QTR-Quadtone RIP

Roy,

Last couple of weeks I have set up my 2100 with UT-3D inks. As basic 
curves I have now a warm, a cool (both approx. on LAB b axis) and a 
selenium curve (at LAB a axis). 

In theory I could make an endless amount of combinations with these 
three primary curves, each representing a cornerpoint of the UT3D 
color space. In practice however, QTR does not allow this freedom. 
Since I can only interpolate between two curves I can only create 
tones at the boundary of the color space.

For convience I made a neutral curve as well, at the origin of the 
LAB space. This allows to interpolate between the selenium curve and 
the origin, as such controlling the saturation of the selenium. This 
increases the freedom a bit. But if goes further down this road, the 
number of "auxilary curves" grows rapidly and these curves become 
more and more difficult to create.

It would be much and much simpler if I could interpolate between 
three curves iso only two. I envision an menu much like the channel 
mixer in Photoshop. Is this something you could consider to add to 
QTR? More than three doesn't make sense, since with three curves to 
pick one could define any colorspace one can envision.

Could you give this a thought?

Thanks

Joost

"horstenj" <j.h.j.h@...> wrote:

Roy,

Last couple of weeks I have set up my 2100 with UT-3D inks. As basic 
curves I have now a warm, a cool (both approx. on LAB b axis) and a 
selenium curve (at LAB a axis). 

In theory I could make an endless amount of combinations with these 
three primary curves, each representing a cornerpoint of the UT3D 
color space. In practice however, QTR does not allow this freedom. 
Since I can only interpolate between two curves I can only create 
tones at the boundary of the color space.

For convience I made a neutral curve as well, at the origin of the 
LAB space. This allows to interpolate between the selenium curve and 
the origin, as such controlling the saturation of the selenium. This 
increases the freedom a bit. But if goes further down this road, the 
number of "auxilary curves" grows rapidly and these curves become 
more and more difficult to create.

It would be much and much simpler if I could interpolate between 
three curves iso only two. I envision an menu much like the channel 
mixer in Photoshop. Is this something you could consider to add to 
QTR? More than three doesn't make sense, since with three curves to 
pick one could define any colorspace one can envision.

Could you give this a thought?

Thanks

Joost"

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Excellent piece of lateral thinking Joost, I like it alot and would 
also love to see a reply to this. I'm considering trying UT-3D in an 
R1800 soon (though I have 1 idea I might try out first.) Would it be 
possible for me to take a look at the curves you've created for the 
UT-3D in the 2100? They mght give me some ideas when I get started,

regards, Jamie

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie Creed" <icucjamie@...> wrote:
> Excellent piece of lateral thinking Joost, I like it alot and would 
> also love to see a reply to this. 

Hi Jamie,

Actually, we had a bit of cross-posting (shame on us!!) in this thread:

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/message/3309

but it did not come to a conclusion yet.

Roy, could you step into this discussion?

> Would it be 
> possible for me to take a look at the curves you've created for the 
> UT-3D in the 2100? They mght give me some ideas when I get started,

I currently not on the machine that holds the curves but I'll post them 
later. What I did as a starting point is to take the UT7 curves. Many 
of the UT3D inks are identical to their UT7 counterpart. And the "new 
inks", the neutral LLK and the LAB a toner, have the same density as 
the other (warm and cool) LLK toners, which is a nice feature of this 
inkset, making new curves quite simple.

Joost

Hi Joost and Jamie,

I'm not sure what all the questions are.   Msg 3309 looks more like a 
request
for a color RIP.   But I have been thinking about more curves and more 
ways
to blend them.  This seems like a very reasonable idea.   It's mostly a 
complication
in the user interface -- fitting it all in.

I took a brief look at your UT3D curves.   In general they look 
reasonable but how
they perform for what you want is the main factor.  I wasn't sure if 
you had customized
the inks at all -- especially the Y toner.

Roy

On Monday, November 27, 2006, at 09:59  PM, Joost Horsten wrote:

> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Jamie Creed" <icucjamie@...> 
> wrote:
>> Excellent piece of lateral thinking Joost, I like it alot and would
>> also love to see a reply to this.
>
> Hi Jamie,
>
> Actually, we had a bit of cross-posting (shame on us!!) in this thread:
>
> http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/message/3309
>
> but it did not come to a conclusion yet.
>
> Roy, could you step into this discussion?
>
>> Would it be
>> possible for me to take a look at the curves you've created for the
>> UT-3D in the 2100? They mght give me some ideas when I get started,
>
> I currently not on the machine that holds the curves but I'll post them
> later. What I did as a starting point is to take the UT7 curves. Many
> of the UT3D inks are identical to their UT7 counterpart. And the "new
> inks", the neutral LLK and the LAB a toner, have the same density as
> the other (warm and cool) LLK toners, which is a nice feature of this
> inkset, making new curves quite simple.
>
> Joost
>
>
>

-
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photo Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

Roy

thanks for the reply, and thanks for the hope of even greater things 
to come, with what is after all a majestic piece of software, and a 
very satisfying RIP that we all love and appreciate.

Joost, thanks for posting your curves, I'll take a look over the 
next few weeks; actually my inks are in transit to me at the moment, 
so here's looking forward to a couple of days locked away in deep 
concentration on what I hope will be the curve creation ride of my 
life,

Jamie

--------------------------------------------------------------------

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Joost and Jamie,
> 
> I'm not sure what all the questions are.   Msg 3309 looks more 
like a request for a color RIP.   But I have been thinking about 
more curves and more ways to blend them.  This seems like a very 
reasonable idea. It's mostly a complication in the user interface -- 
fitting it all in.
> 
> I took a brief look at your UT3D curves. In general they look 
resonable but how they perform for what you want is the main 
factor.  I wasn't sure if you had customized

> the inks at all -- especially the Y toner.
> 
> Roy
>

Hi Roy,

Not exactly a request for a color Rip but for colour and B&W rip 
based on the actual QTR.
I know it is a B&W forum and I don't intend to shift the topic, but 
do you think this would be possible ? 

Many thanks anyway for what QTR is already .

Michel


>
> Hi Joost and Jamie,
> 
> I'm not sure what all the questions are.   Msg 3309 looks more 
like a 
> request
> for a color RIP.   But I have been thinking about more curves and 
more 
> ways
> to blend them.  This seems like a very reasonable idea.   It's 
mostly a 

> complication
> in the user interface -- fitting it all in.
>

Hi Roy,

Thanks for the reply.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
> I'm not sure what all the questions are.   Msg 3309 looks more 
like a 
> request
> for a color RIP.  

Indeed the discussion has become a bit diffused since to similar 
suggestions have been made, further confused by some cross-posting 
(shame on me again). I saw Jamie already replied from his part.

> But I have been thinking about more curves and more 
> ways
> to blend them.  This seems like a very reasonable idea.   It's 
mostly a 
> complication
> in the user interface -- fitting it all in.

This is indeed what I was proposing. And came, of course without the 
deeper knowledge of QTR, to the same conclusion: conceptually, it 
could remain simple, but I see the UI might be a bit of a challenge.
I envision a slider per curve, like the channel mixer in Photoshop, 
but automatically balancing it to 100%. Not sure yet how to do that 
with a variable (>3) number of curves. Could you simply go for a 
list with a number (4? 6?) potential curves and a pull down menu per 
curve, where "none" is the default?  Or would that not be 
flexible/elegant enough or take too much space?

> I took a brief look at your UT3D curves.   In general they look 
> reasonable but how
> they perform for what you want is the main factor. 

Aha, another naughty cross-poster ;-) ;-) !

I feel I'm just on the beginning of the split-tone journey. I still 
have to develop my own artistic judgement on what I want to achieve. 
So the curves do work for now, but I might very well need to refine 
them later.

> I wasn't sure if 
> you had customized
> the inks at all -- especially the Y toner.

As a matter of fact I build the Y-toner part in the K3T splittone 
from "scratch" (meaning starting from a normal K3 curve). First I 
made to cool2warm with LC as toner and then copied that approach to 
the cool2selenium with Y as toner. Perhaps I coincidentally came 
close to another similar curve. Out of curiosity: which curve are 
you refering to? 

Do have you suggestions for improvement?

One thing to add: I enjoyed this part of the journey and have 
started to appreciate QTR even more!

Joost

Roy Harrington wrote:
> Hi Joost and Jamie,
> 
> I'm not sure what all the questions are.   Msg 3309 looks more like a 
> request
> for a color RIP.   But I have been thinking about more curves and more 
> ways
> to blend them.  This seems like a very reasonable idea.   It's mostly a 
> complication
> in the user interface -- fitting it all in.
> 
> I took a brief look at your UT3D curves.   In general they look 
> reasonable but how
> they perform for what you want is the main factor.  I wasn't sure if 
> you had customized
> the inks at all -- especially the Y toner.
> 
> Roy


Could someone explain to me then how extra curves and extra 
blending isn't touching color mixing ?  I can understand it 
for split toning but there one hue is replaced by another one 
along the tonal scale.

Joost indicates it more or less in his first message:
"Since I can only interpolate between two curves I can only 
create tones at the boundary of the color space".

Either the new blendings do not cooperate with one another 
(adding just another straight line) or they together describe 
a slice of the color space in a crude way (an area) or you go 
the whole 3D way and use a color engine.


Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
> 
> Could someone explain to me then how extra curves and extra 
> blending isn't touching color mixing ?  I can understand it 
> for split toning but there one hue is replaced by another one 
> along the tonal scale.
> 
> Joost indicates it more or less in his first message:
> "Since I can only interpolate between two curves I can only 
> create tones at the boundary of the color space".
> 
> Either the new blendings do not cooperate with one another 
> (adding just another straight line) or they together describe 
> a slice of the color space in a crude way (an area) or you go 
> the whole 3D way and use a color engine.
> 

Ernst,

I'm not a color space expert. I'm physicist by training. I have given 
color spaces some thought in the past, but my statements below are 
not definite ones. Just a way to try to proceed the discussion. I 
discussed this with a colleague of mine (same background). I address 
single tone curves only. 

I do not understand your problem exactly. The blending IS of course 
touching color mixing, since that's to me the whole point of blending 
curves. But perhaps I misunderstand what you mean. I regard the three 
curves (warm, cool, lab a/selenium) as the three primaries of the 
color space, which is a subspace (a triangle near the origin) of the 
LAB color space. The exact gamut / subcolor space is determined by 
the combination of inkset and paper. Currently, QTR allows to 
mix/blend two ink curves, which is the equivalent of interpolating 
between two primaries in the LAB space. The color "space" one can get 
with two curves/primaries only is actually a line (is that what you 
call a slice?).  Mixing/blending 3 curves allows actually 
interpolating within the 2D area of the color space. Any color point 
within that triangular space is achievable with three curves.

There are many subtleties to the above. I am aware of at least the 
following issues that might arise, at least in theory: 1) It actually 
might be the case that the subcolor space is not exactly a triangle. 
The actual physical mixing is done with inks on paper. This a 
subtractive process that can give a color point that is not on a 
straight line in the LAB space. It resembles more the behaviour of a 
CMYK space. The boundaries in teh LAB space might be curved. 2) Even 
if the interpolation in the LAB space gives a straight line, the 
interpolation is not necessarily linear. For instance, a mix 50/50 
mix of cool and warm inks, will give a different result than first 
printing a 50% cool layer and overprint that with a 50% warm layer . 
3) In theory, it even might be that mixing two colors (with different 
a and b coordinates) with same density (L value) might give a mix 
with different L value, thus affecting the linearity of the curve. 4) 
In reality, the inks are no pure primaries, but having each a color 
spectrum of themselves, allowing for complicated spectral changes.

I'm not sure how important these issues are in reality. I expect 
issue 3) not happen, since that would already undermine the current 2 
curve blending in QTR. I might test this with two curves…  But I 
think the above issues point out, that one can NOT expect that a 
simple interpolation of 3 curves is sufficient to predict the color 
point of the result. In other words, there's no guarantee that let's 
ay a 33/33/33 mix of three curves with lab a and b values (0,9), (0,-
9) and (9,0) gives a color point of (3,0). So the simple mixing model 
has clearly it's limitations. If one wants to achieve a certain tone, 
one has to find the mix empirically. In order to predict a result or 
to use softproofing one needs a full-fledged color model/engine. 

But, even with the limitations pointed out above, I'd really 
appreciate the simple mixing model with more than two curves.

Am I addressing your questions or am I still way out?

Joost

Joost Horsten wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>> Could someone explain to me then how extra curves and extra 
>> blending isn't touching color mixing ?  I can understand it 
>> for split toning but there one hue is replaced by another one 
>> along the tonal scale.
>>
>> Joost indicates it more or less in his first message:
>> "Since I can only interpolate between two curves I can only 
>> create tones at the boundary of the color space".
>>
>> Either the new blendings do not cooperate with one another 
>> (adding just another straight line) or they together describe 
>> a slice of the color space in a crude way (an area) or you go 
>> the whole 3D way and use a color engine.
>>
> 
> Ernst,
> 
> I'm not a color space expert. I'm physicist by training. I have given 
> color spaces some thought in the past, but my statements below are 
> not definite ones. Just a way to try to proceed the discussion. I 
> discussed this with a colleague of mine (same background). I address 
> single tone curves only. 
> 
> I do not understand your problem exactly. The blending IS of course 
> touching color mixing, since that's to me the whole point of blending 
> curves. But perhaps I misunderstand what you mean. I regard the three 
> curves (warm, cool, lab a/selenium) as the three primaries of the 
> color space, which is a subspace (a triangle near the origin) of the 
> LAB color space. The exact gamut / subcolor space is determined by 
> the combination of inkset and paper. Currently, QTR allows to 
> mix/blend two ink curves, which is the equivalent of interpolating 
> between two primaries in the LAB space. The color "space" one can get 
> with two curves/primaries only is actually a line (is that what you 
> call a slice?).  Mixing/blending 3 curves allows actually 
> interpolating within the 2D area of the color space. Any color point 
> within that triangular space is achievable with three curves.
> 
> There are many subtleties to the above. I am aware of at least the 
> following issues that might arise, at least in theory: 1) It actually 
> might be the case that the subcolor space is not exactly a triangle. 
> The actual physical mixing is done with inks on paper. This a 
> subtractive process that can give a color point that is not on a 
> straight line in the LAB space. It resembles more the behaviour of a 
> CMYK space. The boundaries in teh LAB space might be curved. 2) Even 
> if the interpolation in the LAB space gives a straight line, the 
> interpolation is not necessarily linear. For instance, a mix 50/50 
> mix of cool and warm inks, will give a different result than first 
> printing a 50% cool layer and overprint that with a 50% warm layer . 
> 3) In theory, it even might be that mixing two colors (with different 
> a and b coordinates) with same density (L value) might give a mix 
> with different L value, thus affecting the linearity of the curve. 4) 
> In reality, the inks are no pure primaries, but having each a color 
> spectrum of themselves, allowing for complicated spectral changes.
> 
> I'm not sure how important these issues are in reality. I expect 
> issue 3) not happen, since that would already undermine the current 2 
> curve blending in QTR. I might test this with two curves\ufffd  But I 
> think the above issues point out, that one can NOT expect that a 
> simple interpolation of 3 curves is sufficient to predict the color 
> point of the result. In other words, there's no guarantee that let's 
> ay a 33/33/33 mix of three curves with lab a and b values (0,9), (0,-
> 9) and (9,0) gives a color point of (3,0). So the simple mixing model 
> has clearly it's limitations. If one wants to achieve a certain tone, 
> one has to find the mix empirically. In order to predict a result or 
> to use softproofing one needs a full-fledged color model/engine. 
> 
> But, even with the limitations pointed out above, I'd really 
> appreciate the simple mixing model with more than two curves.
> 
> Am I addressing your questions or am I still way out?
> 
> Joost

In general you are close to what I think may cause problems: 
getting other results than expected.
The lines are not straight in that color space is just one 
thing. A good example is where Paul mixes ink toners and has 
to change the hue between the light and the dark toner 
slightly just to get it perceptually right in the print. All 
adaptions that show there's complexity that can't be 
translated into simple models.



Similar things have been discussed before on the digital B&W 
list. What makes a good digital B&W print ... is for example a 
thread that goes into the two streams of thinking in B&W 
printing right now. I'm no advocate of both but I think 
there's a solution in between that has much of the ABW modes 
of the latest OEM drivers but with the calibration etc of QTR 
+ the profiles. The most futuristic view is an ABW system with 
an underlying general B&W ICC profile for that paper and 
inkset and the flexibility and ease of use of ABW that both 
QTR with its sliders + semi-ICC profiles and David Tobie's 
solution with his B&W ICC profiles can't deliver.


Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
> 
> In general you are close to what I think may cause problems: 
> getting other results than expected.
> The lines are not straight in that color space is just one 
> thing. A good example is where Paul mixes ink toners and has 
> to change the hue between the light and the dark toner 
> slightly just to get it perceptually right in the print. All 
> adaptions that show there's complexity that can't be 
> translated into simple models.

Ernst,

I think we understand one another. As I argued myself as well, indeed 
the output of a "multi-QTR-slider" approach can not be predicted 
exactly, just like that of the current two-slider feature. 

Having said, I still am interested to experiment with it, just like I 
do with the current slider. It's not a pancea that suits all needs, 
but within the QTR workflow it would be an enrichement.
  
> Similar things have been discussed before on the digital B&W 
> list. What makes a good digital B&W print ... is for example a 
> thread that goes into the two streams of thinking in B&W 
> printing right now. I'm no advocate of both but I think 
> there's a solution in between that has much of the ABW modes 
> of the latest OEM drivers but with the calibration etc of QTR 
> + the profiles. The most futuristic view is an ABW system with 
> an underlying general B&W ICC profile for that paper and 
> inkset and the flexibility and ease of use of ABW that both 
> QTR with its sliders + semi-ICC profiles and David Tobie's 
> solution with his B&W ICC profiles can't deliver.

An interesting discussion indeed. I find myself also torn between the 
two sides. Therefor my suggestions here. I understand partly where 
you want to go. But that's for another thread in another forum..

Joost

On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 02:18  AM, Ernst Dinkla wrote:

> Joost Horsten wrote:
>> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>>> Could someone explain to me then how extra curves and extra
>>> blending isn't touching color mixing ?  I can understand it
>>> for split toning but there one hue is replaced by another one
>>> along the tonal scale.
>>>
>>> Joost indicates it more or less in his first message:
>>> "Since I can only interpolate between two curves I can only
>>> create tones at the boundary of the color space".
>>>
>>> Either the new blendings do not cooperate with one another
>>> (adding just another straight line) or they together describe
>>> a slice of the color space in a crude way (an area) or you go
>>> the whole 3D way and use a color engine.
>>>
>>
>> Ernst,
>>
>> I'm not a color space expert. I'm physicist by training. I have given
>> color spaces some thought in the past, but my statements below are
>> not definite ones. Just a way to try to proceed the discussion. I
>> discussed this with a colleague of mine (same background). I address
>> single tone curves only.
>>
>> I do not understand your problem exactly. The blending IS of course
>> touching color mixing, since that's to me the whole point of blending
>> curves. But perhaps I misunderstand what you mean. I regard the three
>> curves (warm, cool, lab a/selenium) as the three primaries of the
>> color space, which is a subspace (a triangle near the origin) of the
>> LAB color space. The exact gamut / subcolor space is determined by
>> the combination of inkset and paper. Currently, QTR allows to
>> mix/blend two ink curves, which is the equivalent of interpolating
>> between two primaries in the LAB space. The color "space" one can get
>> with two curves/primaries only is actually a line (is that what you
>> call a slice?).  Mixing/blending 3 curves allows actually
>> interpolating within the 2D area of the color space. Any color point
>> within that triangular space is achievable with three curves.
>>
>> There are many subtleties to the above. I am aware of at least the
>> following issues that might arise, at least in theory: 1) It actually
>> might be the case that the subcolor space is not exactly a triangle.
>> The actual physical mixing is done with inks on paper. This a
>> subtractive process that can give a color point that is not on a
>> straight line in the LAB space. It resembles more the behaviour of a
>> CMYK space. The boundaries in teh LAB space might be curved. 2) Even
>> if the interpolation in the LAB space gives a straight line, the
>> interpolation is not necessarily linear. For instance, a mix 50/50
>> mix of cool and warm inks, will give a different result than first
>> printing a 50% cool layer and overprint that with a 50% warm layer .
>> 3) In theory, it even might be that mixing two colors (with different
>> a and b coordinates) with same density (L value) might give a mix
>> with different L value, thus affecting the linearity of the curve. 4)
>> In reality, the inks are no pure primaries, but having each a color
>> spectrum of themselves, allowing for complicated spectral changes.
>>
>> I'm not sure how important these issues are in reality. I expect
>> issue 3) not happen, since that would already undermine the current 2
>> curve blending in QTR. I might test this with two curves…  But I
>> think the above issues point out, that one can NOT expect that a
>> simple interpolation of 3 curves is sufficient to predict the color
>> point of the result. In other words, there's no guarantee that let's
>> ay a 33/33/33 mix of three curves with lab a and b values (0,9), (0,-
>> 9) and (9,0) gives a color point of (3,0). So the simple mixing model
>> has clearly it's limitations. If one wants to achieve a certain tone,
>> one has to find the mix empirically. In order to predict a result or
>> to use softproofing one needs a full-fledged color model/engine.
>>
>> But, even with the limitations pointed out above, I'd really
>> appreciate the simple mixing model with more than two curves.
>>
>> Am I addressing your questions or am I still way out?
>>
>> Joost
>
> In general you are close to what I think may cause problems:
> getting other results than expected.
> The lines are not straight in that color space is just one
> thing. A good example is where Paul mixes ink toners and has
> to change the hue between the light and the dark toner
> slightly just to get it perceptually right in the print. All
> adaptions that show there's complexity that can't be
> translated into simple models.
>
> Similar things have been discussed before on the digital B&W
> list. What makes a good digital B&W print ... is for example a
> thread that goes into the two streams of thinking in B&W
> printing right now. I'm no advocate of both but I think
> there's a solution in between that has much of the ABW modes
> of the latest OEM drivers but with the calibration etc of QTR
> + the profiles. The most futuristic view is an ABW system with
> an underlying general B&W ICC profile for that paper and
> inkset and the flexibility and ease of use of ABW that both
> QTR with its sliders + semi-ICC profiles and David Tobie's
> solution with his B&W ICC profiles can't deliver.
>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst
>

Hi Ernst,

What Joost is suggesting is a bit simpler than I think you are assuming.
We already have blending between two curves.   This gives you any hue
along a straight line between the hue of each curve.   It's all one 
dimensional,
you just weight the two curves for every point along the L axis.   
Using three
curves is just a simple extension of that.  But it's still a 
one-dimension weighting.
With this scheme the possible hues are greatly increased because they 
are
no longer just a straight but a triangle formed by the points of each 
curve.

In general this might not seem possible and probably wouldn't work, but 
with
QTR profiles this works quite well.   The first key issue is that the 
curves that
you blend are all linearized the same way.  Dmin and Dmax in general are
identical and all the L values in between are the same for the same 
grayscale
value.  This makes the weightings always between the same density.  The 
other
key issue is that the weightings are calculated deep in the driver 
where the
exact amount of ink is known.   These two facts are what make this all 
possible.
It's probably not 100% guaranteed that the blendings will always give 
identical
densities but in the tests I've done with two curves it's shown very 
good
consistency.  I expect 3 curves wouldn't be appreciably different -- 
we'll see.

Note that this scheme is not likely to work at higher levels like in 
ICC profiles or
for the Epson driver in color or ABW mode, because there's no access 
and/or
knowledge of how much ink is actually being used.

Roy

-
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photo Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

Hopefully I can interject this idea without hijacking this interesting
discussion regarding 3 way blending. I think the possibility of more
flexible blending of the existing 2 curves might also be of interest to
those doing split toning. Currently QTR only permits selection of toning
based on image density. The option of replacing the current slider with
something such as an alpha channel would permit an almost arbitrary balance
between two curves independently for each pixel of an image.

While 3 way blending is interesting, I would personally find more flexible
blending of the present 2 curves more useful for what I do now.

Tom Moore

Hi Tom,

The alpha channel idea is a pretty big change and I'm not sure how I'd
even do it on the Mac -- alpha channels are not standard I/O features.

But split-tone capability (based on density) is a lot more useful.   So 
my
idea is to do it all together -- 3 curves and 3 blends (highlights, 
mid, shadows).
This should fit into people's current workflow.

Roy

On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 11:58  AM, Tom Moore wrote:

>
> Hopefully I can interject this idea without hijacking this interesting
> discussion regarding 3 way blending. I think the possibility of more
> flexible blending of the existing 2 curves might also be of interest to
> those doing split toning. Currently QTR only permits selection of 
> toning
> based on image density. The option of replacing the current slider with
> something such as an alpha channel would permit an almost arbitrary 
> balance
> between two curves independently for each pixel of an image.
>
> While 3 way blending is interesting, I would personally find more 
> flexible
> blending of the present 2 curves more useful for what I do now.
>
> Tom Moore
>
>
-
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photo Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

Hi Roy

I see that IJC/OPM only has blending via TIFF alpha channel for the PC
(i.e. not the Mac). As a PC user, I guess that wouldn't be a concern
for me. However, as a dual platform application I could see it would
be a problem for implementation within QuadtoneRIP. Too bad.

I think we can already do density based split-tone by creating an
appropriate split curve and blending it with another (non-split)
curve. More flexibility in the current curve blending scheme would
permit the creation of images that are not currently possible with QTR. 

See below...

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Tom,
> 
> The alpha channel idea is a pretty big change and I'm not sure how I'd
> even do it on the Mac -- alpha channels are not standard I/O features.
> 
> But split-tone capability (based on density) is a lot more useful.   So 
> my
> idea is to do it all together -- 3 curves and 3 blends (highlights, 
> mid, shadows).

I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean 3 curve pairs
(highlights, mid, shadows) and 3 blends (one for each pair)?

> This should fit into people's current workflow.
> 

Well, it would be consistent with what QTR users currently do and make
it easier to do density based split toning. I'd like to do more with QTR. 

> Roy
> 
> On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 11:58  AM, Tom Moore wrote:
> 
> >

... deleted stuff

> > Tom Moore
> >
> >
> -
> Roy Harrington
> roy@...
> Black & White Photo Gallery
> http://www.harrington.com
>

Thanks for responding promptly, even if it wasn't what I wanted to hear.

Tom

Roy, Tom,

I must say I have also a lot of sympathy for Tom's suggestion. The 
best of both worlds could (at least in theory) be one image file 
containing 3 alpha channels, 3 alpha channels controlling the 
contribution of each of 3 curves as a function of density.  Perhaps 
that is what IJC/OPM is doing?? Would give a HOST of possiblities 
(although some could become quite complex to edit). Like Tom I'm on 
PC. But I understand the two-platform issue. Too bad indeed.

Joost
 


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Roy
> 
> I see that IJC/OPM only has blending via TIFF alpha channel for the 
PC
> (i.e. not the Mac). As a PC user, I guess that wouldn't be a concern
> for me. However, as a dual platform application I could see it would
> be a problem for implementation within QuadtoneRIP. Too bad.
> 
> I think we can already do density based split-tone by creating an
> appropriate split curve and blending it with another (non-split)
> curve. More flexibility in the current curve blending scheme would
> permit the creation of images that are not currently possible with 
QTR. 
> 
> See below...
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Tom,
> > 
> > The alpha channel idea is a pretty big change and I'm not sure 
how I'd
> > even do it on the Mac -- alpha channels are not standard I/O 
features.
> > 
> > But split-tone capability (based on density) is a lot more 
useful.   So 
> > my
> > idea is to do it all together -- 3 curves and 3 blends 
(highlights, 
> > mid, shadows).
> 
> I'm not sure what you mean here. Do you mean 3 curve pairs
> (highlights, mid, shadows) and 3 blends (one for each pair)?
> 
> > This should fit into people's current workflow.
> > 
> 
> Well, it would be consistent with what QTR users currently do and 
make
> it easier to do density based split toning. I'd like to do more 
with QTR. 
> 
> > Roy
> > 
> > On Saturday, December 2, 2006, at 11:58  AM, Tom Moore wrote:
> > 
> > >
> 
> ... deleted stuff
> 
> > > Tom Moore
> > >
> > >
> > -
> > Roy Harrington
> > roy@
> > Black & White Photo Gallery
> > http://www.harrington.com
> >
> 
> Thanks for responding promptly, even if it wasn't what I wanted to 
hear.

> 
> Tom
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:

Thanks Roy for explaining this further to us. I realize now the 
linearization bit is that what I was implicitly assuming.


Joost

> 
> What Joost is suggesting is a bit simpler than I think you are 
assuming.
> We already have blending between two curves.   This gives you any 
hue
> along a straight line between the hue of each curve.   It's all one 
> dimensional,
> you just weight the two curves for every point along the L axis.   
> Using three
> curves is just a simple extension of that.  But it's still a 
> one-dimension weighting.
> With this scheme the possible hues are greatly increased because 
they 
> are
> no longer just a straight but a triangle formed by the points of 
each 
> curve.
> 
> In general this might not seem possible and probably wouldn't work, 
but 
> with
> QTR profiles this works quite well.   The first key issue is that 
the 
> curves that
> you blend are all linearized the same way.  Dmin and Dmax in 
general are
> identical and all the L values in between are the same for the same 
> grayscale
> value.  This makes the weightings always between the same density.  
The 
> other
> key issue is that the weightings are calculated deep in the driver 
> where the
> exact amount of ink is known.   These two facts are what make this 
all 
> possible.
> It's probably not 100% guaranteed that the blendings will always 
give 
> identical
> densities but in the tests I've done with two curves it's shown 
very 
> good
> consistency.  I expect 3 curves wouldn't be appreciably different --
 
> we'll see.
> 
> Note that this scheme is not likely to work at higher levels like 
in 
> ICC profiles or
> for the Epson driver in color or ABW mode, because there's no 
access 

> and/or
> knowledge of how much ink is actually being used.
> 
> Roy
> 
> -
> Roy Harrington
> roy@...
> Black & White Photo Gallery
> http://www.harrington.com
>

Roy Harrington wrote:


> In general this might not seem possible and probably wouldn't work, but 
> with
> QTR profiles this works quite well.   The first key issue is that the 
> curves that
> you blend are all linearized the same way.  Dmin and Dmax in general are
> identical and all the L values in between are the same for the same 
> grayscale
> value.  This makes the weightings always between the same density.  The 
> other
> key issue is that the weightings are calculated deep in the driver 
> where the
> exact amount of ink is known.   

Roy,

I take your word for it that it workes. It is correct that I 
assumed more complexity.

With the lines you write above I have another question: As you 
know Steve Kale is using your profile creation appl for the 
Epson K3 ABW driver. He wrote me that he creates them on 
mainly the default setting but a profile for every hue shift 
he normally uses. That means more profiles per paper and the 
advantage of soft proofing in Photoshop. The limited hue 
choices a B&W photographer uses in practice will reduce the 
number of profiles as has been mentioned before. In that way 
Steve's, David's and your approach are not that different. I 
expected more flexibility in Steve's method but it isn't.

I wonder whether it is possible to make just one general 
greyscale profile per paper with your application based on 
averaging 3 or 4 target measurements, each target made with a 
hue at the boundaries of the gamut one uses in B&W printing. 
Choices made with the ABW driver but when your QTR gets the 
same flexibility (sliders etc) it would work there too. I'm 
actually thinking of the HP Z3100 ABW driver. That 
averaged-general profile represents the average luminance 
scale of that small gamut used. It will not work for soft 
proofing color but I think the preview/softproof of the ABW 
drivers will be sufficient for hue selection. The P2P 
conversion can be done before the image is brought to the ABW 
driver/preview if the  ABW viewer isn't ICC profile 
compatible. My goal is to reduce the quantity of profiles as 
just one per paper and keep the flexibility of the ABW drivers 
in hue choice.

Do you foresee visible shifts in the luminance range with the 
different hue choices even when that gamut is limited ?  Of 
course much depends on right averaging within that small gamut 
space.

Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:

> I wonder whether it is possible to make just one general 
> greyscale profile per paper with your application based on 
> averaging 3 or 4 target measurements, each target made with a 
> hue at the boundaries of the gamut one uses in B&W printing. 
> Choices made with the ABW driver but when your QTR gets the 
> same flexibility (sliders etc) it would work there too. I'm 
> actually thinking of the HP Z3100 ABW driver. That 
> averaged-general profile represents the average luminance 
> scale of that small gamut used. It will not work for soft 
> proofing color but I think the preview/softproof of the ABW 
> drivers will be sufficient for hue selection. The P2P 
> conversion can be done before the image is brought to the ABW 
> driver/preview if the  ABW viewer isn't ICC profile 
> compatible. My goal is to reduce the quantity of profiles as 
> just one per paper and keep the flexibility of the ABW drivers 
> in hue choice.
> 
> Do you foresee visible shifts in the luminance range with the 
> different hue choices even when that gamut is limited ?  Of 
> course much depends on right averaging within that small gamut 
> space.

Ernst,

I've too little insight yet to agree or disagree. But I have trouble 
understanding how just one profile could cope with differences in the 
inks for the different tones. A profile is not unique to a paper but 
different for each paper-ink set combination. And in the sitation at 
hand one needs three different ink sets (warm, cool, selenium). My 
feeling is that your proposal would only work if e.g. the cool inks 
would behave exactly identical to the warm and selenium inks. And for 
the UT3D inkset there even is no LK selenium ink.

Do I miss something?

Joost

Joost Horsten wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
> 
>> I wonder whether it is possible to make just one general 
>> greyscale profile per paper with your application based on 
>> averaging 3 or 4 target measurements, each target made with a 
>> hue at the boundaries of the gamut one uses in B&W printing. 
>> Choices made with the ABW driver but when your QTR gets the 
>> same flexibility (sliders etc) it would work there too. I'm 
>> actually thinking of the HP Z3100 ABW driver. That 
>> averaged-general profile represents the average luminance 
>> scale of that small gamut used. It will not work for soft 
>> proofing color but I think the preview/softproof of the ABW 
>> drivers will be sufficient for hue selection. The P2P 
>> conversion can be done before the image is brought to the ABW 
>> driver/preview if the  ABW viewer isn't ICC profile 
>> compatible. My goal is to reduce the quantity of profiles as 
>> just one per paper and keep the flexibility of the ABW drivers 
>> in hue choice.
>>
>> Do you foresee visible shifts in the luminance range with the 
>> different hue choices even when that gamut is limited ?  Of 
>> course much depends on right averaging within that small gamut 
>> space.
> 
> Ernst,
> 
> I've too little insight yet to agree or disagree. But I have trouble 
> understanding how just one profile could cope with differences in the 
> inks for the different tones. A profile is not unique to a paper but 
> different for each paper-ink set combination. And in the sitation at 
> hand one needs three different ink sets (warm, cool, selenium). My 
> feeling is that your proposal would only work if e.g. the cool inks 
> would behave exactly identical to the warm and selenium inks. And for 
> the UT3D inkset there even is no LK selenium ink.
> 
> Do I miss something?
> 
> Joost

In color profiling we expect one printer profile to handle all 
kinds of images (even B&W) in a far bigger gamut. In this case 
it is a smaller gamut and it doesn't have to handle color just 
luminance. The only difference is that we exchange one hue for 
another to some degree and never extreme. Before the profile 
creation of QTR was made we used generic matte and gloss 
profiles, what I propose is a least customised to the 
individual paper, ink and printer etc used.

Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>

> In color profiling we expect one printer profile to handle all 
> kinds of images (even B&W) in a far bigger gamut. In this case 
> it is a smaller gamut and it doesn't have to handle color just 
> luminance. The only difference is that we exchange one hue for 
> another to some degree and never extreme. Before the profile 
> creation of QTR was made we used generic matte and gloss 
> profiles, what I propose is a least customised to the 
> individual paper, ink and printer etc used.
> 

Ernst,

You seem more knowledgeable in this then I am, so I hesitate to take 
to strong position here. But I don't think this can work in a general 
sense. You assume that a change of hue has no effect on luminance. In 
reality, a different hue will be realised with a different "sub ink 
set" (e.g. cool vs. warm toners). In general they will need a 
different linearization profile. To me, if their physical properties 
are exactly matched your assumption is true. If that is not the case 
(which is in practice, or at least I don't want to rely on it), a 
change of hue will effect luminance.

Having said the above, I can see how a modification of your proposed 
workflow could work. If you make three curves, one for each primary, 
I imagine one could build a host of different UIs/hue control 
mechanisms on top of it. The ABW for one, the sliders as proposed by 
Roy as another, a color-like workflow as proposed by David Tobie or 
alpha-channels as proposed by Tom. And only three curves is already a 
WORLD of difference, with the infinite amount of curves I would have 
to make now in QTR to get all the hues and split-tones I would like 
to try.

Joost

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 

> You seem more knowledgeable in this then I am, so I hesitate to 
take 
> to strong position here. But I don't think this can work in a 
general 
> sense. You assume that a change of hue has no effect on luminance. 
In 
> reality, a different hue will be realised with a different "sub ink 
> set" (e.g. cool vs. warm toners). In general they will need a 
> different linearization profile. To me, if their physical 
properties 
> are exactly matched your assumption is true. If that is not the 
case 
> (which is in practice, or at least I don't want to rely on it), a 
> change of hue will effect luminance.
> 
> Having said the above, I can see how a modification of your 
proposed 
> workflow could work. If you make three curves, one for each 
primary, 
> I imagine one could build a host of different UIs/hue control 
> mechanisms on top of it. The ABW for one, the sliders as proposed 
by 
> Roy as another, a color-like workflow as proposed by David Tobie or 
> alpha-channels as proposed by Tom. And only three curves is already 
a 
> WORLD of difference, with the infinite amount of curves I would 
have 
> to make now in QTR to get all the hues and split-tones I would like 
> to try.
>

Ernst,

While cycling to work, a further argumentation came to my mind. In 
your approach, where you write: 

"In this case
it is a smaller gamut and it doesn't have to handle color just
luminance. The only difference is that we exchange one hue for
another to some degree and never extreme.", 

you seem to assume that hue (LAB a and b) axes can be assumed are 
orthogonal to the Luminance axis. That seems too coarse an assumption 
to me. I find proof in the fact that each of the UT3D hues (warm, 
cool, selenium) have slightly different linearization curves. They're 
similar, but different. The key point of QTR is to linearize the 
curves. And by doing so, the effect is that the hue axes on hand and 
the luminance axis on the other become orthogonal.

And on top that orthogonal framework one could build these different 
hue control mechanisms (changing hue without changing the luminance).

Joost


P.S. This brings another possbile work flow approach to my mind. I'm 
not sure how it would work in practice, just throwing it into the 
group...

In stead of working in an RGB space, as is currently discussed in the 
DB&WTP forum, on could think of working in LAB. In effect when 
working with QTR, we already do so, but restricted to a=b=0. So this 
seems much more natural for B&W. The "real B&W work" ;-) is done in 
the L-channel, adding the hues later happens in the a and b channels.

QTR (in an enhanced version) could take the a and b values per pixel 
and interpolate between the (a,b) values of the curves. Of course, 
QTR needs to have this information, but feeding that info would be 
very similar to entering the linearization data (which are actually 
L) values of a step wedge. Of course, this is starting to build some 
kind of color engine, but the big differences with the icc-approach 
is that it would be much more natural for B&W (the a and b channels 
are completely optional) and it does not put any restriction on the 
ink set (any wild combination remains possible, since QTR deals with 
the peculiarities).

In such a hypothetical workflow I would probably completely separate 
the luminance editing (the "real B&W part") and the hue editing, 
which is for me related to the printing process. In my current 
workflow I have basically three files: 
1) the original RAW/DNG file (no or very basic editing done, just for 
archival purposes
2) the "master" file in which I do all the editing (as much as 
possible in a non-destructive way with adjustment layers)
3) the "print" file, a flattened version of the master file, adjusted 
to the appropriate size and resolution, sharpening applied.

The hue editing would be done in the "print" file (or perhaps in an 
intermediate file between "master" and "print"

Does the above make any sense?

Joost Horsten wrote:

> ...
> I've too little insight yet to agree or disagree. But I have trouble 
> understanding how just one profile could cope with differences in the 
> inks for the different tones. A profile is not unique to a paper but 
> different for each paper-ink set combination. And in the sitation at 
> hand one needs three different ink sets (warm, cool, selenium). My 
> feeling is that your proposal would only work if e.g. the cool inks 
> would behave exactly identical to the warm and selenium inks. And for 
> the UT3D inkset there even is no LK selenium ink.

Joost

Several greyscale inksets are designed to be compatible with each other 
in this sense. I believe the different positions in the various 
piezography sets were all of matching density as are the current K7 
neutral & sepia sets. That is how inks in matching positions can be 
interchanged and used with the same curves.

Similarly MIS FS & FSN, the UT7 carbon & cool toners and UT-R2-Warm & 
Neutral all include similar density inks in the equivalent positions of 
the warm & neutral/cool sets. In that sense the luminance should be the
similar whichever way they are mixed & matched.

Perhaps in this sense, one generic profile would work for each family of 
inks.

I am not familiar with UT3d which you have been using and it sounds like 
this is a more complex set of inks for which the above scenario does not 
apply.

Howard

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Howard Shaw <glassman@...> wrote:
> 
> Several greyscale inksets are designed to be compatible with each 
other 
> in this sense. I believe the different positions in the various 
> piezography sets were all of matching density as are the current K7 
> neutral & sepia sets. That is how inks in matching positions can be 
> interchanged and used with the same curves.
> 
> Similarly MIS FS & FSN, the UT7 carbon & cool toners and UT-R2-Warm 
& 
> Neutral all include similar density inks in the equivalent 
positions of 
> the warm & neutral/cool sets. In that sense the luminance should be 
the
> similar whichever way they are mixed & matched.
> 
> Perhaps in this sense, one generic profile would work for each 
family of 
> inks.

You have a point here. I'm not familiar with the K7 sets. The UT7 
carbon and cool toners are supposed to be the same as those of the 
UT3D set. I did not study them in all detail, but if you look to the 
canned QTR curves for these, there are actual slight differences. I 
confess I did not try to take the same settings and compare the 
results. In the ideal case, you and Ernst are right. I just don't 
know how ideal reality is.

> 
> I am not familiar with UT3d which you have been using and it sounds 
like 
> this is a more complex set of inks for which the above scenario 
does not 
> apply.

With the lab a /selenium toner in the UT3D set the situation is 
different indeed.
Unlike for the carbon and cool toners, that each have a LK and a LLK 
version, the selenium toner has just a single LLK version. The LK 
part of the curve has to be built by adding a mix of the cool and 
warm LK toners. Perhaps one could rely on just taking 50% warm and 
50% cool, but I don't see why there is a garantuee that that actually 
results in a linear curve. 

My point is that I sympathize with Ernsts approach, but that building 
the framework on a fundament of three pillars in stead of just one 
would be more robust/accurate AND flexible. One just does not have to 
assume anything, but ane can actually compensate for any 
deviations/peculiarities.

Joost

Joost Horsten wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Howard Shaw <glassman@...> wrote:
>> Several greyscale inksets are designed to be compatible with each 
> other 
>> in this sense. I believe the different positions in the various 
>> piezography sets were all of matching density as are the current K7 
>> neutral & sepia sets. That is how inks in matching positions can be 
>> interchanged and used with the same curves.
>>
>> Similarly MIS FS & FSN, the UT7 carbon & cool toners and UT-R2-Warm 
> & 
>> Neutral all include similar density inks in the equivalent 
> positions of 
>> the warm & neutral/cool sets. In that sense the luminance should be 
> the
>> similar whichever way they are mixed & matched.
>>
>> Perhaps in this sense, one generic profile would work for each 
> family of 
>> inks.

Paul Roark always tried to match at least Dmax in the 
different hue curves for one inkset, the rest was at that time 
matched to the eye and no spectrometer profiling was done. Ink 
limiting and linearisation in QTR could/should be done in the 
same way. That could mean some Dmax for carbon or neutral 
black curves (depends on the black ink color) have to be 
limited if the other hue choices limit Dmax by nature. But 
toning black at Dmax is hardly possible so even that gives a 
limited difference. The perceptual curve fits the Dmax and 
paper white and by that it should be very identical.

I'm actually more interested in a single profile for ABW 
drivers and the Z3100 one in particular than making it work on 
QTR..The Z3100 ABW driver is based on internal spectrometer 
calibration that is also done on the 3-4 grey inks. I have 
checked that with HP.  Calibration doesn't have to mean 
linearisation but at least it creates a stable base. I expect 
similarities in tone range between prints made with the 
different hue selections in the ABW driver based on 
information from the same HP man. What seems to lack is the 
Lab curve as I asked whether they used the color ICC paper 
profile as a base for ABW and that was denied. No alternative 
profile was used either. He was interested in the concept. 
This is one of the color experts for the Z3100 at HP in 
Barcelona. Based on this information I think that a custom 
made greyscale profile created by averaging 3-4 measurements 
(3 toned + 1 the basic grey ink color) will bring the 
perceptual curve right to the center Dmax of that small gamut 
and average the perceptual curve as well. I'm not advocating a 
generic profile but a custom one that fits that particular 
printer, paper, inkset, small gamut choice. Given the 
integrated calibration of the Z3100 it will without doubt be 
generic for all Z3100s.

> You have a point here. I'm not familiar with the K7 sets. The UT7 
> carbon and cool toners are supposed to be the same as those of the 
> UT3D set. I did not study them in all detail, but if you look to the 
> canned QTR curves for these, there are actual slight differences. I 
> confess I did not try to take the same settings and compare the 
> results. In the ideal case, you and Ernst are right. I just don't 
> know how ideal reality is.

> 
>> I am not familiar with UT3d which you have been using and it sounds 
> like 
>> this is a more complex set of inks for which the above scenario 
> does not 
>> apply.
> 
> With the lab a /selenium toner in the UT3D set the situation is 
> different indeed.
> Unlike for the carbon and cool toners, that each have a LK and a LLK 
> version, the selenium toner has just a single LLK version. The LK 
> part of the curve has to be built by adding a mix of the cool and 
> warm LK toners. Perhaps one could rely on just taking 50% warm and 
> 50% cool, but I don't see why there is a garantuee that that actually 
> results in a linear curve. 
> 
> My point is that I sympathize with Ernsts approach, but that building 
> the framework on a fundament of three pillars in stead of just one 
> would be more robust/accurate AND flexible. One just does not have to 
> assume anything, but ane can actually compensate for any 
> deviations/peculiarities.

That's what I wrote in my private mail on the 3 
blending/slider concept. There are maybe 10 different quad + 
CMYKkkk inksets around and I expect that we get a very complex 
mailing list here when the users of all the inksets start to 
experiment with the new features.

I expect some tone range compensations in the ABW drivers for 
the hue shifts. Not that I didn't think of your method. Before 
going back to a single profile I proposed a solution where the 
ink mix is based on blending between 3 ICC profiles. That 
would ask for a color engine anyway but it would provide a 
good base for both soft proofing and printing. Probably too 
far fetched as Roy replied that there is no mixing tool for 
ICC profiles. Another idea I had was adding a B&W rendering to 
normal ICC color paper profiles, say Tobie's approach but 
incorporated, neutral only (and accepted by the ICE standards 
committee). That's even more futuristic if you see the rate of 
developments there. I'm back on the ground again.

Right now I think that splitting the perceptual tone curve 
profile from color softproofing and the use of ABW like 
drivers for adding color to prints + soft proofing is the best 
possibility right now as it allows the flexibility I seek + 
less profiles + keeping greyscale files instead of RGB. The 
last may suffer partly if this has to be done from Qimage 
which I prefer to do. But I can escape the B&W profiled color 
printing route Tobie proposes. So the next step will be: 
talking with Mike Chaney to see whether the ABW driver can be 
fed with greyscale Tiffs in Qimage, have color management do 
the profile conversion and see whether the ABW softproof is 
then showing the profile conversion already before the hue is 
chosen. If that flow has to be RGB as Qimage doesn't know 
anything else doesn't matter to me, the data is gone after 
printing. The Epson K3 ABW driver accepts both RGB and 
greyscale input so with that one it isn't a problem.

There are a number of reasons why I am aiming at this workflow 
instead of using QTR etc. The Windows version of QTR with the 
GUI doesn't fit Qimage well, the hot folder I proposed at that 
time to overcome part of the problems does work but it is not 
really making it a good tandem. Paper sizes do not translate 
back to Qimage, it is a slow chain and not always reliable in 
larger prints. Soft proofing isn't available in QTR. More 
(RGB) data is spooled along the way. The chance QTR becomes a 
normal Windows driver is nil at short term. I intend to buy a 
Z3100 and will sell the 9000 quad. That step has many 
advantages for B&W as well,  both in maintenance and quality. 
QTR can't drive the HPs (yet:-) and I do not see the Windows 
version getting the softproof ability of the ABW drivers nor 
get the many features of Qimage.

To be honest I expect that is the way many of us will go on 
the longer term despite the wide choice of Quad inksets and 
RIPs right now. I do not underestimate Roy's efforts but I do 
not see QTR supporting both HP and Canon printers and add so 
many features while new printer models appear one after the 
other right now.


Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst, Measure Tool, that comes with ProfilerPro and can be used in demo, has an average 
function. You could drag your txt files from the measured hue sets into it and it'll spit out an 
averaged new one. Then make your profile from that.
Perhaps that would work for you? I see what you are trying to do, and don't see a problem 
with it unless the ABW drivers change luminosity with hue too much.
Then you'd just have to bite the bullet and profile your various hue settings for each paper. 
Actually I find after doing so much hue tweak work that the changes are so subtle there is not 
much need for a lot of settings to offer. So maybe you wouldn't need that many anyway.
Tyler

Tyler Boley wrote:
> Ernst, Measure Tool, that comes with ProfilerPro and can be used in demo, has an average 
> function. You could drag your txt files from the measured hue sets into it and it'll spit out an 
> averaged new one. Then make your profile from that.
> Perhaps that would work for you? I see what you are trying to do, and don't see a problem 
> with it unless the ABW drivers change luminosity with hue too much.
> Then you'd just have to bite the bullet and profile your various hue settings for each paper. 
> Actually I find after doing so much hue tweak work that the changes are so subtle there is not 
> much need for a lot of settings to offer. So maybe you wouldn't need that many anyway.
> Tyler

Tyler,

Point is I have customers. For myself it is carbon and neutral 
that I like. But if someone thinks a bit of purple makes
his exhibition he should get it.

QTR profile creation + a spreadsheet can deal with it I think.
I have made some files to get the Spectrocam + its driver
working with the random target + open office and I think that
can be extended to multi targets. Right now I use Open Office
but the Spectrocam has a direct transfer to Excel so I better
install that. If I strip the color information as well it
should be perfect


Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

Ernst,

Partly I understand what you mean, but I must confess not all of it. We 
seem to agree on the conceptual, theoretical framework. But as you 
explained, the bare reality brings in several subtleties. Furthermore 
we seem to have a different preference for a workflow. Yours based on 
an apparently long years B&W experience, seeking for standardization. 
Mine based on a fairly short not-completely-newbie-anymore experience, 
with a background in painting and printmaking, loving to tinker with 
pigments, paints and inks.

It's very interesting to see new paradigm developing. I'm curious to 
see where it will lead to. For the time being I'd be perfectly happy 
with the 3 curves + sliders approch that Roy suggested.

Joost

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
>
> Tyler Boley wrote:
...
> > Actually I find after doing so much hue tweak work that the
changes are so subtle there is not 
> > much need for a lot of settings to offer. So maybe you wouldn't
need that many anyway.
> > Tyler
> 
> Tyler,
> 
> Point is I have customers.

indeed, so do I

> For myself it is carbon and neutral 
> that I like. But if someone thinks a bit of purple makes
> his exhibition he should get it.

absolutely, and those sorts of subtleties are what I spend a lot of
time working with, and yet few customers do anything but fall asleep
when I begin to explain these various options that are avalable to
them. They usually want just warm or cool, that's all I meant.

> QTR profile creation + a spreadsheet can deal with it I think.

probably, and that's kind of what I meant. I didn't mean to imply
ProfileMakerPro should be used for profiling like this. I don't know
much about spreadsheet apps but I assume they'll do you averaging. I
only meant MeasureTool ould spit out your new averaged txt file to
then go back to QTR CreateICC with. You'd have the option of weighted
averaging as well if desired.
Just a thought.
Tyler

Ernst,
Carbon neutral is the answer.  We photographers might yet save the
planet if only we can persuade everyone that the future has to be
carbon neutral!
Steve Gledhill
http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

...
> Tyler,
> 
> Point is I have customers. For myself it is carbon and neutral 
> that I like. But if someone thinks a bit of purple makes
> his exhibition he should get it.
 ...
> Met vriendelijke groeten,Ernst

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:

> [...] my idea is to do it all together -- 3 curves and 3 blends 
(highlights, 
> mid, shadows).
> This should fit into people's current workflow.

Hi Roy,

Coming back to this thread of a few months ago: I have experimented a 
bit more with toning and split-toning with the UT-3D inks. For myself I 
concluded that QTR in its present form is really too cumbersome to 
pursue this field further. Are you planning indeed to implement your 
idea above? That would be great..... It would be a great enhancement of 
QTR. If so, any idea on timing......?

Kind regards

Joost

On Saturday, February 3, 2007, at 11:58  PM, Joost Horsten wrote:

> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>
>> [...] my idea is to do it all together -- 3 curves and 3 blends
> (highlights,
>> mid, shadows).
>> This should fit into people's current workflow.
>
> Hi Roy,
>
> Coming back to this thread of a few months ago: I have experimented a
> bit more with toning and split-toning with the UT-3D inks. For myself I
> concluded that QTR in its present form is really too cumbersome to
> pursue this field further. Are you planning indeed to implement your
> idea above? That would be great..... It would be a great enhancement of
> QTR. If so, any idea on timing......?
>
> Kind regards
>
> Joost
>

Funny you should ask!   It's just about to be released.
Much much easier than having to design split tone curves.

Roy

-
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photo Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:

> Funny you should ask!   It's just about to be released.
> Much much easier than having to design split tone curves.
> 

Wow! What a speed! Looking forward to it!!!!

Joost