QTR-Quadtone RIP

I have now got UT14 loaded, with UT14-4-LC duplicated in the Y position as per Paul Roark's earlier post.  I am running off some of Paul Roark's 21 step wedges (tiff), using Dave Goldenberg's profiles for UT14 via QTR.  I am seeing a "scaly" dither pattern in the steps and some banding in the direction of print-head travel and lesser banding in the direction of paper travel, the banding being more noticeable in the darker patches.  I had also noticed similar effects when printing images earlier with the OEM Claria colour ink set through QTR.  Greyscale or colour images printed through the epson driver with OEM inks were much more like a well printed optical image.  A couple through QTR were similar to the Epson driver, but unfortunately I didn't take notes at the time to see whether I'd used different settings.

This is mainly noticeable at close quarters with Mk.I eyeball but can be seen at reading distance.  I have tried changing the dither options and ordered (the default) is best, with advanced hybrid, fast and very fast getting worse, accentuating banding in the direction of paper travel. Upping resolution from 1440Super to 2880 does not appear to change anything.

I have tried a nozzle check which shows no problems.

I am currently using a budget Matt Photo Paper, but the artifacts seen in images were on Epson Prem Gloss Photo Paper.

Current print settings from elements;

Color Management:color handling=Photoshop Elements
Image Space=Gray Gamma 2.2
Printer Profile=QTR_Gray_Matte_Paper
Rendering Intent=Perceptual

Print Settings;
Color Matching= ColorSync and Quadtone RIP both greyed out
Printer features:paper type=Matte Paper

QTR Settings;
Mode= QuadtoneRIP 8 Bit
Curve1= QTR_1400_UT14_EEM_bo (Dave's profile for Black Only, based on Epson Enhanced Matte).
Curves 1 and 2 = none
resolution=1440 super or 2880
advanced adjustments Dither+Ordered (default) others selected just make it worse.

OS = Apple OSX 10.8.2
Editor = Photoshop Elements with Elements+
Printer= Epson Stylus Photo 1500w (identical to Artisan 1430)

Am I doing something wrong? Is there possibly a problem with the printer? (it is about 7 weeks old), or does QTR produce a less smooth image than Epson OEM driver?  To my mind the difference is between that of a less than ideal printer and good optical prints.

Ross

rossfmj <ross.jarvis@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I have now got UT14 loaded, with UT14-4-LC duplicated in the Y position as
> per Paul Roark's earlier post.
>

Note that I have not tested this or made any profiles for it yet.  So,
you're jumping the gun a bit.

I am running off some of Paul Roark's 21 step wedges (tiff), using Dave
> Goldenberg's profiles for UT14 via QTR.
>

If they use any Y position ink, I'd change that ink to a "Not Used."

...  I had also noticed similar effects when printing images earlier with
> the OEM Claria colour ink set through QTR. Greyscale or colour images
> printed through the epson driver with OEM inks were much more like a well
> printed optical image. A couple through QTR were similar to the Epson
> driver, but unfortunately I didn't take notes at the time to see whether
> I'd used different settings.
>
The Epson dither hides defects better, particularly at the ends of the
paper.  For the best prints with the 1400 both rollers need to be engaged.

One reason for the extra LC is to hide the defects.  My 2K2LK with QTR is
better than the Epson driver.  A lot of it is just how many inks are firing.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


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

Ross,
This curve uses only the eboni black ink:

> Curve1= QTR_1400_UT14_EEM_bo (Dave's profile for Black Only, based on Epson Enhanced Matte).

You should get much better results using the other curves, which use a minimum of two inks.  When a warm and cool curve are mixed, you use either four (for glossy papers) or five (for matte papers).  Even using just one of the warm or cool curves should give you quite smooth prints.

David

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "rossfmj"  wrote:

>
> I have now got UT14 loaded, with UT14-4-LC duplicated in the Y position as per Paul Roark's earlier post.  I am running off some of Paul Roark's 21 step wedges (tiff), using Dave Goldenberg's profiles for UT14 via QTR.  I am seeing a "scaly" dither pattern in the steps and some banding in the direction of print-head travel and lesser banding in the direction of paper travel, the banding being more noticeable in the darker patches.  I had also noticed similar effects when printing images earlier with the OEM Claria colour ink set through QTR.  Greyscale or colour images printed through the epson driver with OEM inks were much more like a well printed optical image.  A couple through QTR were similar to the Epson driver, but unfortunately I didn't take notes at the time to see whether I'd used different settings.
> 
> This is mainly noticeable at close quarters with Mk.I eyeball but can be seen at reading distance.  I have tried changing the dither options and ordered (the default) is best, with advanced hybrid, fast and very fast getting worse, accentuating banding in the direction of paper travel. Upping resolution from 1440Super to 2880 does not appear to change anything.
> 
> I have tried a nozzle check which shows no problems.
> 
> I am currently using a budget Matt Photo Paper, but the artifacts seen in images were on Epson Prem Gloss Photo Paper.
> 
> Current print settings from elements;
> 
> Color Management:color handling=Photoshop Elements
> Image Space=Gray Gamma 2.2
> Printer Profile=QTR_Gray_Matte_Paper
> Rendering Intent=Perceptual
> 
> Print Settings;
> Color Matching= ColorSync and Quadtone RIP both greyed out
> Printer features:paper type=Matte Paper
> 
> QTR Settings;
> Mode= QuadtoneRIP 8 Bit
> Curve1= QTR_1400_UT14_EEM_bo (Dave's profile for Black Only, based on Epson Enhanced Matte).
> Curves 1 and 2 = none
> resolution=1440 super or 2880
> advanced adjustments Dither+Ordered (default) others selected just make it worse.
> 
> OS = Apple OSX 10.8.2
> Editor = Photoshop Elements with Elements+
> Printer= Epson Stylus Photo 1500w (identical to Artisan 1430)
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? Is there possibly a problem with the printer? (it is about 7 weeks old), or does QTR produce a less smooth image than Epson OEM driver?  To my mind the difference is between that of a less than ideal printer and good optical prints.
> 
> Ross
>

One other thing: I use the2880 dpi resolution, and the speed set to uni-directional.  I seem to remember that uni-directional is distinctly better than bi-directional.

Also, to address a point that Paul raised, none of my profiles use the Y ink.  If you want to use the LC that you have put into the Y position, then you will need to design that into the curves you use.

David

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "rossfmj"  wrote:

>
> I have now got UT14 loaded, with UT14-4-LC duplicated in the Y position as per Paul Roark's earlier post.  I am running off some of Paul Roark's 21 step wedges (tiff), using Dave Goldenberg's profiles for UT14 via QTR.  I am seeing a "scaly" dither pattern in the steps and some banding in the direction of print-head travel and lesser banding in the direction of paper travel, the banding being more noticeable in the darker patches.  I had also noticed similar effects when printing images earlier with the OEM Claria colour ink set through QTR.  Greyscale or colour images printed through the epson driver with OEM inks were much more like a well printed optical image.  A couple through QTR were similar to the Epson driver, but unfortunately I didn't take notes at the time to see whether I'd used different settings.
> 
> This is mainly noticeable at close quarters with Mk.I eyeball but can be seen at reading distance.  I have tried changing the dither options and ordered (the default) is best, with advanced hybrid, fast and very fast getting worse, accentuating banding in the direction of paper travel. Upping resolution from 1440Super to 2880 does not appear to change anything.
> 
> I have tried a nozzle check which shows no problems.
> 
> I am currently using a budget Matt Photo Paper, but the artifacts seen in images were on Epson Prem Gloss Photo Paper.
> 
> Current print settings from elements;
> 
> Color Management:color handling=Photoshop Elements
> Image Space=Gray Gamma 2.2
> Printer Profile=QTR_Gray_Matte_Paper
> Rendering Intent=Perceptual
> 
> Print Settings;
> Color Matching= ColorSync and Quadtone RIP both greyed out
> Printer features:paper type=Matte Paper
> 
> QTR Settings;
> Mode= QuadtoneRIP 8 Bit
> Curve1= QTR_1400_UT14_EEM_bo (Dave's profile for Black Only, based on Epson Enhanced Matte).
> Curves 1 and 2 = none
> resolution=1440 super or 2880
> advanced adjustments Dither+Ordered (default) others selected just make it worse.
> 
> OS = Apple OSX 10.8.2
> Editor = Photoshop Elements with Elements+
> Printer= Epson Stylus Photo 1500w (identical to Artisan 1430)
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? Is there possibly a problem with the printer? (it is about 7 weeks old), or does QTR produce a less smooth image than Epson OEM driver?  To my mind the difference is between that of a less than ideal printer and good optical prints.
> 
> Ross
>

Paul/Dave

Once again, thanks for the time and input.

I have now used the cool and warm curves mixed and am getting much better wedges.  I've compared these to a print via the Epson driver and they are way smoother.  2880 resolution uni-directional definitely gives the best result.  Comparing these to a print using the Epson driver shows the QTR prints to be much smoother, even when viewing from several feet away I can see graininess in the Epson print.  Looking at the earlier Claria prints I can see the artifacts are mainly noticable in the black-only prints.

I'd run off a few image prints and was getting a flatter and lighter print than the screen image.   I thought I'd better start some wedges for profiling and was trying to get a good baseline print.  I started with the curve at the top of the list, which was the black-only and then tried changing all other variables, one at a time, which with paper-loading issues and numerous spurious duplicate prints was starting to really frustrate.

Had I started with changing the curves instead of everything else I would have been happier quicker!

I am probably trying to run before the crawling and walking stages are complete.  I only bought my first digital camera 8 weeks ago and am trying to be where I was with my wet printing using all analogue techniques.

regards

Ross

Ross, <ross.jarvis@...> wrote:

> **
>
>
> I have now used the cool and warm curves mixed and am getting much better
> wedges. I've compared these to a print via the Epson driver and they are
> way smoother. 2880 resolution uni-directional definitely gives the best
> result. ...
>
To see how adding yet another neutral ink would look, try setting up the Y
position (your second LC) as follows:  Have the Y curve copied from the LC
curve; use an ink limit on LC and Y that is half of the current LC ink
limit.

Basically, the more inks we have firing at a time (within reason) the less
likely we'll have visible microbanding.

One issue for moving to a replacement for the glop (UT14 Y) is whether a
lighter ink has any value in the 1430 and similar 1.5 pl printers.  I,
personally, doubt a lighter ink is needed for the highlights and, further,
feel that having another ink firing in the midtones to fight microbanding
there would be more valuable.  That is part of what I'll be looking at.

Note that with multiple same-density inks, one gets smoother highlights by
starting one ink at a time.  That was what was behind the 1800 3MK curves
and their staggered starting points. The same type of approach helped the
"EZ" types of setups that have 3 identical "color" inks in them that start
at the same time with the Epson driver if a curve is not used (embedded in
an ICC) that staggers the starting points.  Unfortunately, QTR had no
automatic way to do this, as far as I know.  So it takes some manually
drawn curves.  The use of the sliders and separate profiles for the
different LK density inks might be close.  I'll have to check that out also.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com


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

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Paul Roark  wrote:

> To see how adding yet another neutral ink would look, try setting up the Y
> position (your second LC) as follows:  Have the Y curve copied from the LC
> curve; use an ink limit on LC and Y that is half of the current LC ink
> limit.

I have done this to create a new profile to use the same ink in LC and Y.  There seems some improvement, particularly at the darker end of the scale, noticeable when checking shadow detail on Keith Coopers Mesa Verde test image.  However the round thingamajig shows annular (circumferential?) banding, indicating poor transitions. This shows a different distribution of tone to the profile with just one LC.  Also, on a 21 step wedge print there is a vertical line showing, on the top graduated continuous scale, between 30 and 35% there may also be similar artefacts above 70% but my lighting isn't helping to see these.  Using Northlight's Grayscale Linearisation image, I am getting a sharp step from light tones to mid tones at 4 (40%?) and a noticeable step at 8 (80%?).  100% black is also a noticeable "bullseye".

> Basically, the more inks we have firing at a time (within reason) the less
> likely we'll have visible microbanding.

I am getting microbanding throughout an A4 print, which seems less noticeable in the profile with two LCs, however I'm wondering if this is being exacerbated by the paper I'm using.  This has caused a lot of feed issues, I am currently having to clean the loading roller every five or so sheets as paper is loading very poorly.

Would linearising with many more values, eg from a 50 step wedge, improve the tonal scale?

Ross