While I get Brian's points -- I feel like there's a bit more overlap and nuances in the approaches.
The main thing is that (1) should always be the last and deciding step. If the print isn't what you think it should be
you should be going back and editing the file until the print is right. (What I'm saying here is that editing on screen till
the screen is correct and then just hoping your print is right should never be the end all. If you need more dark, more shadow
detail, lighter -- those things are always available by re-editing your file). You are never going to get a print (especially matte)
that looks identical to a bright screen -- you always need to develop a visual feel for the corresponding differences.
So yes the getting-used-to-screen-to-print-match may varying with the methods but you should always get the shadow detail etc.
that you want by editing. Also while 3&4 are nice/better if you have a device and make custom ICCs -- the generic one
works quite well and basically is identical to the (2) curve you add to file.
Roy
--
On Wed, Dec 7, 2016 at 2:27 PM, brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
What I would add to Roy's useful summary is that (i) approaches 3 & 4 require a measurement device, which you have, whereas 1 & 2 don't; and (ii) the difference between approach 3 on the one hand and 2 & 4 on the other hand seems to reflect a difference of view about what sort of print you want - 2 & 4 tend to deliver more 'pop' and contrast, whereas 3 tends to deliver more open shadows and shadow detail, particularly on matte papers. I've written a partly tongue-in-cheek commentary on this difference of view here: http://www.cyberhalides.com/piezography-printing/the-piezography-heretic-to-convert-or-not-to-convert/ . This is written from the perspective of a Piezography user, but it applies to QTR with any inkset.
This article on using the Munki with QTR may be helpful, but note that it is a bit dated now:
http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/better-black-and-white-profiling-with-the-colormunki/
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, wrote :?? Targets for QTR linearization or for ICC profile creation are ALWAYS printed withoutColor Management. "No Color Management" specifically ignores the embedded profileeven if one exists. So tagging targets has no effect if printed with NoCM.QTR linearization creates a straight-line graph of K-values vs L--values, where K is the wholerange from K=0 (white) to K=100 (black) and L ranges from dMin to dMax. This is quitedifferent from Gamma 2.2 which is not a straight-line.There are numerous ways to deal with this difference and you'll see that everyone's gota favorite that they "swear by". The basic ones are:1) get used to it, edit your files till they produce the print you like.(might be surprising but I bet this is the most used -- after all that's what we did in darkroom)2) add correction curve in Photoshop. It's a very convenient idea for Windows.See www.paulroark.com for info on this.http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-4-Plus.pdf page 16 has a very good descriptionof the issue and of the solution3) make ICC profile for soft-proofing. basically what you do here is edit your image undersoft-proofing so that output print matches what you want. nice for Windows but your filesare now targeted for a specific printing output4) finally there's the standard color management approach. Make an ICC profile and printwith it. On a Mac with Print-Tool this is by far the easiest and in a sense the "standard" way.With nice linearized QTR profiles the generic "QTR driver Gray Matte (or Photo) Paper"ICC profiles do quite well but a customized one with all the QTR driver blending selectionsetc is the best. Personally I like this the best but it's less convenient for PCs. Also if you areused to #1 above you'll find it disconcerting at first because you have to re-get-used-to-it.Roy