to work in an RGB space.
Since OS X 10.6.8, you can't print direct from Photoshop to QTR in either GG22 or an untagged image. Well, you can, but undesirable things happened to the in the background, such as a silent ICC conversion. You have to print to QTR from Print Tool. I assume - and a Mac user will have to confirm or deny this - that LR has similar issues on a Mac. In which case, buying a Mac won't solve your problem.
"Shadow detail doesn't match the screen, and prints can look flat and washed out". There are two broad philosophies about how to print using QTR. One approach is to get the best screen-to-print match. The most obvious way to do this is to use the either of the two QTR ancillary programs QTR-Create-ICC.exe and QTR-Create-ICC-RGB.exe to create an ICC for your printer / paper / inkset combination and convert to it. This matches the normal colour workflow and should result in a good screen-to-print match, although it helps if your monitor is calibrated for printing. I've seen Paul's PS curve suggestion, which I assume is intended to approximate the effect of converting to an ICC for those who don't have a measurement device and so can't create an ICC. If you have an (RGB) ICC then you could adopt this workflow in LR - you can soft-proof using it, convert to it during export and then print. You're doing this now with an generic ICC, but it would only be approximate.
The issue with this approach is that it often crushes the shadow detail. Even Roy has said that this is a potential issue ( https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/QuadtoneRIP/conversations/messages/12538 ) with converting to an ICC. As Jon Cone argues for Piezography (and this would apply to other inksets as well), what's the point if getting a good screen-to-print match if it doesn't deliver the best print? So what you're seeing is supposed to be a virtue. You work on the print iteratively to get the best print, while preserving shadow detail. If this sounds like a great way to waste ink and paper, you're right. If you have an ICC then there is a better way. You can use the ICC to soft-proof in Photoshop using the "preserve numbers" option, and then edit the print to suit. Some iteration may still be required, but a whole lot less. You still get a good screen to print match, but in a way that retains the shadow retaining benefits of the GG22 workflow.
The problem with this workflow is that it won't work in LR, because LR has no way to show you a preserve numbers soft-proof. So I think your options are to stick with your kludges, or get an ICC and convert to it and put up with any loss of shadow detail, or get a copy of PS. Ultimately it's about the sort of print you want, and how important shadow detail is to you. A LR-to-QTR workflow is not an easy one, IMHO.