Yahoo Groups archive

QTR-Quadtone RIP

Index last updated: 2026-04-28 23:12 UTC

Thread

Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-19 by per@...

Hi all,


I have a produced a very nice linearized profile for the p800 by using a densiometer and Roy's handy linearization app. I have verified linearity using the inkjet mall linearization spreadsheet. Prints themselves look great, but unfortunately darker compared to what I see on my monitor. I have profiled my monitor using D65 and 120cd/m2 as target. I output pictures from Lightroom into tiff Adobe RGB 1998 16 bits per component.


Any ideas to what is going on? Is the gamma in the output wrong, or am I profiling my monitor too high? How can I close the loop so that I get exactly the same brightness in the print as I see on my screen?


Regards,

-Per


Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-20 by per@...

Interesting. Do you use a special profile just for soft proofing, or is this how you run your setup at all times? If the former, do you have a simple way of switching back and forth? I find that the settings I have work well when I generate output for online viewing, so switching to 85 cd/m2 would probably make the pictures I post online too dark. Is 85 cd/m2 a generally accepted brightness for printing?

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-20 by richard@...

Like others have said, 120 is too bright. Though I actually think 85 is too dim. I do not edit in a dim environment and just keep my display at 100cdm.

There are two other things to consider as well.

One: What tone is the boarder of your editing app window. Lots of image editors now default to a darker background which can make your image appear lighter than it will actually print. I set my Photoshop background to 98% white so that it more or less mimics the paper boarder and so I can see if any tone in the edges is lighter than 2%.

Two: with really deep Dmaxs or gloss papers, the midtones will always look to dark with linear lab l. I correct for this by mapping the quad values to an modified output curve where 50%K is mapped slightly lighter to 46-47% and the shadows map back to linear starting around 75% through the Dmax (I use my own software for all this).

The glossy prints appearing too dark with linear lab L is basically the opposite problem that matte prints have by appearing too light when mapped to linear lab l.

Hope that helps,
Richard Boutwell

RE: [QuadtoneRIP] Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-20 by Rob Knowles

Maybe try ISO standards such as ISO3664 & ISO12646 when calibrating/ soft proofing etc. 

Works fine for me. 

 

Rob Knowles

Manager

m: 0400 930 036

e:  <mailto:robkdesigns@...> robkdesigns@...

w:www.robknowles.com.au <http://www.robknowles.com.au/> 

 

 <https://www.facebook.com/vision.imaging.photography/>        <https://www.instagram.com/rob_k_designs/>
Show quoted textHide quoted text
From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> 
Sent: Tuesday, 20 November 2018 5:39 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

 

  

Hi all, 

 

I have a produced a very nice linearized profile for the p800 by using a densiometer and Roy's handy linearization app. I have verified linearity using the inkjet mall linearization spreadsheet. Prints themselves look great, but unfortunately darker compared to what I see on my monitor. I have profiled my monitor using D65 and 120cd/m2 as target. I output pictures from Lightroom into tiff Adobe RGB 1998 16 bits per component. 

 

Any ideas to what is going on? Is the gamma in the output wrong, or am I profiling my monitor too high? How can I close the loop so that I get exactly the same brightness in the print as I see on my screen?

 

Regards,

-Per

 





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

RE: [QuadtoneRIP] Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-20 by mick.sang@...

Prints appearing darker than our displays is one of the most common issues with digital printing. The display MUST be calibrated. BUT, the settings are dependant upon ambient room lighting around the display. Regarding brightness, anywhere between 80 cd/m2 and 130 cd/m2 could work, again depending upon monitor and ambient room illumination. Then, the lighting under which you view the print must be calibrated to the display - see ISO 3664 as someone also mentioned. This video will also be helpful: http://digitaldog.net/files/Why_are_my_prints_too_dark.mp4

Mick

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-20 by Paul Roark


... Prints ... darker compared to what I see on my monitor. ...

To obtain and control the match between my modern, super-bright monitor and the final print, I've resorted to using an adjustment layer and final tweak of the image under that layer to make a "print" version of the file that is just for printing. I just manually adjusted and refined the curve I use in the layer. Although I used ICCs for years to do this "profiling," my current MS Studio setup does not allow that (or I could not find how to do it with this system). The modern monitor is extremely bright (and beautiful for most uses). As such, a very substantial drop in the maximum brightness was required. My adjustment curve's white end point is (255, 174). Aside from that it's a rather smooth, mildly concave-up curve. I can't just apply the layer right before the print because the monitor will look way too dark. So, I apply the layer (not flattening the file) and walk away from the monitor for a bit. Then when I return my eyes are not expecting the huge brightness. I do a final image file tweak, REMOVE the layer, and save the "print" copy of the file. The files are 16 bit, so I have plenty of "steps" in the remaining file.

It's crude compared to the ideal ICC approach, but it's the only approach I found that worked with this super-bright monitor (and MS's lack of making custom ICCs work easily on the system). I probably could adjust the monitor to be always "dull and dark," but aside from a print preview, the monitor is great; I like it's brightness for most purposes. It's just that, like the days of color slides with 500 watt light behind them, a paper print can't compete with this monitor.

FWIW,

Paul

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-20 by per@...

I have tried lowering the settings for my display calibration to d65 90cd/m2 (which requires me to set my monitor brightness to 5 out of 100), and viewing the image in lightroom on a white background. This improves things, but it is still not a close match (the screen is whiter than the print).

Given that I have printed a stepwedge through qtr with a confirmed linear profile, what route do I have to make sure that the screen brightness matches the print? I am using Canson Baryta Prestige paper which is very white. However, holding up the print to the screen, the print white is definitely not as bright as the screen.

Should I suspect my color profiler? I am using a colormunki display for the profiling.

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-20 by brian_downunda@...

I agree with the general thrust of the comments. I use settings similar to Jeff.

To answer your question about whether there's a simple way to switch back and forth between settings, I suspect that many people who talk about these sort of monitor settings are using either Eizo Coloredge or NEC Colorsync monitors, and on these hardware calibrateable monitors there is. I know for a fact that there is on Eizo and I believe that there is on NEC. I suspect that you may struggle to dial in exactly the sort of settings that we're talking about without monitors like these. They are much more expensive than your typical monitor, esp Eizo, but if you can manage to justify one you won't regret it.

The other point I'd make is that you want to match your editing set-up to your typical viewing conditions. Rob made reference to ISO standards, and given the country he is in that suggests that he's quoting the views of Les Walkling. This is something that Les emphasises a lot in his teaching, based around the ISO standards. IIRC one standard is for viewing and one for print proofing and you switch between them.

I don't follow those standards blindly, but bright viewing conditions and dark viewing conditions will change the way a print looks and you need to allow for that. Purists will recommend a D50 viewing booth, and while that plus the right monitor will make exact screen-to-print matching easy, that's not how my prints are viewed. A D50 viewing booth is a bit artificial, even if it is a reference standard. If you're editing at 120cd/m2 then you're going to need a very bright room to match that.



---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <per@...> wrote :

I have tried lowering the settings for my display calibration to d65 90cd/m2 (which requires me to set my monitor brightness to 5 out of 100), and viewing the image in lightroom on a white background. This improves things, but it is still not a close match (the screen is whiter than the print).

Given that I have printed a stepwedge through qtr with a confirmed linear profile, what route do I have to make sure that the screen brightness matches the print? I am using Canson Baryta Prestige paper which is very white. However, holding up the print to the screen, the print white is definitely not as bright as the screen.

Should I suspect my color profiler? I am using a colormunki display for the profiling.

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by forums@walkerblackwell.com

It’s also important to not view your prints under dim light (especially next to your monitor). This mistake is all-too-often made.

I always put my prints on a well-lit viewing wall at least 90 degrees from the monitor and ideally a few feet away. This forces me to stand up and walk over to the print. The mental lag between looking at the monitor light and looking at the print reflected light allows for a proper internal adjustment of expectation and a closer working relationship between monitor and print tones.

Best regards,
Walker


> On Nov 20, 2018, at 5:31 PM, brian_downunda@yahoo.com [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> I agree with the general thrust of the comments.  I use settings similar to Jeff.
> 
> To answer your question about whether there's a simple way to switch back and forth between settings, I suspect that many people who talk about these sort of monitor settings are using either Eizo Coloredge or NEC Colorsync monitors, and on these hardware calibrateable monitors there is.  I know for a fact that there is on Eizo and I believe that there is on NEC.  I suspect that you may struggle to dial in exactly the sort of settings that we're talking about without monitors like these.  They are much more expensive than your typical monitor, esp Eizo, but if you can manage to justify one you won't regret it.
> 
> The other point I'd make is that you want to match your editing set-up to your typical viewing conditions.  Rob made reference to ISO standards, and given the country he is in that suggests that he's quoting the views of Les Walkling.  This is something that Les emphasises a lot in his teaching, based around the ISO standards.  IIRC one standard is for viewing and one for print proofing and you switch between them.
> 
> I don't follow those standards blindly, but bright viewing conditions and dark viewing conditions will change the way a print looks and you need to allow for that.  Purists will recommend a D50 viewing booth, and while that plus the right monitor will make exact screen-to-print matching easy, that's not how my prints are viewed.  A D50 viewing booth is a bit artificial, even if it is a reference standard.  If you're editing at 120cd/m2 then you're going to need a very bright room to match that.
> 
> 
> 
> ---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com>, <per@...> wrote :
> 
> I have tried lowering the settings for my display calibration to d65 90cd/m2 (which requires me to set my monitor brightness to 5 out of 100), and viewing the image in lightroom on a white background. This improves things, but it is still not a close match (the screen is whiter than the print).
> 
> Given that I have printed a stepwedge through qtr with a confirmed linear profile, what route do I have to make sure that the screen brightness matches the print? I am using Canson Baryta Prestige paper which is very white. However, holding up the print to the screen, the print white is definitely not as bright as the screen.
> 
> Should I suspect my color profiler? I am using a colormunki display for the profiling.
> 
> 



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

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by per@...

My takeaway from the thread here is basically to 1) make sure I view the print in normal light for print viewing to make sure that it really should be brighter, 2) if there is still a mismatch, basically dial down the brightness of the screen version before printing.

Since I do not have softproofing profiles that correspond to my QTR profile, I am thinking that I may as well just decrease the exposure slider by a set amount in lightroom before exporting for QTR printing---other people seem to be using curves to mimick this or use a monitor profile with a low cd/m2 value but since I am happy with the monitor settings for online posting it seems like I should adjust the print version of pictures. This seems vaguely dissatisfying though I have to say after all the scientific mucking about I did to get a good QTR profile.

Is this really what cutting edge printers do when using QTR?


Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by Tracy Valleau

You might want to grab this file and perform " a sanity check " on your 
monitor. Click the link to download.

http://www.aardenburg-imaging.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/MonitorChecker_LAB_v5.1.psd.zip

Tracy
www.valleau.art

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by mick.sang@...

While it is quite true that viewing illumination is not how a print will be viewed, it is also true that when the print is viewed in the real world under any ambient illumination, it will not be critically evaluated against a displayed version of the image. That is essentially the only reason for standard viewing illumination i.e. to put the display and the print on a fairly equal footing for critical comparison. After that, the print is on its own.

Mick

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by Myron Gochnauer

Do you have the same problem with ABW and with colour prints? If you do, I would think it best to leave your QTR profiles alone, and make some other kind of adjustment to your process.


On Nov 20, 2018, at 10:00 PM, per@perbjesse.com [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

My takeaway from the thread here is basically to 1) make sure I view the print in normal light for print viewing to make sure that it really should be brighter, 2) if there is still a mismatch, basically dial down the brightness of the screen version before printing.


Since I do not have softproofing profiles that correspond to my QTR profile, I am thinking that I may as well just decrease the exposure slider by a set amount in lightroom before exporting for QTR printing---other people seem to be using curves to mimick this or use a monitor profile with a low cd/m2 value but since I am happy with the monitor settings for online posting it seems like I should adjust the print version of pictures. This seems vaguely dissatisfying though I have to say after all the scientific mucking about I did to get a good QTR profile.

Is this really what cutting edge printers do when using QTR?




Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by forums@walkerblackwell.com

> On Nov 20, 2018, at 9:00 PM, per@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> Is this really what cutting edge printers do when using QTR?

Doing a manual translation curve is not what cutting edge printers do, no. The first thing is to linearize/normalize your paper (you did it yay!). The second thing is to make sure you are working in Gray Gamma 2.2 space (Photoshop defaults to DotGain 20, check this out and convert to GG2.2 if you have the wrong working space.) The third thing to do is really look at your work environment. If you are viewing in too dark a space, than this will adversely effect your pixel-to-ink match. (In fifteen years of teaching print-work I can’t count how many times a student comes to me saying their print is too dark but they are looking at their print next to their monitor and the print is in the shadows.) The fourth thing to do is look at the actual computer screen environment. If you have a gray background in full-screen-mode, switch this to white so you can see your image as it appears on the printed page, etc.  The fifth (or first) thing, and this is actually what is really important which I think maybe the original poster is dancing around a bit, look at the quality of your monitor. If it’s a cheap monitor there is no way to actually do any cutting edge printing: it won’t show you the tonal range and will possibly never be properly calibrated. Think about buying an i1display or use your existing Spectro if it does monitors too, etc.

The takeaway here is this: if you’ve validated that the printer is printing in a uniform matter, that is not the problem. The problem is further upstream either with the gamma that you are saving your files in, or the monitor, room, etc. It could be a combination. Fudging with a temporary contrast match curve is a very old-school way of doing it when you have given up controlling any of the underlying variables at play and don’t want to get a better monitor. To answer the question above, no it’s not what cutting edge printmakers do: they actually control the variables directly so monitor matches printer or printer matches monitor.

Related to soft-proof: QTR_RGB_Matte and QTR_RGB_Gloss work just fine and are installed by default (at least on Mac, not sure on PC). You need to follow the instructions and soft proof using "Preserve RGB Numbers” if you are printing without an ICC (aka, on the PC or with no color management on the Mac).

Best regards,
Walker


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

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by per@...

Thanks for the informative reply Walker, this is awesome!

I am indeed viewing the print in too dim of lighting, and that is great first suggestion. I will set up a standard viewing environment. How many lux do people usually use when viewing prints that they make for other people?

I believe that my working space has gamma 2.2, I scan images in epson scan 16bit grayscale, which seems to output untagged files when I look at them in Photoshop. I usually do all of my editing in lightroom (with minor exceptions), and export for QTR in 16 bits/component in Adobe RGB (1998), which I believe has gamma 2.2. I do not see ICC profiles for QTR in colorspaces when exporting, so it seems like these icc profiles are not installed per default in windows when installing QTR. I will see if I can find them and add them manually. Would your advice be to use these as the output color space instead of a normal 2.2 space?

I have not generated output for printing for photoshop, but if I do it sounds like the right thing to do is to convert the untagged files to gray gamma 2.2 (rather than assign) before writing the tiff, correct?

My monitor is not super fancy but it is definitely capable and designed for high quality viewing (it is a Dell ultrasharp U2413, with 99% coverage of Adobe RGB and 100% of sRGB), so that would not be my first suspect. It has been profiled with a Colormunki Display which is by no means the fanciest of devices but I would imagine it does a decent job.

One thing that I am definitely not doing is to soft proof with QTR profiles; I had no idea these existed. I assume they are generic profiles that roughly match what QTR will output? Where can I get more information about this? I am indeed printing on a PC from QTR, so I will soft proof with "preserve RGB numbers".




Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by mick.sang@...

The ColorMunki display will do a good job. The key component is the brightness, as I mentioned in an earlier post. The recommendations which you will find on-line for the settings are only guides. The actual CD/m@ setting will be determined by your viewing illumination. You should also have no lamps within your view of the screen. So, they should be behind or well off to the sides. The colour of the viewing illumination is also very important. Warm lighting makes for warm prints while your display is set to D65.

Mick

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-21 by per@...

On a related note: I am setting up for digital negatives. My photoshop default space is indeed dot gain 20%, and I have read in the 21 step wedge that is included in QTR (which is untagged), and inverted and saved it for my experiments. The saved version is still untagged. Sample values of the steps have the right percentage black using the eye dropper.

Should I have done something different? Does my default working space matter when I read untagged files? Should I have converted the step wedge to gamma 2.2 before inverting and writing it? This is of course all in the context of printing the file through QTR (windows version).

I am realizing that there is a lot I don't know about color spaces for b&w printing. Is there a book someone can recommend that gives great background for someone that wants to understand how to set up the best possible printing flow?

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-25 by brian_downunda@...

Per

A few additional comments in response to some of your outstanding questions.

"I do not see ICC profiles for QTR in colorspaces when exporting, so it seems like these icc profiles are not installed per default in windows when installing QTR." They're not installed to the Windows directory for ICCs when QTR is installed. Walker mentioned QTR_RGB_Matte and QTR_RGB_Gloss, and you'll find them in C:\Program Files (x86)\QuadToneRIP\icc and you'll need to copy them to C:\Windows\System32\spool\drivers\color . Note that the Grey versions of these won't show up in LR, only the RGB versions. Both should appear in PS.

Since you have the ability to linearise a QTR curve, you also have the ability to create matching custom soft-proofing profiles. In C:\Program Files (x86)\QuadToneRIP\Eye-One you'll find QTR-Create-ICC and QTR-Create-ICC-RGB which you can use to create ICCs from your measurement data. The idea is to reprint your test chart with the linearised curve, measure and create the ICC.

Soft-proofing is usually regarded as a key part of colour printing, and IMHO it is also for monochrome. There is however one potential difference, in that not everyone uses the ICC to print with, some only use it to soft-proof in the so-called linear workflow. More details in a tongue-in-cheek blog entry I wrote on this topic. It's aimed primarily at Piezography users, but the principles apply to other inksets. Note also that the "preserve numbers" option used in the linear workflow means soft-proofing in PS - you can't do this in LR. You mentioned in an earlier post that you are aware of this option, also mentioned by Walker.

"I have read in the 21 step wedge that is included in QTR (which is untagged), and inverted and saved it for my experiments. The saved version is still untagged. Sample values of the steps have the right percentage black using the eye dropper. Should I have done something different? " I'm not qualified to comment on digital negatives, but for paper printing the answer to your question is no. You don't need to do anything to the 21 step wedge, you can leave it as untagged, on the assumption that you're printing it through QTRGui. QTRGui is not a colour managed application and will ignore any embedded ICC profiles. You could assign it to GG22 and that would also work. But what you don't want to is convert it to GG22 if your default working space is 20% dot gain. It's not clear why you'd want 20% as your default working space. As Walker mentioned, GG22 is a more convenient and safer option if you're primarily printing monochrome through QTR(Gui). If you want to keep your image as RGB then use AdobeRGB, which also has a gamma of 2.2. Again, this is for paper, others will have to correct me if dig neg requires something different.

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-29 by per@...

Thanks for the reply, Brian, lots of great stuff in there.

I use LR for the vast majority of my editing. However, as you wrote, there is no option to "preserve RGB numbers" in that soft proofing flow, which I understand to mean that there is not any way to really show what printing without color management through QTR will look like. Is that correct, and does this render this flow in effect fairly useless?

In terms of photoshop editing, it looks like I indeed can use the QTR default profiles but "preserve RGB numbers" is only available for the RGB profiles. Given this, what is the scenario when the gray profiles are used? Also: I see a big difference when using "simulate paper color". Is that typically the most faithful approach?

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-29 by forums@walkerblackwell.com

To enable “preserve numbers” with a grayscale ICC just convert you image to grayscale before soft proofing.

Best,
Walker



> On Nov 29, 2018, at 12:36 PM, per@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
> 
> In terms of photoshop editing, it looks like I indeed can use the QTR default profiles but "preserve RGB numbers" is only available for the RGB profiles. Given this, what is the scenario when the gray profiles are used? Also: I see a big difference when using "simulate paper color". Is that typically the most faithful approach?



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

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-29 by brian_downunda@...

Yes, I should have mentioned this, although probably didn't in the interests of brevity. A regular soft-proof should work with any ICC, but preserve numbers must use a matching ICC - RGB or Grey. If you create your own ICCs you can opt to create both. Once you move to PS, I don't see the point of keeping an image in RGB, since the file size is roughly 3X. I'd convert to GG22, and then you can do a preserve numbers with the greyscale ICCs. The only reason I'd keep an image in RGB is if I did the B&W conversion in PS and want the ability to revisit it.

As a general principle I prefer to do as much of my editing in the RAW converter as possible, either LR or C1, especially for online use and large image runs. But anything I'm going to do a fine print of will almost always be fine-tuned in PS. That's especially true for B&W, but I tend to do that even for colour, as I feel that I have more fine control in PS. LR has a good reputation for colour printing, as it has PK sharpener built in and you can resize on the fly, and you don't need to generate a TIFF to print. But once in PS I don't bother going back to the raw converter to print, and on Windows you can't print to QTR direct from either LR or PS anyway.


---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <forums@...> wrote :

To enable “preserve numbers” with a grayscale ICC just convert you image to grayscale before soft proofing.

Best,
Walker
Show quoted textHide quoted text
> On Nov 29, 2018, at 12:36 PM, per@... [QuadtoneRIP] <QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> In terms of photoshop editing, it looks like I indeed can use the QTR default profiles but "preserve RGB numbers" is only available for the RGB profiles. Given this, what is the scenario when the gray profiles are used? Also: I see a big difference when using "simulate paper color". Is that typically the most faithful approach?



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

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by per@...

Totally makes sense. However, I am a more fluent editor in LR, so I am still wondering if the lack of "preserve RGB numbers" make softproofing in LR inherently suboptimal and that I should just stay away from it altogether or not. I can certainly stick to a flow where all fine tuning for print happens in PS if needed, but if I can stay in LR that would be a little nicer.

Also, I am curious about the settings in PS softproofing that people get the best results from when using a QTR ICC profile. Simulate paper color? If not, then simulate black ink?

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by brian_downunda@...

--9nlWnTS9ocNmxdhsK3FKVLWiM6a5jwOaA8HvrLV
Content-Type:  text/plain;  charset=utf-8 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64




--9nlWnTS9ocNmxdhsK3FKVLWiM6a5jwOaA8HvrLV
Content-Type:  text/html;  charset=utf-8 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64




--9nlWnTS9ocNmxdhsK3FKVLWiM6a5jwOaA8HvrLV--

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by brian_downunda@...

If there's a blank reply, my apologies. Operator error. Perhaps the mods could delete.

If you don't use the linear workflow and instead print using an ICC then my understanding is that you can soft-proof in LR as long as you use an RGB ICC. Preserve numbers is PS-only.

Is LR suboptimal for the linear workflow? Yes and no. You won't be able to take the image all the way to the final print version, at least not on matte papers. You may find it close enough for PK papers. But editing for screen display and editing for print are different things anyway under the linear workflow, and it's helpful to think of it as a two stage process.

Simulate black in and paper colour? They seem to make the biggest difference on matte papers and I find them difficult to adjust to TBH, as the shadows tend to look murkier than they do to in a print. The idea is that you need to look at them for some time to get over this effect. What I do is make judgements by assessing the print with them both on and off, since off can mislead slightly you as to how a matte print will look, but on is too strong a simulation. I don't find that they make so much difference for PK papers, or at least not the simulate black ink option. But this is just my opinion, and I imagine everyone has one. You need to find what works for you.

p.s. This is where a screen where you can calibrate the screen to simulate the paper is a big advantage, like and Eizo or NEC, as we discussed earlier.


---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <per@...> wrote :

Totally makes sense. However, I am a more fluent editor in LR, so I am still wondering if the lack of "preserve RGB numbers" make softproofing in LR inherently suboptimal and that I should just stay away from it altogether or not. I can certainly stick to a flow where all fine tuning for print happens in PS if needed, but if I can stay in LR that would be a little nicer.

Also, I am curious about the settings in PS softproofing that people get the best results from when using a QTR ICC profile. Simulate paper color? If not, then simulate black ink?

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by mick.sang@...

Re: "p.s. This is where a screen where you can calibrate the screen to simulate the paper is a big advantage, like and Eizo or NEC, as we discussed earlier."

I agree 100%. From my perspective this method is far more accurate and helpful for soft-roofing that the "simulate paper and ink" which ends up being either too flat or fails to properly simulate the actual paper white point and result in print. In terms of this, calibrating to an appropriate white point and contrast ratio covers both paper and ink much more effectively.

- Mick

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by per@...

Well, my intended work flow here is to generate a gamma 2.2 tiff from LR or PS adjusted through softproofing with the paper ICC. I want to take this tiff and print it through QTR gui with a curve that represent my linearized paper profile (but no ICC). I assume this is what you refer to as the "linearized workflow". And if I understand you correctly, for this workflow, PS really is the way to go (LR can be used, but results may vary due to the lack of "preserve RGB numbers"). So far, so good.

Now, I may be dense but I am not sure I follow the statement "This is where a screen where you can calibrate the screen to simulate the paper is a big advantage, like and Eizo or NEC, as we discussed earlier." I have profiled my Dell u2413 monitor (99% AdobeRgb coverage so a capable performer, but no Eizo alas). Are you suggesting setting the ICC profile I have generated with QTR for my paper on my monitor, as opposed to having the monitor use the monitor ICC profile and PS use the paper ICC to simulate this on the monitor? Or are you suggesting something else altogether, perhaps something only available with high end monitors?

My apologies to everyone for all the questions. There is a lot of stuff to wrap my head around here, as someone fumbling through trying to use a stock p800 with QTR in the best way possible. It seems like piezography users maybe have a leg up in better material available to get started...... But on the other hand, I am learning a lot, and I am very thankful for all the great answers to questions I am getting here. And hopefully this thread can guide other people getting started if they search through the posts on the forum.

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by mick.sang@...

Holding up the print next to the screen will NOT work. The result will always look too dark unless you place the print in a small viewing booth positioned beside and slightly behind the display AND the illumination of the booth is balanced to the display in terms of brightness.

To illustrate this, forget the image. Set your screen display to blank white and hold a piece of the Canson Baryta next to the display. Do, they match. NO - not in ambient room illumination. So, once you apply ink to that, the result gets even darker.

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by brian_downunda@...

No, I'm not suggesting that you set your QTR-generated ICC for the monitor. There is a long reason why not not. Simplest just to say no. What we are saying is that on a monitor like an Eizo Coloredge or NEC Colorsync, where the calibration is directly adjusting the monitor itself, you can adjust the monitor to closely match the properties of the paper in question - brightness, contrast, white-point. There's still the issue that the monitor is back-lit and the paper is front-lit, but you can get fairly close.

We're not familiar with your monitor and I'm not suggesting that it isn't good quality, but we're sceptical that you can adjust it so that it comes close to doing this. Thinking this through, once you've got this close match then the simulate paper colour and black ink options probably aren't really necessary and may be doubling-up the effect of the monitor calibration, hence why it looks so murky to me. If Walker is still lurking perhaps he could comment.

In relation to Mick's comment, pasted in below, there is a technique promoted by local guru Les Walkling in which he shows you how to take your Eizo monitor (he is an ambassador for Eizo) and refine the calibration to get an exact match for your viewing conditions. Les, uses the term "standard" viewing conditions, and that's the point that Mick is effectively making. If you want to perform this technique you need to have realistic / standard print viewing conditions. There's a video here, but be warned that it's Eizo specific:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/thyeyop4x6yv7us/Advanced_Soft_Proofing_with_EIZO_CE_Monitors.mp4.zip?dl=0


These videos suggest that with the right hardware you can calibrate so that everything becomes magically simple and straight-forward. That's not really the case. With either an Eizo or your current Dell, there's no substitute for the experience of learning to interpret your soft proofs by printing a range of images and comparing. An Eizo makes it easier. I also have a makeshift viewing booth next to my monitor that helps.


---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <per@...> wrote :

Now, I may be dense but I am not sure I follow the statement "This is where a screen where you can calibrate the screen to simulate the paper is a big advantage, like and Eizo or NEC, as we discussed earlier." I have profiled my Dell u2413 monitor (99% AdobeRgb coverage so a capable performer, but no Eizo alas). Are you suggesting setting the ICC profile I have generated with QTR for my paper on my monitor, as opposed to having the monitor use the monitor ICC profile and PS use the paper ICC to simulate this on the monitor? Or are you suggesting something else altogether, perhaps something only available with high end monitors?


---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <mick.sang@...> wrote :

Holding up the print next to the screen will NOT work. The result will always look too dark unless you place the print in a small viewing booth positioned beside and slightly behind the display AND the illumination of the booth is balanced to the display in terms of brightness.

To illustrate this, forget the image. Set your screen display to blank white and hold a piece of the Canson Baryta next to the display. Do, they match. NO - not in ambient room illumination. So, once you apply ink to that, the result gets even darker.

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by per@...

Thanks for the detailed answer. Yeah, setting the paper ICC for the monitor would have been a little bananas, but better to ask....

For sure my monitor is no Eizo. I will look through Les's materials, it looks very interesting. It is reassuring that there is more that can be done then what I am doing right now in terms of softproofing if money is available. For where I am at now though, softproofing in PS with the ICCs I have generated for the paper is probably a pretty good tradeoff. In fact: In terms of improving my printing, the best bang for the buck is probably going to be to find a printer I can run piezography on instead of a p800 with stock inks (although that is just a guess, because I have never seen any best effort blind comparions between a good effort QTR with p800 stock print compared to a piezography print of the same picture; that would in fact be something I would love to see).



Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by mick.sang@...

Everything Brian has said here is right on!

Thank you, so much Brian, for this video. I teach fine art digital inkjet printing at a university here in Toronto. This video will save me a lot of time and more importantly will help me to get across the concepts discussed therein to my students.

Bravo!

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-11-30 by Harvey



------ Original Message ------
From: "brian_downunda@... [QuadtoneRIP]"
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Bcc: fishman@...
Sent: 11/30/2018 18:00:11
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?



No, I'm not suggesting that you set your QTR-generated ICC for the monitor. There is a long reason why not not. Simplest just to say no. What we are saying is that on a monitor like an Eizo Coloredge or NEC Colorsync, where the calibration is directly adjusting the monitor itself, you can adjust the monitor to closely match the properties of the paper in question - brightness, contrast, white-point. There's still the issue that the monitor is back-lit and the paper is front-lit, but you can get fairly close.


Question: what would be the difference between adjusting the monitor and adjusting a LUT in the driver? Isn't that really what adjusting the monitor is doing?

Harvey

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-12-01 by exe.rpd@...

Hi,
Can someone tell me why I might have such issues with DropBox? I have never been able to view or download any file from DropBox. In this case it says: ".mp4 files cannot be previewed from an archived file"

Thanks!

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-12-01 by brian_downunda@...

In this case I suspect it's because the file is zipped - "from an archived file". DB is showing you the contents of the zip file. If it's any consolation, I had to download this file too. I tried to download this one without being logged in and it still seemed to work. You have to hit the "download" button, which in my browser is in the top right. Normally I can view unzipped files on DB.


---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <exe.rpd@...> wrote :

Hi,
Can someone tell me why I might have such issues with DropBox? I have never been able to view or download any file from DropBox. In this case it says: ".mp4 files cannot be previewed from an archived file"

Thanks!

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-12-01 by brian_downunda@...

Thank you for that ringing endorsement, Mick, especially given your teaching role.

I'm not going to give Les Walkling an unqualified endorsement, for reasons that will become apparent, but his material listed in that first link I gave earlier is worth exploring. There are a number of informative videos and documents. The video I linked to is more advanced, and assumes a basic monitor calibration for print as a starting point.

Let me digress and tell you a tale, which will have some relevance for Per. Some time last year the National Portrait Gallery here advertised a free seminar on getting a good screen to print match, or some title like that, featuring Les. Normally his workshops are expensive, and so I jumped at my first opportunity to hear him (and for free), given that he is something of a controversial figure here that divides opinion. Well, the seminar was just a 1½ presentation of that 5:41 video in my second link. Why did it take so long? Because in reality the seminar was primarily a hard sell for Eizo monitors, as Les is an ambassador for them. I'm fairly certain that the seminar was underwritten by Eizo. Les is also a consultant to Canson in AU and sells training and profile creation services.

As luck would have it, I was giving a presentation to and judging at the local U3A photo group a few days later, and asked if anyone had been at that seminar? A number of hands went up accompanied by groans. People had gone along to a seminar at a reputable national institution to learn about something of interest, only to be told that they had to spend thousands on a professional grade monitor. I was able to reassure them that for non-critical work it is possible to get perfectly acceptable results with a lot less.

Now I (and others) are probably a bit guilty of doing a "Les" here, in suggesting to Per that he needs an Eizo. If you understand the principles, have decent gear and learn how to calibrate and use it and learn through experience how to interpret your soft proofs, you can go a long way. The further you go and the more critical you become, an Eizo will help. IMHO where it particularly helps is printing B&W on matte papers. My sense is that Per can make progress in leaps and bounds with what he has now.

For that reason, I think that he should master the P800 and Epson inks first. As a Piezography user it would be hypocritical of me to counsel against using it. But he is going to have the exact same issues with it as he is having now with an OEM setup. I suggest that he needs to master that first. Piezo is not a magic bullet to solve your monochrome printing problems, it's an option to further refine the craft.

Harvey asked "Question: what would be the difference between adjusting the monitor and adjusting a LUT in the driver? Isn't that really what adjusting the monitor is doing?" There are others much better qualified to answer this than I, but my understanding is that It's doing it with much greater precision, i.e dialing in a precise luminosity, contrast, white point, which is what you want to simulate a given paper exactly. Adjusting the LUT reduces the effective levels of grey down from 256, adjusting the monitor does not. A hardware calibrate-able monitor allows you to quickly switch from one configuration to another as you switch from editing for online to editing for print, and as you switch papers, etc etc. Perhaps others can add to or subtract from this list.



---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <mick.sang@...> wrote :

Everything Brian has said here is right on!

Thank you, so much Brian, for this video. I teach fine art digital inkjet printing at a university here in Toronto. This video will save me a lot of time and more importantly will help me to get across the concepts discussed therein to my students.

Bravo!

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-12-01 by mick.sang@...

When Brian was kind enough to post the video in DropBox. I got this message also. But, at the top right corner of the page you should find the word "Download." If you click that you have the choice of direct download or copy to Dropbox.


---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <exe.rpd@...> wrote :

Hi,
Can someone tell me why I might have such issues with DropBox? I have never been able to view or download any file from DropBox. In this case it says: ".mp4 files cannot be previewed from an archived file"

Thanks!

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-12-01 by John Labovitz

On Dec 1, 2018, at 1:19 AM, brian_downunda@... wrote:

> A hardware calibrate-able monitor allows you to quickly switch from one configuration to another as you switch from editing for online to editing for print, and as you switch papers, etc etc.

Interesting!

I just acquired a BenQ SW271 monitor (27” 4K). This monitor has a hardware LUT feature, like NECs & Eizos, but at a much lower price. It supports switching between up to four built-in profiles/LUTs, including Adobe RGB, sRGB, monochrome, and a couple of custom profiles.

It comes with Palette Master, profiling software that’s compatible with X-Rite devices like the i1 Display Pro. That software is primarily for the typical monitor calibration workflow, and uploads a generated LUT (via USB, I believe) to the monitor.

Unfortunately, it doesn’t have a manual mode like that Eizo software in the video, nor does it have a way to select a LUT generated outside of Palette Master. But I’ll keep poking around — maybe there’s some way to side-step the software.

—John

Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-12-01 by mick.sang@...

Thank you, for this, Brian.

I would like to apologize to all in this group for my quickly and poorly written sporadic responses. I am relatively new to the forum and have been extremely busy. So I have seldom applied the focus to the forum that it deserves. But, I am drawn to it and have recently read posts to which I feel compelled to add. I will try to be more careful and thoughtful in future.

Once again, I could not agree with you more, Brian. One can achieve a workable solution to critical evaluation of a print against their display using ones current equipment. Eizo displays are out of reach for the majority of us. Even NECs are beyond the means of many. I have both. So, it is easy to lose perspective. I try to help my students tune their existing systems to the best they can be. By "systems" I'm referring to display, ambient lighting, print illumination and anything in view that surrounds the display including wall colour. I suggest that they invest in at least one 5000k Solux bulb and a desk lamp which in combination is thousands less than the cost of even a portable viewing booth. Then, if they want to be a tad nuts about it, they could make a removable monitor shade out of a sheet of strong card board and paint the inside flat black. This helps reduce flare on their glossy screens.

Once they understand that the display becomes the focal point and how distracting ambient lighting, screen flare, colourful objects and any desk clutter within view can be, then they calibrate their displays to the best condition within that revised environment. This can provide decent results.

I have never heard of Les Walking until this forum. But, I am intrigued by your comment that he is "something of a controversial figure."

Re my teaching role, I also learn as much as I teach and believe me, I have plenty to learn.

Re Harvey's question: I am also no expert in this field. But, Brian's answer seems accurate to me. The adjustment is direct versus though a controlling software and the accompanying graphics card.

I admit to being like a kid in a candy store regarding the links which you provided, Brian.
Thank you, again.

-Mick


---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <brian_downunda...> wrote :

Thank you for that ringing endorsement, Mick, especially given your teaching role.

I'm not going to give Les Walkling an unqualified endorsement, for reasons that will become apparent, but his material listed in that first link I gave earlier is worth exploring. There are a number of informative videos and documents. The video I linked to is more advanced, and assumes a basic monitor calibration for print as a starting point...........

Re: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Prints too dark from QTR, what next?

2018-12-01 by forums@walkerblackwell.com

For those reading this thread who don’t have good quality monitors, don’t worry. People printing in a darkroom don’t have good monitors either. I always tell people that the pudding is in the proof. So if you linearize (or otherwise standardize) your printer and exposure workflow then you will be ok even with a sub-par monitor just as long as it’s consistent and you can do some translation work in your mind’s eye. The cheapest way to effect the monitor is to change the environment around it (increase the light behind the monitor a bit, make sure your print is lit properly, etc).

Soft-proofing in Photoshop helps (Preserve RGB forces the monitor into the contrast range of your paper) because Photoshop is “icc aware” of the contrast of your monitor. So even if your monitor is low quality and you see some banding in gradients on the monitor, as long as your over-all contrast is matching your print then you’re ok. This approach (monitor matches print) is the most stable from print to print on the same media but if you change media (say from matte to gloss) your contrast ration changes as well and you must change the soft-proof profile and also re-image your file for a higher contrast paper. That is more work. ICC Profiles (print matches monitor) bake a “standardized” contrast into the final print so the same file will appear roughly the same contrast no matter if on glossy or matte paper. But this has the un-helpful side-effect of destabilizing the shadows.

Cheers,
Walker




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

Move to quarantaine

This moves the raw source file on disk only. The archive index is not changed automatically, so you still need to run a manual refresh afterward.