QTR-Quadtone RIP

Hello all,

I'm hoping some of the ubertechs on the list can help me out.  I have  
been working with QTR off and on for a couple months and thought I  
had a pretty good grasp on the process. However, I recently purchased  
a densitometer to create more accurate linearizations. This has  
resulted in some serious confusion for me. I had mentioned a couple  
weeks ago that I was going to post some of the curves I had  
generated, but have decided not to at least for now as I discovered I  
am entirely unsure of their accuracy. I've read everything I could  
get my hands on re: QTR including searches through past messages and  
have still not found the answers I'm looking for.

Before working with the densitometer, I was using my scanner and  
eyeballing the final curves. This was resulting in quite excellent  
screen to print matching (with a few discrepancies, depending on the  
image) without any need for a custom dot gain profile or any of the  
other methods used for screen/print matching. In other words, I was  
able to print an image straight through QTR and get essentially what  
was on my screen.

Now however, using the densitometer readings, aside from getting a  
smooth ramp, after linearizing and achieving near ideal densities (at  
least as far as what is listed in the available documentation) the  
images print quite dark when printed directly and require a PS  
adjustment layer to print properly. It seems to me that the curve  
needs to be lighter, but if I make it lighter then the densities will  
no longer match the ideal values.

 From what I understand of the average color management workflow,  
there are essentially two steps in the process of managing a device,  
ie: calibration and profiling/characterization. Calibration is the  
process of modifying the devices behavior (linearizing the inks,  
aligning the printhead(s) etc.)  in order to bring it to a standard  
state and profiling is the process of recording its behavior after  
calibration, and creation of the profile with its LUTs for future  
conversions so that the color that is printed, is approximately what  
we see on our screens. If working with color inks, the profile is  
clearly necessary as the linearization of the inks does not  
necessarily result in the exact expected colors when the inks are mixed.

So, in the case of BW, I assumed that since we're working  
monochromatically, there wouldn't really be any need for profiling,  
as the linearization should result in the desired values. To be a  
little more specific, since the process of linearization is setting  
up the curves so that the printer produces specific densities when  
receiving cmyk values in a single ramp (as opposed to mixing multiple  
ramps for color mixing), the process of profiling the printer's  
output would only be redundant as the only purpose would be to  
profile the output of values since there isn't any color to consider  
(aside from the issue of being able to soft proof with the correct  
tonality).

Since a color management system is meant to translate values as  
accurately as possible from one device to another via the PCS, I  
figured that what appeared to be 50% grey on my monitor would  
correlate to the corresponding ideal density for the 50% patch on the  
test print. But, this has not been the case each time I have redone  
the process.

So in specific, I'm hoping someone could clarify the following,

1. If an ink/paper combination is properly linearized, should the  
output be reasonably close to what's on the screen if the display has  
been properly profiled? Or is it also necessary to profile the BW  
output or use one of the other screen/print matching processes to get  
this type of match?

2. What exactly would be the purpose of profiling BW output, aside  
from being able to soft proof for tonal variations?

3. Since QTR will either take an image converted to 2.2 gamma and  
print it without altering the values or in the case of images not  
saved in 2.2 gamma, will convert to 2.2 gamma prior to printing, ie:  
change the numbers to correlate to the previous color space,  what  
would be the purpose of using one color space over another since what  
is seen on screen and subsequently encoded in the 2.2 gamma space, is  
what is printed?

4. Are the ideal densities meant to correspond to our visual response  
to changes in value? I thought this was the case but now I'm not sure.

5. Although the curves are not profiles are they meant to be used as  
such, or are they more like the Epson driver settings that just  
control the ink limits etc. and should be used in conjunction with  
destination profiles?

6. Am I just way off base, regarding my understanding of this  
process, or am I headed in the right direction?

By the way, I'm working on a mac with OS X, the beta version of QTR,  
using an X-Rite DTP-32 (have calibrated it at least once a week), and  
using a 1280 with a modified version of the UT2 inkset that replaces  
the sepia ink in the yellow position for the light, cool grey FSN-Y.  
I'm also using a 2200 with UC inks, an R200 with some experimental  
inks and a 7600 with the UT7 inkset, so I really want to know how to  
do this stuff right.

Thanks in advance for any help or information.

Eric
www.ericashworth.net

On another group I wrote a fair amount about the linearization, icc 
profiling, etc.
I'm not sure I addressed all you questions but I think it will help a 
lot.

See:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/68052

Roy

On Monday, September 26, 2005, at 04:23  PM, Eric Ashworth wrote:

> Hello all,
>
> I'm hoping some of the ubertechs on the list can help me out.  I have
> been working with QTR off and on for a couple months and thought I
> had a pretty good grasp on the process. However, I recently purchased
> a densitometer to create more accurate linearizations. This has
> resulted in some serious confusion for me. I had mentioned a couple
> weeks ago that I was going to post some of the curves I had
> generated, but have decided not to at least for now as I discovered I
> am entirely unsure of their accuracy. I've read everything I could
> get my hands on re: QTR including searches through past messages and
> have still not found the answers I'm looking for.
>
> Before working with the densitometer, I was using my scanner and
> eyeballing the final curves. This was resulting in quite excellent
> screen to print matching (with a few discrepancies, depending on the
> image) without any need for a custom dot gain profile or any of the
> other methods used for screen/print matching. In other words, I was
> able to print an image straight through QTR and get essentially what
> was on my screen.
>
> Now however, using the densitometer readings, aside from getting a
> smooth ramp, after linearizing and achieving near ideal densities (at
> least as far as what is listed in the available documentation) the
> images print quite dark when printed directly and require a PS
> adjustment layer to print properly. It seems to me that the curve
> needs to be lighter, but if I make it lighter then the densities will
> no longer match the ideal values.
>
>  From what I understand of the average color management workflow,
> there are essentially two steps in the process of managing a device,
> ie: calibration and profiling/characterization. Calibration is the
> process of modifying the devices behavior (linearizing the inks,
> aligning the printhead(s) etc.)  in order to bring it to a standard
> state and profiling is the process of recording its behavior after
> calibration, and creation of the profile with its LUTs for future
> conversions so that the color that is printed, is approximately what
> we see on our screens. If working with color inks, the profile is
> clearly necessary as the linearization of the inks does not
> necessarily result in the exact expected colors when the inks are 
> mixed.
>
> So, in the case of BW, I assumed that since we're working
> monochromatically, there wouldn't really be any need for profiling,
> as the linearization should result in the desired values. To be a
> little more specific, since the process of linearization is setting
> up the curves so that the printer produces specific densities when
> receiving cmyk values in a single ramp (as opposed to mixing multiple
> ramps for color mixing), the process of profiling the printer's
> output would only be redundant as the only purpose would be to
> profile the output of values since there isn't any color to consider
> (aside from the issue of being able to soft proof with the correct
> tonality).
>
> Since a color management system is meant to translate values as
> accurately as possible from one device to another via the PCS, I
> figured that what appeared to be 50% grey on my monitor would
> correlate to the corresponding ideal density for the 50% patch on the
> test print. But, this has not been the case each time I have redone
> the process.
>
> So in specific, I'm hoping someone could clarify the following,
>
> 1. If an ink/paper combination is properly linearized, should the
> output be reasonably close to what's on the screen if the display has
> been properly profiled? Or is it also necessary to profile the BW
> output or use one of the other screen/print matching processes to get
> this type of match?
>
> 2. What exactly would be the purpose of profiling BW output, aside
> from being able to soft proof for tonal variations?
>
> 3. Since QTR will either take an image converted to 2.2 gamma and
> print it without altering the values or in the case of images not
> saved in 2.2 gamma, will convert to 2.2 gamma prior to printing, ie:
> change the numbers to correlate to the previous color space,  what
> would be the purpose of using one color space over another since what
> is seen on screen and subsequently encoded in the 2.2 gamma space, is
> what is printed?
>
> 4. Are the ideal densities meant to correspond to our visual response
> to changes in value? I thought this was the case but now I'm not sure.
>
> 5. Although the curves are not profiles are they meant to be used as
> such, or are they more like the Epson driver settings that just
> control the ink limits etc. and should be used in conjunction with
> destination profiles?
>
> 6. Am I just way off base, regarding my understanding of this
> process, or am I headed in the right direction?
>
> By the way, I'm working on a mac with OS X, the beta version of QTR,
> using an X-Rite DTP-32 (have calibrated it at least once a week), and
> using a 1280 with a modified version of the UT2 inkset that replaces
> the sepia ink in the yellow position for the light, cool grey FSN-Y.
> I'm also using a 2200 with UC inks, an R200 with some experimental
> inks and a 7600 with the UT7 inkset, so I really want to know how to
> do this stuff right.
>
> Thanks in advance for any help or information.
>
> Eric
> www.ericashworth.net
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
-
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photo Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

I am surely not a pro to advise but I had a lengthy discussion both 
with Roy and Steve Kale for several days and thanks to their good 
will I understood more or less the thing. I believe most of the talks 
are on the BWdigital group. Meanwhile some replies :

> Now however, using the densitometer readings, aside from getting a  
> smooth ramp, after linearizing and achieving near ideal densities 
(at  
> least as far as what is listed in the available documentation) the  
> images print quite dark when printed directly and require a PS  
> adjustment layer to print properly. It seems to me that the curve  
> needs to be lighter, but if I make it lighter then the densities 
will  
> no longer match the ideal values.

This is because the linearization just distributes densities evenly 
(in even steps): the process does not map source gray values to 
destination gray values as per an CM worklow. Consequently prints 
look dark and this is why Roy's worked extensively on the ICC 
droplets.
> 
 
> So, in the case of BW, I assumed that since we're working  
> monochromatically, there wouldn't really be any need for 
profiling,  
> as the linearization should result in the desired values. To be a  
> little more specific, since the process of linearization is 
setting  
> up the curves so that the printer produces specific densities when  
> receiving cmyk values in a single ramp (as opposed to mixing 
multiple  
> ramps for color mixing), the process of profiling the printer's  
> output would only be redundant as the only purpose would be to  
> profile the output of values since there isn't any color to 
consider  
> (aside from the issue of being able to soft proof with the correct  
> tonality).
> 
Precisely not. Printing with just linearization just produces a 
smooth ramp, but much darker, the values need remapping to produce a 
correct "lightness". 

> Since a color management system is meant to translate values as  
> accurately as possible from one device to another via the PCS, I  
> figured that what appeared to be 50% grey on my monitor would  
> correlate to the corresponding ideal density for the 50% patch on 
the  
> test print. But, this has not been the case each time I have 
redone  
> the process.

50% reults more or less in a 55-60 dark patch. If (in L* values) you 
get Dmax L20 and Dmin L95 you will see that the middle of it is about 
57-58 which is not mid-grey but which is linear.

> 
> So in specific, I'm hoping someone could clarify the following,
> 
> 1. If an ink/paper combination is properly linearized, should the  
> output be reasonably close to what's on the screen if the display 
has  
> been properly profiled? Or is it also necessary to profile the BW  
> output or use one of the other screen/print matching processes to 
get  
> this type of match?

You clearly need to process a BW profile that when visualise in a CMS 
shows a kind of gamma curve.
> 
> 2. What exactly would be the purpose of profiling BW output, aside  
> from being able to soft proof for tonal variations?

Making sure that source values are mapped to destination values.
> 
> 3. Since QTR will either take an image converted to 2.2 gamma and  
> print it without altering the values or in the case of images not  
> saved in 2.2 gamma, will convert to 2.2 gamma prior to printing, 
ie:  
> change the numbers to correlate to the previous color space,  what  
> would be the purpose of using one color space over another since 
what  
> is seen on screen and subsequently encoded in the 2.2 gamma space, 
is  
> what is printed?

QTR is not ICC compliant in the sense it does not care about the 
embedded profile. You have to convert to the BW profile, save the 
TIFF and then print the new TIFF. I saw you work on Mac, I assume the 
process would then be to concert to the profile and print direct from 
PS in this case.
> 
> 4. Are the ideal densities meant to correspond to our visual 
response  
> to changes in value? I thought this was the case but now I'm not 
sure.
> 
I'm not sure I understand. There's no ideal densities : what counts 
is to reproduce your screen on the paper (BPC exluded).

> 5. Although the curves are not profiles are they meant to be used 
as  
> such, or are they more like the Epson driver settings that just  
> control the ink limits etc. and should be used in conjunction with  
> destination profiles?
>

The curve linearises the output, the profile make sure L* are proerly 
converted source->destination.
 
> 6. Am I just way off base, regarding my understanding of this  
> process, or am I headed in the right direction?
> 

It personally took me about a month to (kind of) understand and I 
went thru the same questions (precisely!!!).

Take a look at Roy and Steve's explanation on BWdig group if the 
above is not explanaroty enough.

All I can assert is that the ICC droplets change totally the quality 
of the print and you get results above expectations.

Olivier

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@h...> wrote:
> On another group I wrote a fair amount about the linearization, icc 
> profiling, etc.
> I'm not sure I addressed all you questions but I think it will help a 
> lot.
> 
> See:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/68052
> 
> Roy
> 

I decided to load the info into the Files section of this group.

See:   ICC Info.txt

Roy

Thanks Roy & Olivier,

Little by little I think I'm getting this and am close to grasping the
big picture.

Roy, I read through the entire thread that you had linked to and it
cleared up quite a bit for me. However, I'm hoping you can answer a
couple questions, as I'm still a little fuzzy on a few details. If I
understand clearly what I've read, then there have been two main
workflows ending with QTR.

The first (and apparently outdated?) process, completely bypassed any
color management system and sent the file straight to QTR sans
conversion, as per the printing instructions in the tutorial. So, the
calibration & characterization/profiling of any ink/paper set were
being combined in the QTR curves. And, any particular bumps in the
output were taken care of by further manipulating the curves or
through correction layers or some similar tactic.

Now however, it appears that the linearization is only meant to
calibrate the output and any characterization/profiling is being done
via QTR-Create-ICC, essentially leading to the same type of process as
a color managed workflow.

While I can't find the quote, I recently read something regarding
color management that stated, ideally calibration and linearization
would be all that was needed to color manage a device, but since there
are still irregularities in the output, profiling is necessary.

If the above statement is true, then am I right in coming to the
conclusion that using profiles in addition to the QTR curves is
optional, as long as one is willing to tweak their linearization
curves or use corrective layers in order to get their desired output?

Also, if working with profiles, since the calibration is largely
dependent on the particular paper being used, would one have to create
a set of QTR curves for each paper as well as create a profile or in
the case of differing tonal output, multiple profiles per paper?

What exactly is the target performance that is desired, when
linearizing your output, re: the "ideal" densities? Am I correct in
assuming that the densities are meant to correspond to the human
visual response to changes in value, or are they more an arbitrary
division of densities based on mathematical/mechanical efficiency?

Thanks again in advance,

Eric
www.ericashworth.net



--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@h...> wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@h...> wrote:
> > On another group I wrote a fair amount about the linearization, icc 
> > profiling, etc.
> > I'm not sure I addressed all you questions but I think it will help a 
> > lot.
> > 
> > See:
> >
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/68052

> > 
> > Roy
> > 
> 
> I decided to load the info into the Files section of this group.
> 
> See:   ICC Info.txt
> 
> Roy

Again Roy is far more experienced than me to reply but if of any 
interest see below

 If I  
> understand clearly what I've read, then there have been two main  
> workflows ending with QTR.

To my understanding it's a single workflow : step 1 linearization so 
you get evenly spaced density and control the amount of ink laid on 
the print together with the nozzle firing top achieve a smooth ramp. 
step 2 you profile this output so that perceptive rendering is 
achieving meaning you re-map values from source to destination in a 
way 1)you can softproof, 2) you achieve a proper distribution of L to 
human perception.

> 
> The first (and apparently outdated?) process, completely bypassed 
any  
> color management system and sent the file straight to QTR sans  
> conversion, as per the printing instructions in the tutorial. So, 
the  
> calibration & characterization/profiling of any ink/paper set were  
> being combined in the QTR curves. And, any particular bumps in the  
> output were taken care of by further manipulating the curves or  
> through correction layers or some similar tactic.

No profiling was not done before the Create ICC droplet exists. Yes 
you could tune the output with a layer, but profiling is far more 
accurate. All in all you just take a file value of say 128 (in RVB or 
grayscale) to map it in a way it will be close to L*50 when you read 
your print and so on and so forth from 0-255 to L 0-100 (in fact 
often L 2à to L95 for instance).
> 
> Now however, it appears that the linearization is only meant to  
> calibrate the output and any characterization/profiling is being 
done  
> via QTR-Create-ICC, essentially leading to the same type of 
process  
> as a color managed workflow.

Yes except there's no color, so you only handle L value. 
> 
> While I can't find the quote, I recently read something regarding  
> color management that stated, ideally calibration and 
linearization  
> would be all that was needed to color manage a device, but since  
> there are still irregularities in the output, profiling is 
necessary.

In fact you can do without linearization and only do profiling : 
linearization just make sure you have a stable devise thus 
facilitating the profiling in terms of accuracy.
> 
> If the above statement is true, then am I right in coming to the  
> conclusion that using profiles in addition to the QTR curves is  
> optional, as long as one is willing to tweak their linearization  
> curves or use corrective layers in order to get their desired 
output?

Yes but again layers and curve correction is a hassle as compared to 
profiling.
> 
> Also, if working with profiles, since the calibration is largely  
> dependent on the particular paper being used, would one have to  
> create a set of QTR curves for each paper as well as create a 
profile  
> or in the case of differing tonal output, multiple profiles per 
paper?

Yes : 1 linearization (density varies), 1 profile (gamut varies) per 
combination of printer/ink/paper.
> 
> What exactly is the target performance that is desired, when  
> linearizing your output, re: the "ideal" densities? Am I correct 
in  
> assuming that the densities are meant to correspond to the human  
> visual response to changes in value, or are they more an arbitrary  
> division of densities based on mathematical/mechanical efficiency?

I am not sure I understand : there's no ideal density. One only tries 
to maximise Dmax, then get a smooth ramp in the linearization 
process.  Then the profiling process is a bit complex. It's based on 
CIE works and used "models" that describes human vision independently 
to the devices. So when you profile, you get a value from a file 
source that are known and reading from the destination source. This 
is process thru an independent space (CIELab or XYZ) so that 
correspondance between source/destination is achievable independently 
to the device to profile and ends up in a conversion matrice or 
table. In our case you want a 128 RVB value to produce a mid tone 
gray on your paper given the ink/paper capabilities and printer 
irregularities similarly, quarter tones needs to visibly look like 
quarter tones ect... As said your file can go from RVB 0 to 256 (or 
gray 0% to 100%) while you can only achieve L 20 (you can not lay 
down a total black patch) to L 95 (the paper is never fully white). 
Still you want to compress and remap you 0-100% file to this L20-95 
destination space : this is what the profile will achieve for you so 
that when you look your print you feel like you have got the best 
values distribution and it 1) ressembles your screen to the best of 
the paper/ink ability (in fact very close) 2) does correspond to what 
a normal person would expect as a properly produced BW image (mid 
grey at L50, with a feeling a 21stepwedge is properly distributed). 
CIELab and other similar models are based on the fact that Delta is 
the smallest possible difference a human can perceive between 
different colors (or gray in or case). But human perception is not 
linear : 2kg in your hand do not weight twice a kg when you take 
them, 2 sugar spoons in your coffee de not make it twice as sweet 
when you taste it and the same for our vision (this is why you can 
perceive such a large dynamic).

This is why just linearisation looks black : you need to increase L 
much more than twice to perceive a print twice as brighter.

Roy will correct me if I'm wrong somewhere. I just inteneded to share 
my little knowledge of it since I remember I had a hard and desoerate 
time trying to get it.

Olivier

> 
> Thanks again in advance,
> 
> Eric
> www.ericashworth.net
> 
>

Hi Eric,

Don't worry -- it takes a while to grasp it all.

On Tuesday, September 27, 2005, at 01:39  PM, Eric Ashworth wrote:

> Thanks Roy & Olivier,
>
> Little by little I think I'm getting this and am close to grasping the  
> big picture.
>
> Roy, I read through the entire thread that you had linked to and it  
> cleared up quite a bit for me. However, I'm hoping you can answer a  
> couple questions, as I'm still a little fuzzy on a few details. If I  
> understand clearly what I've read, then there have been two main  
> workflows ending with QTR.
>
> The first (and apparently outdated?) process, completely bypassed any  
> color management system and sent the file straight to QTR sans  
> conversion, as per the printing instructions in the tutorial. So, the  
> calibration & characterization/profiling of any ink/paper set were  
> being combined in the QTR curves. And, any particular bumps in the  
> output were taken care of by further manipulating the curves or  
> through correction layers or some similar tactic.

The original was pretty good -- linearization fixes bumps and  
weirdnesses.  The screen wouldn't exactly match but with
some practice you could get-it-right on the screen and then have a  
fairly dependable set of tweaks to get-it-right on the print.

>
> Now however, it appears that the linearization is only meant to  
> calibrate the output and any characterization/profiling is being done  
> via QTR-Create-ICC, essentially leading to the same type of process as  
> a color managed workflow.

Yes.

>
> While I can't find the quote, I recently read something regarding  
> color management that stated, ideally calibration and linearization  
> would be all that was needed to color manage a device, but since there  
> are still irregularities in the output, profiling is necessary.

It's not so much correcting irregularities as it's getting the color  
management system involved.  Without the CMS 50% gray has
a different meaning whether you are in GG 1.8, GG 2.2, Adobe RGB, sRGB  
...   Every possible imbedded profile gives a
different meaning for all the values.

>
> If the above statement is true, then am I right in coming to the  
> conclusion that using profiles in addition to the QTR curves is  
> optional, as long as one is willing to tweak their linearization  
> curves or use corrective layers in order to get their desired output?

It possible to pick ONE profile space and tweak the curves so that  
profile space prints correctly.  This is how most workflows
actually work.  E.g Roark's curves, the old Piezo plugin all are good  
systems as long as you are careful to use exactly the
correct work spaces everywhere.  The QTR linearizing without ICC  
profiles is probably more accurate than most print drivers
without profiles.  But the profiles -- even just the generic Gray Matte  
Paper -- are very helpful in matching the image's embedded
profiles.

>
> Also, if working with profiles, since the calibration is largely  
> dependent on the particular paper being used, would one have to create  
> a set of QTR curves for each paper as well as create a profile or in  
> the case of differing tonal output, multiple profiles per paper?

Ideally you ought to have a profile for each particular setup you are  
going to use.  Potentially there are an awful lot of curves
and profiles.  But I think one should narrow it down to a few that you  
like the best and stick to them and become familiar
with nuances that are only visible with real prints under real viewing  
conditions.  CMS is not a substitute for critical viewing
and critical image editing.

>
> What exactly is the target performance that is desired, when  
> linearizing your output, re: the "ideal" densities? Am I correct in  
> assuming that the densities are meant to correspond to the human  
> visual response to changes in value, or are they more an arbitrary  
> division of densities based on mathematical/mechanical efficiency?

The "ideal" densities are straight lines if you convert to Lab  
Luminosity units.  If you go from L=16 to L=96 the steps
are supposed to in a straight line.  Lab units correspond to human  
vision so they make a lot of sense for getting
good tonal separation throughout the scale.  In a sense this is the  
tonal description of the QTR ICC profile.  But
none of the idealized grayspaces correspond to this so leaving the  
conversion to the CMS using Perceptual Intent
makes the most sense.

Roy

>
> Thanks again in advance,
>
> Eric
> www.ericashworth.net
>
>
>
> On Sep 26, 2005, at 7:56 PM, Roy Harrington wrote:
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@h...> wrote:
> > On another group I wrote a fair amount about the linearization, icc
> > profiling, etc.
> > I'm not sure I addressed all you questions but I think it will help a
> > lot.
> >
> > See:
> >  
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/message/ 
> 68052
> >
> > Roy
> >
>
> I decided to load the info into the Files section of this group.
>
> See:   ICC Info.txt
>
> Roy
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
> +	 Visit your group "QuadtoneRIP" on the web.
>  
> +	 To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>  QuadtoneRIP-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
> +	 Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
<image.tiff>
>
>
-
Roy Harrington
roy@harrington.com
Black & White Photo Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

Thank you, I think I've finally got a handle on it. Now . . . off to  
install the new version and play with the new QTR-create-ICC :-)

Thanks again,

Eric
www.ericashworth.net