QTR-Quadtone RIP

Hello to everyone in the quadtonerip group,
 Thank you for sharing your experiences
 
 My name is Christophe,  I am a newcomer to digital black and white printing and  a newcomer to groups
 
..
 I have been  familiarizing myself with quadtone and the numerous issues involved. At the end of the day, before working more with it, I need to know
 if all of you passionate users get to a point where   What You See (on the screen )Is What You Get ( on the print ) ?
 (Of course I understand that a screen image emits light and a print reflects light. I can further imagine that a combination of paper and inks might better suit a picture that another combination).

 Thank you very much for your views
   regards
    christophe

 
P.S.  My set up is   Windows XP, screen calibrated with huey-pro, Quadtone 2.6.0.0   printers are Epson R1800 and R2400.No densitometer but an epson V700
         I have year's of experience in traditional black and white processing and printing to a fairly high standard ( that I rarely reach but at least I don't kid myself about it )



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

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

Hello Christophe. In my case, the best I am able to do is to get
"close" to what I "think" I see on the screen. This despite doing all
the calibrating and color management. I find that I still need to make
decisions as to tonal relationships based on both the screen "look"
and the actual numbers I am seeing. Neither alone suffices. It still
requires test prints to achieve the very best I can do, although it
does need far less testing than before I had full compliance with the
calibrations and color management.

A lot of that but not all, I think, is related to my own imperfect
vision (as in eyes though I have plenty of deficits in the other kind
as well ;) ).

I will say though, that one can run off a bunch of satisfactory prints
with very modest effort with a little accumulated experience. The only
kicker to that is what 'you' consider adequate.

Bottom line in my estimation, by comparison with your old wet process
experience, is that all the technical stuff will get you to about the
level of a decent custom lab. It will not get you over the final hump
into exhibition/museum quality. That has not changed and is very
unlikely to ever do so. It still will require an absolute personal
input. Just MHO.

Regards
Duane


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Christophe Chevaugeon
<chrischevaugeon@...> wrote:
>
>  My name is Christophe,   
> ..
>   At the end of the day, before working more with it, I need to know
>  if all of you passionate users get to a point where   What You See
(on the screen )Is What You Get ( on the print ) ?

I find I get very close on color, but not quite there yet on 
luminance, i.e., I lose shadow detail in the print that I saw on the 
screen.  I have been calibrating using an i1Display 2 in the 
advanced mode to the recommended 120 cd/m2, but I am going to try 
calibrating to 90 based on a recommendation I think from Eric Chan.  
But even then, I anticipate that test prints will be needed.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Christophe. In my case, the best I am able to do is to get
> "close" to what I "think" I see on the screen. This despite doing 
all
> the calibrating and color management. I find that I still need to 
make
> decisions as to tonal relationships based on both the screen "look"
> and the actual numbers I am seeing. Neither alone suffices. It 
still
> requires test prints to achieve the very best I can do, although it
> does need far less testing than before I had full compliance with 
the
> calibrations and color management.
> 
> A lot of that but not all, I think, is related to my own imperfect
> vision (as in eyes though I have plenty of deficits in the other 
kind
> as well ;) ).
> 
> I will say though, that one can run off a bunch of satisfactory 
prints
> with very modest effort with a little accumulated experience. The 
only
> kicker to that is what 'you' consider adequate.
> 
> Bottom line in my estimation, by comparison with your old wet 
process
> experience, is that all the technical stuff will get you to about 
the
> level of a decent custom lab. It will not get you over the final 
hump
> into exhibition/museum quality. That has not changed and is very
> unlikely to ever do so. It still will require an absolute personal
> input. Just MHO.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Christophe Chevaugeon
> <chrischevaugeon@> wrote:
> >
> >  My name is Christophe,   
> > ..
> >   At the end of the day, before working more with it, I need to 
know
> >  if all of you passionate users get to a point where   What You 
See
> (on the screen )Is What You Get ( on the print ) ?
>

I strongly recommend these tutorials by Michael Reichman and Jeff
Schewe. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/videos/camera-print.shtml

They are 6 hours of video for only $34.99. I found them to be most
useful. 

Sharon