QTR-Quadtone RIP

IT could be that we are all from a time when it REALLY did make a difference
and that our workflows, like making digital negs, really push the upper
limits of quality that the machine are capable of producing. There was a
rush to provide users with ways to make images that Epson certainly wasn't
interested in doing; that being to give B&W digital printers options
including all the toning options that we produced in the darkroom. You are
now seeing split toning showing up in almost every new piece of software out
there. Epson has with the recent printers finally given printers high
quality B&W toning controls with ABW. Can it be better? Sure, but then we
have QTR to allow the adventurous to take it further. 

 

And by just relax,  printing should be a relaxing event. Not a rush, rush,
rush..    I know that sometimes we are up against deadlines, but you are
making prints that are hopefully THE expression of the image, not just some
ink on a page. : ) 

 

 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Daniel Jackson
Sent: Friday, June 01, 2007 8:12 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: why use QTR?

 

What I was hoping someone would tell me is why I should use QTR at all in 
preference to the Epson driver and Roark curves. I seem to have found one
good reason aside from print quality -- it would let me install both a matte
and photo ink at once in my 2200.

I get the impression that many of you out there do only unidirectional
printing. I'm surprised by this, as it doesn't produce a detectably better
result
on my 2200 with the Epson driver. Or maybe I'm not looking carefully enough?

--Daniel

--- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
"Sergei Antonov" <antonovsergei@...> wrote:
>
> It probably means that for 3800 Epson claimed equal quality for both 
> bidirectional and unidirectional prints, and it seems to be confirmed 
> by testers/reviewers. See, for example, 
> http://www.outbackp
<http://www.outbackphoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070212>
hoto.com/printinginsights/pi045/essay.html#20070212
> By the way it also seems to be true for 1440 vs 2800 dpi prints on 
> that model.
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com, "David Keenan" <ausdlk@> wrote:
> >
> > >but unless you have a 3800 just relax.
> > 
> > Eric --
> > 
> > What does this remark mean in conjunction with uni vs. bidirectional
> > printing?
> >
>

 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]