2016-02-07 by rdeloe1@...
I'm looking for an efficient Windows Lightroom-to-QTR workflow and would appreciate advice from people who have solved the problem I'm having.
Here's the issue in a nutshell: Quadtone RIP uses a straight line color space, whereas Lightroom uses curved color spaces (e.g., Adobe RGB, ProPhotoRGB, Adobe 1998). Straight TIFF exports from Lightroom
look fine on screen, but when printed using QTR, shadow detail doesn't match the
screen, and prints can look flat and washed out. There’s a good explanation of this issue in Paul Roark's handout called ‘Eboni-4 Plus.pdf’ (http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/Eboni-4-Plus.pdf).
As a Photoshop user, the solution Paul recommended in his handout is to work in Gray Gamma 2.2 in Photoshop, and then, for printing purposes only, apply a curve that corrects for Gray Gamma 2.2 to QTR; he provides one called GG22-to-QTR.acv.
In a Windows environment, unlike Mac, you can't print directly from Lightroom to QTR. You have to generate a TIFF, and you can't use Paul's Photoshop curve. One solution is to pull down the dark end of the tone curve a bit in Lightroom before exporting, but that's hit-and-miss, and you end up having to make one version for screen, and one for print. I want to have one version in my Lightroom catalogue that is adjusted at export time for different purposes (like printing with QTR). If you also have Photoshop then the obvious answer is to export from Lightroom, import your exported TIFF into Photoshop and apply Paul's curve... but I don't use Photoshop and I don't want to get it just for this.
My current solution is a bit of a kludge so I'm looking for something better. QTR supplies ICCs for screen and print that provide a straight-line gray space. Lightroom users have to install the RGB version (RGB_Matte_Paper). I've set Lightroom up to export TIFF files using the RGB_Matte_Paper color space, In the resulting exported TIFF files, the shadow areas are squashed down -- but they come back up when printed with QTR.
This works reasonably well... I say "reasonably" because shadows are still a bit too dark in the prints (with important detail sometimes lost). My monitor is calibrated. It's a Dell U2413 and I calibrate with an X-Rite i1 Pro, so I don't think I can blame a too-bright monitor. Other things I've tried are adjusting the QTR profile to lighten shadow detail (e.g., using GRAY_SHADOW=20). That helps a bit, but I wonder if there's a better way. I don't think the answer is to adjust the GRAY_GAMMA value; I don't want to lighten everything -- just the shadows.
Any and all advice welcome -- except "Buy a Mac" ;) I'm printing using Paul Roark's new "Eboni Variable Tone" ink formulation, and I'm trying out his new generic curves (see https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/conversations/messages/108825). It's working amazing well on the Premier Art papers I'm using. I just need to resolve this issue and I can focus on making and printing images (rather than fiddling around with QTR profiles).
2016-02-09 by rdeloe1@...
A bit more information on my posting, above. The approach I outlined (exporting with a straight line gray color space like RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC) actually works quite well with my existing curves in QTR if I set Ink Limit (Shadows) to -15. I've been testing this approach on various images to see how shadows, mid-tones and highlights do. So far so good. Still... it feels a bit kludgy to do it this way so better ideas welcome.
2016-02-10 by brian_downunda@...
There are a number of issues in play here.
"Quadtone RIP uses a straight line color space, whereas Lightroom uses curved color spaces (e.g., Adobe RGB, ProPhotoRGB, Adobe 1998)" By straight line I assume you mean Grey Gamma 2.2. AdobeRGB has a gamma of 2.2 and for B&W purposes can be thought of as the RGB equivalent of GG22. Convert an image from GG22 to AdobeRGB and watch what happens, or doesn't happen, to the histogram. It doesn't change. So you can use AdobeRGB instead of GG22 if you need to work in an RGB space.
Since OS X 10.6.8, you can't print direct from Photoshop to QTR in either GG22 or an untagged image. Well, you can, but undesirable things happened to the in the background, such as a silent ICC conversion. You have to print to QTR from Print Tool. I assume - and a Mac user will have to confirm or deny this - that LR has similar issues on a Mac. In which case, buying a Mac won't solve your problem.
"Shadow detail doesn't match the screen, and prints can look flat and washed out". There are two broad philosophies about how to print using QTR. One approach is to get the best screen-to-print match. The most obvious way to do this is to use the either of the two QTR ancillary programs QTR-Create-ICC.exe and QTR-Create-ICC-RGB.exe to create an ICC for your printer / paper / inkset combination and convert to it. This matches the normal colour workflow and should result in a good screen-to-print match, although it helps if your monitor is calibrated for printing. I've seen Paul's PS curve suggestion, which I assume is intended to approximate the effect of converting to an ICC for those who don't have a measurement device and so can't create an ICC. If you have an (RGB) ICC then you could adopt this workflow in LR - you can soft-proof using it, convert to it during export and then print. You're doing this now with an generic ICC, but it would only be approximate.
The issue with this approach is that it often crushes the shadow detail. Even Roy has said that this is a potential issue ( https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/QuadtoneRIP/conversations/messages/12538 ) with converting to an ICC. As Jon Cone argues for Piezography (and this would apply to other inksets as well), what's the point if getting a good screen-to-print match if it doesn't deliver the best print? So what you're seeing is supposed to be a virtue. You work on the print iteratively to get the best print, while preserving shadow detail. If this sounds like a great way to waste ink and paper, you're right. If you have an ICC then there is a better way. You can use the ICC to soft-proof in Photoshop using the "preserve numbers" option, and then edit the print to suit. Some iteration may still be required, but a whole lot less. You still get a good screen to print match, but in a way that retains the shadow retaining benefits of the GG22 workflow.
The problem with this workflow is that it won't work in LR, because LR has no way to show you a preserve numbers soft-proof. So I think your options are to stick with your kludges, or get an ICC and convert to it and put up with any loss of shadow detail, or get a copy of PS. Ultimately it's about the sort of print you want, and how important shadow detail is to you. A LR-to-QTR workflow is not an easy one, IMHO.
2016-02-10 by Larry
Forgive me for I am going to sound much less intelligent...
For me, it's about reducing the guess work with my current hardware and software. If I can get anywhere close to a screen-to-print match, it will reduce the guesswork. Brian's right that ultimately I'll need PS and, if I'm getting that deep I may as well get a measuring device.
I'm going to try the following workflow, as awkward or it seems:
1) edit my image in Elements, convert to greyscale.
2) save TIFF, import to LR
3) Use LR for proofing only using Roy's RGB ICC.
4) return to Elements, edit, save and recheck in LR.
5) print in QTR.
I know this is not ideal, but ...
Also, I hope I'm not hijacking some one else's thread.
Larry
Sent from TypeApp
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Feb 9, 2016, 17:05, at 17:05, "brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP]" <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>There are a number of issues in play here.
>
>"Quadtone RIP uses a straight line color space, whereas Lightroom uses
>curved color spaces (e.g., Adobe RGB, ProPhotoRGB, Adobe 1998)" By
>straight line I assume you mean Grey Gamma 2.2. AdobeRGB has a gamma
>of 2.2 and for B&W purposes can be thought of as the RGB equivalent of
>GG22. Convert an image from GG22 to AdobeRGB and watch what happens,
>or doesn't happen, to the histogram. It doesn't change. So you can
>use AdobeRGB instead of GG22 if you need to work in an RGB space.
>
>Since OS X 10.6.8, you can't print direct from Photoshop to QTR in
>either GG22 or an untagged image. Well, you can, but undesirable
>things happened to the in the background, such as a silent ICC
>conversion. You have to print to QTR from Print Tool. I assume - and
>a Mac user will have to confirm or deny this - that LR has similar
>issues on a Mac. In which case, buying a Mac won't solve your problem.
>
>"Shadow detail doesn't match the screen, and prints can look flat and
>washed out". There are two broad philosophies about how to print using
>QTR. One approach is to get the best screen-to-print match. The most
>obvious way to do this is to use the either of the two QTR ancillary
>programs QTR-Create-ICC.exe and QTR-Create-ICC-RGB.exe to create an ICC
>for your printer / paper / inkset combination and convert to it. This
>matches the normal colour workflow and should result in a good
>screen-to-print match, although it helps if your monitor is calibrated
>for printing. I've seen Paul's PS curve suggestion, which I assume is
>intended to approximate the effect of converting to an ICC for those
>who don't have a measurement device and so can't create an ICC. If you
>have an (RGB) ICC then you could adopt this workflow in LR - you can
>soft-proof using it, convert to it during export and then print.
>You're doing this now with an generic ICC, but it would only be
>approximate.
>
>The issue with this approach is that it often crushes the shadow
>detail. Even Roy has said that this is a potential issue (
>https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/QuadtoneRIP/conversations/messages/12538
>) with converting to an ICC. As Jon Cone argues for Piezography (and
>this would apply to other inksets as well), what's the point if getting
>a good screen-to-print match if it doesn't deliver the best print? So
>what you're seeing is supposed to be a virtue. You work on the print
>iteratively to get the best print, while preserving shadow detail. If
>this sounds like a great way to waste ink and paper, you're right. If
>you have an ICC then there is a better way. You can use the ICC to
>soft-proof in Photoshop using the "preserve numbers" option, and then
>edit the print to suit. Some iteration may still be required, but a
>whole lot less. You still get a good screen to print match, but in a
>way that retains the shadow retaining benefits of the GG22 workflow.
>
>The problem with this workflow is that it won't work in LR, because LR
>has no way to show you a preserve numbers soft-proof. So I think your
>options are to stick with your kludges, or get an ICC and convert to it
>and put up with any loss of shadow detail, or get a copy of PS.
>Ultimately it's about the sort of print you want, and how important
>shadow detail is to you. A LR-to-QTR workflow is not an easy one,
>IMHO.
2016-02-10 by rdeloe1@...
The link to Roy’s explanation of color spaces in Brian's response, above, is extremely helpful. As an aside, is there a way in this group to make a collection of “sticky” postings up front so that new members can work their way through some critical ones? That could be really useful.
Anyway, I did know that Gray Gamma 2.2 and AdobeRGB are effectively the same as far as workflow goes. But I also thought both are curved spaces; I believe that’s what Roy is saying in the link Brian provided. I think that’s also what Paul Roark is saying in his Eboni-4-Plus.pdf document, which I quote here:
“QTR is not, in and of itself, ‘color managed.’ That is, it does not automatically adjust the output to match the working space or embedded profile of the image file such that the relative densities displayed on the monitor will be reflected in the print…. If a file is edited in Gray Gamma 2.2 it will not result in a print from QTR that looks like the monitor. Because the GG2.2 shadows are compressed and QTR shadows are linear, a GG2.2 file will appear lighter and perhaps lacking in good blacks when printed with QTR.”
It’s this insight that led me to trying the approach I described here (i.e., getting the image “right” on my calibrated monitor in Lightroom, then exporting with a linear ICC – Roy’s RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC, and then printing in QTR with attention to Ink Limit values). Note I also tried it with the ICC I made for that paper and ink, reading the L values from a print of a 21 step chart with a known even distribution of gray values; there was no difference to my eye in shadow detail compared to the export with RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC. Exporting with either seems to have lined things up properly in the shadows.
On the three papers I’m using I can get consistent prints with this kludgy technique, and critical shadow details are being nicely preserved. My own benchmark is an image of mine where being even a bit off in the shadows is very evident. If it prints properly, then I’m happy.
Unfortunately, kludgy approaches like this suffer from the problem of reproducibility across media… and mine is no exception. For two Premier Art papers, this approach works consistently well (Fine Art 205 gsm and Smooth Bright White 200 gsm). Export with RGB_Matte_Paper, and print in QTR with Ink Limit -15. The results are great and consistent.
But… I just profiled my Premier Art Smooth Fine Art 325 gsm (still using Paul Roark’s “generic” Eboni Variable Tone curves linearized for this paper). I can get excellent results that totally match the other two papers in the shadows… but for this 325 gsm paper (same printer, same inks, same image inside Lightroom) I have to export with Adobe RGB and print from QTR with Ink Limit = 0. I can’t begin to explain why this is the case.
In the end the only thing that matters to me is that I can get reproducible high quality results for specific ink and paper combinations, so I shouldn’t be too concerned that something is happening that I don’t understand. But I won’t deny that I’d prefer to know what’s going on!
2016-02-10 by brian_downunda@...
@rdeloe1: "Unfortunately, kludgy approaches like this suffer from the problem of reproducibility across media… and mine is no exception. In the end the only thing that matters to me is that I can get
reproducible high quality results for specific ink and paper
combinations" Precision and predictability and reproducibility will require an ICC for each combination produced by a measuring device. I find it works pretty well. You then have the choice of using Roy's preferred workflow, of converting to the ICC, or Jon Cone's, of using the ICC only for "preserve numbers" soft proofing. Using generic ICCs will get you part of the way, but as you're discovering, they're a variable approximation. If you can manage to live with that, well done!
@ Larry: You need to realise that when you "use LR for proofing only using Roy's RGB ICC", this assumes that you're going to convert to that profile for printing, which is what rdeloe1 seems to be doing. But as I understand it, you're not. You're just printing the image as is without any conversion, and QTRGui won't do any conversion, so what you're soft-proofing does not reflect what you're actually printing. You either have to do the conversion to the ICC for the soft-proof to be valid, or to use "preserve numbers" which soft-proofs what happens if you print the image without doing the conversion. As we've discussed, you can't do "preserve numbers" in LR.
2016-02-10 by rdeloe1@...
Brian, your advice is really helpful. Thanks. I'd really like to be able to get the results I need with a Lightroom workflow, so the Photoshop route is not something I want to try yet. I'm going to go try again with specific ICCs for each paper and ink.
If something useful comes out of my learning process I'll share the findings here in case others are trying to use a Windows Lightroom to QTR workflow.
2016-02-11 by Roy Harrington
2016-02-11 by Larry Beach
Thanks all,
I was having similar problems too, and this workflow seems to work for the best for me too.
I often need to export into Elements, but then I can reimport the TIFF to LR. I was worried that LR may do some underhanded file handling during the export.
Larry
--------------------------------------------
On Wed, 2/10/16, Roy Harrington roy@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Lightroom and QTR for Windows -- advice for an export for QTR strategy
To: "QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com" <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>
Received: Wednesday, February 10, 2016, 5:12 PM
It’s this insight that led
me to trying the approach I described here (i.e., getting
the image “right” on my calibrated monitor in Lightroom,
then exporting with a linear ICC – Roy’s
RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC, and then printing in QTR with attention
to Ink Limit values). Note I also tried it with the ICC I
made for that paper and ink, reading the L values from a
print of a 21 step chart with a known even distribution of
gray values; there was no difference to my eye in shadow
detail compared to the export with RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC.
Exporting with either seems to have lined things up properly
in the shadows.
My guess would be that this is the
most straightforward approach. Just set up a
Preset for this Export:-- TIFF, convert to
RGB_Matte_Paper on output, some reasonable PPI like
360.
You should be
able to use this on any matte paper for decent
screen/print match.Set up a second one if you do
Photo paper too.
Roy
BTW, several posts talk about a
"linear" ICC/color space. The QTR driver curves
are linear in L - Lab space,but end points are
dMin and dMax which makes them a little different than
editing spaces -- such asQTR_RGB_Lab, or gamma
spaces. The linear with dMin and dMax are what the
RGB_Matte_PaperICCs match. Since all the curves
are linearized we get to have these "generic ICCs"
that workwith many papers.
Roy
--
Roy
Harrington
roy@...
www.harrington.com
#yiv5021378016 #yiv5021378016 --2016-02-11 by brian_downunda@...
Roy
Conversion to the ICC is the simplest workflow, but .... in that post of yours from early last year that I linked to above, you said "Throughout most of the range it's [
a linearisation plot post conversion to and ICC] closer to diagonal, but curves at the bottom compressing the shadows a bit. So, yes, it doesn't work miracles but its the 'best' compromise. If you want more open shadows you've got to edit your file to do that -- I think you have the best control doing this. "
What is your current view on this? It's certainly my experience that in an image with deep shadows, converting to the ICC will lose shadow detail, and in the deep shadows it's hard to recover. This is why Jon Cone is so against converting to the ICC. What is your own experience of this?
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <roy@...> wrote :
Show quoted textHide quoted text
My guess would be that this is the most straightforward approach.
Just set up a Preset for this Export:
-- TIFF, convert to RGB_Matte_Paper on output, some reasonable PPI like 360.
You should be able to use this on any matte paper for decent screen/print match.
Set up a second one if you do Photo paper too.
2016-02-14 by rdeloe1@...
Based on the advice received in this thread and lots more
testing, I’ve settled on a Windows Lightroom workflow that works reliably and
consistently. Some more details on actual outcomes and testing are in the Digital
Black and White forum (https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/conversations/topics/108825).
In case anyone wants to try this workflow out, here’s a
summary of the main steps (with some important adjustments from earlier information
in the thread).
1. Assuming a calibrated monitor, prepare the image in
Lightroom. The goal is to have the image on screen look like what you’re hoping
to see on the printer, or on the screen if you’re uploading it to a web site.
2. Export a TIFF prepared specifically for printing using QTR.
My settings are as follows: 16 bit; sharpen for matte paper to standard; set to
720 dpi; and, for the color space, use the RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC that ships with
QTR.
3. Print using the curve you prepared for the paper and ink
you’re using. I’m currently using adapted versions of Paul Roark’s “generic” curves
for matte paper (see the above linke); they work remarkably well in my setup.
Why I’m using RGB_Matte_Paper.ICC is explained and discussed
in earlier posts in this thread. Briefly, what it’s doing at export time is
adjusting the shadows in the TIFF so that when printed with QTR they look like
they do on screen. Brian (above) wondered if this was crushing the shadows, but
Roy Harrington’s response (also above) suggests it shouldn’t be a major
concern. I’ve been testing this on about a dozen images where shadow details
are crucial, e.g., where the difference between dMax and very dark gray is
important to the of the image. They all look good to me (and I’m picky). Note that I've tested exporting using an ICC made specifically for the ink and paper, and I find that RGB_Matte_Paper does a better job.
What I’m not doing
is soft proofing in Lightroom using an ICC prepared specifically for the ink
and paper combination and then exporting with that ICC (per Brian’s advice,
above). I’ve come down on Keith Cooper’s side of this question (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html).
He doesn’t see much point in soft proofing for black and white work, and I have
to agree relative to my situation. Even though my monitor is hardware calibrated
(and it’s a wide gamut Dell U2413 so it’s well suited to this job), my
environment isn’t perfectly controlled; sometimes it’s in daylight, sometimes
it’s in artificial light, and I don’t have a viewing booth. Brian (above in
this thread) referred to Jon Cone’s approach. I read more on how much
control he has over his working environment (e.g., see his blog post http://www.piezography.com/PiezoPress/blog/piezography-life/dmax/). It even comes down to not wearing bright clothing! I can’t have that kind of control where I’m working, so trying for a perfect
correspondence between the screen and the printer is pointless.
In case you’re worried that this approach will burn through
a lot of paper and ink to get it right, that’s not been my experience. If I’m planning
to make a larger print, I normally print a test of the image on half a sheet of
8.5"x11" paper. I’ll often see problems in the print that I didn’t see on screen
(e.g., tonal relationships not quite right, composition issues that I missed). I
can usually see what I need to do back in Lightroom, and most of the time the
next test print is what I envisioned. I have yet to run into a situation where
the issue was the print didn’t match what I was seeing on screen (e.g.,
highlights blown on the print but fine on screen, or shadows crushed on the
print but proper on screen). Of course this only works because my monitor is properly calibrated and I know how to compensate for different lighting.
I hope this is helpful to other Windows Lightroom users who
are printing with QTR. This approach works for me, and it may work for you. If
you’re struggling to get what you see in Lightroom in your prints with QTR,
then give this approach a try. It might work as well for you as it does for me. Simple is good!
2016-02-15 by brian_downunda@...
If you've got a workflow that works for you, then who am I to tell you not to use it? All I can say is that my experience is that converting to a custom ICC can crush shadows in ways that can't be recovered, even in 16 bit editing. It may not be a major concern for Roy, but I have found it to be so. However it is an image-by-image proposition.
When you say that RGB_Matte_Paper does a better job than a custom profile, better in what sense? A generic profile shouldn't provide a better result than a custom, and the fact that it is, is an indicator of something. Perhaps that the generic profile is having less impact on the shadows than the custom, which may not be true for all papers.
Regarding soft-proofing, my experience is that it works fairly well (preserve numbers setting in PS) and you don't need to go to the extremes that Jon Cone suggests. IMHO Jon doesn't adapt his experience very well to the typical user who isn't running a printing studio. A good screen, well calibrated for print, certainly helps as does a measurement device. And a copy of PS. But I draw the line there.
I have a lot of respect for Kenneth Cooper as a tester of printers, and I agree with him (and Jon Cone) that the final print is the ultimate test. He doesn't actually say that he doesn't see the point, or that it doesn't work, only that he opts not to use it because it distracts him from the print. That's a statement of preference and an indication of the extent of his printing experience. For the rest of us, a reliable soft-proof is a substitute for that experience. Soft-proofing from PS works quite well without a lot of complexity. As you've observed, working solely from LR is another matter.
2016-02-15 by rdeloe1@...
Brian, I tried hard to make it clear that my comments relate only and entirely to Lightroom. I don't use Photoshop and have nothing to say one way or the other about soft proofing from PS. I'm very happy to hear that it works well for you and other people who use Photoshop.
Logically a custom ICC should be more accurate than a generic one like RGB_Matte_Paper. I totally agree. However, when I compared soft proofing with RGB_Matte_Paper and custom profiles, I saw the histogram changing ever so slightly, but the image itself did not change in a way that was apparent to my eye. Similarly, when I exported from Lightroom with custom profile and with RGB_Matte_Paper and then printed, looking carefully for differences, I didn't see any. I'll be the first to admit that this isn't conclusive evidence of anything. What I did notice was that with the custom ICC for the optically brightened paper, Lightroom reported that the image was out of gamut for both screen and printer. Given that the generic one seemed to be handling my shadows properly, I simply chose to not bother finding out what the issue was. So for me, "better" simply means "it seems to work and produces results I like with no issues". It's a personal call.
You're correct that I'm definitely in the camp that says what matters is the final print. This clearly is a hangover from my darkroom days! Keith Cooper's claim that "the usefulness of soft proofing is frequently overplayed, and used as an excuse not to really get a feel for how printers perform with different papers" is pretty strong. He was writing about Photoshop. If soft proofing in Lightroom helped me make better prints, I'd be using it religiously. I would be happy to find out that I'm doing something wrong and not getting the full benefit of soft proofing in Lightroom. In the meantime, I can make prints that meet my expectations.
Happy printing.
2016-02-15 by Larry
Brian is very much into numbers and linearisation, for some very good reasons. Because of this I've learned a lot in a short period of time, and that's without much of the colour management hardware. For me, not having the colour management tools forces me to be more of a final print matters guy.
I compared Epson's ABW and QTR prints, it struck me that the ABW looked sharper than it was supposed to. Brian had produced an ABW curve showing that dark tones were getting crunched together. As deep shadows went to grey, the ABW print went almost from black to white. The sharpening effect was not necessarily offensive, but I wasn't in control of it. That I don't like.
Brian also did a curve for Roy's RGBicc profile, and it showed some crunching of deep shadows also. That left me wondering if Roy's profiles were really meant for soft proofing only, and not for embedding into the TIFF for printing. (This would be a similar workflow as in piezography, I believe.)
I seem to be getting a nice final print by soft proofing with the RGBicc, but not embedding it into the file before printing. I haven't tried embedding the icc and printing myself. Maybe I'll try it and see if it has any significant effect on the final print. Unfortunately, the only matte paper I have is Red River Aurora Art Natural which doesn't have a large dmax for deep shadows.
Brian, if I've got some of this wrong, feel free to rip it apart!
Larry
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Feb 14, 2016, 18:57, at 18:57, "rdeloe1@... [QuadtoneRIP]" <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>Brian, I tried hard to make it clear that my comments relate only and
>entirely to Lightroom. I don't use Photoshop and have nothing to say
>one way or the other about soft proofing from PS. I'm very happy to
>hear that it works well for you and other people who use Photoshop.
>
>Logically a custom ICC should be more accurate than a generic one like
>RGB_Matte_Paper. I totally agree. However, when I compared soft
>proofing with RGB_Matte_Paper and custom profiles, I saw the histogram
>changing ever so slightly, but the image itself did not change in a way
>that was apparent to my eye. Similarly, when I exported from Lightroom
>with custom profile and with RGB_Matte_Paper and then printed, looking
>carefully for differences, I didn't see any. I'll be the first to admit
>that this isn't conclusive evidence of anything. What I did notice was
>that with the custom ICC for the optically brightened paper, Lightroom
>reported that the image was out of gamut for both screen and printer.
>Given that the generic one seemed to be handling my shadows properly, I
>simply chose to not bother finding out what the issue was. So for me,
>"better" simply means "it seems to work and produces results I like
>with no issues". It's a personal call.
>
>You're correct that I'm definitely in the camp that says what matters
>is the final print. This clearly is a hangover from my darkroom days!
>Keith Cooper's claim that "the usefulness of soft proofing is
>frequently overplayed, and used as an excuse not to really get a feel
>for how printers perform with different papers" is pretty strong. He
>was writing about Photoshop. If soft proofing in Lightroom helped me
>make better prints, I'd be using it religiously. I would be happy to
>find out that I'm doing something wrong and not getting the full
>benefit of soft proofing in Lightroom. In the meantime, I can make
>prints that meet my expectations.
>
>Happy printing.
2016-02-15 by brian_downunda@...
It's certainly true that I'm interested in understanding why I'm
seeing what I'm seeing in a print. It provides a greater degree of
predictability and control, something I value compared to my old wet darkroom.
[Aside:
understanding why you were seeing what you were seeing in a print was a
not insignificant issue for Piezography users prior to June 2015. It
was rare than a curve was non-linear, and differences between papers
were often driven by differences in linearity. But since the advent of
Roy's relinearisation droplet, that element is gone and we can really
start to explore the performance differences between papers, aided of course by a
good soft-proof. YMMV.]
I'll post your comparative prints tomorrow Larry, so that you can become a better person by poring over them studiously.
2016-02-15 by brian_downunda@...
For those who hadn't worked it out, that sentence should read "It
was rare than a curve was
perfectly linear" ...
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <brian_downunda@...> wrote :
It's certainly true that I'm interested in understanding why I'm
seeing what I'm seeing in a print. It provides a greater degree of
predictability and control, something I value compared to my old wet darkroom.
[Aside:
understanding why you were seeing what you were seeing in a print was a
not insignificant issue for Piezography users prior to June 2015. It
was rare than a curve was non-linear, and differences between papers
were often driven by differences in linearity. But since the advent of
Roy's relinearisation droplet, that element is gone and we can really
start to explore the performance differences between papers, aided of course by a
good soft-proof. YMMV.]
I'll post your comparative prints tomorrow Larry, so that you can become a better person by poring over them studiously.
2016-02-15 by forums@walkerblackwell.com
ABW curves are not linear. This is actually on purpose because epson is doing their best to match poorly constructed displays unable to match gamma 2.2 and the low contrast ratio required.
regards,
Walker
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 8:12 AM, brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> For those who hadn't worked it out, that sentence should read "It was rare than a curve was perfectly linear" ...
>
>
>
> ---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>, <brian_downunda@...> wrote :
>
> It's certainly true that I'm interested in understanding why I'm seeing what I'm seeing in a print. It provides a greater degree of predictability and control, something I value compared to my old wet darkroom.
>
> [Aside: understanding why you were seeing what you were seeing in a print was a not insignificant issue for Piezography users prior to June 2015. It was rare than a curve was non-linear, and differences between papers were often driven by differences in linearity. But since the advent of Roy's relinearisation droplet, that element is gone and we can really start to explore the performance differences between papers, aided of course by a good soft-proof. YMMV.]
>
> I'll post your comparative prints tomorrow Larry, so that you can become a better person by poring over them studiously.
>
>
2016-02-15 by Harvey Fishman
Actually, I believe that the sentence should read "It was rare that a
curve was perfectly linear" ...
Harvey
------ Original Message ------
From: "brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP]"
<QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Cc: fishman@...
Sent: 02/15/2016 08:12:36
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Lightroom and QTR for Windows -- advice for
an export for QTR strategy
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
>
>For those who hadn't worked it out, that sentence should read "It was
>rare than a curve was perfectly linear" ...
>
>Posted by: brian_downunda@...
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
>
>
2016-02-16 by jeff.grant@...
Walker, do you have anything from Epson to substantiate that statement. I struggle with the concept of making ABW non-linear to compensate for crappy monitors.
2016-02-16 by forums@walkerblackwell.com
Yes.
Buy Print-Tool and build a CreateICC profile with it for ABW. It works
Walker
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 8:13 PM, jeff.grant@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Walker, do you have anything from Epson to substantiate that statement. I struggle with the concept of making ABW non-linear to compensate for crappy monitors.
>
>
2016-02-16 by Larry Beach
OK, now I'm confused. But, I'd expect to be confused because my interest in ABW/QTR/piezo along with curves and profiles is relatively new. I feel like I've completed first year at university, and on the first day of my 2nd year I feel I know nothing again!
Larry
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2/15/16, 'forums@...' forums@walkerblackwell.com [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Lightroom and QTR for Windows -- advice for an export for QTR strategy
To: "QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com" <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, February 15, 2016, 5:14 PM
Yes.
Buy Print-Tool and build a
CreateICC profile with it for ABW. It works
Walker
On Feb 15, 2016, at 8:13 PM, jeff.grant@...
[QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
Walker, do you have anything
from Epson to substantiate that statement. I struggle with
the concept of making ABW non-linear to compensate for
crappy monitors.
#yiv4990510047 #yiv4990510047 --2016-02-16 by jeff.grant@...
Walker,
If you have something from Epson that says that they designed ABW to compensate for crappy monitors, please share it. I long ago decided against ABW for my printing. Telling me to use Print Tool is highly unlikely to have come from Epson.
2016-02-16 by forums@walkerblackwell.com
It was my own observations and measurements of ABW that made me come to this belief.
BUT,
Print Tool can do some calibration of the ABW funkyness as Roy built it to use BW ICC profiles in ABW mode. I have done this calibration and it did work. Not anywhere near as good as using a good QTR .quad or Piezography .quad though in my opinion . . .
best
Walker
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> On Feb 15, 2016, at 8:31 PM, jeff.grant@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Walker,
>
>
> If you have something from Epson that says that they designed ABW to compensate for crappy monitors, please share it. I long ago decided against ABW for my printing. Telling me to use Print Tool is highly unlikely to have come from Epson.
>
>
2016-02-16 by Larry Beach
This may be beginning to make sense now, but not completely...
"Roy built it (Print Tool?) to use BWICC profiles in ABW mode."
Does this mean that, on a Mac, Print Tool is working WITH Epson's ABW mode?
PC's don't use Print Tool. Is PC printing a whole other kettle of fish?
--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 2/15/16, 'forums@...' forums@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Lightroom and QTR for Windows -- advice for an export for QTR strategy
To: "QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com" <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>
Received: Monday, February 15, 2016, 5:33 PM
It was my own observations and measurements of ABW
that made me come to this belief.
BUT,
Print Tool can do some
calibration of the ABW funkyness as Roy built it to use BW
ICC profiles in ABW mode.
I have done this calibration and it did work. Not anywhere
near as good as using a good QTR .quad or Piezography .quad
though in my opinion . . .
bestWalker
On Feb 15, 2016, at 8:31 PM, jeff.grant@...
[QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>
wrote:
Walker,
If you have something from Epson
that says that they designed ABW to compensate for crappy
monitors, please share it. I long ago decided against ABW
for my printing. Telling me to use Print Tool is highly
unlikely to have come from Epson.
#yiv9582836730 #yiv9582836730 --2016-02-16 by jeff.grant@...
Thanks Walker. We are singing from the same hymn book. Piezography and QTR are the way to go for me.
2016-02-16 by Paul Roark
As a potentially related aside, with some of the higher volume MIS B&W inksets I made, the Epson driver gave a curve that was way off the mark in terms of what we'd can an ideal Gray Gamma 2.2 curve or a QTR linear curve. I received a fair amount of feedback that people liked that rendering. It matched their laptop displays better than the properly made profiles.
Paul
Show quoted textHide quoted text
On Mon, Feb 15, 2016 at 5:13 PM,
jeff.grant@... [QuadtoneRIP]
<QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Walker, do you have anything from Epson to substantiate that statement. I struggle with the concept of making ABW non-linear to compensate for crappy monitors.
2016-02-16 by brian_downunda@...
Larry
I believe that it's the same on Mac OS X and PC. As we've discussed separately, there are two basic choices - to convert to the ICC when printing or not. Unless someone can contradict me, that's how Print Tool works. You can select "No Colour Management" and not convert, or you can specify "Application Management" and convert, in which case you must also specify a profile. This is no different to printing via Photoshop or Qimage and specifying a profile. It converts to the specified profile. The "Epson ABW Mode" checkbox merely allows access to ABW settings in the printer driver, as the manual says:
"
If your Epson Printer supports Epson’s Advanced Black & White (ABW) for your print, and you will be using ABW settings for your print, be it a finished print or a target for profiling, this box must be checked. It enables access to the ABW settings in the Epson printer driver."
I can't see anywhere else to specify a profile. I have read that some time ago there use to be the option to specify a profile in the ABW driver, and an Adobe employee Aric Chan created some, but Epson in their infinite wisdom removed that option. It's possible that Walker is recalling this former option, or it could be that he is suggesting converting to the ICC one way or another, which as we've discussed would be directly against the official InkJetMall approach.
@Harvey Fishman - thanks. Clearly proof-reading is not my strength.
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <pianoquartet@...> wrote :
This may be beginning to make sense now, but not completely...
"Roy built it (Print Tool?) to use BWICC profiles in ABW mode."
Does this mean that, on a Mac, Print Tool is working WITH Epson's ABW mode?
PC's don't use Print Tool. Is PC printing a whole other kettle of fish?
2016-02-16 by forums@walkerblackwell.com
Not sure if I can post a screen-shot to this.
However, included in this reply is a screenshot of QTR in ABW mode Application Managed with a Grayscale CreateICC profile applied (in perceptual mode).
Steps:
1. Print a GG2.2 target file through ABW with “No Color Management" in DARK mode, everything else zeroed.
2. Read them in as desired with a spectro (I used an i1Pro or i1Pro2 and ColorPort)
3. Build a Grayscale Create ICC with the resulting Lab Cgats.
4. Install the grayscale profile.
5. Select the grayscale profile in perceptual mode with Epson ABW Mode checked.
6. Result is linear for any source space but I recommend sticking to the 2.2s (aka Adobe RGB or GrayGamma 2.2)
PrintTool lets you regain the lost ability to do a “perceptually linear” profile of ABW. (But why do it when QTR is a better driver in my opinion).
best,
Walker
Show quoted textHide quoted text
>
> I can't see anywhere else to specify a profile. I have read that some time ago there use to be the option to specify a profile in the ABW driver, and an Adobe employee Aric Chan created some, but Epson in their infinite wisdom removed that option. It's possible that Walker is recalling this former option, or it could be that he is suggesting converting to the ICC one way or another, which as we've discussed would be directly against the official InkJetMall approach.
>
2016-02-16 by Mark Savoia
When using the print tool, if I have a bunch of images laid out with it and edit the original files (levels for example), when I hit the print button - will it print the new versions or do I have to add the files back in again? It does not seem to change the preview look on the fly.
Thanks, Mark
Feature request: have background grid with inch indicators added
2016-02-17 by brian_downunda@...
Walker, for Piezography printing, your IJM colleague Jon Cone has been implacably opposed to converting to such an ICC in order to achieve perceptual linearity, rather than printing on Grey Gamma 2.2 using a QTR curve that is linear in luminosity. The reason being that it often loses shadow detail by crushing it. Although ABW is not Piezography, my limited experiments with your suggested workflow for ABW in the past raised similar concerns. There are other ways to use the ICC that avoid this trap, even for ABW.
@Larry - my previous response stands. As we've discussed at length separately, you have two choices - to convert to an ICC or not. Walker is advocating converting to the ICC, and describing how you'd do that in Print Tool. In Windows, you'd have to do this in Photoshop or Qimage. The ABW mode button in Print Tool doesn't change anything - it just enables ABW, with the same options you see in Windows.
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <forums@...> wrote :
Not sure if I can post a screen-shot to this.
However, included in this reply is a screenshot of QTR in ABW mode Application Managed with a Grayscale CreateICC profile applied (in perceptual mode).
Steps:
1. Print a GG2.2 target file through ABW with “No Color Management" in DARK mode, everything else zeroed.
2. Read them in as desired with a spectro (I used an i1Pro or i1Pro2 and ColorPort)
3. Build a Grayscale Create ICC with the resulting Lab Cgats.
4. Install the grayscale profile.
5. Select the grayscale profile in perceptual mode with Epson ABW Mode checked.
6. Result is linear for any source space but I recommend sticking to the 2.2s (aka Adobe RGB or GrayGamma 2.2)
PrintTool lets you regain the lost ability to do a “perceptually linear” profile of ABW. (But why do it when QTR is a better driver in my opinion).
best,
Walker
2016-02-17 by forums@walkerblackwell.com
I don’t think crushed perceptually linear is as good as Gamma 2.2 (in general) either. I just think it’s closer to the crushed linear of most iffy screens than even what ABW is trying to do with its own out-of-lin configuration.
So . . . . when you’re in the swamps swim like a gator.
But otherwise go Piezography/QTR and full gamma 2.2
It’s entirely eye-of-the-beholder on this.
best,
Walker
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> On Feb 16, 2016, at 7:17 PM, brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> Walker, for Piezography printing, your IJM colleague Jon Cone has been implacably opposed to converting to such an ICC in order to achieve perceptual linearity, rather than printing on Grey Gamma 2.2 using a QTR curve that is linear in luminosity. The reason being that it often loses shadow detail by crushing it. Although ABW is not Piezography, my limited experiments with your suggested workflow for ABW in the past raised similar concerns. There are other ways to use the ICC that avoid this trap, even for ABW.
>
> @Larry - my previous response stands. As we've discussed at length separately, you have two choices - to convert to an ICC or not. Walker is advocating converting to the ICC, and describing how you'd do that in Print Tool. In Windows, you'd have to do this in Photoshop or Qimage. The ABW mode button in Print Tool doesn't change anything - it just enables ABW, with the same options you see in Windows.
>
>
>
> ---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>, <forums@...> wrote :
>
> Not sure if I can post a screen-shot to this.
>
> However, included in this reply is a screenshot of QTR in ABW mode Application Managed with a Grayscale CreateICC profile applied (in perceptual mode).
>
> Steps:
>
> 1. Print a GG2.2 target file through ABW with “No Color Management" in DARK mode, everything else zeroed.
> 2. Read them in as desired with a spectro (I used an i1Pro or i1Pro2 and ColorPort)
> 3. Build a Grayscale Create ICC with the resulting Lab Cgats.
> 4. Install the grayscale profile.
> 5. Select the grayscale profile in perceptual mode with Epson ABW Mode checked.
> 6. Result is linear for any source space but I recommend sticking to the 2.2s (aka Adobe RGB or GrayGamma 2.2)
>
> PrintTool lets you regain the lost ability to do a “perceptually linear” profile of ABW. (But why do it when QTR is a better driver in my opinion).
>
> best,
> Walker
>
>
>
>
2016-02-17 by brian_downunda@...
This has wandered far from the OP's OP, but as he seems satisfied that doesn't really matter.
As I alluded to in my last post, you can do better with ABW and an ICC. You can use the ICC to do a preserve numbers soft-proof (yes, those pesky, much-maligned soft-proofs again) and edit knowing to a reasonable level of confidence what the initial print will look like, all without crushing the shadows. You can go a step further and use the output file from constructing the ICC to create a Photoshop curve to offset ABW's non-linearity when printing. You can do both. But to be honest, anyone with this level of understanding is unlikely to be using ABW, they're more likely to use QTR, either OEM or one of the monochrome inksets. I just wanted to make that point that there are alternatives to either using ABW as a black box, or to living with crushed shadows.
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <forums@...> wrote :
I don’t think crushed perceptually linear is as good as Gamma 2.2 (in general) either. I just think it’s closer to the crushed linear of most iffy screens than even what ABW is trying to do with its own out-of-lin configuration.
So . . . . when you’re in the swamps swim like a gator.
But otherwise go Piezography/QTR and full gamma 2.2
It’s entirely eye-of-the-beholder on this.
best,
Walker
2016-02-17 by Mark Savoia
Well I got no response from anyone so I answered my own question. It does not refresh the image in the layout window. It needs to be deleted and place again.
Still would like the feature of inches added to the grid if possible.
Mark
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> On Feb 16, 2016, at 3:33 PM, Mark Savoia mark@stillrivereditions.com [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> When using the print tool, if I have a bunch of images laid out with it and edit the original files (levels for example), when I hit the print button - will it print the new versions or do I have to add the files back in again? It does not seem to change the preview look on the fly.
>
> Thanks, Mark
>
> Feature request: have background grid with inch indicators added
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Mark Savoia <mark@stillrivereditions.com>
> ------------------------------------
2016-02-21 by paulmwhiting@...
@rdeloe:
This thread may have come to an end, but I wonder if this might help:
There's apparently a group of folks who use Lightroom and Photoshop Elements. One reason they like Lightroom is that it's easier to organize files than PSE's Organizer. I think you said you don't have nor want to have PS or CSuite. Elements is a lot cheaper and can do much of what PS does but what's germane to what I think you're looking for is that you can use Paul's GG22-toQTR curve just before printing. It enables you to deal with the curve mismatch between PSE and QTR. The curve was created in PS. PSE cannot create curves but it can read them. (There is a plug-in for Elements called Smart Curve so it might be possible to create such a curve after all - I have the plug-in but haven't tried to create a curve similar to Paul's.)
A lot of this thread has been over my head but if I understand correctly how Paul's curve works it might be what you're looking for... PSE is under $100.
My two cents,
Paul W.
2016-02-21 by Larry Beach
Paul, the thread's not dead just yet, I'm still pondering....
Interestingly Brian suggested the same thing to me. However, there is a possible can of unexpected worms. Perhaps some one who has this plugin can verify?
There seem to be a few schools of thought on this.
After adjusting the B&W image as you like, save as a TIFF.
1st method:
1) open in LR (or PSE/Elements+)
2) embed Roy's RGB plugin, soft proof in PSE/Elements+
3) print image with embedded profile from QTR.
Benefits: soft proof should look identical to print.
Possible issue: deep shadows may be compressed. This part I haven't checked, but according to Brian's analysis of Roy's curve, it compresses the shadows, but overall it seems more linear than any of the ABW profiles.
2nd method:
1) open in LR (or PSE/Elements+
2) soft proof using Roy's RGB plugin, but don't embed profile
2a) if you have PS, soft proof using preserve numbers. (This should match the QTR print of the non-embedded file.) QUESTION: Does Elements+ allow soft proofing with preserve numbers? Do any plugins allow soft proofing using preserve numbers?
3) Print image file from QTR.
Benefits: less chance of shadows being compressed.
Possible issue: soft proof may not match print.
Possible PSE plugin can o' worms: I've read that the plugins don't soft proof in the same way that PS. I've forgotten exactly what the issue is, but it's something on the lines of plugins not having deep enough access to PSE to replicate the PS soft proofing exactly. Also, I suspect the preserve numbers is not available in a plugin. Can some one confirm this?
For now I'm siding with the 2nd method. I'm extremely sensitive to compressed shadows. I'm prepared to avoid compressing shadows, even a the cost of a soft proof that may not match exactly. However, I will test this sometime.
Larry
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 2/21/16, paulmwhiting@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Lightroom and QTR for Windows -- advice for an export for QTR strategy
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Received: Sunday, February 21, 2016, 1:43 PM
@rdeloe:
This
thread may have come to an end, but I wonder if this might
help:
There's
apparently a group of folks who use Lightroom and Photoshop
Elements. One reason they like Lightroom is that it's
easier to organize files than PSE's Organizer. I think
you said you don't have nor want to have PS or CSuite.
Elements is a lot cheaper and can do much of what PS does
but what's germane to what I think you're looking
for is that you can use Paul's GG22-toQTR curve just
before printing. It enables you to deal with the curve
mismatch between PSE and QTR. The curve was created in PS.
PSE cannot create curves but it can read them. (There is a
plug-in for Elements called Smart Curve so it might be
possible to create such a curve after all - I have the
plug-in but haven't tried to create a curve similar to
Paul's.)
A lot of this
thread has been over my head but if I understand correctly
how Paul's curve works it might be what you're
looking for... PSE is under $100.
My two cents,
Paul W.
#yiv8669878604 #yiv8669878604 --2016-02-22 by paulmwhiting@...
Thanks, Larry,
But like I said, much of this is over my head. I'm embarrassed to say this, but I don't even know what "soft proofing" is. Well, it's about time I learn - I learn by asking questions, however elementary!
I looked at all Brian's posts but couldn't find the reference you mentioned... could you give me the first few words of which of his posts mentions GG22-to-QTR? Thanks!
Paul W.
2016-02-22 by brian_downunda@...
I have mentioned
GG22-to-QTR to Larry separately, but I can't see that I mentioned it directly in this thread. It's mentioned in rdeloe1's original post. It's a suggestion made by Paul Roark. My understanding is that applying this curve in PS or PSE before printing approximately simulates converting the image to an ICC. See:
http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/QTR-Printing-Windows.pdf(Note: In Larry's last post, when he mentions "embed / softproof using Roy's RGB plugin" , I believe he is referring to converting to or soft-proofing using an ICC derived from the "QTR-Create-ICC-RGB" program that ships with QTR.)
2016-02-22 by paulmwhiting@...
Thanks for that clarification, Brian. Must have been another thread or
something, as you say. And yes, from what little I understand about
ICC's, using that curve does seem to emulate ICC's. Yes, I did see that in the OP, but I think part of my point was you can use Elements instead of having to buy the full-blown PS or CS. Elements can use that curve, just can't create one.
Right, you
can create an ICC in QTR... I've never tried it, however. I did learn
how to create a QTR curve. And after some work I was able to learn how
and linearize a curve using a flat-bed scanner and a Kodak 21 step gray
scale. That was a real victory! I posted my how-to here in the files
library.
Coincidentally, today I was browsing Red River paper's website and found a definition of soft-proofing.
It's been a good thread... I wish there was a way to make a printer-friendly file from it.
Best regards,
Paul W.
2016-02-23 by rdeloe1@...
@paulmwhiting, I do have Elements (version 11); thanks for
the reminder that it can handle PS curves even though it can’t make them. I
haven’t made much of an effort to try using GG22-to-QTR using the procedure you
described, mostly out of stubbornness! I’m really trying to avoid the extra
step.
Since making my earlier posts I have made some progress on
improving my Lightroom-only workflow. First off, if you read the whole thread, I
think @brian_downunda is absolutely correct regarding what you can and cannot
do with Lightroom. As he explains in earlier postings, there’s no "preserve
numbers" option in Lightroom, like there is in PhotoShop. The best you can
do during export is get close. I confirmed this for myself at the pixel level. If
you absolutely must have a perfect, 1:1 correspondence between the value of
pixels on screen and the tone on the print, then you simply must use Photoshop.
Using the procedure described below, the difference between what I saw on
screen and what I see in print ceased to be important, or even apparent, to me.
You’ll have to decide for yourself.
In the end I did come back to a softproofing approach (as
brian_downunda recommended…). One of the things that held me back previously
was that I use warm and neutral curves to get the tone I’m looking for with QTR’s
sliders. In Lightroom, you can only softproof (and export) with one ICC – so which
one do you use if you’re using two curves in QTR? My simple solution is to make
an ICC from a print made using whatever combination of curves I most often use
on that paper. For example, I’m currently printing a series of images on
Premier Art Smooth Bright White 200 gsm, and most of them are 100% Neutral for
the highlights, and then 50/50 for the midtones and shadows. Softproofing with
this ICC in Lightroom actually gives me a good sense for what the print will
look like (so I cheerfully take back my earlier suggestion that it wasn’t
telling me much!) I then export from Lightroom using that ICC. It’s not absolutely
1:1 perfect in the shadows, but it’s awfully close. Of course for special
situations, where you’re using dramatically different ratios with your curves,
you can make a specific ICC.
Importantly, in a very early posting in the thread I said I
was using QTR’s “Ink Limit (Shadows)” tool to bring up the shadows. I’m not doing
that anymore. I find that it’s too hit and miss, and it’s not necessary if you
can get control over the other aspects of the process (monitor calibration, QTR
curve and ICC generation, image processing, etc.)
2016-11-12 by brubaker_family@...
Can Print Tool be used to print with QTR control files for one printer to a different printer? In my case I want to print with 1400/1430 QTR control files on an R280 printer. I have the Eboni 6 inks in the R280 and would like to be able to print with all 6 inks rather than just the Black Only offered by the standard QTR setup for the R280.
Mike Brubaker
2016-11-13 by brian_downunda@...
Hard to be sure. In your case: maybe, maybe not.
In my experience you can use a QTR curve from one K3 printer on another K3 printer. When I say this, I'm not just referring to K3 inks, but any inkset in a K3 printer. There's going to be some printer to printer variation in linearity, but it should work. My understanding is that IJM used to create Piezo curves on this basis, not sure if that's still the case. You can even use a Piezo QTR curve from a K3 printer in hi-gloss printers like the R1900 & R2000, once you reorder the inks in the .quad file.
This works because they all use pretty much the same DX5 printhead. I tried using 1430 K6 curves in a K3 printer and it didn't work - the curve and prints were too light in a K3 printer. I assume that was because the printers used different inks (pigment vs dye) and so the 1430 used a different printhead. No doubt there are also firmware differences about how the ink is laid down.
Now the 1430 and R280 both use Claria® Hi-Definition dye ink, so perhaps you might be in luck. But a quick search on Alibaba suggests that the R280 uses a F180000 print head whereas the 1430 uses a F173050. Does this make a difference? Dunno. Reread the first line.
2016-11-15 by Brubaker family
Thank you for your response, Brian. It prompted me to experiment a bit, and I was able to install the 1400/1430 files into the QTR area for the R280 printer. I copied them into the QTR/Profiles/R260-R380-1400-MIS folder and then ran the Install R280-MIS.command file that is within that folder. I can print using those profiles from the Mac QTR Photoshop print process or through Print Tool. I have seen recommendations that printing through Print Tool is the better choice, though I don't fully understand why that is so.
Mike Brubaker
--------------------------------------------
On Sun, 11/13/16, brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Print Tool question
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sunday, November 13, 2016, 12:18 AM
Hard to be sure. In your case: maybe, maybe
not.
In my experience
you can use a QTR curve from one K3 printer on another K3
printer. When I say this, I'm not just referring to K3
inks, but any inkset in a K3 printer. There's going to
be some printer to printer variation in linearity, but it
should work. My understanding is that IJM used to create
Piezo curves on this basis, not sure if that's still the
case. You can even use a Piezo QTR curve from a K3 printer
in hi-gloss printers like the R1900 & R2000, once you
reorder the inks in the .quad file.
This works because they all use pretty much the
same DX5 printhead. I tried using 1430 K6 curves in a K3
printer and it didn't work - the curve and prints were
too light in a K3 printer. I assume that was because the
printers used different inks (pigment vs dye) and so the
1430 used a different printhead. No doubt there are also
firmware differences about how the ink is laid down.
Now the 1430 and R280 both use
Claria® Hi-Definition dye ink, so perhaps you might be in
luck. But a quick search on Alibaba suggests that the R280
uses a F180000 print head whereas the 1430 uses a F173050.
Does this make a difference? Dunno. Reread the first
line.
#yiv6025827279 #yiv6025827279 --2016-11-15 by brian_downunda@...
Mike, the question is not whether it works at all, since they're both 6 channel printers, but how well does it work? Do QTR curves from the 1430 print much the same on the R280? That's the magic question. I could use 1430 curves on my R1900 (with some adjustments to the .quad for ink placement), but the results were a very long way from linear.
On Print Tool, it would be better if it was answered by someone who uses a Mac more often than I, but my understanding is that if you print from PS direct to QTR and the image either has no colour space assigned or is in Grey Gamma 2.2, then the OS X print pipeline will do a hidden profile conversion en route to QTR, which will change the print from what you're expecting. Print Tool doesn't do this.
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <brubaker_family@...> wrote :
Thank you for your response, Brian. It prompted me to experiment a bit, and I was able to install the 1400/1430 files into the QTR area for the R280 printer. I copied them into the QTR/Profiles/R260-R380-1400-MIS folder and then ran the Install R280-MIS.command file that is within that folder. I can print using those profiles from the Mac QTR Photoshop print process or through Print Tool. I have seen recommendations that printing through Print Tool is the better choice, though I don't fully understand why that is so.
Mike Brubaker
2016-11-15 by Paul Roark
>; ... I could use 1430 curves on my R1900 (with some adjustments to the .quad for ink placement), but the results were a very long way from linear.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Did they linearize OK?
Paul
2016-11-16 by brian_downunda@...
TBH, I didn't even try. This wasn't a case of drift. The linearisation plot was a big arc above the straight line, and included a couple of wiggles. I just took it as indication that the technology was too different.
I just ran it through the relinearisation droplet now and despite its shape the droplet processed it and produced a new .quad, but I'm not going to bother seeing how well it was linearised for the same reason that I didn't try to relinearise it at the time. I did this as part of investigating which of the available K6 / P2 Piezography curves could be ported to my R1900. The curves from the recent K3 printers were fine. The ones from the 1430 and the 7000 were not. Thus there was no need to take it any further.
The relevance of this to Mike's situation is that
if he has a measurement device then he
may be able to relinearise the 1430 curves for the R280. But if he doesn't, then he's going to want a fairly good match as-is.
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <roark.paul@...> wrote :
> ... I could use 1430 curves on my R1900 (with some adjustments to the .quad for ink placement), but the results were a very long way from linear.
Show quoted textHide quoted text
Did they linearize OK?
Paul