QTR-Quadtone RIP

>... Roy Harrington is suggesting Gray-Lab for a workspace and 
> Paul Roark is suggesting Gray Gamma 2.2.

My approach -- editing in Gray Gamma 2.2 -- does require that you place an
adjustment curve on the file, perhaps via a layer, before printing with QTR.
(You could, alternatively, convert the files working space.)  The curve I
use is at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GG22-to-QTR.zip  With Roy's
approach you don't need to do this step.  So, in that respect Roy's approach
is more straight forward, at least if QTR printing is the predominate target
of the file editing.

I like to stick with existing industry standards as much as possible.  Gray
Gamma 2.2 (which I often abbreviate as "GG22") is, in effect, a subset of
Adobe RGB, which is probably the most common working space.  I believe Adobe
Elements uses GG22 if no other space is designated.  So, if a novice just
converts a file to grayscale and prints it with the Epson driver, with no
real knowledge of these issues, an inkset and printer setup that is close
for GG22 will most likely give a reasonable match to the monitor.  I've
found that many who simple purchase a system from MIS do just this.  So, if
what I make is, in effect, rather "plug and play," the support costs are
less, at least for systems that use the Epson driver, which is usually where
I start.  The exception, of course, is the 3MK 1800 system that can't be
handled by the Epson driver.

GG22 files also display appropriately on the internet.  

> I don't want to have to guess at my shadows in Photoshop. 
> So I really want to start out on the right foot.....

Either approach, if used correctly, should give a good match between the
monitor and print.

I started with systems that used a straight line space like QTR and resisted
changing to GG22 for a while because I thought the compressed shadows wasted
too much of our limited 8 bit file depth.  However, with 16 bit now the
standard, the "inefficiency" that bothered me at first turns out to be an
advantage.  Not only do I have a reserve of shadow information in that
compressed GG22 toe, but with glossy printing and its huge dmax, the
compressed shadows give an interesting effect of being able to see further
into them as the light level increases.  You, in effect, don't run out of
shadow detail and have them just go gray.

> Since I'll be using UT14 I'm thinking I'd be wiser to stay with
> Roark's GG2.2.

UT14 is one of the inksets that is fairly plug and play.  I've made ICCs
with QTR's Create ICC-RGB program that are also available for the Epson
driver.  These ICCs should "see" whatever profile is attached to the file
and print appropriately. 

> But I also have PrintFix Pro and will be developing my own profiles 
> and curves.

I use QTR regularly with the curve adjustment approach.  If it's on a layer,
I just edit in GG22 with the layer inactive and check the layer box when
printing with QTR.  It's easy to convert back and forth.  

I like to avoid any more conversions than necessary.  While most of us on
these lists now start with high bit depth files, there are lots of people
who simply convert their digital Jpegs to grayscale and print.  So, I've
geared much of what I do to making the systems default to something that'll
work OK for these people.

> as a Vista user should I be saving my TIF in a different workspace 
> to bring it into QTR?

I don't use Vista that much, but I don't think there is any difference in
this respect.

Hope this helps.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com