QTR-Quadtone RIP

I put the question in two lists here first. The Qimage forum often is 
less B&W interested and isn't always responding nicely on bug reports. I 
wonder who shares the same experience I describe below. Forget the Z3100 
driver mentioned here, it should be the same problem with Epson or Canon 
B&W driver modes.

So far my B&W printing has been on matt papers that do not have a Dmax 
above 1.8. For a long time I didn't trust Qimage's handling of the QTR 
ICC profiles in particular its BPC interpretation. So with the 9000 quad 
I had I would first do a P2P conversion to the custom QTR paper profile 
in Photoshop before using Qimage to set multiple scaled prints on one 
print page and print to file and from there with QTR. That worked 
properly (but slow) and I kept that method even after some messages 
appeared that Qimage was compatible (again) with the QTR ICC profiles. 
Didn't print other than matt paper in practice.

After I got my HP Z3100 I changed to printing from the Advanced B&W (HP 
gave it another name though) mode in the driver  and used custom QTR 
paper profiles (RGB) in Qimage color management to make sure that it had 
the right perceptual tone range. Perceptual rendering with BPC on. Still 
on matt papers. Dmax around 1.7 on HPR Bright White, a very slight drop 
from the target's Dmax I made the profiles with.

Over the last two weeks I changed the Z3100 firmware + driver to the 
latest version and upgraded to Qimage's Studio version 2007.178. Thought 
it was time to make some QTR profiles for the Innova fiber paper and HP 
gloss + satin versions of Premium Instant Dry. I have made several 
profiles for HP Premium ID gloss with color management off in Qimage 
(the driver has CM off as the default in my preferred settings) using 
the Advanced B&W mode of the driver (on neutral) with the optimal 
setting + GE all over the print. Dmax varies between 2.249 (5.09 L) for 
the step 21x4 random target, 2.265 (4.91L) for the step 51 random 
target. Nice results.

Printing from Qimage however with CM and Perceptual + BPC on cut the 
Dmax back to between 1.98 - 2.05. Whatever method chosen: with a 
greyscale QTR profile, the RGB QTR profile and both used on greyscale 
and RGB versions of the 21 + 100 step wedge (2.2 Gamma).  If I used the 
same profiles and wedges in Photoshop with a P2P conversion with 
Perceptual + BPC and printed that through Qimage (with CM off) I got a 
2.2 Dmax value on average. That's OK with me and tells me something is 
still not working in Qimage. Suspecting the BPC function again I put two 
targets on one print page in Qimage and used CM with Perceptual 
rendering, one target with BPC on, the other with BPC off. Qimage allows 
custom profile settings per image on one print page. That made it clear 
that BPC on cut the Dmax, one measured 2.2 the other 1.98.  It probably 
only happens or gets only visible with Dmaxs above 2.0 D.

To dampen any comment about using CM on in the application and using QTR 
profiles with that while the Z3100 Advanced B&W instructions say to set 
CM off in the application you print from: I see better shadow separation 
and better highlight build up with the QTR profile (working properly: PS 
P2P) than any other setting with the Advanced B&W mode: CM in 
application off or with CM on and a normal custom ICC profile used. So 
HP's recommendation isn't the best and the color profile (based on the 
color mode printed target so not entirely correct for this setting) 
isn't good either. Printing in color mode and with custom color profiles 
takes out some Dmax already in the target, the ABW mode gives more Dmax 
usually so for me that's no option either. And as written I get 
suspicious about Qimage's BPC for color as well when a Dmax above 2.0 is 
possible.

For the time being I will print B&W gloss either with PS and the QTR 
profile (best tone rendering) or through Qimage with CM off in Qimage = 
Z3100 driver B&W rendering being second best. Qimage's CM perceptual 
with and without BPC isn't correct.

Roy, is this the spec of the profile (v4 ICC, and then coder's taste for 
BPC algo) or something more fundamental. Mike has written more comments 
on BPC and doesn't see Adobe as the standard to refer to. Cutting 0.2 D 
from 2.2 Dmax is not something I see as a difference of taste though. Or 
has it something to do with the a b data in the profile and Qimage's 
effort to get near neutral black in line with neutral black in the 
shadows ?  Something that is important in color printing but with a b in 
the QTR profiles not playing a role in color toning  with B&W printing 
it should be blocked to influence BPC too. Anyway: PS does it correct.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst

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

Ernst,

When I first tried Qimage with QTR ICCs back over a year ago there were some
issues.  The issue was a combination of both Qimage and Little CMS which is the
internal color management of Qimage.  At the time we got things to work just
like they do Photoshop.  I guess it's possible that it has been broken
in a later
version -- (I don't use Qimage on any regular basis so I wouldn't find
out about it).

The whole BPC issue is a problem in general.  It is not addressed in
the ICC standard
at all -- neither v2 or v4.  To quote the website it's "under active
consideration".
Adobe is the one who initiated the concept and wrote the "standard" for it.
Another issue is that rendering intents are also up to implementers --
the idea is
specified in ICC but the exact math involved is not.

It's easy to see what your particular setup does.  Instead of printing
the output of
Qimage (or any other program) send the output to a tiff file and open it up back
in Photoshop to see what's been done to it.  Use a 21 stepwedge and look at the
histogram before and after -- or even just a 100% black box.

Roy

On 6/18/07, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:
> I put the question in two lists here first. The Qimage forum often is
> less B&W interested and isn't always responding nicely on bug reports. I
> wonder who shares the same experience I describe below. Forget the Z3100
> driver mentioned here, it should be the same problem with Epson or Canon
> B&W driver modes.
>
> So far my B&W printing has been on matt papers that do not have a Dmax
> above 1.8. For a long time I didn't trust Qimage's handling of the QTR
> ICC profiles in particular its BPC interpretation. So with the 9000 quad
> I had I would first do a P2P conversion to the custom QTR paper profile
> in Photoshop before using Qimage to set multiple scaled prints on one
> print page and print to file and from there with QTR. That worked
> properly (but slow) and I kept that method even after some messages
> appeared that Qimage was compatible (again) with the QTR ICC profiles.
> Didn't print other than matt paper in practice.
>
> After I got my HP Z3100 I changed to printing from the Advanced B&W (HP
> gave it another name though) mode in the driver  and used custom QTR
> paper profiles (RGB) in Qimage color management to make sure that it had
> the right perceptual tone range. Perceptual rendering with BPC on. Still
> on matt papers. Dmax around 1.7 on HPR Bright White, a very slight drop
> from the target's Dmax I made the profiles with.
>
> Over the last two weeks I changed the Z3100 firmware + driver to the
> latest version and upgraded to Qimage's Studio version 2007.178. Thought
> it was time to make some QTR profiles for the Innova fiber paper and HP
> gloss + satin versions of Premium Instant Dry. I have made several
> profiles for HP Premium ID gloss with color management off in Qimage
> (the driver has CM off as the default in my preferred settings) using
> the Advanced B&W mode of the driver (on neutral) with the optimal
> setting + GE all over the print. Dmax varies between 2.249 (5.09 L) for
> the step 21x4 random target, 2.265 (4.91L) for the step 51 random
> target. Nice results.
>
> Printing from Qimage however with CM and Perceptual + BPC on cut the
> Dmax back to between 1.98 - 2.05. Whatever method chosen: with a
> greyscale QTR profile, the RGB QTR profile and both used on greyscale
> and RGB versions of the 21 + 100 step wedge (2.2 Gamma).  If I used the
> same profiles and wedges in Photoshop with a P2P conversion with
> Perceptual + BPC and printed that through Qimage (with CM off) I got a
> 2.2 Dmax value on average. That's OK with me and tells me something is
> still not working in Qimage. Suspecting the BPC function again I put two
> targets on one print page in Qimage and used CM with Perceptual
> rendering, one target with BPC on, the other with BPC off. Qimage allows
> custom profile settings per image on one print page. That made it clear
> that BPC on cut the Dmax, one measured 2.2 the other 1.98.  It probably
> only happens or gets only visible with Dmaxs above 2.0 D.
>
> To dampen any comment about using CM on in the application and using QTR
> profiles with that while the Z3100 Advanced B&W instructions say to set
> CM off in the application you print from: I see better shadow separation
> and better highlight build up with the QTR profile (working properly: PS
> P2P) than any other setting with the Advanced B&W mode: CM in
> application off or with CM on and a normal custom ICC profile used. So
> HP's recommendation isn't the best and the color profile (based on the
> color mode printed target so not entirely correct for this setting)
> isn't good either. Printing in color mode and with custom color profiles
> takes out some Dmax already in the target, the ABW mode gives more Dmax
> usually so for me that's no option either. And as written I get
> suspicious about Qimage's BPC for color as well when a Dmax above 2.0 is
> possible.
>
> For the time being I will print B&W gloss either with PS and the QTR
> profile (best tone rendering) or through Qimage with CM off in Qimage =
> Z3100 driver B&W rendering being second best. Qimage's CM perceptual
> with and without BPC isn't correct.
>
> Roy, is this the spec of the profile (v4 ICC, and then coder's taste for
> BPC algo) or something more fundamental. Mike has written more comments
> on BPC and doesn't see Adobe as the standard to refer to. Cutting 0.2 D
> from 2.2 Dmax is not something I see as a difference of taste though. Or
> has it something to do with the a b data in the profile and Qimage's
> effort to get near neutral black in line with neutral black in the
> shadows ?  Something that is important in color printing but with a b in
> the QTR profiles not playing a role in color toning  with B&W printing
> it should be blocked to influence BPC too. Anyway: PS does it correct.
>
>
> --
> Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
>
>
> |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> |             ( unvollendet )            |
>

Roy Harrington wrote:
> Ernst,
> 
> When I first tried Qimage with QTR ICCs back over a year ago there were some
> issues.  The issue was a combination of both Qimage and Little CMS which is the
> internal color management of Qimage.  At the time we got things to work just
> like they do Photoshop.  I guess it's possible that it has been broken
> in a later
> version -- (I don't use Qimage on any regular basis so I wouldn't find
> out about it).
> 
> The whole BPC issue is a problem in general.  It is not addressed in
> the ICC standard
> at all -- neither v2 or v4.  To quote the website it's "under active
> consideration".
> Adobe is the one who initiated the concept and wrote the "standard" for it.
> Another issue is that rendering intents are also up to implementers --
> the idea is
> specified in ICC but the exact math involved is not.
> 
> It's easy to see what your particular setup does.  Instead of printing
> the output of
> Qimage (or any other program) send the output to a tiff file and open it up back
> in Photoshop to see what's been done to it.  Use a 21 stepwedge and look at the
> histogram before and after -- or even just a 100% black box.
> 
> Roy

Roy,


There's an older Qimage mailing list comment by Mike on BPC 
where he writes that BPC is not needed in perceptual 
rendering as the last already compresses the total within 
the printer's gamut. So he advises to keep BPC on in both 
perceptual (not doing harm) and relative colormetric (needed 
there for good shadow rendering). True if it works correctly 
but I see differences in Photoshop Perceptual rendering with 
and without BPC. In Qimage it certainly isn't inactive in 
the case I sketched.

I rather print samples to really see and measure what I get 
than check it in PS that needs to be treated carefully  as 
CM is almost never really suppressed in that program. 
Picture Window Pro's CM can be switched off totally, on the 
other hand that application has a quirky CM when switched on :-)
I have been testing all the applications on QTR ICC 
compatibility probably two or three years ago and PWP made a 
mess of it then and now, Qimage is back to an old problem it 
seems but worse now as I want to print gloss with the higher 
Dmax.

I'm going to measure the targets I got and select the method 
with the tone range that comes near the ideal curve for that 
Dmax. If the HP ABW sans application CM isn't too bad I 
might use that with Qimage for the time being, the QTR 
profile did correct the tone range though but I do not want 
to print from PS.


Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

As Roy indicated, BPC is not part of the ICC spec at all: it is an
Adobe abomination, one of which (as is often the case with Adobe) is
not completely specified for third parties to be able to reproduce. 
There are additional limitations with BPC for ICC v4 profiles as BPC
really makes no sense for perceptual intent in v4 profiles. 
Perceptual intent for v4 profiles runs on its own PCS and is
inherently different than RC and other intents making BPC undefinable
by the spec.  There are other issues as well, for example, when a
profile uses a black point tag and that tag doesn't agree with the
data in the look up tables.  On top of that is the fact that black
point for perceptual intent in v4 profiles should be a fixed value. 
There's also color "noise" to deal with and the fact that you have to
deal with near-black.  All software will handle that a bit
differently.  When using v4 profiles, many times the profiles
themselves are not truly v4 as I've seen many that are a mix between
v2 and v4 and don't have all the required v4 tags.  Hard to tell which
of these factors is causing the problem, but I've been over BPC with
Marti Maria many times and am satisfied that it is working properly in
Qimage/LCMS.  PhotoShop also tends to "prune" profiles and do things
without telling you so in cases like this, the answer could be as
simple as PhotoShop ignoring BPC under these conditions while Qimage
still tries to do something with it.  Maybe the best thing in cases
like this is to turn off BPC when using perceptual intent with v4
profiles as BPC really makes no sense in those cases anyway.

Mike

> Roy Harrington wrote:
> > Ernst,
> > 
> > When I first tried Qimage with QTR ICCs back over a year ago there
were some
> > issues.  The issue was a combination of both Qimage and Little CMS
which is the
> > internal color management of Qimage.  At the time we got things to
work just
> > like they do Photoshop.  I guess it's possible that it has been broken
> > in a later
> > version -- (I don't use Qimage on any regular basis so I wouldn't find
> > out about it).
> > 
> > The whole BPC issue is a problem in general.  It is not addressed in
> > the ICC standard
> > at all -- neither v2 or v4.  To quote the website it's "under active
> > consideration".
> > Adobe is the one who initiated the concept and wrote the
"standard" for it.
> > Another issue is that rendering intents are also up to implementers --
> > the idea is
> > specified in ICC but the exact math involved is not.
> > 
> > It's easy to see what your particular setup does.  Instead of printing
> > the output of
> > Qimage (or any other program) send the output to a tiff file and
open it up back
> > in Photoshop to see what's been done to it.  Use a 21 stepwedge
and look at the

> > histogram before and after -- or even just a 100% black box.
> > 
> > Roy
> 
> Roy,
> 
> 
> There's an older Qimage mailing list comment by Mike on BPC 
> where he writes that BPC is not needed in perceptual 
> rendering as the last already compresses the total within 
> the printer's gamut. So he advises to keep BPC on in both 
> perceptual (not doing harm) and relative colormetric (needed 
> there for good shadow rendering). True if it works correctly 
> but I see differences in Photoshop Perceptual rendering with 
> and without BPC. In Qimage it certainly isn't inactive in 
> the case I sketched.
> 
> I rather print samples to really see and measure what I get 
> than check it in PS that needs to be treated carefully  as 
> CM is almost never really suppressed in that program. 
> Picture Window Pro's CM can be switched off totally, on the 
> other hand that application has a quirky CM when switched on :-)
> I have been testing all the applications on QTR ICC 
> compatibility probably two or three years ago and PWP made a 
> mess of it then and now, Qimage is back to an old problem it 
> seems but worse now as I want to print gloss with the higher 
> Dmax.
> 
> I'm going to measure the targets I got and select the method 
> with the tone range that comes near the ideal curve for that 
> Dmax. If the HP ABW sans application CM isn't too bad I 
> might use that with Qimage for the time being, the QTR 
> profile did correct the tone range though but I do not want 
> to print from PS.
> 
> 
> Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
> 
> 
> |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> |             ( unvollendet )            |
>

mchaney1234567890 wrote:
> As Roy indicated, BPC is not part of the ICC spec at all: it is an
> Adobe abomination, one of which (as is often the case with Adobe) is
> not completely specified for third parties to be able to reproduce. 
> There are additional limitations with BPC for ICC v4 profiles as BPC
> really makes no sense for perceptual intent in v4 profiles. 
> Perceptual intent for v4 profiles runs on its own PCS and is
> inherently different than RC and other intents making BPC undefinable
> by the spec.  There are other issues as well, for example, when a
> profile uses a black point tag and that tag doesn't agree with the
> data in the look up tables.  On top of that is the fact that black
> point for perceptual intent in v4 profiles should be a fixed value. 
> There's also color "noise" to deal with and the fact that you have to
> deal with near-black.  All software will handle that a bit
> differently.  When using v4 profiles, many times the profiles
> themselves are not truly v4 as I've seen many that are a mix between
> v2 and v4 and don't have all the required v4 tags.  Hard to tell which
> of these factors is causing the problem, but I've been over BPC with
> Marti Maria many times and am satisfied that it is working properly in
> Qimage/LCMS.  PhotoShop also tends to "prune" profiles and do things
> without telling you so in cases like this, the answer could be as
> simple as PhotoShop ignoring BPC under these conditions while Qimage
> still tries to do something with it.  Maybe the best thing in cases
> like this is to turn off BPC when using perceptual intent with v4
> profiles as BPC really makes no sense in those cases anyway.
> 
> Mike

Mike,

I see differences between BPC on and off with Photoshop on 
the same profile. It has taken too much time again so I'm 
not going to press this thing more. Better see whether I can 
change the profile data a bit to get the same effect with 
BPC off in Qimage.

Is there any chance that similar Perceptual Rendering + BPC 
problems happen with color printing + color profiles on 
gloss = high Dmax. ?  Profiles like delivered with the HP 
Z3100 or custom profiles from Colorvision/Pantone 
ProfilerPro, Monaco Profiler, etc ?  Reading back in the 
Qimage mailing list your advice has been to keep BPC on with 
Perceptual Rendering (where it shouldn't add and do no harm 
either) and keep it on with Relative Colormetric where it suits.


Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

Mike,

Just in general the issue seems especially strange to me.  Originally
my profiles
used the TRC curves and black point mapping was particularly important.  But
now all the custom profiles from QTR-Create-ICC (and RGB) use A2B and B2A
curves that explicitly map Lab(0,0,0) to pure black (K=100 or R=G=B=0) for all
the intents.  So how and why any CMS would not honor that seems to me to be
wrong.  But they all do different things depending on intent and bpc settings.
I'm not a color management expert by a long shot so I really can't say
who's wrong.
But as a B&W printer it's imperative that you take advantage of the best dMax
that the paper/ink can achieve.  So far trial and error is what I've used to see
what happens for particular setup.   If you or anyone has advice or even just
ideas of how to best guarantee getting black I'm open to it.

The trouble with finding a lot of this stuff out is that just about
everyone knows
color and assumes B&W should be the same but it rarely is.

Thanks,
Roy

On 6/19/07, mchaney1234567890 <mchaney@...> wrote:
> As Roy indicated, BPC is not part of the ICC spec at all: it is an
> Adobe abomination, one of which (as is often the case with Adobe) is
> not completely specified for third parties to be able to reproduce.
> There are additional limitations with BPC for ICC v4 profiles as BPC
> really makes no sense for perceptual intent in v4 profiles.
> Perceptual intent for v4 profiles runs on its own PCS and is
> inherently different than RC and other intents making BPC undefinable
> by the spec.  There are other issues as well, for example, when a
> profile uses a black point tag and that tag doesn't agree with the
> data in the look up tables.  On top of that is the fact that black
> point for perceptual intent in v4 profiles should be a fixed value.
> There's also color "noise" to deal with and the fact that you have to
> deal with near-black.  All software will handle that a bit
> differently.  When using v4 profiles, many times the profiles
> themselves are not truly v4 as I've seen many that are a mix between
> v2 and v4 and don't have all the required v4 tags.  Hard to tell which
> of these factors is causing the problem, but I've been over BPC with
> Marti Maria many times and am satisfied that it is working properly in
> Qimage/LCMS.  PhotoShop also tends to "prune" profiles and do things
> without telling you so in cases like this, the answer could be as
> simple as PhotoShop ignoring BPC under these conditions while Qimage
> still tries to do something with it.  Maybe the best thing in cases
> like this is to turn off BPC when using perceptual intent with v4
> profiles as BPC really makes no sense in those cases anyway.
>
> Mike
>
> > Roy Harrington wrote:
> > > Ernst,
> > >
> > > When I first tried Qimage with QTR ICCs back over a year ago there
> were some
> > > issues.  The issue was a combination of both Qimage and Little CMS
> which is the
> > > internal color management of Qimage.  At the time we got things to
> work just
> > > like they do Photoshop.  I guess it's possible that it has been broken
> > > in a later
> > > version -- (I don't use Qimage on any regular basis so I wouldn't find
> > > out about it).
> > >
> > > The whole BPC issue is a problem in general.  It is not addressed in
> > > the ICC standard
> > > at all -- neither v2 or v4.  To quote the website it's "under active
> > > consideration".
> > > Adobe is the one who initiated the concept and wrote the
> "standard" for it.
> > > Another issue is that rendering intents are also up to implementers --
> > > the idea is
> > > specified in ICC but the exact math involved is not.
> > >
> > > It's easy to see what your particular setup does.  Instead of printing
> > > the output of
> > > Qimage (or any other program) send the output to a tiff file and
> open it up back
> > > in Photoshop to see what's been done to it.  Use a 21 stepwedge
> and look at the
> > > histogram before and after -- or even just a 100% black box.
> > >
> > > Roy
> >
> > Roy,
> >
> >
> > There's an older Qimage mailing list comment by Mike on BPC
> > where he writes that BPC is not needed in perceptual
> > rendering as the last already compresses the total within
> > the printer's gamut. So he advises to keep BPC on in both
> > perceptual (not doing harm) and relative colormetric (needed
> > there for good shadow rendering). True if it works correctly
> > but I see differences in Photoshop Perceptual rendering with
> > and without BPC. In Qimage it certainly isn't inactive in
> > the case I sketched.
> >
> > I rather print samples to really see and measure what I get
> > than check it in PS that needs to be treated carefully  as
> > CM is almost never really suppressed in that program.
> > Picture Window Pro's CM can be switched off totally, on the
> > other hand that application has a quirky CM when switched on :-)
> > I have been testing all the applications on QTR ICC
> > compatibility probably two or three years ago and PWP made a
> > mess of it then and now, Qimage is back to an old problem it
> > seems but worse now as I want to print gloss with the higher
> > Dmax.
> >
> > I'm going to measure the targets I got and select the method
> > with the tone range that comes near the ideal curve for that
> > Dmax. If the HP ABW sans application CM isn't too bad I
> > might use that with Qimage for the time being, the QTR
> > profile did correct the tone range though but I do not want
> > to print from PS.
> >
> >
> > Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
> >
> >
> > |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> > |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> > |             ( unvollendet )            |
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

I've done a little testing in Qimage to see how using its CMS compared
to converting first in PS to my newly created custom (rgb) profile,
and then printing via Qimage with CM off.  Results (PS histograms of
Qimage print-to-files) are:


     http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage.png

There's certainly something very strange going on in Qimage if you
convert to a QTR profile with BPC on.  BPC OFF looks better, but not
perfect.  

@Ernst: is this what you were seeing?  Is it worth provoking the
Qimage list again?  It almost looks like it's not a perceptual
conversion (which it was definitely specified as).

@Roy:  In message 5728 you said that you had included the Adobe BPC in
the QTR-Create-ICC profiles.  For the CMS-challenged among us, what
are the implications of including (or not including) BPC in
QTR-Create-ICC profiles?  Does this mean that we should specify BPC in
profile conversions, or does it mean that we do not need to?

F_P
 

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
>
> Mike,
> 
> Just in general the issue seems especially strange to me.  Originally
> my profiles
> used the TRC curves and black point mapping was particularly
important.  But
> now all the custom profiles from QTR-Create-ICC (and RGB) use A2B
and B2A
> curves that explicitly map Lab(0,0,0) to pure black (K=100 or
R=G=B=0) for all
> the intents.  So how and why any CMS would not honor that seems to
me to be
> wrong.  But they all do different things depending on intent and bpc
settings.
> I'm not a color management expert by a long shot so I really can't say
> who's wrong.
> But as a B&W printer it's imperative that you take advantage of the
best dMax
> that the paper/ink can achieve.  So far trial and error is what I've
used to see
> what happens for particular setup.   If you or anyone has advice or
even just
> ideas of how to best guarantee getting black I'm open to it.
> 
> The trouble with finding a lot of this stuff out is that just about
> everyone knows
> color and assumes B&W should be the same but it rarely is.
> 
> Thanks,
> Roy
> 
> On 6/19/07, mchaney1234567890 <mchaney@...> wrote:
> > As Roy indicated, BPC is not part of the ICC spec at all: it is an
> > Adobe abomination, one of which (as is often the case with Adobe) is
> > not completely specified for third parties to be able to reproduce.
> > There are additional limitations with BPC for ICC v4 profiles as BPC
> > really makes no sense for perceptual intent in v4 profiles.
> > Perceptual intent for v4 profiles runs on its own PCS and is
> > inherently different than RC and other intents making BPC undefinable
> > by the spec.  There are other issues as well, for example, when a
> > profile uses a black point tag and that tag doesn't agree with the
> > data in the look up tables.  On top of that is the fact that black
> > point for perceptual intent in v4 profiles should be a fixed value.
> > There's also color "noise" to deal with and the fact that you have to
> > deal with near-black.  All software will handle that a bit
> > differently.  When using v4 profiles, many times the profiles
> > themselves are not truly v4 as I've seen many that are a mix between
> > v2 and v4 and don't have all the required v4 tags.  Hard to tell which
> > of these factors is causing the problem, but I've been over BPC with
> > Marti Maria many times and am satisfied that it is working properly in
> > Qimage/LCMS.  PhotoShop also tends to "prune" profiles and do things
> > without telling you so in cases like this, the answer could be as
> > simple as PhotoShop ignoring BPC under these conditions while Qimage
> > still tries to do something with it.  Maybe the best thing in cases
> > like this is to turn off BPC when using perceptual intent with v4
> > profiles as BPC really makes no sense in those cases anyway.
> >
> > Mike
> >
> > > Roy Harrington wrote:
> > > > Ernst,
> > > >
> > > > When I first tried Qimage with QTR ICCs back over a year ago there
> > were some
> > > > issues.  The issue was a combination of both Qimage and Little CMS
> > which is the
> > > > internal color management of Qimage.  At the time we got things to
> > work just
> > > > like they do Photoshop.  I guess it's possible that it has
been broken
> > > > in a later
> > > > version -- (I don't use Qimage on any regular basis so I
wouldn't find
> > > > out about it).
> > > >
> > > > The whole BPC issue is a problem in general.  It is not
addressed in
> > > > the ICC standard
> > > > at all -- neither v2 or v4.  To quote the website it's "under
active
> > > > consideration".
> > > > Adobe is the one who initiated the concept and wrote the
> > "standard" for it.
> > > > Another issue is that rendering intents are also up to
implementers --
> > > > the idea is
> > > > specified in ICC but the exact math involved is not.
> > > >
> > > > It's easy to see what your particular setup does.  Instead of
printing

> > > > the output of
> > > > Qimage (or any other program) send the output to a tiff file and
> > open it up back
> > > > in Photoshop to see what's been done to it.  Use a 21 stepwedge
> > and look at the
> > > > histogram before and after -- or even just a 100% black box.
> > > >
> > > > Roy
> > >
> > > Roy,
> > >
> > >
> > > There's an older Qimage mailing list comment by Mike on BPC
> > > where he writes that BPC is not needed in perceptual
> > > rendering as the last already compresses the total within
> > > the printer's gamut. So he advises to keep BPC on in both
> > > perceptual (not doing harm) and relative colormetric (needed
> > > there for good shadow rendering). True if it works correctly
> > > but I see differences in Photoshop Perceptual rendering with
> > > and without BPC. In Qimage it certainly isn't inactive in
> > > the case I sketched.
> > >
> > > I rather print samples to really see and measure what I get
> > > than check it in PS that needs to be treated carefully  as
> > > CM is almost never really suppressed in that program.
> > > Picture Window Pro's CM can be switched off totally, on the
> > > other hand that application has a quirky CM when switched on :-)
> > > I have been testing all the applications on QTR ICC
> > > compatibility probably two or three years ago and PWP made a
> > > mess of it then and now, Qimage is back to an old problem it
> > > seems but worse now as I want to print gloss with the higher
> > > Dmax.
> > >
> > > I'm going to measure the targets I got and select the method
> > > with the tone range that comes near the ideal curve for that
> > > Dmax. If the HP ABW sans application CM isn't too bad I
> > > might use that with Qimage for the time being, the QTR
> > > profile did correct the tone range though but I do not want
> > > to print from PS.
> > >
> > >
> > > Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
> > >
> > >
> > > |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> > > |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> > > |             ( unvollendet )            |
> > >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
>

ferdinand_paris wrote:
> I've done a little testing in Qimage to see how using its CMS compared
> to converting first in PS to my newly created custom (rgb) profile,
> and then printing via Qimage with CM off.  Results (PS histograms of
> Qimage print-to-files) are:
> 
> 
>      http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage.png
> 
> There's certainly something very strange going on in Qimage if you
> convert to a QTR profile with BPC on.  BPC OFF looks better, but not
> perfect.  
> 
> @Ernst: is this what you were seeing?  Is it worth provoking the
> Qimage list again?  It almost looks like it's not a perceptual
> conversion (which it was definitely specified as).

Yes. that's what I see today and what I have seen in the 
past. But I just measured the greyscale wedges and checked 
the numbers. For the BPC ON in Qimage you will see it in any 
B&W print without checking numbers.
I have checked color printing the same way and it is alright 
so I have no clue what this is.

It isn't so long ago this has been discussed with Mike and 
Roy in this list and I do not know whether it has sense to 
go for that discussion again. There's another thing: all my 
Qimage work is in a one way direction, edited files go from 
Photoshop to Qimage for printing only and they are deleted 
after that. The editing, softproof etc is all done in 
Photoshop where the file to be archived will be saved on 
that system in 16 bit. So if I have to do the P2P for a B&W 
file on Photoshop before sending it to Qimage it isn't more 
work and I have to use a separate setup for Qimage + the 
Z3100 driver for B&W work anyway, can't nest B&W images + 
Color on the same print page there either. The B&W images I 
have are 16 bit scans of B&W frames, in Photoshop they are 
kept at 16 bit when converted to the QTR printer profile, 
after that brought back to 8 bit as Qimage's input is 8 bit. 
There could be a difference in that aspect of 16 and 8 bit. 
Qimage will make RGB files of RGB and Greyscale files even 
if they go to the ABW b&W mode of my Z3100 or if ones sends 
the Qimage output to QTR. That could be the other thing. Not 
just the curve being different in shape but the smoothness + 
the spikes .

Be careful with image files brought back to Photoshop to 
compare their tone range, Photoshop's CM is almost always 
interfering even if it is set to OFF.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

Hi Ferdinand,
The histograms are quite revealing -- in fact, that's the best way to see
what is
happening in an CM issue.  I tend to use a 21 stepwedge similarly so you can
see
what happens throughout the range.

I have a couple clarifications:
This is a custom RGB profile -- not the generic RGB Matte Paper.  (you did
mention this
but it can make a difference).
You don't mention "intent" -- Perceptual is what I've always used, Relative
gives unexpected
results even in Photoshop.
I don't keep up with Qimage version numbers -- what are you using?  Is it
the latest?

The trouble with dealing with different CM systems is that: although the ICC
formats are
well defined how they should be applied is not defined precisely.  So in
looking at your
histograms I can say they aren't what I'd expect, but it's hard to argue
right vs wrong.
My approach to it all has been using Photoshop, seeing what it does and
coming up with
how to use that consistently.  The only explanation I can see that would
give the results
shown by the histograms is some kind of "double profiling" type error.

It seems Ernst has basically gone that way too -- do all CM in Photoshop and
let Qimage
just do the page layout.

Roy

On Dec 23, 2007 12:09 AM, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:

> I've done a little testing in Qimage to see how using its CMS compared
> to converting first in PS to my newly created custom (rgb) profile,
> and then printing via Qimage with CM off.  Results (PS histograms of
> Qimage print-to-files) are:
>
>
>     http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage.png
>
> There's certainly something very strange going on in Qimage if you
> convert to a QTR profile with BPC on.  BPC OFF looks better, but not
> perfect.
>
> @Ernst: is this what you were seeing?  Is it worth provoking the
> Qimage list again?  It almost looks like it's not a perceptual
> conversion (which it was definitely specified as).
>
> @Roy:  In message 5728 you said that you had included the Adobe BPC in
> the QTR-Create-ICC profiles.  For the CMS-challenged among us, what
> are the implications of including (or not including) BPC in
> QTR-Create-ICC profiles?  Does this mean that we should specify BPC in
> profile conversions, or does it mean that we do not need to?
>
> F_P
>
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Mike,
> >
> > Just in general the issue seems especially strange to me.  Originally
> > my profiles
> > used the TRC curves and black point mapping was particularly
> important.  But
> > now all the custom profiles from QTR-Create-ICC (and RGB) use A2B
> and B2A
> > curves that explicitly map Lab(0,0,0) to pure black (K=100 or
> R=G=B=0) for all
> > the intents.  So how and why any CMS would not honor that seems to
> me to be
> > wrong.  But they all do different things depending on intent and bpc
> settings.
> > I'm not a color management expert by a long shot so I really can't say
> > who's wrong.
> > But as a B&W printer it's imperative that you take advantage of the
> best dMax
> > that the paper/ink can achieve.  So far trial and error is what I've
> used to see
> > what happens for particular setup.   If you or anyone has advice or
> even just
> > ideas of how to best guarantee getting black I'm open to it.
> >
> > The trouble with finding a lot of this stuff out is that just about
> > everyone knows
> > color and assumes B&W should be the same but it rarely is.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Roy
> >
> > On 6/19/07, mchaney1234567890 <mchaney@...> wrote:
> > > As Roy indicated, BPC is not part of the ICC spec at all: it is an
> > > Adobe abomination, one of which (as is often the case with Adobe) is
> > > not completely specified for third parties to be able to reproduce.
> > > There are additional limitations with BPC for ICC v4 profiles as BPC
> > > really makes no sense for perceptual intent in v4 profiles.
> > > Perceptual intent for v4 profiles runs on its own PCS and is
> > > inherently different than RC and other intents making BPC undefinable
> > > by the spec.  There are other issues as well, for example, when a
> > > profile uses a black point tag and that tag doesn't agree with the
> > > data in the look up tables.  On top of that is the fact that black
> > > point for perceptual intent in v4 profiles should be a fixed value.
> > > There's also color "noise" to deal with and the fact that you have to
> > > deal with near-black.  All software will handle that a bit
> > > differently.  When using v4 profiles, many times the profiles
> > > themselves are not truly v4 as I've seen many that are a mix between
> > > v2 and v4 and don't have all the required v4 tags.  Hard to tell which
> > > of these factors is causing the problem, but I've been over BPC with
> > > Marti Maria many times and am satisfied that it is working properly in
> > > Qimage/LCMS.  PhotoShop also tends to "prune" profiles and do things
> > > without telling you so in cases like this, the answer could be as
> > > simple as PhotoShop ignoring BPC under these conditions while Qimage
> > > still tries to do something with it.  Maybe the best thing in cases
> > > like this is to turn off BPC when using perceptual intent with v4
> > > profiles as BPC really makes no sense in those cases anyway.
> > >
> > > Mike
> > >
> > > > Roy Harrington wrote:
> > > > > Ernst,
> > > > >
> > > > > When I first tried Qimage with QTR ICCs back over a year ago there
> > > were some
> > > > > issues.  The issue was a combination of both Qimage and Little CMS
> > > which is the
> > > > > internal color management of Qimage.  At the time we got things to
> > > work just
> > > > > like they do Photoshop.  I guess it's possible that it has
> been broken
> > > > > in a later
> > > > > version -- (I don't use Qimage on any regular basis so I
> wouldn't find
> > > > > out about it).
> > > > >
> > > > > The whole BPC issue is a problem in general.  It is not
> addressed in
> > > > > the ICC standard
> > > > > at all -- neither v2 or v4.  To quote the website it's "under
> active
> > > > > consideration".
> > > > > Adobe is the one who initiated the concept and wrote the
> > > "standard" for it.
> > > > > Another issue is that rendering intents are also up to
> implementers --
> > > > > the idea is
> > > > > specified in ICC but the exact math involved is not.
> > > > >
> > > > > It's easy to see what your particular setup does.  Instead of
> printing
> > > > > the output of
> > > > > Qimage (or any other program) send the output to a tiff file and
> > > open it up back
> > > > > in Photoshop to see what's been done to it.  Use a 21 stepwedge
> > > and look at the
> > > > > histogram before and after -- or even just a 100% black box.
> > > > >
> > > > > Roy
> > > >
> > > > Roy,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > There's an older Qimage mailing list comment by Mike on BPC
> > > > where he writes that BPC is not needed in perceptual
> > > > rendering as the last already compresses the total within
> > > > the printer's gamut. So he advises to keep BPC on in both
> > > > perceptual (not doing harm) and relative colormetric (needed
> > > > there for good shadow rendering). True if it works correctly
> > > > but I see differences in Photoshop Perceptual rendering with
> > > > and without BPC. In Qimage it certainly isn't inactive in
> > > > the case I sketched.
> > > >
> > > > I rather print samples to really see and measure what I get
> > > > than check it in PS that needs to be treated carefully  as
> > > > CM is almost never really suppressed in that program.
> > > > Picture Window Pro's CM can be switched off totally, on the
> > > > other hand that application has a quirky CM when switched on :-)
> > > > I have been testing all the applications on QTR ICC
> > > > compatibility probably two or three years ago and PWP made a
> > > > mess of it then and now, Qimage is back to an old problem it
> > > > seems but worse now as I want to print gloss with the higher
> > > > Dmax.
> > > >
> > > > I'm going to measure the targets I got and select the method
> > > > with the tone range that comes near the ideal curve for that
> > > > Dmax. If the HP ABW sans application CM isn't too bad I
> > > > might use that with Qimage for the time being, the QTR
> > > > profile did correct the tone range though but I do not want
> > > > to print from PS.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> > > > |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> > > > |             ( unvollendet )            |
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

CLARIFICATIONS:

*  All conversions were perceptual (but see below).  CM_OFF was done
in PS.  Others were done in Qimage.
*  All conversions were to my newly created custom RGB profile.
*  Ernst's point about the PS CM never being fully off is well taken,
but these are large changes.  All programs than can display the
histogram (e.g.  BreezeBrowser Pro), display the same dMax loss.
*  I was using Qimage 2008.104 but have since upgraded to .109 (latest
- see below).
*  I tested Ernst's idea of using 8-bit input to Qimage to no avail -
same problem.
*  Since the initial QTR-related problems with the CMS in Qimage were
discovered in early 2006, I have generally followed Ernst's workflow:
 i.e. create a copy and do the CM in PS, and do all other printing
manipulations in Qimage with CM off.  But this partly defeats one
purpose in using Qimage, the ability to print from master files and
not have to create special versions just for printing.  It works for
colour, but not it seems for B&W.

FURTHER RESULTS

I upgraded to 2008.109 and one histogram changed.  The one with
profile conversion done in Qimage but no BPC ("CM On, BPC off in Q")
now looks exactly the same as the one done in Qimage *with* BPC ("CM
on, BPC on in Q").  Now in both cases the black point shifts from 1 to
27 with an associated loss in dMax.

This tests my sanity.  I am fairly sure that I used all perceptual
conversion when I produced those histograms.  But I can't now
replicate the middle histogram ("CM On, BPC off in Q") using *any* of
CM options in Qimage.  This suggests that something has change in
Qimage, but the revision log says nothing about any changes to the CM.

I decided to push the tests a step further.  I also produced
histograms for conversions in Qimage to generic profiles.  Results are at:

  http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V2.png

CONCLUSIONS

*  BPC is not the problem per se when I convert to a QTR custom
profile, the reading of the custom profile by the whole Qimage CMS is.
*  There is something about the custom profiles that Qimage can't
handle, but can with the generic profiles.  I don't know if this has
been discovered and commented on before.

@Roy:  I still don't understand the differing treatment of BPC between
custom profiles and the generic profiles that you mentioned in post
5728.  What practical difference would I expect to see (other than the
fairly obvious ones in Qimage)?

F_P

Thanks Ferdinand.  It's interesting to see how many different
transformationsshow up.  Unfortunately solving it all seems to be elusive.
 The CMS of Qimage
is done by yet another person, so it becomes very difficult to pin down the
problems.
In fact even to agree on the existence of something wrong is hard.

The difference between my generic profiles and now custom profiles is mostly
an
accident of the evolution of my understanding ICC profiles.  There are two
major formats
for curves in ICCs -- one uses a "transfer function" and the other uses
"lookup tables".
The transfer functions are simpler and what I did first -- they have one set
of curve values
and the same curve is used for both directions of a profile -- i.e. K to L
and L to K with the
CMS doing the inversion.  I used this first and that's what the generics
use.  Later on
I used the lookup tables which allow lots of curves for different things
---each direction,
each intent and full color as well.  This allowed softproofing with the hue
of the print.

So the custom ICCs use the tables and I have separate K to L curve and L to
K curve.
L=0 in your file maps to K=100 to the driver, but in softproofing K=100 maps
back to L=dMax
so you can see "Simulate Black Ink".  I think somehow the softproofing curve
is getting
used during the print conversion but I haven't any idea where or why. (maybe
BPC isn't
even the real issue).

You can actually see some of this and play with conversions using Photoshop
and softproofing.
I think there are some free programs that you can download to graph the
innards of ICC profiles.

   *  Ernst's point about the PS CM never being fully off is well taken,
      but these are large changes.  All programs than can display the
      histogram (e.g.  BreezeBrowser Pro), display the same dMax loss.
I think you are safe if you look at histograms -- the info palette is ok
ONLY for the native type
of the file.  I.e. Don't look at RGB values for a grayscale, only the K is
valid for a grayscale.

Roy

On Dec 24, 2007 4:43 AM, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:

> CLARIFICATIONS:
>
> *  All conversions were perceptual (but see below).  CM_OFF was done
> in PS.  Others were done in Qimage.
> *  All conversions were to my newly created custom RGB profile.
> *  Ernst's point about the PS CM never being fully off is well taken,
> but these are large changes.  All programs than can display the
> histogram (e.g.  BreezeBrowser Pro), display the same dMax loss.
> *  I was using Qimage 2008.104 but have since upgraded to .109 (latest
> - see below).
> *  I tested Ernst's idea of using 8-bit input to Qimage to no avail -
> same problem.
> *  Since the initial QTR-related problems with the CMS in Qimage were
> discovered in early 2006, I have generally followed Ernst's workflow:
>  i.e. create a copy and do the CM in PS, and do all other printing
> manipulations in Qimage with CM off.  But this partly defeats one
> purpose in using Qimage, the ability to print from master files and
> not have to create special versions just for printing.  It works for
> colour, but not it seems for B&W.
>
> FURTHER RESULTS
>
> I upgraded to 2008.109 and one histogram changed.  The one with
> profile conversion done in Qimage but no BPC ("CM On, BPC off in Q")
> now looks exactly the same as the one done in Qimage *with* BPC ("CM
> on, BPC on in Q").  Now in both cases the black point shifts from 1 to
> 27 with an associated loss in dMax.
>
> This tests my sanity.  I am fairly sure that I used all perceptual
> conversion when I produced those histograms.  But I can't now
> replicate the middle histogram ("CM On, BPC off in Q") using *any* of
> CM options in Qimage.  This suggests that something has change in
> Qimage, but the revision log says nothing about any changes to the CM.
>
> I decided to push the tests a step further.  I also produced
> histograms for conversions in Qimage to generic profiles.  Results are at:
>
>  http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V2.png
>
> CONCLUSIONS
>
> *  BPC is not the problem per se when I convert to a QTR custom
> profile, the reading of the custom profile by the whole Qimage CMS is.
> *  There is something about the custom profiles that Qimage can't
> handle, but can with the generic profiles.  I don't know if this has
> been discovered and commented on before.
>
> @Roy:  I still don't understand the differing treatment of BPC between
> custom profiles and the generic profiles that you mentioned in post
> 5728.  What practical difference would I expect to see (other than the
> fairly obvious ones in Qimage)?
>
> F_P
>
>


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

I regret to say that I seem to have been getting inconsistent results.
 I've double checked and rechecked them all and posted a revised
version of my histograms chart:

     http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V2.png

It seems that the only combination that causes a big dMax loss is the
one that you really want to work: Convert to custom in Qimage with BPC
(bottom left).

I fully appreciate that it is hard to find the problem when it only
happens when converting to a QTR custom profile in Qimage.  Is the
profile at fault or the Qimage CMS?  The fact that the Q-CMS handles
other profiles ok suggests the profile.  That PS handles the profile
ok suggests the Q-CMS.

I wish I could help.

F_P


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
>
> Thanks Ferdinand.  It's interesting to see how many different
> transformationsshow up.  Unfortunately solving it all seems to be
elusive.
>  The CMS of Qimage
> is done by yet another person, so it becomes very difficult to pin
down the
> problems.
> In fact even to agree on the existence of something wrong is hard.
> 
> The difference between my generic profiles and now custom profiles
is mostly
> an
> accident of the evolution of my understanding ICC profiles.  There
are two
> major formats
> for curves in ICCs -- one uses a "transfer function" and the other uses
> "lookup tables".
> The transfer functions are simpler and what I did first -- they have
one set
> of curve values
> and the same curve is used for both directions of a profile -- i.e.
K to L
> and L to K with the
> CMS doing the inversion.  I used this first and that's what the generics
> use.  Later on
> I used the lookup tables which allow lots of curves for different things
> ---each direction,
> each intent and full color as well.  This allowed softproofing with
the hue
> of the print.
> 
> So the custom ICCs use the tables and I have separate K to L curve
and L to
> K curve.
> L=0 in your file maps to K=100 to the driver, but in softproofing
K=100 maps
> back to L=dMax
> so you can see "Simulate Black Ink".  I think somehow the
softproofing curve
> is getting
> used during the print conversion but I haven't any idea where or
why. (maybe
> BPC isn't
> even the real issue).
> 
> You can actually see some of this and play with conversions using
Photoshop
> and softproofing.
> I think there are some free programs that you can download to graph the
> innards of ICC profiles.
> 
>    *  Ernst's point about the PS CM never being fully off is well taken,
>       but these are large changes.  All programs than can display the
>       histogram (e.g.  BreezeBrowser Pro), display the same dMax loss.
> I think you are safe if you look at histograms -- the info palette is ok
> ONLY for the native type
> of the file.  I.e. Don't look at RGB values for a grayscale, only
the K is
> valid for a grayscale.
> 
> Roy
> 
> On Dec 24, 2007 4:43 AM, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:
> 
> > CLARIFICATIONS:
> >
> > *  All conversions were perceptual (but see below).  CM_OFF was done
> > in PS.  Others were done in Qimage.
> > *  All conversions were to my newly created custom RGB profile.
> > *  Ernst's point about the PS CM never being fully off is well taken,
> > but these are large changes.  All programs than can display the
> > histogram (e.g.  BreezeBrowser Pro), display the same dMax loss.
> > *  I was using Qimage 2008.104 but have since upgraded to .109 (latest
> > - see below).
> > *  I tested Ernst's idea of using 8-bit input to Qimage to no avail -
> > same problem.
> > *  Since the initial QTR-related problems with the CMS in Qimage were
> > discovered in early 2006, I have generally followed Ernst's workflow:
> >  i.e. create a copy and do the CM in PS, and do all other printing
> > manipulations in Qimage with CM off.  But this partly defeats one
> > purpose in using Qimage, the ability to print from master files and
> > not have to create special versions just for printing.  It works for
> > colour, but not it seems for B&W.
> >
> > FURTHER RESULTS
> >
> > I upgraded to 2008.109 and one histogram changed.  The one with
> > profile conversion done in Qimage but no BPC ("CM On, BPC off in Q")
> > now looks exactly the same as the one done in Qimage *with* BPC ("CM
> > on, BPC on in Q").  Now in both cases the black point shifts from 1 to
> > 27 with an associated loss in dMax.
> >
> > This tests my sanity.  I am fairly sure that I used all perceptual
> > conversion when I produced those histograms.  But I can't now
> > replicate the middle histogram ("CM On, BPC off in Q") using *any* of
> > CM options in Qimage.  This suggests that something has change in
> > Qimage, but the revision log says nothing about any changes to the CM.
> >
> > I decided to push the tests a step further.  I also produced
> > histograms for conversions in Qimage to generic profiles.  Results
are at:

> >
> >  http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V2.png
> >
> > CONCLUSIONS
> >
> > *  BPC is not the problem per se when I convert to a QTR custom
> > profile, the reading of the custom profile by the whole Qimage CMS is.
> > *  There is something about the custom profiles that Qimage can't
> > handle, but can with the generic profiles.  I don't know if this has
> > been discovered and commented on before.
> >
> > @Roy:  I still don't understand the differing treatment of BPC between
> > custom profiles and the generic profiles that you mentioned in post
> > 5728.  What practical difference would I expect to see (other than the
> > fairly obvious ones in Qimage)?
> >
> > F_P
> >
> >
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

And now that Mike has released v200, all your tests may change with the next
upgrade. Darn frustrating : ( 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of ferdinand_paris
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 7:57 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?

 

I regret to say that I seem to have been getting inconsistent results.
I've double checked and rechecked them all and posted a revised
version of my histograms chart:

http://www.ferdinan <http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V2.png>
d-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V2.png

It seems that the only combination that causes a big dMax loss is the
one that you really want to work: Convert to custom in Qimage with BPC
(bottom left).

I fully appreciate that it is hard to find the problem when it only
happens when converting to a QTR custom profile in Qimage. Is the
profile at fault or the Qimage CMS? The fact that the Q-CMS handles
other profiles ok suggests the profile. That PS handles the profile
ok suggests the Q-CMS.

I wish I could help.

F_P





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

On Dec 26, 2007 5:56 AM, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:

> I regret to say that I seem to have been getting inconsistent results.
>  I've double checked and rechecked them all and posted a revised
> version of my histograms chart:
>
>     http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V2.png
>
> It seems that the only combination that causes a big dMax loss is the
> one that you really want to work: Convert to custom in Qimage with BPC
> (bottom left).


The "big dMax loss" is just one symptom that happens to be most visible.
But since they appear to all be little different, they all produce different
results
than Photoshop.


>
> I fully appreciate that it is hard to find the problem when it only
> happens when converting to a QTR custom profile in Qimage.  Is the
> profile at fault or the Qimage CMS?


The bottom line is that I don't really know.  I've used Photoshop as my
standard
but it's not an absolute either.

The fact that the Q-CMS handles
> other profiles ok suggests the profile.  That PS handles the profile
> ok suggests the Q-CMS.


How we actually know whether any profile is done "correctly"?   I admit the
dMax
issue shows the problem, but other color profiles "could" be done wrong and
we
might not know.

I'd be more than happy to be corrected in all this but as Eric mentions:
>>And now that Mike has released v200, all your tests may change with the
next
>>upgrade. Darn frustrating : (

It's very weird to me that different CMSs with exactly the same input can
produce
different results.

Roy


> I wish I could help.
>
> F_P
>
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
> >
> > Thanks Ferdinand.  It's interesting to see how many different
> > transformationsshow up.  Unfortunately solving it all seems to be
> elusive.
> >  The CMS of Qimage
> > is done by yet another person, so it becomes very difficult to pin
> down the
> > problems.
> > In fact even to agree on the existence of something wrong is hard.
> >
> > The difference between my generic profiles and now custom profiles
> is mostly
> > an
> > accident of the evolution of my understanding ICC profiles.  There
> are two
> > major formats
> > for curves in ICCs -- one uses a "transfer function" and the other uses
> > "lookup tables".
> > The transfer functions are simpler and what I did first -- they have
> one set
> > of curve values
> > and the same curve is used for both directions of a profile -- i.e.
> K to L
> > and L to K with the
> > CMS doing the inversion.  I used this first and that's what the generics
> > use.  Later on
> > I used the lookup tables which allow lots of curves for different things
> > ---each direction,
> > each intent and full color as well.  This allowed softproofing with
> the hue
> > of the print.
> >
> > So the custom ICCs use the tables and I have separate K to L curve
> and L to
> > K curve.
> > L=0 in your file maps to K=100 to the driver, but in softproofing
> K=100 maps
> > back to L=dMax
> > so you can see "Simulate Black Ink".  I think somehow the
> softproofing curve
> > is getting
> > used during the print conversion but I haven't any idea where or
> why. (maybe
> > BPC isn't
> > even the real issue).
> >
> > You can actually see some of this and play with conversions using
> Photoshop
> > and softproofing.
> > I think there are some free programs that you can download to graph the
> > innards of ICC profiles.
> >
> >    *  Ernst's point about the PS CM never being fully off is well taken,
> >       but these are large changes.  All programs than can display the
> >       histogram (e.g.  BreezeBrowser Pro), display the same dMax loss.
> > I think you are safe if you look at histograms -- the info palette is ok
> > ONLY for the native type
> > of the file.  I.e. Don't look at RGB values for a grayscale, only
> the K is
> > valid for a grayscale.
> >
> > Roy
> >
> > On Dec 24, 2007 4:43 AM, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:
> >
> > > CLARIFICATIONS:
> > >
> > > *  All conversions were perceptual (but see below).  CM_OFF was done
> > > in PS.  Others were done in Qimage.
> > > *  All conversions were to my newly created custom RGB profile.
> > > *  Ernst's point about the PS CM never being fully off is well taken,
> > > but these are large changes.  All programs than can display the
> > > histogram (e.g.  BreezeBrowser Pro), display the same dMax loss.
> > > *  I was using Qimage 2008.104 but have since upgraded to .109 (latest
> > > - see below).
> > > *  I tested Ernst's idea of using 8-bit input to Qimage to no avail -
> > > same problem.
> > > *  Since the initial QTR-related problems with the CMS in Qimage were
> > > discovered in early 2006, I have generally followed Ernst's workflow:
> > >  i.e. create a copy and do the CM in PS, and do all other printing
> > > manipulations in Qimage with CM off.  But this partly defeats one
> > > purpose in using Qimage, the ability to print from master files and
> > > not have to create special versions just for printing.  It works for
> > > colour, but not it seems for B&W.
> > >
> > > FURTHER RESULTS
> > >
> > > I upgraded to 2008.109 and one histogram changed.  The one with
> > > profile conversion done in Qimage but no BPC ("CM On, BPC off in Q")
> > > now looks exactly the same as the one done in Qimage *with* BPC ("CM
> > > on, BPC on in Q").  Now in both cases the black point shifts from 1 to
> > > 27 with an associated loss in dMax.
> > >
> > > This tests my sanity.  I am fairly sure that I used all perceptual
> > > conversion when I produced those histograms.  But I can't now
> > > replicate the middle histogram ("CM On, BPC off in Q") using *any* of
> > > CM options in Qimage.  This suggests that something has change in
> > > Qimage, but the revision log says nothing about any changes to the CM.
> > >
> > > I decided to push the tests a step further.  I also produced
> > > histograms for conversions in Qimage to generic profiles.  Results
> are at:
> > >
> > >  http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V2.png
> > >
> > > CONCLUSIONS
> > >
> > > *  BPC is not the problem per se when I convert to a QTR custom
> > > profile, the reading of the custom profile by the whole Qimage CMS is.
> > > *  There is something about the custom profiles that Qimage can't
> > > handle, but can with the generic profiles.  I don't know if this has
> > > been discovered and commented on before.
> > >
> > > @Roy:  I still don't understand the differing treatment of BPC between
> > > custom profiles and the generic profiles that you mentioned in post
> > > 5728.  What practical difference would I expect to see (other than the
> > > fairly obvious ones in Qimage)?
> > >
> > > F_P
> > >
>


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

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
...
> It's very weird to me that different CMSs with exactly the same
input can
> produce
> different results.

Roy, yes, but they do. I remember when there seemed to be several
selections, Heidleburg (SP?), Kodak, Agfa, Imation, then ACE came
along, sometimes they'd do slightly different conversions.

The news didn't seem to sweep the planet, but Adobe actually released
ACE as installable on it's own, both platforms, including BPC
implementation, to be accessable to apps that give cms aoptions.
Perhaps the Qimage developers could take a look at making that
selectable, I wish Ergosoft would.
Tyler

Tyler, Mike doesn't even like us to mention the word Adobe on the Qimage
yahoo group. I don't think he'd be too keen on doing much to help us. 

 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photo

4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

214 827-8301

 

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

SKype ejprinter

 

  _____  

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of Tyler Boley
Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:29 PM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?

 

--- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
"Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
...
> It's very weird to me that different CMSs with exactly the same
input can
> produce
> different results.

Roy, yes, but they do. I remember when there seemed to be several
selections, Heidleburg (SP?), Kodak, Agfa, Imation, then ACE came
along, sometimes they'd do slightly different conversions.

The news didn't seem to sweep the planet, but Adobe actually released
ACE as installable on it's own, both platforms, including BPC
implementation, to be accessable to apps that give cms aoptions.
Perhaps the Qimage developers could take a look at making that
selectable, I wish Ergosoft would.
Tyler

 



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

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
> The "big dMax loss" is just one symptom that happens to be most 
> visible. .... How we actually know whether any profile is done 
> "correctly"?   I admit the dMax issue shows the problem, but other 
> color profiles "could" be done wrong and we might not know. ....  
> It's very weird to me that different CMSs with exactly the same 
> input can produce different results.

I am prepared to accept that different CMSs will produce slightly
different profile conversions.  While it would be nice to think of
conversions as being something that should be mathematically precise,
it sounds to me (as a non-expert) that in practice it's a little like
the differences between RAW converters - there are matters of
judgement involved.  But large differences surely indicate that
something is wrong somewhere.  

F_P

> It's very weird to me that different CMSs with exactly the same input can
> produce
> different results.
> 
> Roy


With Picture Window Pro some years ago it was the same 
weirdness whether I used the LCMS or the Windows 
(Heidelberg) color engine.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

ferdinand_paris wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
>> The "big dMax loss" is just one symptom that happens to be most 
>> visible. .... How we actually know whether any profile is done 
>> "correctly"?   I admit the dMax issue shows the problem, but other 
>> color profiles "could" be done wrong and we might not know. ....  
>> It's very weird to me that different CMSs with exactly the same 
>> input can produce different results.
> 
> I am prepared to accept that different CMSs will produce slightly
> different profile conversions.  While it would be nice to think of
> conversions as being something that should be mathematically precise,
> it sounds to me (as a non-expert) that in practice it's a little like
> the differences between RAW converters - there are matters of
> judgement involved.  But large differences surely indicate that
> something is wrong somewhere.  

I will check the 3 color engines that I have in Photoshop: 
ACE, ICM and Kodaks's CMM to see whether that gives 
different results.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

that's too bad. When I saw that ACE had been made available I was encouraged. But 
ErgoSoft is not giving access to any external CMS choice either, so for me it's been a non-
event.
T

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "E Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:

>
> Tyler, Mike doesn't even like us to mention the word Adobe on the Qimage
> yahoo group. I don't think he'd be too keen on doing much to help us. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Eric
> 
>  
> 
> Eric Neilsen Photo
> 
> 4101 Commerce Street, Suite 9
> 
> Dallas, TX 75226
> 
> 214 827-8301
> 
>  
> 
> http://ericneilsenphotography.com
> 
> SKype ejprinter
> 
>  
> 
>   _____  
> 
> From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of Tyler Boley
> Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:29 PM
> To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?
> 
>  
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
> "Roy Harrington" <roy@> wrote:
> ...
> > It's very weird to me that different CMSs with exactly the same
> input can
> > produce
> > different results.
> 
> Roy, yes, but they do. I remember when there seemed to be several
> selections, Heidleburg (SP?), Kodak, Agfa, Imation, then ACE came
> along, sometimes they'd do slightly different conversions.
> 
> The news didn't seem to sweep the planet, but Adobe actually released
> ACE as installable on it's own, both platforms, including BPC
> implementation, to be accessable to apps that give cms aoptions.
> Perhaps the Qimage developers could take a look at making that
> selectable, I wish Ergosoft would.
> Tyler
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>

On Dec 26, 2007 6:04 PM, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:

> ferdinand_paris wrote:
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
> >> The "big dMax loss" is just one symptom that happens to be most
> >> visible. .... How we actually know whether any profile is done
> >> "correctly"?   I admit the dMax issue shows the problem, but other
> >> color profiles "could" be done wrong and we might not know. ....
> >> It's very weird to me that different CMSs with exactly the same
> >> input can produce different results.
> >
> > I am prepared to accept that different CMSs will produce slightly
> > different profile conversions.  While it would be nice to think of
> > conversions as being something that should be mathematically precise,
> > it sounds to me (as a non-expert) that in practice it's a little like
> > the differences between RAW converters - there are matters of
> > judgement involved.  But large differences surely indicate that
> > something is wrong somewhere.
>
> I will check the 3 color engines that I have in Photoshop:
> ACE, ICM and Kodaks's CMM to see whether that gives
> different results.
>

I'm pretty I've tried the various CMMs with Photoshop in the Mac (Adobe Ace,
ColorSync, Apple CMM)
and got the same results.  There's seems to be a lot of lore about that says
different CMS's can
work differently.   How can this go along with printer companies, paper
companies providing
print profiles that people can use with different products?  Do Epson
profiles only work with Photoshop?

Consider how profiles are made -- you print a target WITHOUT using CMS,
right?
Then measure it and create a profile.  The CMS had NO part in the profile
creation so how
could the profile be in any way tied to a CMS?

I just don't get how this all is supposed work if there's no "standard" that
everybody has to meet,
but I suspect there's more to it (there usually is) and I don't know what it
is I don't know about :)
I think B&W is simple enough to have a fixed way to work but color has too
many tradeoffs.
So different products can choose different tradeoffs.

Roy


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

Roy Harrington wrote:
> On Dec 26, 2007 6:04 PM, Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...> wrote:

>> I will check the 3 color engines that I have in Photoshop:
>> ACE, ICM and Kodaks's CMM to see whether that gives
>> different results.
>>
> 
> I'm pretty I've tried the various CMMs with Photoshop in the Mac (Adobe Ace,
> ColorSync, Apple CMM)
> and got the same results.  There's seems to be a lot of lore about that says
> different CMS's can
> work differently.   How can this go along with printer companies, paper
> companies providing
> print profiles that people can use with different products?  Do Epson
> profiles only work with Photoshop?
> 
> Consider how profiles are made -- you print a target WITHOUT using CMS,
> right?
> Then measure it and create a profile.  The CMS had NO part in the profile
> creation so how
> could the profile be in any way tied to a CMS?
> 
> I just don't get how this all is supposed work if there's no "standard" that
> everybody has to meet,
> but I suspect there's more to it (there usually is) and I don't know what it
> is I don't know about :)
> I think B&W is simple enough to have a fixed way to work but color has too
> many tradeoffs.
> So different products can choose different tradeoffs.

For the Color Engines Adobe's ACE, M&'s ICM and Kodak's CMM 
I do not see much differences happen in Photoshop CS on 
conversions from QTR-Lab to a custom matte QTR printer 
profile, Perceptual Rendering, BPC on and off,16 bit 
Greyscale image.

I also added the original histograms in the respective color 
engines as I see a huge difference on my monitor between ACE 
and ICM, the last is far too light, the Kodak CMM is very 
close to Adobe's ACE. The histograms do no show that so 
something goes wrong with ICM, any greyscale image 8 or 16 
bit with or without assigned profile is shown too light, no 
QTR profile related issue as dotgain, 2.2 Gamma do the same. 
I think it doesn't do greyscale profiles at all. There's no 
problem in color though. Anyone to confirm this ? I always 
use ACE so I never saw that before and a quick google 
doesn't show messages on the subject.

http://www.pigment-print.com/Quad%20QTR/Images/Totaal.jpg


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


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

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> And now that Mike has released v200, all your tests may change with
> the next upgrade. Darn frustrating : ( 

At the risk of someone thinking that I've become obsessive about this,
I did indeed rerun these tests.  Qimage 2008.200 results are at:

   http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V3.png

The only one that has changed compared to my V2 histograms from
2008.109 is converting to a generic profile in Qimage without BPC,
which now has a very large amount of black point clipping.  I don't
recall seeing any CM changes flagged in the release notes.

So now there is some reverse symmetry.  If you convert to a generic
QTR profile in Qimage, you *must* use BPC or else you will see a lot
of shadow blocking.  On the other hand if you convert to a custom
profile (or at least mine), then you should *not* use BPC or else you
will get a big dMax loss.

Go figure!

F_P

I just loaded v200 to days ago on a new Vista machine. Before I loaded it, I
could import my old saved setting from the Epson driver and after it I could
not.  New systems new problems, but I am getting very leery of Mike and
unsuspecting changes in Qimage.   I have not had a chance yet to run QTR
test of any kind with Vista. One step at a time. 

 

Eric 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of ferdinand_paris
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:00 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?

 

--- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
"Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> And now that Mike has released v200, all your tests may change with
> the next upgrade. Darn frustrating : ( 

At the risk of someone thinking that I've become obsessive about this,
I did indeed rerun these tests. Qimage 2008.200 results are at:

http://www.ferdinan <http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V3.png>
d-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V3.png

The only one that has changed compared to my V2 histograms from
2008.109 is converting to a generic profile in Qimage without BPC,
which now has a very large amount of black point clipping. I don't
recall seeing any CM changes flagged in the release notes.

So now there is some reverse symmetry. If you convert to a generic
QTR profile in Qimage, you *must* use BPC or else you will see a lot
of shadow blocking. On the other hand if you convert to a custom
profile (or at least mine), then you should *not* use BPC or else you
will get a big dMax loss.

Go figure!

F_P

 



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

On Dec 30, 2007 2:00 AM, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:

> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> > And now that Mike has released v200, all your tests may change with
> > the next upgrade. Darn frustrating : (
>
> At the risk of someone thinking that I've become obsessive about this,
> I did indeed rerun these tests.  Qimage 2008.200 results are at:
>
>   http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V3.png
>
> The only one that has changed compared to my V2 histograms from
> 2008.109 is converting to a generic profile in Qimage without BPC,
> which now has a very large amount of black point clipping.  I don't
> recall seeing any CM changes flagged in the release notes.
>
> So now there is some reverse symmetry.  If you convert to a generic
> QTR profile in Qimage, you *must* use BPC or else you will see a lot
> of shadow blocking.  On the other hand if you convert to a custom
> profile (or at least mine), then you should *not* use BPC or else you
> will get a big dMax loss.
>
> Go figure!
>
> F_P
>
>

I've got a new version of Create-ICC that might help in this.

Download:    http://www.quadtonerip.com/QTR-Create-ICC-BPC.exe


This maps black to black on both directions of the profile.  What this gives
up

is soft-proofing with Simulate Ink Black.  The benefit though is my tests
with

Photoshop show identical results for all combinations of Perceptual &
Relative

Intent and BPB on or off and with different CMSs on the Mac.


I'm interested in any findings you guys get.   I highly recommend using a
21step

wedge to do this.  Cut out just the steps so you have a perfect comb in the
histogram.

Then you can see if the results are the same.  (+/- 1 level is OK).  With PS
I used 16bit

and the histo-results were 100% identical.  I'd also go with a simple made
up custom

profile such as "20 96"  which shows significant movement in the histo.


Roy


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

Ah the Challenges of Vista.    I have had my Vista Machine about a week
and learning a lot.   It my be old news to many of you but for those not
aware..I have found that when loading plug-ins and almost anything that
has to do with installing or serial numbers or activation codes that you
must run the program in as administrator.     Instead of double clicking
on the application to open it..Right Click and "Run As Administrator"
 
Good Luck
 
Paul

-----Original Message-----
From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com]
On Behalf Of Eric Neilsen
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 10:34 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?
 
I just loaded v200 to days ago on a new Vista machine. Before I loaded
it, I
could import my old saved setting from the Epson driver and after it I
could
not. New systems new problems, but I am getting very leery of Mike and
unsuspecting changes in Qimage. I have not had a chance yet to run QTR
test of any kind with Vista. One step at a time. 

Eric 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen. <http://e.neilsen.home.att.net> home.att.net

http://ericneilsenp <http://ericneilsenphotography.com> hotography.com

Skype ejprinter

_____ 

From: QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@
<mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of ferdinand_paris
Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2007 4:00 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?

--- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>
yahoogroups.com,
"Eric Neilsen" <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:
> And now that Mike has released v200, all your tests may change with
> the next upgrade. Darn frustrating : ( 

At the risk of someone thinking that I've become obsessive about this,
I did indeed rerun these tests. Qimage 2008.200 results are at:

http://www.ferdinan <http://www.ferdinan
<http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V3.png>
d-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V3.png>
d-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V3.png

The only one that has changed compared to my V2 histograms from
2008.109 is converting to a generic profile in Qimage without BPC,
which now has a very large amount of black point clipping. I don't
recall seeing any CM changes flagged in the release notes.

So now there is some reverse symmetry. If you convert to a generic
QTR profile in Qimage, you *must* use BPC or else you will see a lot
of shadow blocking. On the other hand if you convert to a custom
profile (or at least mine), then you should *not* use BPC or else you
will get a big dMax loss.

Go figure!

F_P

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


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

What does one have to do or study to be able to understand Roy's email. I do not have the vocabulary or experience to fathom what the heck is being discussed. Now I know how my students feel when I am explaining photosynthesis.
   
  Also, does one have to know, understand and implement the inf. in the email to get good black and white prints with QTR 3K inkset on the R1800. 
   
  Maybe someday I will understand all of this.
  happy new year and thanks.
  Frank in NJ
   
  Roy Harrington wrote:
  I've got a new version of Create-ICC that might help in this.

Download: http://www.quadtone rip.com/QTR- Create-ICC- BPC.exe

This maps black to black on both directions of the profile. What this gives
up

is soft-proofing with Simulate Ink Black. The benefit though is my tests
with

Photoshop show identical results for all combinations of Perceptual &
Relative

Intent and BPB on or off and with different CMSs on the Mac.

I'm interested in any findings you guys get. I highly recommend using a
21step

wedge to do this. Cut out just the steps so you have a perfect comb in the
histogram.

Then you can see if the results are the same. (+/- 1 level is OK). With PS
I used 16bit

and the histo-results were 100% identical. I'd also go with a simple made
up custom

profile such as "20 96" which shows significant movement in the histo.

Roy

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




"The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones who won't be chasing their own arses."
       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

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

Hello Roy,
  I downloaded yourQTR about two months ago and did'nt use it because my printer had to be replaced, the MIS ink chips had to be replaced, and I have had two or three back to back minor health problems. 
    The past few days I printed about two dozen tests on different papers and it does what everyone says it does....produces perfect prints with the Epson r1800. And it is so easy to use it makes me giggle...LOL
    Anyway...thanks for allowing me a trial run and if youwill tell me how I can pay you, I will be happy to. BTW..I do not use paypal. Do'nt want to and don't need to. Can I send you a check?
  thanks again for the fine product and a happy and healthy New Year
  Frank Katusa
  NJ




"The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones who won't be chasing their own arses."
       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

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

Forget the 21 steps....after all this science I'm gonna need the 12 Steps.  I'll soon be embarking upon a seven ink set and Roy's awesome software, but I have to tell ya....I'm getting worried if I can really make a go at a good print.  
   
  R

       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

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

sorry folks, that was supposed to be a private email to Roy but I forgot to change the address.
  Frank

Frank Jay <frankjay02@...> wrote:
          Hello Roy,
I downloaded yourQTR about two months ago and did'nt use it because my printer had to be replaced, the MIS ink chips had to be replaced, and I have had two or three back to back minor health problems. 
The past few days I printed about two dozen tests on different papers and it does what everyone says it does....produces perfect prints with the Epson r1800. And it is so easy to use it makes me giggle...LOL
Anyway...thanks for allowing me a trial run and if youwill tell me how I can pay you, I will be happy to. BTW..I do not use paypal. Do'nt want to and don't need to. Can I send you a check?
thanks again for the fine product and a happy and healthy New Year
Frank Katusa
NJ

"The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones who won't be chasing their own arses."

---------------------------------
Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your homepage.

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



                         


"The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones who won't be chasing their own arses."
       
---------------------------------
Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it now.

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

Sorry about making is sound complicated -- the innards of color management
are only interesting to some people.Don't worry about all the nitty-gritty
just make prints.  Basic printing is still quite simple.

Roy

On Dec 31, 2007 10:54 AM, Ralph Maratta <rivercom05@...> wrote:

>
>
> Forget the 21 steps....after all this science I'm gonna need the 12 Steps.
>  I'll soon be embarking upon a seven ink set and Roy's awesome software, but
> I have to tell ya....I'm getting worried if I can really make a go at a good
> print.
>
>  R
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile.  Try it
> now.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>


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

@Frank:  If you're working completely within Photoshop, including
printing, and follow the instructions, you should not have a problem,
IMHO.  This thread is largely aimed at those of us who print via Qimage.

@Roy:  Thanks for this new version.  I'll try it out.  I have to say
that on my calibrated XP machine, I haven't found soft-proofing with
QTR custom profiles with black ink and paper colour simulation to be
as good a guide to the final print as I usually do with colour. 
Perhaps this is my relatively untrained eye.

@Eric:  Anyone using Vista at this still early stage has only
themselves to blame.  :)  I bought a new faster PC recently, and
choose to do so while XP OEM can still be bought.  Unfortunately my
notebook came with Vista, but it is now dual boot.

F_P


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

>
> Sorry about making is sound complicated -- the innards of color 
> management are only interesting to some people.Don't worry about all
> the nitty-gritty just make prints.  Basic printing is still quite 
> simple.
> 
> Roy
> 
> On Dec 31, 2007 10:54 AM, Ralph Maratta <rivercom05@...> wrote:
> >
> > Forget the 21 steps....after all this science I'm gonna need the 
> > 12 Steps.
> > I'll soon be embarking upon a seven ink set and Roy's awesome 
> > software, but I have to tell ya....I'm getting worried if I can 
> > really make a go at a good print.
> >
> >  R

To prove that I've gone compulsive-obsessive, here are results with
the modified QTR-Create-ICC-BPC.exe using my standard test image:

   http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V4.png

It confirms what Roy says - that profiles created with it are
well-behaved in Qimage with or without BPC. Well, well behaved up to a
point - the Qimage CM still produces spikes in the darker end of the
histogram, but I don't think that's the fault of the profile.

@Roy:  I have been thinking about what I said in my last post - that I
don't find the softproof with my custom profile (the one made with the
normal version of QTR-Create-ICC) particularly reliable.  I did some
tests.  

I opened in PS an output file from Qimage that shows the big dMax loss
after conversion to a "normal" custom profile.  I also opened the
original sRGB file in PS and soft-proofed using the the same custom
profile.  I turned off simulate paper colour for this comparison.  As
I was using perceptual, BPC did not make an impact.  If I turned on
"Simulate Black Ink" then the two images appeared to be the same on
the screen.  Thus it appears to me that Qimage is reading the
information required to simulate the ink black in a soft proof as a
BPC to be applied in conversion.

Of course the same test can't be done with new custom profiles made
with QTR-Create-ICC-BPC.exe, because you've turned "Simulate Black
Ink" off, and so Qimage is not confused by it.  I assume that's why
you turned it off.

I tried this test also with a 21 step wedge with the same results. 
The output from Qimage (perceptual + BPC conversion to a "normal"
custom profile) looks the same on screen as the original step wedge
soft-proofed from 20% grey into my "normal" custom profile with
"Simulate Black Ink".  I.e.  it appears that Qimage is again applying
the soft-proof black point simulation when converting with BPC.  Black
0 becomes luminance 26.

Getting back to where I started, I don't find this soft-proof all that
convincing.  It's convincing in terms of what Qimage produces with a
"normal" custom profile + BPC, i.e. of a large dMax loss.  But not of
what I get if I print from PS, nor if I convert in PS and print from
Qimage without CM.

In summary, the "Simulate Black Ink" soft-proof adjustment seems too
large and seems to be misinterpreted by Qimage if it's in the profile.

I hope this helps and makes sense, and doesn't demonstrate too many
fundamental CM misunderstandings.

F_P


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

>
> I've got a new version of Create-ICC that might help in this.
> 
> Download:    http://www.quadtonerip.com/QTR-Create-ICC-BPC.exe
> 
> This maps black to black on both directions of the profile.  What 
> this gives up is soft-proofing with Simulate Ink Black.  The benefit
> though is my tests with Photoshop show identical results for all 
> combinations of Perceptual & Relative Intent and BPB on or off and 
> with different CMSs on the Mac.
> 
> I'm interested in any findings you guys get.   I highly recommend 
> using a 21step wedge to do this.  Cut out just the steps so you have
> a perfect comb in the histogram.
> 
> Then you can see if the results are the same.  (+/- 1 level is OK). 
> With PS I used 16bit and the histo-results were 100% identical.  
> I'd also go with a simple made up custom profile such as "20 96"  
> which shows significant movement in the histo.
> 
> Roy

Thanks for checking this out.
I'd much prefer the consistency that this provides.  I'd agree that the
"Simulate Ink Black"
while a nice option is not nearly so important.  I would not be concerned
about the
spikes -- variations in how to treat 8 bit rounding is well within a
reasonable result.

It appears that an extra "round-trip" through the profile is being done.
 This is usually
done for soft-proofing.  Hopefully this is not causing additional problems
but my guess
is that it is OK.

Roy

On Jan 1, 2008 2:14 AM, ferdinand_paris <ferdinand_paris@...> wrote:

> To prove that I've gone compulsive-obsessive, here are results with
> the modified QTR-Create-ICC-BPC.exe using my standard test image:
>
>   http://www.ferdinand-paris.com/BPC-Qimage_V4.png
>
> It confirms what Roy says - that profiles created with it are
> well-behaved in Qimage with or without BPC. Well, well behaved up to a
> point - the Qimage CM still produces spikes in the darker end of the
> histogram, but I don't think that's the fault of the profile.
>
> @Roy:  I have been thinking about what I said in my last post - that I
> don't find the softproof with my custom profile (the one made with the
> normal version of QTR-Create-ICC) particularly reliable.  I did some
> tests.
>
> I opened in PS an output file from Qimage that shows the big dMax loss
> after conversion to a "normal" custom profile.  I also opened the
> original sRGB file in PS and soft-proofed using the the same custom
> profile.  I turned off simulate paper colour for this comparison.  As
> I was using perceptual, BPC did not make an impact.  If I turned on
> "Simulate Black Ink" then the two images appeared to be the same on
> the screen.  Thus it appears to me that Qimage is reading the
> information required to simulate the ink black in a soft proof as a
> BPC to be applied in conversion.
>
> Of course the same test can't be done with new custom profiles made
> with QTR-Create-ICC-BPC.exe, because you've turned "Simulate Black
> Ink" off, and so Qimage is not confused by it.  I assume that's why
> you turned it off.
>
> I tried this test also with a 21 step wedge with the same results.
> The output from Qimage (perceptual + BPC conversion to a "normal"
> custom profile) looks the same on screen as the original step wedge
> soft-proofed from 20% grey into my "normal" custom profile with
> "Simulate Black Ink".  I.e.  it appears that Qimage is again applying
> the soft-proof black point simulation when converting with BPC.  Black
> 0 becomes luminance 26.
>
> Getting back to where I started, I don't find this soft-proof all that
> convincing.  It's convincing in terms of what Qimage produces with a
> "normal" custom profile + BPC, i.e. of a large dMax loss.  But not of
> what I get if I print from PS, nor if I convert in PS and print from
> Qimage without CM.
>
> In summary, the "Simulate Black Ink" soft-proof adjustment seems too
> large and seems to be misinterpreted by Qimage if it's in the profile.
>
> I hope this helps and makes sense, and doesn't demonstrate too many
> fundamental CM misunderstandings.
>
> F_P
>
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
> >
> > I've got a new version of Create-ICC that might help in this.
> >
> > Download:    http://www.quadtonerip.com/QTR-Create-ICC-BPC.exe
> >
> > This maps black to black on both directions of the profile.  What
> > this gives up is soft-proofing with Simulate Ink Black.  The benefit
> > though is my tests with Photoshop show identical results for all
> > combinations of Perceptual & Relative Intent and BPB on or off and
> > with different CMSs on the Mac.
> >
> > I'm interested in any findings you guys get.   I highly recommend
> > using a 21step wedge to do this.  Cut out just the steps so you have
> > a perfect comb in the histogram.
> >
> > Then you can see if the results are the same.  (+/- 1 level is OK).
> > With PS I used 16bit and the histo-results were 100% identical.
> > I'd also go with a simple made up custom profile such as "20 96"
> > which shows significant movement in the histo.
> >
> > Roy
>
>
>


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

I chose to go Vista just to get up to speed with it, not because I am trying
to be a martyr. You'll forgive me but I find answers like that to be quite
unnecessary. Whether you like or dislike MS, Vista or PC users there is no
place for comments like that. 

 

People that use X ( substitute what ever paper, ink, printer, etc)  deserve
what they get. NO! 

 

And I am supposed to share with you insights to help you? Why?

 

Developers need to know what problems users are having. I still have a
usable XP system to work with. 

 

Eric

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of ferdinand_paris
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 5:11 PM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?

 


@Eric: Anyone using Vista at this still early stage has only
themselves to blame. :) I bought a new faster PC recently, and
choose to do so while XP OEM can still be bought. Unfortunately my
notebook came with Vista, but it is now dual boot.

F_P

--- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
"Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
>





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

hear hear!!!!!!  good post
Eric Neilsen <e.neilsen2@...> wrote:          I chose to go Vista just to get up to speed with it, not because I am trying
to be a martyr. You'll forgive me but I find answers like that to be quite
unnecessary. Whether you like or dislike MS, Vista or PC users there is no
place for comments like that. 

People that use X ( substitute what ever paper, ink, printer, etc) deserve
what they get. NO! 

And I am supposed to share with you insights to help you? Why?

Developers need to know what problems users are having. I still have a
usable XP system to work with. 

Eric

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

_____ 

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of ferdinand_paris
Sent: Monday, December 31, 2007 5:11 PM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?

@Eric: Anyone using Vista at this still early stage has only
themselves to blame. :) I bought a new faster PC recently, and
choose to do so while XP OEM can still be bought. Unfortunately my
notebook came with Vista, but it is now dual boot.

F_P

--- In QuadtoneRIP@ <mailto:QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com> yahoogroups.com,
"Roy Harrington" <roy@...> wrote:
>

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



                         


"The luckiest dogs are those with clipped tails....they're the ones who won't be chasing their own arses."
       
---------------------------------
Never miss a thing.   Make Yahoo your homepage.

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

> ...  Vista  ....

My comment was intended to be partly flippant (hence the smiley) and
partly constructive.  It was certainly not my intention to insult or
provoke anyone.

Ferdinand

Thanks for your efforts on this Roy.

Ferdinand


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

>
> Thanks for checking this out.
> I'd much prefer the consistency that this provides.  I'd agree that
> the "Simulate Ink Black" while a nice option is not nearly so 
> important.  I would not be concerned about the spikes -- variations 
> in how to treat 8 bit rounding is well within a
> reasonable result.
> 
> It appears that an extra "round-trip" through the profile is being 
> done.  This is usually done for soft-proofing.  Hopefully this is 
> not causing additional problems but my guess is that it is OK.
> 
> Roy

> I've got a new version of Create-ICC that might help in this.
> 
> Download:    http://www.quadtonerip.com/QTR-Create-ICC-BPC.exe
> 
> 
> This maps black to black on both directions of the profile.  What this gives
> up
> 
> is soft-proofing with Simulate Ink Black.  The benefit though is my tests
> with
> 
> Photoshop show identical results for all combinations of Perceptual &
> Relative
> 
> Intent and BPB on or off and with different CMSs on the Mac.
> 
> 
> I'm interested in any findings you guys get.   I highly recommend using a
> 21step
> 
> wedge to do this.  Cut out just the steps so you have a perfect comb in the
> histogram.
> 
> Then you can see if the results are the same.  (+/- 1 level is OK).  With PS
> I used 16bit
> 
> and the histo-results were 100% identical.  I'd also go with a simple made
> up custom
> 
> profile such as "20 96"  which shows significant movement in the histo.
> 
> 
> Roy



Thank you Roy,

When I'm back next weekend I will give it a try with Qimage 
+ the Z3100 driver.

Best wishes for 2008.


-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


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

Guess the smiley got lost in the middle. 

 

Eric Neilsen Photography

4101 Commerce Street

Suite 9

Dallas, TX 75226

http://e.neilsen.home.att.net

http://ericneilsenphotography.com

Skype ejprinter

  _____  

From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of ferdinand_paris
Sent: Wednesday, January 02, 2008 4:28 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Qimage BPC cutting Dmax ?

 

> ... Vista ....

My comment was intended to be partly flippant (hence the smiley) and
partly constructive. It was certainly not my intention to insult or
provoke anyone.

Ferdinand

 



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