Based on the advice received in this thread and lots more testing, I’ve settled on a Windows Lightroom workflow that works reliably and consistently. Some more details on actual outcomes and testing are in the Digital Black and White forum (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/conversations/topics/108825).
In case anyone wants to try this workflow out, here’s a summary of the main steps (with some important adjustments from earlier information in the thread).
1. Assuming a calibrated monitor, prepare the image in
Lightroom. The goal is to have the image on screen look like what you’re hoping
to see on the printer, or on the screen if you’re uploading it to a web site.
2. Export a TIFF prepared specifically for printing using QTR. My settings are as follows: 16 bit; sharpen for matte paper to standard; set to 720 dpi; and, for the color space, use the RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC that ships with QTR.
3. Print using the curve you prepared for the paper and ink you’re using. I’m currently using adapted versions of Paul Roark’s “generic” curves for matte paper (see the above linke); they work remarkably well in my setup.
Why I’m using RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC is explained and discussed
in earlier posts in this thread. Briefly, what it’s doing at export time is
adjusting the shadows in the TIFF so that when printed with QTR they look like
they do on screen. Brian (above) wondered if this was crushing the shadows, but
Roy Harrington’s response (also above) suggests it shouldn’t be a major
concern. I’ve been testing this on about a dozen images where shadow details
are crucial, e.g., where the difference between dMax and very dark gray is
important to the of the image. They all look good to me (and I’m picky). Note that I've tested exporting using an ICC made specifically for the ink and paper, and I find that RGB_Matte_Paper does a better job.
What I’m not doing is soft proofing in Lightroom using an ICC prepared specifically for the ink and paper combination and then exporting with that ICC (per Brian’s advice, above). I’ve come down on Keith Cooper’s side of this question (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html). He doesn’t see much point in soft proofing for black and white work, and I have to agree relative to my situation. Even though my monitor is hardware calibrated (and it’s a wide gamut Dell U2413 so it’s well suited to this job), my environment isn’t perfectly controlled; sometimes it’s in daylight, sometimes it’s in artificial light, and I don’t have a viewing booth. Brian (above in this thread) referred to Jon Cone’s approach. I read more on how much control he has over his working environment (e.g., see his blog post http://www.piezography.com/PiezoPress/blog/piezography-life/dmax/). It even comes down to not wearing bright clothing! I can’t have that kind of control where I’m working, so trying for a perfect correspondence between the screen and the printer is pointless.
In case you’re worried that this approach will burn through
a lot of paper and ink to get it right, that’s not been my experience. If I’m planning
to make a larger print, I normally print a test of the image on half a sheet of
8.5"x11" paper. I’ll often see problems in the print that I didn’t see on screen
(e.g., tonal relationships not quite right, composition issues that I missed). I
can usually see what I need to do back in Lightroom, and most of the time the
next test print is what I envisioned. I have yet to run into a situation where
the issue was the print didn’t match what I was seeing on screen (e.g.,
highlights blown on the print but fine on screen, or shadows crushed on the
print but proper on screen). Of course this only works because my monitor is properly calibrated and I know how to compensate for different lighting.
I hope this is helpful to other Windows Lightroom users who
are printing with QTR. This approach works for me, and it may work for you. If
you’re struggling to get what you see in Lightroom in your prints with QTR,
then give this approach a try. It might work as well for you as it does for me. Simple is good!