QTR-Quadtone RIP

A note about ICC printing related to Piezo. While it’s not official here in the R&D lab at InkjetMall, I certainly see a potential for it when you want to have contrast matches between different media with the same image file. We at IJM just think that linear printing is a way more stable way of editing and proofing an image (for a given paper) in order to maintain full shadow depth and detail.

Our upcoming Piezography Professional Edition toolset will give Piezography customers the ability to make manual and semi-manual Grayscale ICCs directly from a Photoshop curve using Roy’s Create-ICC. We’ve been doing this to make null-transform ICCs, as well as the “half-way” translation ICCs (ICCs that take into account the dMax and also a tune suggestion) that do screen-to-print match without making everything too dark in the print (mainly this is for PiezoDN platinum printing because it has such a light dMax, but this can certainly be applied to prints). (Alternatively, this adjustment can also be applied directly into a linearized piezo .quad.)

We’ve also perfected a workflow that exploits the full potential of the QTR-Linearize-Quad droplet using an old StudioPrint iterative technique: start with 51steps and then go to 129steps correcting the measurement data with a unique formula. This will enable complete DIY linearization of the Piezo .quad to eliminate banding transitions that, while not showing up in prints, can appear in the circle-gradient acid tests. The toolset for this lin technique will be available as a private google drive spreadsheet for each user.

//

Whenever contrast is equalized between papers of different black depth, one tonal region suffers. Usually this is right in the dark mid-shadow tones (they get compressed flat). So this is always a consideration to think about when dealing with ICC printing vs linear printing. Ironically, a good monitor that is set at a low contrast point will not soft-proof correctly and will show too little contrast with that method. This is a goldilocks problem. The solution is to forget a little about the monitor and do everything to the proof. 

regards.
Walker




> On Jul 29, 2016, at 9:20 PM, brian_downunda@yahoo.com [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> I hesitate to add another reply, as much of what has just been posted is way over my pay grade.  For me, it's about getting enough control to get the print I want.  But there are a few points that I wanted to comment on.
> 
> When Roy says "what happens when you want a different paper?", I think he is referring to what happens when you switch papers if you don't convert to the ICC.  This used to trouble me too, and was one reason that I was initially attracted to ICC conversion.  You can switch papers and get roughly the same image, allowing for differences between papers.  However, if you can manage to print in GG22 without ICC conversion with curves that are perfectly linear for each paper, then you get pretty much the same effect.  As a Piezography user, this was only possible before the relinearisation droplet by paying IJM $US99 for each custom curve.  The relinearisation droplet solves all that and makes changing papers without ICC conversion a snap.  Thank you, thank you, thank you.  
> 
> 
> I understand only too well the benefits of a good screen to print match as a good starting point - to minimise the iterations.  But as I tried to explain in that blog post, there's more than one way to skin a cat.  The preserve numbers soft-proof gives a good screen-to-print match, as does assigning the ICC rather than converting.  I resisted this Cone-esque workflow for some time. but gradually I came to realise what I was missing in the shadows.  Once you've converted it's hard to get the detail back in the deep shadows by editing.  Better to stick to GG22, preserve numbers soft-proof, and edit the shadows down to where you want them than to convert and try to recover them.  So it's not whether you use the ICC, it's how you use it to best effect.
> 
> I mention Paul's .acv in that article, although only really to to contrast it to the GG22 work - it's an easy way of doing the exact opposite.  In fact I make a lot of use of that ICC.  If you find the preserve numbers soft proof too light and the ICC conversion too dark, you can put that PS curve on a layer and have the opacity in the 40-60% range and use it to edit down the shadows to where you want them, with the preserve numbers soft proof as your guide.  It allows me to dial in an intermediate rendering.  So it's a useful tool no matter which workflow you use.  That's probably worth adding to the article.
> 
> The idea of doing the same thing by creating a custom ICC with custom dMax and dMin numbers is intriguing, but I think .acv on a layer is more flexible.
> 
> I often read the statement that the convert to ICC workflow is more awkward in Windows, but I can't really see it.  You just convert to the ICC in PS and save a duplicate then print in QTRGui.  Given that neither Mac nor Win allows you to print from PS any more, I just can't see that the workflow is all that much different.  Mac allows you to avoid creating a duplicate, but it's still a two program workflow, isn't it?
> 
> It troubles me a little that Roy had to read my article multiple times to understand it.  I tried to make it accessible to all levels of knowledge.  I'm open to comments about what isn't clear.
> 
> 
> ---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>, <roy@...> wrote [relevant excerpts only]:
> 
> I think the workflows fall into two categories -- dumb down the screen somehow
> so you edit in the reduced DR that matches the paper, or --  do a correction curve
> at print time that gives the best you can do mapping (i.e. something you can 
> easily learn to pre-visualize).   I prefer the later since the former ties the image
> file to the specific paper -- what happens when you want a different paper?
> 
> But the beauty of digital photography is reducing the trial and fix cycles.  Screen to
> print matching to me seems like the ultimate goal. ... You will
> always need to use your experience to "see" what you will get and will need a minimum
> trial/fix cycle.  So lets do the best we can.
> 
> I've know Paul Roark for a long time and he's certainly someone who knows 
> what he is doing. He's got a Photoshop curves (.acv file) that he just puts on a
> layer above everything else.  Turn it on for printing and off for editing.  In a sense
> it works very much like a printing ICC profile -- just applied for printing.
> 
> There generic ICCs are super simple, you can easily make your own with different parameters.
> 
> So given that the PC workflow w/ICC is a bit more awkward there have been a number
> of workflows to accomplish something similar.
> 
> I also read Brian's paper quite a few times to get it all (maybe).
> 
> 
>