QTR-Quadtone RIP

I'm just starting out with QTR. I use it to print on Epson Enhanced 
Matte Paper and the prints are way too dark for all 4 choices: cool, 
cool selenium, sepia and warm. My printer model choice in QTR is 
Quad2200, I use one curve only and no Ink Limit or Gamma adjustments. 
I don't want to fiddle with the gamma setting, because I think there 
is an issue that I don't understand yet. 

My prints using the Epson driver match my images on the monitor very 
closely and are way lighter than what I get using QTR.

A post from last year suggested to assign a QTR profile to the image 
file before saving as tiff but a) I can't find QTR profiles to 
download from the QTR website and b) I would think that by choosing a 
curve in QTR it has all the information necessary to print correctly, 
including tonality.

Can anybody help me with this issue?

Thanks,

Frans Waterlander

Frans,

Before delving into your question deeper: what inkset do you use 
(from the profiles you use I guess the OEM inks) and what OS are you 
using?

Good chance that indeed the problem is that you have not converted 
your file to the right icc profile. QTR works in the LAB space and 
assumes your image is converted to it. The GRAY-LAB profile come with 
the installation

C:\Program Files\QuadToneRip\icc\gray-lab.icc

Make sure you CONVERT the image to this profile and not just ASSIGN 
the profile to the image. QTR ignores assigned profiles.

The directory above also contains some other gray icc-profiles for 
matte and glossy papers. But I have never find them of any use.

Personally, I never touch the ink limit and gamma adjustment sliders. 
I regard them more as a last minute rescue feature than as a serious 
profiling instrument.

Good luck,

Joost


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> 
wrote:
>
> I'm just starting out with QTR. I use it to print on Epson Enhanced 
> Matte Paper and the prints are way too dark for all 4 choices: 
cool, 
> cool selenium, sepia and warm. My printer model choice in QTR is 
> Quad2200, I use one curve only and no Ink Limit or Gamma 
adjustments. 
> I don't want to fiddle with the gamma setting, because I think 
there 
> is an issue that I don't understand yet. 
> 
> My prints using the Epson driver match my images on the monitor 
very 
> closely and are way lighter than what I get using QTR.
> 
> A post from last year suggested to assign a QTR profile to the 
image 
> file before saving as tiff but a) I can't find QTR profiles to 
> download from the QTR website and b) I would think that by choosing 
a 
> curve in QTR it has all the information necessary to print 
correctly, 

> including tonality.
> 
> Can anybody help me with this issue?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Frans Waterlander
>

Joost,

Thanks for your reply. I indeed use the Epson OEM ink cartridges and 
Windows XP Home Edition. 

After reading more on this forum I changed my dpi from 2880 to 1440 
and now my prints are much lighter, but they are now way too light 
and seem to lack contrast and my blacks are too light as well.
The QTRgui Help feature nor the User guide say anything very specific 
about what dpi to use, except that on the one hand I am let to 
believe that it doesn't matter much (it matters a lot in my case!) 
and on the other hand it is suggested to change dpi if results are 
not satisfactory; I can't find any definitive instructions on what 
dpi to use and how it would make a difference.

On your suggestion I converted my image, previously with the Adobe 
RGB (1998) profile, to QTR - Gray Lab and this doesn't change the 
print one bit.

So, is this the kind of monitor-to-print mismatch that I should 
expect, which would require me to retweak every image before printing 
using QTR? That's hard to believe given the praises that I read about 
the program.

Suggestions are more than welcome!

Frans Waterlander

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:
>
> Frans,
> 
> Before delving into your question deeper: what inkset do you use 
> (from the profiles you use I guess the OEM inks) and what OS are 
you 
> using?
> 
> Good chance that indeed the problem is that you have not converted 
> your file to the right icc profile. QTR works in the LAB space and 
> assumes your image is converted to it. The GRAY-LAB profile come 
with 
> the installation
> 
> C:\Program Files\QuadToneRip\icc\gray-lab.icc
> 
> Make sure you CONVERT the image to this profile and not just ASSIGN 
> the profile to the image. QTR ignores assigned profiles.
> 
> The directory above also contains some other gray icc-profiles for 
> matte and glossy papers. But I have never find them of any use.
> 
> Personally, I never touch the ink limit and gamma adjustment 
sliders. 
> I regard them more as a last minute rescue feature than as a 
serious 
> profiling instrument.
> 
> Good luck,
> 
> Joost
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm just starting out with QTR. I use it to print on Epson 
Enhanced 
> > Matte Paper and the prints are way too dark for all 4 choices: 
> cool, 
> > cool selenium, sepia and warm. My printer model choice in QTR is 
> > Quad2200, I use one curve only and no Ink Limit or Gamma 
> adjustments. 
> > I don't want to fiddle with the gamma setting, because I think 
> there 
> > is an issue that I don't understand yet. 
> > 
> > My prints using the Epson driver match my images on the monitor 
> very 
> > closely and are way lighter than what I get using QTR.
> > 
> > A post from last year suggested to assign a QTR profile to the 
> image 
> > file before saving as tiff but a) I can't find QTR profiles to 
> > download from the QTR website and b) I would think that by 
choosing 

> a 
> > curve in QTR it has all the information necessary to print 
> correctly, 
> > including tonality.
> > 
> > Can anybody help me with this issue?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Frans Waterlander
> >
>

I have found that what works best for me is to edit in QTR Grey Lab and print in QTR Grey Matte profile.

Richard
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 

   Darling! Will you be my first wife?
   Spike Milligan, 'Mussolini, His Part in My Downfall.'

Frans

Unless indicated otherwise in the curve name, curves usually are designed
for 1440 dpi. Curves designed for 2880, by convention have the term 2880 in
the curve name.

You can use a 1440 curve at 2880 with reasonable success by reducing the ink
limit by about 35%. You can do the converse by increasing the limit by the
same amount.

With regard to matching image and print many QTR users get quite a close
match, but there are a lot of factors involved, including how good your
monitor profiling is. You state that your prints match quite well with the
Epson driver. I presume that refers to printing color images. It could be
that black and white images might make more visible, differences that are
masked by presence of color.

In any event, assuming your monitor is well profiled, simply converting an
image to the QTR-RGB-LAB space is not enough. You also need to use Photoshop
soft proof, using the profile QTR - RGB LAB space as the Device to Simulate,
selecting Relative Colorimetric, Black Point Compensation and Simulate Black
Ink (using PSCS2 terminology).

Once you set up and select the soft proof you will see the image flatten
quite a bit - I expect a lot closer to your print, although it likely still
won't be perfect. That is because, although you are now using the right
technique, the profiles you are using are generic. If you have a measuring
device, you can use QTR-Create-ICC to create custom ICC profiles for
specific ink/paper combinations. These can give very close monitor print
registration, assuming the rest of your system is calibrated.

Good luck

Tom Moore

> -----Original Message-----
> From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of fwaterlander
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:19 PM
> To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Why are Epson 2200 prints too dark
> 
> Joost,
> 
> Thanks for your reply. I indeed use the Epson OEM ink cartridges and
> Windows XP Home Edition.
> 
> After reading more on this forum I changed my dpi from 2880 to 1440
> and now my prints are much lighter, but they are now way too light
> and seem to lack contrast and my blacks are too light as well.
> The QTRgui Help feature nor the User guide say anything very specific
> about what dpi to use, except that on the one hand I am let to
> believe that it doesn't matter much (it matters a lot in my case!)
> and on the other hand it is suggested to change dpi if results are
> not satisfactory; I can't find any definitive instructions on what
> dpi to use and how it would make a difference.
> 
> On your suggestion I converted my image, previously with the Adobe
> RGB (1998) profile, to QTR - Gray Lab and this doesn't change the
> print one bit.
> 
> So, is this the kind of monitor-to-print mismatch that I should
> expect, which would require me to retweak every image before printing
> using QTR? That's hard to believe given the praises that I read about
> the program.
> 
...

Richard,

I'm not sure I understand what you say.

When you say "edit in QTR Gray Lab" do you mean "choose QTR Gray Lab 
as your grayscale working space"? This begs some questions:
1) what do you do when you work in RGB color (allowed according to 
the User guide)?
2) why is there no mention of this in QTRgui Help or User guide?

When you say "print in QTR Gray Matte profile" do you mean "convert 
the image to QTR Gray Matte profile" before saving as a tif?
Why is there no mention of this in QTRgui Help or User guide?

Thanks for your help in trying to get this newbie up and running!

Frans Waterlander

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Richard Smallfield 
<r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> I have found that what works best for me is to edit in QTR Grey Lab 
and print in QTR Grey Matte profile.

> 
> Richard
> --
> http://smallfield.vze.com
> http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
> http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 
> 
>    Darling! Will you be my first wife?
>    Spike Milligan, 'Mussolini, His Part in My Downfall.'
>

Tom,

Why is there no mention in the QTRgui Help or User guide about what 
resolution the profiles are based on or how to modify your image for 
different resolutions and how did you find out?

I get excellent monitor-to-print matching using the Epson driver for 
both color and b&w images. Of course the Epson driver has its 
limitations for b&w images that I hope to overcome with QTR.

When I use the Proof Colors feature in my PS CS per your suggestions 
(Simulate Black Ink is grayed out), I do not see any change when 
toggling between straight display mode and Proof Colors mode.

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Frans Waterlander

--- In QuadtoneRIP@...m, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@...> wrote:
>
> Frans
> 
> Unless indicated otherwise in the curve name, curves usually are 
designed
> for 1440 dpi. Curves designed for 2880, by convention have the term 
2880 in
> the curve name.
> 
> You can use a 1440 curve at 2880 with reasonable success by 
reducing the ink
> limit by about 35%. You can do the converse by increasing the limit 
by the
> same amount.
> 
> With regard to matching image and print many QTR users get quite a 
close
> match, but there are a lot of factors involved, including how good 
your
> monitor profiling is. You state that your prints match quite well 
with the
> Epson driver. I presume that refers to printing color images. It 
could be
> that black and white images might make more visible, differences 
that are
> masked by presence of color.
> 
> In any event, assuming your monitor is well profiled, simply 
converting an
> image to the QTR-RGB-LAB space is not enough. You also need to use 
Photoshop
> soft proof, using the profile QTR - RGB LAB space as the Device to 
Simulate,
> selecting Relative Colorimetric, Black Point Compensation and 
Simulate Black
> Ink (using PSCS2 terminology).
> 
> Once you set up and select the soft proof you will see the image 
flatten
> quite a bit - I expect a lot closer to your print, although it 
likely still
> won't be perfect. That is because, although you are now using the 
right
> technique, the profiles you are using are generic. If you have a 
measuring
> device, you can use QTR-Create-ICC to create custom ICC profiles for
> specific ink/paper combinations. These can give very close monitor 
print
> registration, assuming the rest of your system is calibrated.
> 
> Good luck
> 
> Tom Moore
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of fwaterlander
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 6:19 PM
> > To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Why are Epson 2200 prints too dark
> > 
> > Joost,
> > 
> > Thanks for your reply. I indeed use the Epson OEM ink cartridges 
and
> > Windows XP Home Edition.
> > 
> > After reading more on this forum I changed my dpi from 2880 to 
1440
> > and now my prints are much lighter, but they are now way too light
> > and seem to lack contrast and my blacks are too light as well.
> > The QTRgui Help feature nor the User guide say anything very 
specific
> > about what dpi to use, except that on the one hand I am let to
> > believe that it doesn't matter much (it matters a lot in my case!)
> > and on the other hand it is suggested to change dpi if results are
> > not satisfactory; I can't find any definitive instructions on what
> > dpi to use and how it would make a difference.
> > 
> > On your suggestion I converted my image, previously with the Adobe
> > RGB (1998) profile, to QTR - Gray Lab and this doesn't change the
> > print one bit.
> > 
> > So, is this the kind of monitor-to-print mismatch that I should
> > expect, which would require me to retweak every image before 
printing
> > using QTR? That's hard to believe given the praises that I read 
about

> > the program.
> > 
> ...
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@...> wrote:

> [...] converting an
> image to the QTR-RGB-LAB space is not enough. You also need to use 
Photoshop
> soft proof, using the profile QTR - RGB LAB space as the Device to 
Simulate,
> selecting Relative Colorimetric, Black Point Compensation and 
Simulate Black
> Ink (using PSCS2 terminology).
> 
> Once you set up and select the soft proof you will see the image 
flatten
> quite a bit - I expect a lot closer to your print, although it 
likely still
> won't be perfect. 

Tom,

I must confess I'm a bit confused. I tried soft-proofing earlier with 
no noticable advantage, so I left it aside. Based on your statements 
I tried it again, but like Frans, I don't see any difference 
whatsoever on my monitor with or without softproofing. I also would 
have difficulty to understand why I would see a difference, since if 
the system is well profiled anything should be linear. The typical 
use of softproofing as I know it, e.g. checking out-of-gamut colours, 
is not applicable in B&W printing. 

> That is because, although you are now using the right
> technique, the profiles you are using are generic. If you have a 
measuring
> device, you can use QTR-Create-ICC to create custom ICC profiles for
> specific ink/paper combinations. These can give very close monitor 
print
> registration, assuming the rest of your system is calibrated.

I CAN understand that this step allows you to softproof the effect of 
paper color and ink tone. But once again, if the monitor is well 
calibrated and if the QTR curves are well linearized, I fail to 
understand how the icc profile qreate by QTR-Create-ICC can be 
anything else then a linear profile. What do I miss??

Joost

Frans

If Simulate Black Ink is grayed out, I suspect that when you are setting up
the View/Proof Setup/Custom... window, you are selecting QTR-RGB-LAB in the
Device to Simulate pull-down. You need to select a printing profile. The
generic matte one would be QTR-RGB-Matte Paper. Then you should be able to
select Simulate Black Ink - at least I can. It causes a noticeable change in
the visible image.

If you create a profile for your specific Printer/Ink/Paper combination you
will also be able to select Simulate Paper Color. This causes an even more
noticeable change. My prints are quite close to my monitor soft proof this
way.

Tom Moore

> -----Original Message-----
> From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of fwaterlander
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:08 PM
> To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Why are Epson 2200 prints too dark
> 
> Tom,
> 
> Why is there no mention in the QTRgui Help or User guide about what
> resolution the profiles are based on or how to modify your image for
> different resolutions and how did you find out?
> 
> I get excellent monitor-to-print matching using the Epson driver for
> both color and b&w images. Of course the Epson driver has its
> limitations for b&w images that I hope to overcome with QTR.
> 
> When I use the Proof Colors feature in my PS CS per your suggestions
> (Simulate Black Ink is grayed out), I do not see any change when
> toggling between straight display mode and Proof Colors mode.
> 
> Your help is greatly appreciated.
> 
> Frans Waterlander

...

>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:
Last night I thought over my own comments and recalled a discussion 
we had some time ago in the UK print exchange group. I understand a 
bit better now, but still not completely:

> [when using the Gray-RGB-LAB profile] I don't see any difference 
> whatsoever on my monitor with or without softproofing. I also would 
> have difficulty to understand why I would see a difference, since 
if 
> the system is well profiled anything should be linear. The typical 
> use of softproofing as I know it, e.g. checking out-of-gamut 
colours, 
> is not applicable in B&W printing. 

I do think this correct. To my understanding the gray-lab or gray-rgb-
lab profiles should NOT give a difference. If well-profiled, I expect 
the monitor to be linear in the L*a*b* (abbreviated as LAB) space,  
To me, that's the whole point of profiling. Note that the L-values 
run from 0-100 with or without softproofing (at lest when printing a 
standard stepwedge)

> > [...] If you have a 
> measuring
> > device, you can use QTR-Create-ICC to create custom ICC profiles 
for
> > specific ink/paper combinations. These can give very close 
monitor 
> print
> > registration, assuming the rest of your system is calibrated.
> 

This one I understand a bit better now. To my understanding, this 
technique can compensate for two effects: 
1) the tones of paper and ink are in general not neutral 
2) a paper print can not represent the total L-range from 0-100 but 
let's say from 15-95. So the range is compressed, giving this flatter 
look that Tom mentioned. 

Having said this, i'm still not convinced of the use of softproofing. 
The effect 1) is a matter of taste, I use quite heavily blended 
curves (UT3D) , something that can only be poorly represented by 
sooftproofing. Effect 2) is more important, but employing that 
requires (again in my limited understanding) a careful adjustment 
between monitor brightness/contrast and viewing booth setup. Without 
that, my feeling is that softproofing is of little use.

Is this correct or do I still miss the point?

Joost

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@...> wrote:
> If Simulate Black Ink is grayed out, I suspect that when you are 
setting up
> the View/Proof Setup/Custom... window, you are selecting QTR-RGB-LAB 
in the
> Device to Simulate pull-down. You need to select a printing profile. 
The
> generic matte one would be QTR-RGB-Matte Paper. 

Tom,

Your post crossed my previous one. This makes sense. Indeed, based on 
your first instruction, I used the QTR-RGB-LAB profile. I can 
understand that the QTR-RGB-Matte Paper profile should make a 
difference (suspecting it to have a L-value range lower than 0-100).

Remains the careful need of te viewing booth...

Joost

Joost

I've tried several times to write an explanation of my understanding and
they always seem to get too complicated (and long) so maybe a few questions
and further dialogue will help both of us understand this.

Do you use QTR-RGB-LAB (or QTR-Gray-LAB) space? If so how/when.
Do you use QTR-RGB Matte Paper space (Gray equivalent)? If so how/when.

I don't generally use these generic spaces, but use ones I created for my
curves. When I use mine or the generic paper space to create a custom soft
proof in the manner I describe, I see a quite noticeable change when I
enable the soft proof. Others, notably on the BWPrint list, swear by this
approach.

Perhaps if you describe your workflow to get a print matching your monitor,
we would be able to discover where either you or I have misunderstood the
process.

Tom Moore

> -----Original Message-----
> From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Joost Horsten
> Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:57 PM
> To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Why are Epson 2200 prints too dark
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@...> wrote:
> 
> > [...] converting an
> > image to the QTR-RGB-LAB space is not enough. You also need to use
> Photoshop
> > soft proof, using the profile QTR - RGB LAB space as the Device to
> Simulate,
> > selecting Relative Colorimetric, Black Point Compensation and
> Simulate Black
> > Ink (using PSCS2 terminology).
> >
> > Once you set up and select the soft proof you will see the image
> flatten
> > quite a bit - I expect a lot closer to your print, although it
> likely still
> > won't be perfect.
> 
> Tom,
> 
> I must confess I'm a bit confused. I tried soft-proofing earlier with
> no noticable advantage, so I left it aside. Based on your statements
> I tried it again, but like Frans, I don't see any difference
> whatsoever on my monitor with or without softproofing. I also would
> have difficulty to understand why I would see a difference, since if
> the system is well profiled anything should be linear. The typical
> use of softproofing as I know it, e.g. checking out-of-gamut colours,
> is not applicable in B&W printing.
> 
> > That is because, although you are now using the right
> > technique, the profiles you are using are generic. If you have a
> measuring
> > device, you can use QTR-Create-ICC to create custom ICC profiles for
> > specific ink/paper combinations. These can give very close monitor
> print
> > registration, assuming the rest of your system is calibrated.
> 
> I CAN understand that this step allows you to softproof the effect of
> paper color and ink tone. But once again, if the monitor is well
> calibrated and if the QTR curves are well linearized, I fail to
> understand how the icc profile qreate by QTR-Create-ICC can be
> anything else then a linear profile. What do I miss??
> 
> Joost
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> 
wrote:

> 
> I get excellent monitor-to-print matching using the Epson driver 
for 
> both color and b&w images. Of course the Epson driver has its 
> limitations for b&w images that I hope to overcome with QTR.

Frans,

Getting the workflow right is a bit of struggle in the beginning, you 
should be able to get at least an even good match with QTR as you 
have with the epson driver fairly quickly.

However, in my B&W printing journey I have experienced 
that "excellent match" is highly subjective. When I started 
(something like 8 montsh ago) with QTR, quite quickly I got what I 
felt a "perfect match" between print and monitor. But apparently 
one's eye develops and gradually I started to see the deviations. And 
I feel I'm now limited by this monitor/viewing booth mismatch I 
adressed in my post to Tom. But every step has its proper time....

Joost
 

.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@...> wrote:
>
> maybe a few questions
> and further dialogue will help both of us understand this.
> 
> Do you use QTR-RGB-LAB (or QTR-Gray-LAB) space? If so how/when.
> Do you use QTR-RGB Matte Paper space (Gray equivalent)? If so 
how/when.
> 
> Perhaps if you describe your workflow to get a print matching your 
monitor,
> we would be able to discover where either you or I have
> misunderstood the
> process.

Hi Tom, 

I think I'm getting there, but to be sure, this is my current process:

1) capture the image in RAW (Canon)
2) convert it to TIF / AdobeRGB (Photoshop or Lightroom)
3) make sure the monitor is calibrated (Eye-One)
4) edit the image in AdobeRGB - nondestructively by using adjustment 
layers - NO softproofing
5) save the image as "edit" version 
6) save another version of the image as "print" version
7) flatten the "print" version, convert to grayscale, convert to 8 
bit) 
8) "convert profile" to Gray-LAB
9) save the "print" file (TIF)
10) use QTR curves are created following your user manual, using the 
Eye-One.
11) print the file using QTR 2.5 (Epson 2100, UT3D inks, usually on 
EEM or HPR) 
12) evaluate print under different light sources
13) if necessary, back to 4)

I was pretty happy with the result of this workflow when I started 
("perfect match"), but by now I'm starting to see glitches. Usually 
the print is indeed a bit "flatter" than on my monitor and the 
printed highlights are just a bit darker. 

This morning I tried once again the softproofing process as you 
described it, but now using the gray-matte, gray-photo, rgb-matte and 
rgb-photo profiles. And now indeed I find the flattening as you 
describe in you reply to Frans.

I think I do understand: the L values in the file will run from 0-
100, while on paper the contrast is reduced. The softproof-profiles 
mimick this.

Now my two remaining issues:

1) is a very operational one. I based my knowledge of the use of the 
icc profiles on the "gray-readme.doc" from Roy that comes with the 
profiles. Nowhere in this document reference is made to soft-
proofing. Instead, a much difference use of the profiles is 
advocated. I cite: 

"For Windows where it's necessary to save a tiff file, you should 
Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or Gray Photo 
Paper.  Then save the file for printing in QTRgui." 

I tried this approach in the beginning, with lousy results (match 
became worse), discussed this shortly with Roy on this forum and then 
discarded the use of it. Now I understand it's use to be meant 
completely different! I think the document should be revised (if I'm 
correct now).

2) Even correct soft-proofing is not actually addressing the 
difference in character of a monitor and a print. The brightness and 
contrast of the monitor and the amount of light falling on the print 
all influence the amount of light actually falling into your eye and 
chance the perception of the monitor and print. And I don't see why 
the soft-proofing is necessarily improving the situation. I can 
imagine situations (for instance when the monitor has a very bad 
contrast, lower than the print, soft-proofing INCREASES the mismatch 
between print and monitor. But perhaps this whole thing is just based 
on practical experience, without a solid scientific base???

Joost

Tom,

Yes, when I use the Gray Matte Paper profile for Soft Proofing a 
grayscale image or RGB Matte Paper profile for Soft Proofing an RGB 
image, then indeed I see the flattening. However, this doesn't 
resolve the issue; it only shows what I perceive as a major 
deficiency in QTR, namely the severe degradation of the image when 
printed. When I use the Epson driver, I don't get such degradation, 
although I get some coloration that I am trying to avoid by using QTR.

So, is this the best I can expect of QTR without creating my own 
special curves (something I want to avoid doing like the plague) or 
tweak every image for overall brightness, shadow darkness and 
contrast before printing with QTR?

Please tell me this isn't so!

Frans Waterlander

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@...> wrote:
>
> Frans
> 
> If Simulate Black Ink is grayed out, I suspect that when you are 
setting up
> the View/Proof Setup/Custom... window, you are selecting QTR-RGB-
LAB in the
> Device to Simulate pull-down. You need to select a printing 
profile. The
> generic matte one would be QTR-RGB-Matte Paper. Then you should be 
able to
> select Simulate Black Ink - at least I can. It causes a noticeable 
change in
> the visible image.
> 
> If you create a profile for your specific Printer/Ink/Paper 
combination you
> will also be able to select Simulate Paper Color. This causes an 
even more
> noticeable change. My prints are quite close to my monitor soft 
proof this
> way.
> 
> Tom Moore
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com 
[mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> > Behalf Of fwaterlander
> > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:08 PM
> > To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Why are Epson 2200 prints too dark
> > 
> > Tom,
> > 
> > Why is there no mention in the QTRgui Help or User guide about 
what
> > resolution the profiles are based on or how to modify your image 
for
> > different resolutions and how did you find out?
> > 
> > I get excellent monitor-to-print matching using the Epson driver 
for
> > both color and b&w images. Of course the Epson driver has its
> > limitations for b&w images that I hope to overcome with QTR.
> > 
> > When I use the Proof Colors feature in my PS CS per your 
suggestions

> > (Simulate Black Ink is grayed out), I do not see any change when
> > toggling between straight display mode and Proof Colors mode.
> > 
> > Your help is greatly appreciated.
> > 
> > Frans Waterlander
> 
> ...
> 
> >
>

Frans

In a nutshell, this isn't so.

If you use a curve for a paper ink combination for which it was
designed, you should be able to get the deepest blacks possible witth
that printer/paper/ink and it should be much more neutral (or
consistently toned) than a print using the Epson driver. There are
many expert B&W printers who extoll the benefits of QTR

I can't see your Epson results; I can't see your QTR results and I
don't know the conditions under which you are viewing prints and the
monitor. All I can do is explain the process as best I can. That I've
done. I can also urge you to keep trying QTR, because I know it works.

Good luck

Tom Moore

I should also point out that, of course, you can tweak the image while
viewing it using the softproof for the paper you plan to print it on. 

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> wrote:

>
> Tom,
> 
> Yes, when I use the Gray Matte Paper profile for Soft Proofing a 
> grayscale image or RGB Matte Paper profile for Soft Proofing an RGB 
> image, then indeed I see the flattening. However, this doesn't 
> resolve the issue; it only shows what I perceive as a major 
> deficiency in QTR, namely the severe degradation of the image when 
> printed. When I use the Epson driver, I don't get such degradation, 
> although I get some coloration that I am trying to avoid by using QTR.
> 
> So, is this the best I can expect of QTR without creating my own 
> special curves (something I want to avoid doing like the plague) or 
> tweak every image for overall brightness, shadow darkness and 
> contrast before printing with QTR?
> 
> Please tell me this isn't so!
> 
> Frans Waterlander
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@> wrote:
> >
> > Frans
> > 
> > If Simulate Black Ink is grayed out, I suspect that when you are 
> setting up
> > the View/Proof Setup/Custom... window, you are selecting QTR-RGB-
> LAB in the
> > Device to Simulate pull-down. You need to select a printing 
> profile. The
> > generic matte one would be QTR-RGB-Matte Paper. Then you should be 
> able to
> > select Simulate Black Ink - at least I can. It causes a noticeable 
> change in
> > the visible image.
> > 
> > If you create a profile for your specific Printer/Ink/Paper 
> combination you
> > will also be able to select Simulate Paper Color. This causes an 
> even more
> > noticeable change. My prints are quite close to my monitor soft 
> proof this
> > way.
> > 
> > Tom Moore
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com 
> [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> > > Behalf Of fwaterlander
> > > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:08 PM
> > > To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> > > Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Why are Epson 2200 prints too dark
> > > 
> > > Tom,
> > > 
> > > Why is there no mention in the QTRgui Help or User guide about 
> what
> > > resolution the profiles are based on or how to modify your image 
> for
> > > different resolutions and how did you find out?
> > > 
> > > I get excellent monitor-to-print matching using the Epson driver 
> for
> > > both color and b&w images. Of course the Epson driver has its
> > > limitations for b&w images that I hope to overcome with QTR.
> > > 
> > > When I use the Proof Colors feature in my PS CS per your 
> suggestions
> > > (Simulate Black Ink is grayed out), I do not see any change when
> > > toggling between straight display mode and Proof Colors mode.
> > > 
> > > Your help is greatly appreciated.
> > > 
> > > Frans Waterlander
> > 
> > ...
> > 
> > >
> >
>

Tom,

As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to do. I 
use the QTR profile for my Epson 2200 with Enhanced Matte Paper and 
Epson inks (Printer <Quad2200>, Curve UC-EEnhMatte-cool, -coolSe, -
Sepia or -warm). PS Proof Colors, once I set it up right, shows me 
that a significant flattening of the image will occur in print and 
when I print the image that gets confirmed very clearly.

I view my prints in SoLux 5000K light and view the QTR prints right 
next to the prints made with the Epson driver, all after at least an 
hour of drying and the differences are very obvious.

So, I'm afraid that your statement that it isn't so, isn't so.

The fact that Proof Colors shows no noticeable change for the Epson 
route but shows significant change for the QTR route and the obvious 
differences between the actual prints seems to indicate to me that 
the QTR profile/method is introducing some very noticeable tonality 
shifts, as compared to the Epson route.

So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have other 
people had similar issues?

Frans Waterlander

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@...> wrote:
>
> Frans
> 
> In a nutshell, this isn't so.
> 
> If you use a curve for a paper ink combination for which it was
> designed, you should be able to get the deepest blacks possible 
witth
> that printer/paper/ink and it should be much more neutral (or
> consistently toned) than a print using the Epson driver. There are
> many expert B&W printers who extoll the benefits of QTR
> 
> I can't see your Epson results; I can't see your QTR results and I
> don't know the conditions under which you are viewing prints and the
> monitor. All I can do is explain the process as best I can. That 
I've
> done. I can also urge you to keep trying QTR, because I know it 
works.
> 
> Good luck
> 
> Tom Moore
> 
> I should also point out that, of course, you can tweak the image 
while
> viewing it using the softproof for the paper you plan to print it 
on. 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> > 
> > Yes, when I use the Gray Matte Paper profile for Soft Proofing a 
> > grayscale image or RGB Matte Paper profile for Soft Proofing an 
RGB 
> > image, then indeed I see the flattening. However, this doesn't 
> > resolve the issue; it only shows what I perceive as a major 
> > deficiency in QTR, namely the severe degradation of the image 
when 
> > printed. When I use the Epson driver, I don't get such 
degradation, 
> > although I get some coloration that I am trying to avoid by using 
QTR.
> > 
> > So, is this the best I can expect of QTR without creating my own 
> > special curves (something I want to avoid doing like the plague) 
or 
> > tweak every image for overall brightness, shadow darkness and 
> > contrast before printing with QTR?
> > 
> > Please tell me this isn't so!
> > 
> > Frans Waterlander
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@> 
wrote:
> > >
> > > Frans
> > > 
> > > If Simulate Black Ink is grayed out, I suspect that when you 
are 
> > setting up
> > > the View/Proof Setup/Custom... window, you are selecting QTR-
RGB-
> > LAB in the
> > > Device to Simulate pull-down. You need to select a printing 
> > profile. The
> > > generic matte one would be QTR-RGB-Matte Paper. Then you should 
be 
> > able to
> > > select Simulate Black Ink - at least I can. It causes a 
noticeable 
> > change in
> > > the visible image.
> > > 
> > > If you create a profile for your specific Printer/Ink/Paper 
> > combination you
> > > will also be able to select Simulate Paper Color. This causes 
an 
> > even more
> > > noticeable change. My prints are quite close to my monitor soft 
> > proof this
> > > way.
> > > 
> > > Tom Moore
> > > 
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com 
> > [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > Behalf Of fwaterlander
> > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:08 PM
> > > > To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> > > > Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Why are Epson 2200 prints too dark
> > > > 
> > > > Tom,
> > > > 
> > > > Why is there no mention in the QTRgui Help or User guide 
about 
> > what
> > > > resolution the profiles are based on or how to modify your 
image 
> > for
> > > > different resolutions and how did you find out?
> > > > 
> > > > I get excellent monitor-to-print matching using the Epson 
driver 
> > for
> > > > both color and b&w images. Of course the Epson driver has its
> > > > limitations for b&w images that I hope to overcome with QTR.
> > > > 
> > > > When I use the Proof Colors feature in my PS CS per your 
> > suggestions
> > > > (Simulate Black Ink is grayed out), I do not see any change 
when

> > > > toggling between straight display mode and Proof Colors mode.
> > > > 
> > > > Your help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > 
> > > > Frans Waterlander
> > > 
> > > ...
> > > 
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> 
wrote:
>
> Tom,
> 
> As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to do. > 
So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have other 
> people had similar issues?
> 
> Frans Waterlander

Frans,

Your name sounds Dutch, so are you located in the Netherlands indeed? 
Perhaps I can be of local help.

Joost

Hello Frans.
If you want to judge how well a process works compare apples to
apples. The soft proof is telling you what you needed to know. Use it.
It is intended to show you what you are going to get when printed and
apparently it is doing that. If you don't like what it is telling you
then edit your file until it Does look like what you want. Then print
it using the same profile. THEN judge how well it is working. Seemings
are really irrelevant until tested:)

Regards
Duane



--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> wrote:

>
> Tom,
> 
> As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to do. I 
> use the QTR profile for my Epson 2200 with Enhanced Matte Paper and 
> Epson inks (Printer <Quad2200>, Curve UC-EEnhMatte-cool, -coolSe, -
> Sepia or -warm). PS Proof Colors, once I set it up right, shows me 
> that a significant flattening of the image will occur in print and 
> when I print the image that gets confirmed very clearly.
> 
> I view my prints in SoLux 5000K light and view the QTR prints right 
> next to the prints made with the Epson driver, all after at least an 
> hour of drying and the differences are very obvious.
> 
> So, I'm afraid that your statement that it isn't so, isn't so.
> 
> The fact that Proof Colors shows no noticeable change for the Epson 
> route but shows significant change for the QTR route and the obvious 
> differences between the actual prints seems to indicate to me that 
> the QTR profile/method is introducing some very noticeable tonality 
> shifts, as compared to the Epson route.
> 
> So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have other 
> people had similar issues?
> 
> Frans Waterlander
>

Duane,

I'm afraid you are missing the point. With the Epson driver I get a 
near perfect monitor-to-print match (with the exception of slight 
coloration in certain areas). With QTR I get a significant monitor-to-
print mismatch. Of course I can tweak the image beyond what I like to 
see on the monitor to compensate for what seem to be a significant 
tonality shifts in QTR, but why should I have to do that? I expect 
QTR to NOT shift tonalities to the extent is does and throw off the 
match between what I see on the monitor and what I see in the print.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Frans.
> If you want to judge how well a process works compare apples to
> apples. The soft proof is telling you what you needed to know. Use 
it.
> It is intended to show you what you are going to get when printed 
and
> apparently it is doing that. If you don't like what it is telling 
you
> then edit your file until it Does look like what you want. Then 
print
> it using the same profile. THEN judge how well it is working. 
Seemings
> are really irrelevant until tested:)
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to 
do. I 
> > use the QTR profile for my Epson 2200 with Enhanced Matte Paper 
and 
> > Epson inks (Printer <Quad2200>, Curve UC-EEnhMatte-cool, -
coolSe, -
> > Sepia or -warm). PS Proof Colors, once I set it up right, shows 
me 
> > that a significant flattening of the image will occur in print 
and 
> > when I print the image that gets confirmed very clearly.
> > 
> > I view my prints in SoLux 5000K light and view the QTR prints 
right 
> > next to the prints made with the Epson driver, all after at least 
an 
> > hour of drying and the differences are very obvious.
> > 
> > So, I'm afraid that your statement that it isn't so, isn't so.
> > 
> > The fact that Proof Colors shows no noticeable change for the 
Epson 
> > route but shows significant change for the QTR route and the 
obvious 
> > differences between the actual prints seems to indicate to me 
that 
> > the QTR profile/method is introducing some very noticeable 
tonality 
> > shifts, as compared to the Epson route.
> > 
> > So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have 
other 

> > people had similar issues?
> > 
> > Frans Waterlander
> >
>

Joost,

My name indeed is Dutch and I used to live in Holland, but moved to 
the US in 1977.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to 
do. > 
> So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have 
other 
> > people had similar issues?
> > 
> > Frans Waterlander
> 
> Frans,
> 
> Your name sounds Dutch, so are you located in the Netherlands 
indeed? 

> Perhaps I can be of local help.
> 
> Joost
>

Frans

Here are some things you can try

1. Try to gain a quantitative comparison of the prints you are
comparing. Print a 21 step wedge using QTR and the Epson driver using
your regular work flow. Measure all the steps (ideally with a
densitometer or spectro, but a scanner might be accurate enough) and
report the results.

2. For an image you wish to print with QTR, enable the softproof for
QTR-RGB Matte Paper. With the softproof visible add a Curve adjustment
layer to adjus the contrast a bit more to your liking. 

In general, unless the Epson driver can deliver greater dmax than QTR
(which would be shown in the measurements above), then both drivers
are only allocating the tones between paper white and dmax. The gamma
  of the print space governs that mapping, I think.

Tom Moore

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> wrote:

>
> Tom,
> 
> As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to do. I 
> use the QTR profile for my Epson 2200 with Enhanced Matte Paper and 
> Epson inks (Printer <Quad2200>, Curve UC-EEnhMatte-cool, -coolSe, -
> Sepia or -warm). PS Proof Colors, once I set it up right, shows me 
> that a significant flattening of the image will occur in print and 
> when I print the image that gets confirmed very clearly.
> 
> I view my prints in SoLux 5000K light and view the QTR prints right 
> next to the prints made with the Epson driver, all after at least an 
> hour of drying and the differences are very obvious.
> 
> So, I'm afraid that your statement that it isn't so, isn't so.
> 
> The fact that Proof Colors shows no noticeable change for the Epson 
> route but shows significant change for the QTR route and the obvious 
> differences between the actual prints seems to indicate to me that 
> the QTR profile/method is introducing some very noticeable tonality 
> shifts, as compared to the Epson route.
> 
> So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have other 
> people had similar issues?
> 
> Frans Waterlander
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@> wrote:
> >
> > Frans
> > 
> > In a nutshell, this isn't so.
> > 
> > If you use a curve for a paper ink combination for which it was
> > designed, you should be able to get the deepest blacks possible 
> witth
> > that printer/paper/ink and it should be much more neutral (or
> > consistently toned) than a print using the Epson driver. There are
> > many expert B&W printers who extoll the benefits of QTR
> > 
> > I can't see your Epson results; I can't see your QTR results and I
> > don't know the conditions under which you are viewing prints and the
> > monitor. All I can do is explain the process as best I can. That 
> I've
> > done. I can also urge you to keep trying QTR, because I know it 
> works.
> > 
> > Good luck
> > 
> > Tom Moore
> > 
> > I should also point out that, of course, you can tweak the image 
> while
> > viewing it using the softproof for the paper you plan to print it 
> on. 
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > > 
> > > Yes, when I use the Gray Matte Paper profile for Soft Proofing a 
> > > grayscale image or RGB Matte Paper profile for Soft Proofing an 
> RGB 
> > > image, then indeed I see the flattening. However, this doesn't 
> > > resolve the issue; it only shows what I perceive as a major 
> > > deficiency in QTR, namely the severe degradation of the image 
> when 
> > > printed. When I use the Epson driver, I don't get such 
> degradation, 
> > > although I get some coloration that I am trying to avoid by using 
> QTR.
> > > 
> > > So, is this the best I can expect of QTR without creating my own 
> > > special curves (something I want to avoid doing like the plague) 
> or 
> > > tweak every image for overall brightness, shadow darkness and 
> > > contrast before printing with QTR?
> > > 
> > > Please tell me this isn't so!
> > > 
> > > Frans Waterlander
> > > 
> > > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Moore" <r.t.moore@> 
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Frans
> > > > 
> > > > If Simulate Black Ink is grayed out, I suspect that when you 
> are 
> > > setting up
> > > > the View/Proof Setup/Custom... window, you are selecting QTR-
> RGB-
> > > LAB in the
> > > > Device to Simulate pull-down. You need to select a printing 
> > > profile. The
> > > > generic matte one would be QTR-RGB-Matte Paper. Then you should 
> be 
> > > able to
> > > > select Simulate Black Ink - at least I can. It causes a 
> noticeable 
> > > change in
> > > > the visible image.
> > > > 
> > > > If you create a profile for your specific Printer/Ink/Paper 
> > > combination you
> > > > will also be able to select Simulate Paper Color. This causes 
> an 
> > > even more
> > > > noticeable change. My prints are quite close to my monitor soft 
> > > proof this
> > > > way.
> > > > 
> > > > Tom Moore
> > > > 
> > > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > > From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com 
> > > [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> > > > > Behalf Of fwaterlander
> > > > > Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 4:08 PM
> > > > > To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> > > > > Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Why are Epson 2200 prints too dark
> > > > > 
> > > > > Tom,
> > > > > 
> > > > > Why is there no mention in the QTRgui Help or User guide 
> about 
> > > what
> > > > > resolution the profiles are based on or how to modify your 
> image 
> > > for
> > > > > different resolutions and how did you find out?
> > > > > 
> > > > > I get excellent monitor-to-print matching using the Epson 
> driver 
> > > for
> > > > > both color and b&w images. Of course the Epson driver has its
> > > > > limitations for b&w images that I hope to overcome with QTR.
> > > > > 
> > > > > When I use the Proof Colors feature in my PS CS per your 
> > > suggestions
> > > > > (Simulate Black Ink is grayed out), I do not see any change 
> when
> > > > > toggling between straight display mode and Proof Colors mode.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Your help is greatly appreciated.
> > > > > 
> > > > > Frans Waterlander
> > > > 
> > > > ...
> > > > 
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi again Frans.
Actually I did get your point the first time. I responded the way I
did because I think you are putting the cart before the horse. You
really should either try the process you are criticizing to it's end,
in the ways suggested, first -- or, if you have a terrible aversion to
doing that, just forget it all and move on. QTR is not Epson lite. It
is a different animal entirely and has it's own workflows and
rationals. What you see in the softproofed image on your monitor IS
the reality when you are looking at it. You asked for assistance here
and Tom has given you a considerable amount of help. It serves neither
you nor anyone trying to help you, for you to complain about why you
should have to do this or that or the other. You simply don't have
sufficient knowledge as yet to be a critic. Hopefully you will get
past your blockage and expend the slight energy it will take to edit a
copy of your original file under the QTR matt softproof and print it
with the same profile applied to it. Then if you still don't like the
results, well--so be it, at least you will have tried.

Regards
Duane


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> wrote:

>
> Duane,
> 
> I'm afraid you are missing the point. With the Epson driver I get a 
> near perfect monitor-to-print match (with the exception of slight 
> coloration in certain areas). With QTR I get a significant monitor-to-
> print mismatch. Of course I can tweak the image beyond what I like to 
> see on the monitor to compensate for what seem to be a significant 
> tonality shifts in QTR, but why should I have to do that? I expect 
> QTR to NOT shift tonalities to the extent is does and throw off the 
> match between what I see on the monitor and what I see in the print.
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Frans.
> > If you want to judge how well a process works compare apples to
> > apples. The soft proof is telling you what you needed to know. Use 
> it.
> > It is intended to show you what you are going to get when printed 
> and
> > apparently it is doing that. If you don't like what it is telling 
> you
> > then edit your file until it Does look like what you want. Then 
> print
> > it using the same profile. THEN judge how well it is working. 
> Seemings
> > are really irrelevant until tested:)
> > 
> > Regards
> > Duane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom,
> > > 
> > > As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to 
> do. I 
> > > use the QTR profile for my Epson 2200 with Enhanced Matte Paper 
> and 
> > > Epson inks (Printer <Quad2200>, Curve UC-EEnhMatte-cool, -
> coolSe, -
> > > Sepia or -warm). PS Proof Colors, once I set it up right, shows 
> me 
> > > that a significant flattening of the image will occur in print 
> and 
> > > when I print the image that gets confirmed very clearly.
> > > 
> > > I view my prints in SoLux 5000K light and view the QTR prints 
> right 
> > > next to the prints made with the Epson driver, all after at least 
> an 
> > > hour of drying and the differences are very obvious.
> > > 
> > > So, I'm afraid that your statement that it isn't so, isn't so.
> > > 
> > > The fact that Proof Colors shows no noticeable change for the 
> Epson 
> > > route but shows significant change for the QTR route and the 
> obvious 
> > > differences between the actual prints seems to indicate to me 
> that 
> > > the QTR profile/method is introducing some very noticeable 
> tonality 
> > > shifts, as compared to the Epson route.
> > > 
> > > So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have 
> other 
> > > people had similar issues?
> > > 
> > > Frans Waterlander
> > >
> >
>

Duane,

I really appreciate all the help I am getting from you and others. 
The results I was getting up to about half an hour ago seemed to 
indicate to me that something was terribly wrong and some of the 
resulting frustration echoed in my posts, no doubt. However, it looks 
like I found the solution to the problem I have been describing here.

As a "last resort" I browsed through the QuadToneRIP directory on my 
harddrive and discovered, in the icc subdirectory, a readme file with 
instructions to Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or 
Gray Photo Paper. To the best of my knowledge this information is not 
included in the QTRgui help or User guide. After conversion I get the 
excellent monitor-to-print match that I was hoping for and I will NOT 
have to tweak my images!

Thank you Duane and all others! QTR is starting to look like the tool 
I was hoping it is.

Frans Waterlander

(However, I now have a new issue: a single white line at the leading 
edge of the print; see my next post)

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi again Frans.
> Actually I did get your point the first time. I responded the way I
> did because I think you are putting the cart before the horse. You
> really should either try the process you are criticizing to it's 
end,
> in the ways suggested, first -- or, if you have a terrible aversion 
to
> doing that, just forget it all and move on. QTR is not Epson lite. 
It
> is a different animal entirely and has it's own workflows and
> rationals. What you see in the softproofed image on your monitor IS
> the reality when you are looking at it. You asked for assistance 
here
> and Tom has given you a considerable amount of help. It serves 
neither
> you nor anyone trying to help you, for you to complain about why you
> should have to do this or that or the other. You simply don't have
> sufficient knowledge as yet to be a critic. Hopefully you will get
> past your blockage and expend the slight energy it will take to 
edit a
> copy of your original file under the QTR matt softproof and print it
> with the same profile applied to it. Then if you still don't like 
the
> results, well--so be it, at least you will have tried.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
wrote:
> >
> > Duane,
> > 
> > I'm afraid you are missing the point. With the Epson driver I get 
a 
> > near perfect monitor-to-print match (with the exception of slight 
> > coloration in certain areas). With QTR I get a significant 
monitor-to-
> > print mismatch. Of course I can tweak the image beyond what I 
like to 
> > see on the monitor to compensate for what seem to be a 
significant 
> > tonality shifts in QTR, but why should I have to do that? I 
expect 
> > QTR to NOT shift tonalities to the extent is does and throw off 
the 
> > match between what I see on the monitor and what I see in the 
print.
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hello Frans.
> > > If you want to judge how well a process works compare apples to
> > > apples. The soft proof is telling you what you needed to know. 
Use 
> > it.
> > > It is intended to show you what you are going to get when 
printed 
> > and
> > > apparently it is doing that. If you don't like what it is 
telling 
> > you
> > > then edit your file until it Does look like what you want. Then 
> > print
> > > it using the same profile. THEN judge how well it is working. 
> > Seemings
> > > are really irrelevant until tested:)
> > > 
> > > Regards
> > > Duane
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Tom,
> > > > 
> > > > As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed 
to 
> > do. I 
> > > > use the QTR profile for my Epson 2200 with Enhanced Matte 
Paper 
> > and 
> > > > Epson inks (Printer <Quad2200>, Curve UC-EEnhMatte-cool, -
> > coolSe, -
> > > > Sepia or -warm). PS Proof Colors, once I set it up right, 
shows 
> > me 
> > > > that a significant flattening of the image will occur in 
print 
> > and 
> > > > when I print the image that gets confirmed very clearly.
> > > > 
> > > > I view my prints in SoLux 5000K light and view the QTR prints 
> > right 
> > > > next to the prints made with the Epson driver, all after at 
least 
> > an 
> > > > hour of drying and the differences are very obvious.
> > > > 
> > > > So, I'm afraid that your statement that it isn't so, isn't so.
> > > > 
> > > > The fact that Proof Colors shows no noticeable change for the 
> > Epson 
> > > > route but shows significant change for the QTR route and the 
> > obvious 
> > > > differences between the actual prints seems to indicate to me 
> > that 
> > > > the QTR profile/method is introducing some very noticeable 
> > tonality 
> > > > shifts, as compared to the Epson route.
> > > > 
> > > > So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and 
have 

> > other 
> > > > people had similar issues?
> > > > 
> > > > Frans Waterlander
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Hi Joost,

I am dutch and I live in Oud Beijerland. So maybe we contact each 
other

groeten,

Leen
info@...


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Tom,
> > 
> > As far as I can tell, I'm doing all the things I am supposed to 
do. > 
> So I am still grasping for straws! What else can I try and have 
other 
> > people had similar issues?
> > 
> > Frans Waterlander
> 
> Frans,
> 
> Your name sounds Dutch, so are you located in the Netherlands 
indeed? 

> Perhaps I can be of local help.
> 
> Joost
>

Where did you find these profiles? I don't see them in Photoshop. Are
they a part of the QTR download? I'm printing on an Espon R1800. Would
this have anything to do with not seeing them?

Gregg

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Richard Smallfield
<r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> I have found that what works best for me is to edit in QTR Grey Lab
and print in QTR Grey Matte profile.

> 
> Richard
> --
> http://smallfield.vze.com
> http://photos.smallfield.vze.com (Photos web site)
> http://warkworth.vze.com/ (Warkworth photo essay)
> http://picasaweb.google.com/rsmallfield/ (Recent work) 
> 
>    Darling! Will you be my first wife?
>    Spike Milligan, 'Mussolini, His Part in My Downfall.'
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> 
wrote:
>
> 
> As a "last resort" I browsed through the QuadToneRIP directory on my 
> harddrive and discovered, in the icc subdirectory, a readme file with 
> instructions to Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or 
> Gray Photo Paper. To the best of my knowledge this information is not 
> included in the QTRgui help or User guide. After conversion I get the 
> excellent monitor-to-print match that I was hoping for and I will NOT 
> have to tweak my images!

Now I must confess I'm completely lost :-(

This is what I did when I started off with QTR 9 monts ago (as 
mentioned above), but without good results. The difference between 
print and screen only increased. I also don't understand why this 
should be needed, since the whole idea of profiling in QTR (as I 
understand it) is to linearize your whole system against the LAB space.

Furthermore, Tom explained in this thread a much different use of these 
very same profiles, i.e. softproofing. I thought I understood that (teh 
softproof compensates for the fact that paper cannot show the whole 0-
100 lab scale). 

Perhaps its my scientific training of years ago, but I just can't bear 
I that apparently still don't understand this... Can someone more 
knowledgeable than I bring some (white) light in my (black) darkness??

Joost

OK Joost, here we go--guaranteed to 99% confuse.

 1-- Profiled monitor using Colorvision or Eye-one hardware or (with a
little of what in US is termed "Kentucky windage") using Adobe Gamma.

 2-- Your own "QTR Create ICC" generated paper/ink/printer profiles OR
the generic Gray Matt/Gray Photo profiles provided with the QTR issue.

 3-- You are correct in your understanding of softproofing. That is
what it is supposed to do. Assuming your monitor is properly profiled
and your printer is linearized it will give you a very accurate
picture of what your file will look like when printed. (Usually a bit
shocking if you have only looked at the screen image while editing
it.) Since Lab, in my understanding also, seems to be the target for
linearizing, I assume that is why it is recommended that one convert
files to the Gray Lab profile before editing them.(in practice , I
personally haven't seen much difference between Lab space,GG2.2 or
GG1.8 because to me they all look the same on the monitor anyway while
editing without softproof on.)

 4-- Here just IMHO-- It has been my experience that, when I have done
a good job of editing a file I want to print, it shows very little
change under softproofing beyond the dulling down due to the papers
limited dynamic range showing. On the other hand, I often work in
rapidly changing ambient light situations which isn't a good practice
but is better than no practice. In that circumstance softproofing
seems to help overcome some of the difficulties in working that way.
Toggling between views then often Does show big variations and I can
edit to compensate. It has also been my experience that, if properly
edited and OK under softproof, a file can be printed directly without
any profile conversion at all and just dumped to the printer via QTR.
That would seem to validate your Lab/linearize point also. I don't
normally do that but generally convert to profile before printing as
my old eyes may just be missing subtleties showing in the other prints.

I can't really say what is transpiring with Frans' efforts. It defies
my experiences. I'm almost inclined to recommend that he quickly go
out and buy a fist-full of lottery tickets as his luck seems to be
running well;-)

Hope some of this has made sense to you.

Regards,
Duane

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

>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > As a "last resort" I browsed through the QuadToneRIP directory on my 
> > harddrive and discovered, in the icc subdirectory, a readme file with 
> > instructions to Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or 
> > Gray Photo Paper. To the best of my knowledge this information is not 
> > included in the QTRgui help or User guide. After conversion I get the 
> > excellent monitor-to-print match that I was hoping for and I will NOT 
> > have to tweak my images!
> 
> Now I must confess I'm completely lost :-(
> 
> This is what I did when I started off with QTR 9 monts ago (as 
> mentioned above), but without good results. The difference between 
> print and screen only increased. I also don't understand why this 
> should be needed, since the whole idea of profiling in QTR (as I 
> understand it) is to linearize your whole system against the LAB space.
> 
> Furthermore, Tom explained in this thread a much different use of these 
> very same profiles, i.e. softproofing. I thought I understood that (teh 
> softproof compensates for the fact that paper cannot show the whole 0-
> 100 lab scale). 
> 
> Perhaps its my scientific training of years ago, but I just can't bear 
> I that apparently still don't understand this... Can someone more 
> knowledgeable than I bring some (white) light in my (black) darkness??
> 
> Joost
>

No, I'm not applying magic or anything, just doing what the good 
doctor told me to do. This is a straight quote from Roy 
Harrington: "For Windows where it's necessary to save a tiff file, 
you should Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or Gray 
Photo Paper.  Then save the file for printing in QTRgui." Since I use 
Windows I now make this conversion and the print results are very 
close to the image on the screen, except that contrast is a little 
low, which is confirmed when I use Color Proof. I apply Curves with 3 
correction points in Photoshop to correct for this: Input 64/Output 
58, Input 128/Output 128 and Input 192, Output 198; this gives me a 
perfect match. This information is not part of the QTR Help facility. 
For the QTR version 2.5.0.9 that I use you can find this information 
in Program Files/QuadToneRIP/icc/gray-readme.rft.

Regards,

Frans Waterlander

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> OK Joost, here we go--guaranteed to 99% confuse.
> 
>  1-- Profiled monitor using Colorvision or Eye-one hardware or 
(with a
> little of what in US is termed "Kentucky windage") using Adobe 
Gamma.
> 
>  2-- Your own "QTR Create ICC" generated paper/ink/printer profiles 
OR
> the generic Gray Matt/Gray Photo profiles provided with the QTR 
issue.
> 
>  3-- You are correct in your understanding of softproofing. That is
> what it is supposed to do. Assuming your monitor is properly 
profiled
> and your printer is linearized it will give you a very accurate
> picture of what your file will look like when printed. (Usually a 
bit
> shocking if you have only looked at the screen image while editing
> it.) Since Lab, in my understanding also, seems to be the target for
> linearizing, I assume that is why it is recommended that one convert
> files to the Gray Lab profile before editing them.(in practice , I
> personally haven't seen much difference between Lab space,GG2.2 or
> GG1.8 because to me they all look the same on the monitor anyway 
while
> editing without softproof on.)
> 
>  4-- Here just IMHO-- It has been my experience that, when I have 
done
> a good job of editing a file I want to print, it shows very little
> change under softproofing beyond the dulling down due to the papers
> limited dynamic range showing. On the other hand, I often work in
> rapidly changing ambient light situations which isn't a good 
practice
> but is better than no practice. In that circumstance softproofing
> seems to help overcome some of the difficulties in working that way.
> Toggling between views then often Does show big variations and I can
> edit to compensate. It has also been my experience that, if properly
> edited and OK under softproof, a file can be printed directly 
without
> any profile conversion at all and just dumped to the printer via 
QTR.
> That would seem to validate your Lab/linearize point also. I don't
> normally do that but generally convert to profile before printing as
> my old eyes may just be missing subtleties showing in the other 
prints.
> 
> I can't really say what is transpiring with Frans' efforts. It 
defies
> my experiences. I'm almost inclined to recommend that he quickly go
> out and buy a fist-full of lottery tickets as his luck seems to be
> running well;-)
> 
> Hope some of this has made sense to you.
> 
> Regards,
> Duane
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@> 
wrote:
> >
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > As a "last resort" I browsed through the QuadToneRIP directory 
on my 
> > > harddrive and discovered, in the icc subdirectory, a readme 
file with 
> > > instructions to Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte 
Paper or 
> > > Gray Photo Paper. To the best of my knowledge this information 
is not 
> > > included in the QTRgui help or User guide. After conversion I 
get the 
> > > excellent monitor-to-print match that I was hoping for and I 
will NOT 
> > > have to tweak my images!
> > 
> > Now I must confess I'm completely lost :-(
> > 
> > This is what I did when I started off with QTR 9 monts ago (as 
> > mentioned above), but without good results. The difference 
between 
> > print and screen only increased. I also don't understand why this 
> > should be needed, since the whole idea of profiling in QTR (as I 
> > understand it) is to linearize your whole system against the LAB 
space.
> > 
> > Furthermore, Tom explained in this thread a much different use of 
these 
> > very same profiles, i.e. softproofing. I thought I understood 
that (teh 
> > softproof compensates for the fact that paper cannot show the 
whole 0-
> > 100 lab scale). 
> > 
> > Perhaps its my scientific training of years ago, but I just can't 
bear 
> > I that apparently still don't understand this... Can someone more 
> > knowledgeable than I bring some (white) light in my (black) 
darkness??

> > 
> > Joost
> >
>

Hi Duane,

> > Hope some of this has made sense to you.

Yes, it does. You just described my workflow and how I understand it. 
Thanks for confirming. Unlike you, I DID found the need to convert to 
gray-lab. Without it, I my monitor-print match was not as good. But 
we do seem aligned on the theory of it.

  
Hi Frans,

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> 
wrote:
>
> No, I'm not applying magic or anything, just doing what the good 
> doctor told me to do. This is a straight quote from Roy 
> Harrington: "For Windows where it's necessary to save a tiff file, 
> you should Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or Gray 
> Photo Paper.  Then save the file for printing in QTRgui." 

I know. I read that section over and over again. And I tried it when 
I started off with QTR. But 1) I conceptually don't understand it, 2) 
it gave me worse results, 3) when asking Roy's advice in this, he 
suggested me "to do whatever gives the best results". 

And that's probably the best advice to you as well. There seems to be 
no "best" workflow. By now I've seen many different ones. One way or 
another you now seem to have found a workflow that works for you. 
Perhaps just stick to it and have fun with printing.

Joost

Joost,

Sorry, but I don't buy into this "do whatever gives the best 
results". That's a cop-out. This program was created to perform 
certain functions and if the program was written logically than for 
any given printer/ink/paper/editing program combination there is only 
one correct method, unless several options were created on purpose, 
which I doubt is the case here. I would like to see Roy speak clearly 
as to what needs to be done when for best results and update the 
documentation, which is badly needed.

I'm really impressed with this program, but I also see some glaring 
issues.

Frans Waterlander

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hi Duane,
> 
> > > Hope some of this has made sense to you.
> 
> Yes, it does. You just described my workflow and how I understand 
it. 
> Thanks for confirming. Unlike you, I DID found the need to convert 
to 
> gray-lab. Without it, I my monitor-print match was not as good. But 
> we do seem aligned on the theory of it.
> 
>   
> Hi Frans,
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > No, I'm not applying magic or anything, just doing what the good 
> > doctor told me to do. This is a straight quote from Roy 
> > Harrington: "For Windows where it's necessary to save a tiff 
file, 
> > you should Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or 
Gray 
> > Photo Paper.  Then save the file for printing in QTRgui." 
> 
> I know. I read that section over and over again. And I tried it 
when 
> I started off with QTR. But 1) I conceptually don't understand it, 
2) 
> it gave me worse results, 3) when asking Roy's advice in this, he 
> suggested me "to do whatever gives the best results". 
> 
> And that's probably the best advice to you as well. There seems to 
be 
> no "best" workflow. By now I've seen many different ones. One way 
or 

> another you now seem to have found a workflow that works for you. 
> Perhaps just stick to it and have fun with printing.
> 
> Joost
>

Frans,

The "correct method" from a color management point of view is to buy 
the highend
spectrophotometer and custom profile all your components on a regular 
basis.
But even that doesn't take into account the ambient lighting as you 
edit and the
lighting of the displayed print.  All these things can affect what you 
consider the
"perfect" print.  Even soft-proofing has a couple options to match in 
different ways.
You can simulate the ink black and/or the paper white.   But there's no 
"correct" way
just what helps you the most.

But the issue in all this and what I mean by "best results" is whether 
YOU the image
maker/editor can look at your screen and judge what the print will look 
like.   It's
an inexact goal from the get go because the light-emitting screen is so 
different
from a light-reflecting print.   So I think relying on your eyes and 
perception is
always the final test.   It's especially important to note that "best 
results" of tonal
match have nothing to do with print quality in this case.

Back to the color management workflow:  if you don't custom profile 
everything in
your system I've provided a couple generic print profiles -- Gray Matte 
Paper and
Gray Photo Paper.   The only thing these do is approximate a typical 
dMax for the
two kinds of paper given the typical linearization of QTR profiles.   
For the "average"
situation that isn't custom profiled they are probably better than 
anything else.

What's important once you are using color management is what the LAST 
profile
conversion in your workflow is.   With QTR/PC that is typically a 
Convert-To-Profile
in Photoshop before saving.   With QTR/Mac or say Qimage/PC its the 
"print"
profile.  (printing with a profile means Convert to that profile).

Hope that helps.
Roy

On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 07:22  PM, fwaterlander wrote:

> Joost,
>
> Sorry, but I don't buy into this "do whatever gives the best
> results". That's a cop-out. This program was created to perform
> certain functions and if the program was written logically than for
> any given printer/ink/paper/editing program combination there is only
> one correct method, unless several options were created on purpose,
> which I doubt is the case here. I would like to see Roy speak clearly
> as to what needs to be done when for best results and update the
> documentation, which is badly needed.
>
> I'm really impressed with this program, but I also see some glaring
> issues.
>
> Frans Waterlander
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...>
> wrote:
>>
>> Hi Duane,
>>
>>>> Hope some of this has made sense to you.
>>
>> Yes, it does. You just described my workflow and how I understand
> it.
>> Thanks for confirming. Unlike you, I DID found the need to convert
> to
>> gray-lab. Without it, I my monitor-print match was not as good. But
>> we do seem aligned on the theory of it.
>>
>>
>> Hi Frans,
>>
>> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> No, I'm not applying magic or anything, just doing what the good
>>> doctor told me to do. This is a straight quote from Roy
>>> Harrington: "For Windows where it's necessary to save a tiff
> file,
>>> you should Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or
> Gray
>>> Photo Paper.  Then save the file for printing in QTRgui."
>>
>> I know. I read that section over and over again. And I tried it
> when
>> I started off with QTR. But 1) I conceptually don't understand it,
> 2)
>> it gave me worse results, 3) when asking Roy's advice in this, he
>> suggested me "to do whatever gives the best results".
>>
>> And that's probably the best advice to you as well. There seems to
> be
>> no "best" workflow. By now I've seen many different ones. One way
> or
>> another you now seem to have found a workflow that works for you.
>> Perhaps just stick to it and have fun with printing.
>>
>> Joost
>>
>
>
>
-
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photo Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@...> 
wrote:
>
> Joost,
> 
> Sorry, but I don't buy into this "do whatever gives the best 
> results". That's a cop-out. 

Frans,

Not sure whether your rather fierce reaction is actually addressed to 
me. I feel caught between two fires here. I do understand, and share, 
your frustration that this should be a field where clear-cut answers 
should be available. And as things stand, there aren't. And yes, 
documentation is not perfect.

On the other hand: color management (of which print-monitor matching in 
b&w printing is a part of) is a highly complex field. I have a PhD in 
Physics and , although not an active scientist myself anymore, I do 
have a few direct colleagues who are and who are quite knowledgeable in 
this area. Belief me, I spend a lot of time digging into this. That has 
learned me that it is, in a practical situation, near to impossible to 
implement a rock-solid scientifically correct method. One always need 
some approximations. ANY method out there has its shortcuts. And 
different methods/workflows have different shortcuts. And hence the 
ambiguities.

Secondly: bear in mind this IS a community thing. Digital B&W printing 
in general is still a fairly young, rapidly moving field with only 
little formally documented. Roy and Stephen have made a GREAT 
contribution and we are all happy to benefit from their work. Bear in 
mind that other RIPs are WAY more expensive than QTR. And not always 
better documented.... 

So yes I understand your feelings. Reality is that you must decide if 
you're happy to deal with the evolving nature of this approach, and its 
ambiguities. If QTR does not fit your needs or preferences, than 
perhaps the, newer, ABW approach of the Epson K3 printers as the 2400 
and 3800 is something for you. No experience myself, but as I 
understand it, quite a bit easier to use (without being more "correct").

Joost

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>
> Frans,
> 
> The "correct method" from a color management point of view is to 
buy 
> the highend
> spectrophotometer and custom profile all your components on a 
regular 
> basis.
> But even that doesn't take into account the ambient lighting as you 
> edit and the
> lighting of the displayed print.  All these things can affect what 
you 
> consider the
> "perfect" print.  Even soft-proofing has a couple options to match 
in 
> different ways.
> You can simulate the ink black and/or the paper white.   But 
there's no 
> "correct" way
> just what helps you the most.

Roy,

As I tried to explain in my reply to Frans, that crossed yours, I do 
understand and accept this. Nevertheless, could you comment on the 
workflow as described by Duane and confirm that this indeed is 
a "correct" high-end method as you mean it (while accepting all the 
imperfections you mention in your reply to Frans)?

Joost

Roy,

I can agree with much of what you say, but... Take for instance 
printer resolution. Depending on what printer resolution you choose, 
the resulting prints vary wildly in tonality. Somebody on this forum 
replied that most profiles are valid for 1440dpi only, but this is 
nowhere documented. Even the needed conversion to a paper profile is 
not documented, except that I found the information hidden in a 
readmy file. The Media Type field would make one believe that QTR 
would apply any conversion necessary for the chosed paper type, but 
that's not the case and again, it's not documented.

It is not really clear what the recommended processes are and the 
lack of concise instructions results in people making errors, not 
following just another way to the end result.

I love the program, don't misunderstan me, but there are lots of 
improvements to be made. I would venture to say that many people 
trying out the program, will get frustrated and give up; I almost did.

Frans Waterlander

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>
> Frans,
> 
> The "correct method" from a color management point of view is to 
buy 
> the highend
> spectrophotometer and custom profile all your components on a 
regular 
> basis.
> But even that doesn't take into account the ambient lighting as you 
> edit and the
> lighting of the displayed print.  All these things can affect what 
you 
> consider the
> "perfect" print.  Even soft-proofing has a couple options to match 
in 
> different ways.
> You can simulate the ink black and/or the paper white.   But 
there's no 
> "correct" way
> just what helps you the most.
> 
> But the issue in all this and what I mean by "best results" is 
whether 
> YOU the image
> maker/editor can look at your screen and judge what the print will 
look 
> like.   It's
> an inexact goal from the get go because the light-emitting screen 
is so 
> different
> from a light-reflecting print.   So I think relying on your eyes 
and 
> perception is
> always the final test.   It's especially important to note 
that "best 
> results" of tonal
> match have nothing to do with print quality in this case.
> 
> Back to the color management workflow:  if you don't custom profile 
> everything in
> your system I've provided a couple generic print profiles -- Gray 
Matte 
> Paper and
> Gray Photo Paper.   The only thing these do is approximate a 
typical 
> dMax for the
> two kinds of paper given the typical linearization of QTR 
profiles.   
> For the "average"
> situation that isn't custom profiled they are probably better than 
> anything else.
> 
> What's important once you are using color management is what the 
LAST 
> profile
> conversion in your workflow is.   With QTR/PC that is typically a 
> Convert-To-Profile
> in Photoshop before saving.   With QTR/Mac or say Qimage/PC its the 
> "print"
> profile.  (printing with a profile means Convert to that profile).
> 
> Hope that helps.
> Roy
> 
> On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 07:22  PM, fwaterlander wrote:
> 
> > Joost,
> >
> > Sorry, but I don't buy into this "do whatever gives the best
> > results". That's a cop-out. This program was created to perform
> > certain functions and if the program was written logically than 
for
> > any given printer/ink/paper/editing program combination there is 
only
> > one correct method, unless several options were created on 
purpose,
> > which I doubt is the case here. I would like to see Roy speak 
clearly
> > as to what needs to be done when for best results and update the
> > documentation, which is badly needed.
> >
> > I'm really impressed with this program, but I also see some 
glaring
> > issues.
> >
> > Frans Waterlander
> >
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@>
> > wrote:
> >>
> >> Hi Duane,
> >>
> >>>> Hope some of this has made sense to you.
> >>
> >> Yes, it does. You just described my workflow and how I understand
> > it.
> >> Thanks for confirming. Unlike you, I DID found the need to 
convert
> > to
> >> gray-lab. Without it, I my monitor-print match was not as good. 
But
> >> we do seem aligned on the theory of it.
> >>
> >>
> >> Hi Frans,
> >>
> >> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "fwaterlander" <frans2001@>
> >> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> No, I'm not applying magic or anything, just doing what the good
> >>> doctor told me to do. This is a straight quote from Roy
> >>> Harrington: "For Windows where it's necessary to save a tiff
> > file,
> >>> you should Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or
> > Gray
> >>> Photo Paper.  Then save the file for printing in QTRgui."
> >>
> >> I know. I read that section over and over again. And I tried it
> > when
> >> I started off with QTR. But 1) I conceptually don't understand 
it,
> > 2)
> >> it gave me worse results, 3) when asking Roy's advice in this, he
> >> suggested me "to do whatever gives the best results".
> >>
> >> And that's probably the best advice to you as well. There seems 
to

> > be
> >> no "best" workflow. By now I've seen many different ones. One way
> > or
> >> another you now seem to have found a workflow that works for you.
> >> Perhaps just stick to it and have fun with printing.
> >>
> >> Joost
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> -
> Roy Harrington
> roy@...
> Black & White Photo Gallery
> http://www.harrington.com
>

On Wednesday, March 7, 2007, at 11:42  PM, Joost Horsten wrote:

> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>>
>> Frans,
>>
>> The "correct method" from a color management point of view is to buy
>> the highend
>> spectrophotometer and custom profile all your components on a regular
>> basis.
>> But even that doesn't take into account the ambient lighting as you
>> edit and the
>> lighting of the displayed print.  All these things can affect what you
>> consider the
>> "perfect" print.  Even soft-proofing has a couple options to match in
>> different ways.
>> You can simulate the ink black and/or the paper white.   But there's 
>> no
>> "correct" way
>> just what helps you the most.
>
> Roy,
>
> As I tried to explain in my reply to Frans, that crossed yours, I do
> understand and accept this. Nevertheless, could you comment on the
> workflow as described by Duane and confirm that this indeed is
> a "correct" high-end method as you mean it (while accepting all the
> imperfections you mention in your reply to Frans)?
>
> Joost
>

Joost,

I'm not sure which "workflow by Duane" you're referring to.

It really just boils down to:   edit in grayscale with your favorite 
method
then apply i.e. convert to the best print profile you have before 
printing.
The best is either the generic QTR Matte/Photo Paper profile
or your own custom profile.

This is just like any color printing that you do.   The only thing 
different is that you
are not printing directly from PS Print with Preview where you can 
select the print
profile on the fly.  With QTR you need to Convert-To-Profile and save 
the tiff file.
With other editing/printing programs the exact steps may be different 
but it's
always the same idea.

All the soft-proofing capabilities are not really needed.  But they do 
allow some
options that some people may find an advantage in helping them judge 
screen
to print match.   It's also nice in that you can see the color tone IF 
you make your
own custom ICC profiles.   The straight soft-proof with QTR Matte Paper 
shows nothing
different at all because the CM maps everything back to the screen 
profile.  Some will
find Simulate Ink Black helpful because is does reduce the dMax -- but 
that can be
misleading too because our eyes get used to a "screen" look and it will 
look excessively
dull.   It's well worth experimenting with the various soft-proof 
options to see with your
own eyes the variations.    Preserve Color Numbers should always be OFF 
-- ON
simulates NOT using CM for printing.  Try it so you can see the 
difference but set it to OFF.
The Simulate Ink Black is the most likely one to flip back and forth to 
see what helps
you best to judge the screen.

Roy

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

Roy.  What does it boil down to for Window users who print through 
QTRgui?

I edit my images with softproof turned on using the profiles I created 
using QTR-Create-ICC-RGB and my calibrated monitor.  I save the final 
as a tiff and print through QTRgui applying the .QUAD file used to 
create the softproof profile.  I don't convert or tag my grayscale 
with any profile.  I edit with Picture Window Pro.

I get good matches between monitor and print (as good as can be 
expected between luminious monitor pixels and reflected light from the 
prints).  Have I been lucky or am I just not discerning? Am I missing 
something?

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

> It really just boils down to:   edit in grayscale with your favorite 
> method
> then apply i.e. convert to the best print profile you have before 
> printing.
> The best is either the generic QTR Matte/Photo Paper profile
> or your own custom profile.
>

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

> I'm not sure which "workflow by Duane" you're referring to.

I meant the one he is describing earlier in this thread, but to avoid 
furhter confusion I'll summarize it as I understand it.

1) make sure your monitor is well profiled
2) make sure you have well calibrated QTR curves for your printer-ink-
paper combination (following Tom Moore's user guide)
3) edit the image in whatever colorspace you like
4) softproof the image with the icc profile for the printer-ink-paper 
combination created with QTR-create ICC (or if not available, with 
either the gray-matte-paper or gray-photo-paper icc profile)
5) if applicable, flatten the image, convert to 8-bit grayscale
6) "convert profile" the image to Gray-LAB
7) save the file in TIF format
8) print the file using QTRGui 

This definitely IS different as the workflow you describe. The use of 
the gray-matte-paper and gray-glossy-paper profiles is totally 
different. 

To me it absolutely doesn't make sense to calibrate the system in one 
color space (gray lab) and then suddenly print in another (gray-matte 
or gray-photo). In this comment it is assumed that the step wedge for 
calibration is NOT to be converted to gray-matte or gray photo, but 
left as it is, which is gray-lab. If you could just explain the 
rationale behind this, that would help a lot....

My head is spinning now to understand whether in effect the two 
workflows are actually equivalent, where in yours you compensate for 
the print-monitor differences by converting the file and in the one 
described above in the softproof...?? I'm currently travelling so I 
can't try, but it would be an interesting experiment....

Joost

Hi Jeff,

Since I don't have or use Picture Window Pro I don't know details of 
that product.
But from the PS point of view there are two ways to view/use 
soft-proofs and
it's worthwhile understanding how they work.

With PS there is an option in the Proof Setup called "Preserve Color 
Numbers".
This allows proofing to simulate the print as if you will print with 
that same profile
or print without a profile.  PCN=ON means you'll print without the 
profile -- the idea being
you will keep the existing "numbers" in the file NOT convert them to 
the print profile.
PCN=OFF means you'll print with the profile -- i.e. the "numbers" will 
be converted
from the embedded profile to the print profile -- this is the most 
common usage.

However, back to QTR:   because we're saving a tiff and printing in a 
separate program
the Convert-to-profile can be a hassle or maybe not possible.  I don't 
know PWP.
Because of this it may be advantageous for you to use the PCN=ON or 
simulate
the no print profile on your screen.  Now you are editing just as it 
will appear on the
print.

So whether you are effectively doing all this or you are lucky largely 
doesn't matter.
This illustrates my "figure out what works best for you" approach.

Roy

On Thursday, March 8, 2007, at 02:53  PM, Jeff Randall wrote:

> Roy.  What does it boil down to for Window users who print through
> QTRgui?
>
> I edit my images with softproof turned on using the profiles I created
> using QTR-Create-ICC-RGB and my calibrated monitor.  I save the final
> as a tiff and print through QTRgui applying the .QUAD file used to
> create the softproof profile.  I don't convert or tag my grayscale
> with any profile.  I edit with Picture Window Pro.
>
> I get good matches between monitor and print (as good as can be
> expected between luminious monitor pixels and reflected light from the
> prints).  Have I been lucky or am I just not discerning? Am I missing
> something?
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>
>> It really just boils down to:   edit in grayscale with your favorite
>> method
>> then apply i.e. convert to the best print profile you have before
>> printing.
>> The best is either the generic QTR Matte/Photo Paper profile
>> or your own custom profile.
>>
>
>
-
Roy Harrington
roy@...
Black & White Photo Gallery
http://www.harrington.com

Thanks Roy.  The PWP softproof works as a "PCN=off" transformation 
with a selected rendering intent -- this is what I use.  There is 
also a PWP transformation "Convert" that works as a PCN=on 
transformation with a selected rendering intent applied after the 
image is edited.  Moreover, there is also a PWP printing option that 
nondestructively applies the printing profile (in my case same as 
softproof profile) to the image data with a selected rendering intent 
as it is fed to the printer through the Epson driver.  I could use 
this approach, but I print the saved tiff files through QTRgui.

What I was (and still am) confused about is the discussion 
surrounding all the color space conversions and generic QTR icc 
conversions discussed by Joost etal.  


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Jeff,
> 
> Since I don't have or use Picture Window Pro I don't know details 
of 
> that product.
> But from the PS point of view there are two ways to view/use 
> soft-proofs and
> it's worthwhile understanding how they work.
> 
> With PS there is an option in the Proof Setup called "Preserve 
Color 
> Numbers".
> This allows proofing to simulate the print as if you will print 
with 
> that same profile
> or print without a profile.  PCN=ON means you'll print without the 
> profile -- the idea being
> you will keep the existing "numbers" in the file NOT convert them 
to 
> the print profile.
> PCN=OFF means you'll print with the profile -- i.e. the "numbers" 
will 
> be converted
> from the embedded profile to the print profile -- this is the most 
> common usage.
> 
> However, back to QTR:   because we're saving a tiff and printing in 
a 
> separate program
> the Convert-to-profile can be a hassle or maybe not possible.  I 
don't 
> know PWP.
> Because of this it may be advantageous for you to use the PCN=ON or 
> simulate
> the no print profile on your screen.  Now you are editing just as 
it 
> will appear on the
> print.
> 
> So whether you are effectively doing all this or you are lucky 
largely 
> doesn't matter.
> This illustrates my "figure out what works best for you" approach.
> 
> Roy
> 
> On Thursday, March 8, 2007, at 02:53  PM, Jeff Randall wrote:
> 
> > Roy.  What does it boil down to for Window users who print through
> > QTRgui?
> >
> > I edit my images with softproof turned on using the profiles I 
created
> > using QTR-Create-ICC-RGB and my calibrated monitor.  I save the 
final
> > as a tiff and print through QTRgui applying the .QUAD file used to
> > create the softproof profile.  I don't convert or tag my grayscale
> > with any profile.  I edit with Picture Window Pro.
> >
> > I get good matches between monitor and print (as good as can be
> > expected between luminious monitor pixels and reflected light 
from the
> > prints).  Have I been lucky or am I just not discerning? Am I 
missing
> > something?
> >
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Roy Harrington <roy@> wrote:
> >
> >> It really just boils down to:   edit in grayscale with your 
favorite

> >> method
> >> then apply i.e. convert to the best print profile you have before
> >> printing.
> >> The best is either the generic QTR Matte/Photo Paper profile
> >> or your own custom profile.
> >>
> >
> >
> -
> Roy Harrington
> roy@...
> Black & White Photo Gallery
> http://www.harrington.com
>

Roy Harrington wrote:

This is just like any color printing that you do.   The only thing different is that you are not printing directly from PS Print with Preview where you canselect the print profile on the fly.  With QTR you need to Convert-To-Profile and save the tiff file.



Just to be sure I understand, the above only applies to Windows?  I think I remember reading not long ago that this isn't necessary on the Mac.

Kyle





 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396546091

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