QTR-Quadtone RIP

I am running an Epson 4000 with Cone's K7 selenium toned inks using roll paper.  I wanted 
to print a 17 x 36 and for some reason, the print shrinks down and only starts to print about 
8 inches wide.  Nothing I do can get the print to print properly.  The actual size of the image 
is 16.5 x 34 and I set up the printer in CS3 for 17 x 36.  I am running a Mac with Leopard.

Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Mike

hi,
i'm trying to make b/w pictures....may some one help me to guide,
which one is better to take color picture and then to be converted 
to b/w or to swicth on b/w mode since the beginning...

rgds
hilly
http://innerbeauty-owners.blogspot.com/

- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "mtiktinsky" <mt_photographer@...> 
wrote:
>
> I am running an Epson 4000 with Cone's K7 selenium toned inks 
using roll paper.  I wanted 
> to print a 17 x 36 and for some reason, the print shrinks down and 
only starts to print about 
> 8 inches wide.  Nothing I do can get the print to print properly.  
The actual size of the image 
> is 16.5 x 34 and I set up the printer in CS3 for 17 x 36.  I am 
running a Mac with Leopard.

> 
> Any help would be appreciated.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Mike
>

It sounds like have the paper size defined wrong.  An illegal size
defaults back to Letter.
For a 17x36 you will need a width of 17 and length of 36 -- not the
other way around.

Roy

On Sun, Jun 8, 2008 at 8:57 AM, mtiktinsky
<mt_photographer@...> wrote:

> I am running an Epson 4000 with Cone's K7 selenium toned inks using roll paper.  I wanted
> to print a 17 x 36 and for some reason, the print shrinks down and only starts to print about
> 8 inches wide.  Nothing I do can get the print to print properly.  The actual size of the image
> is 16.5 x 34 and I set up the printer in CS3 for 17 x 36.  I am running a Mac with Leopard.
>
> Any help would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Mike
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>

Hilly, 
you accidentally put your question in another persons post.  I don't
know the answer myself, but would be interested in finding out.  My
guess would be to shoot in color and then convert to BW.  I would
assume that Photoshop would give you better tonal range, and QTR would
allow a better print.  However, I'm not positive about digital, and I
haven't shot BW for over 20 years.

Uncle Dannie


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "hillary_555" <hillary_555@...> wrote:

>
> 
> 
> hi,
> i'm trying to make b/w pictures....may some one help me to guide,
> which one is better to take color picture and then to be converted 
> to b/w or to swicth on b/w mode since the beginning...
> 
> rgds
> hilly
> http://innerbeauty-owners.blogspot.com/
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Native Texan Photographer" <dhedgpeth@...> 
wrote:
>
> Hilly, 
> you accidentally put your question in another persons post.  I don't
> know the answer myself, but would be interested in finding out.  My
> guess would be to shoot in color and then convert to BW.  I would
> assume that Photoshop would give you better tonal range, and QTR would
> allow a better print.  However, I'm not positive about digital, and I
> haven't shot BW for over 20 years.
> 
> Uncle Dannie
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "hillary_555" <hillary_555@> wrote:
> >
> > 
> > 
> > hi,
> > i'm trying to make b/w pictures....may some one help me to guide,
> > which one is better to take color picture and then to be converted 
> > to b/w or to swicth on b/w mode since the beginning...
> > 
> > rgds
> > hilly
> > http://innerbeauty-owners.blogspot.com/
> >
>
Shooting B&W film is still a joy for me, and I like the results. I use an Imacon to scan my 
negs then print with QTR. I also shoot color digital & convert to B&W using Gerg Gorman's
PS action ( http://www.gormanphotography.com/bw_conversion.pdf). Both of these 
processes were arrived at after trial & error. My suggestion would be to look at B&W 
prints, the tone & timbre of which you like, and work to achieve that 'look' & feel.
And take good notes!
Best,
Julian Kaiser

If you shoot digital using the RAW format the color data is in the
file regardless of the "setting" you use in the camera. If you are
shooting in JPG the color data is not there. Considering the processes
that your camera is using to create the b/w file from the incoming
color data I would suggest shooting color and converting in post
production, either with Photoshop or Lightroom or some other such
program. You will have more flexibility in refining the tone of your
final print using color temperature and color luminosity as well as
the other more traditional b/w tools. You could think of like using
polycontrast black and white paper with a color enlarger and b/w negs
for those that still remember the darkroom!
Best of luck!
c

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "jlk4410" <Jlkmmw@...> wrote:
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Native Texan Photographer"
<dhedgpeth@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Hilly, 
> > you accidentally put your question in another persons post.  I don't
> > know the answer myself, but would be interested in finding out.  My
> > guess would be to shoot in color and then convert to BW.  I would
> > assume that Photoshop would give you better tonal range, and QTR would
> > allow a better print.  However, I'm not positive about digital, and I
> > haven't shot BW for over 20 years.
> > 
> > Uncle Dannie
> > 
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "hillary_555" <hillary_555@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > 
> > > 
> > > hi,
> > > i'm trying to make b/w pictures....may some one help me to guide,
> > > which one is better to take color picture and then to be converted 
> > > to b/w or to swicth on b/w mode since the beginning...
> > > 
> > > rgds
> > > hilly
> > > http://innerbeauty-owners.blogspot.com/
> > >
> >
> Shooting B&W film is still a joy for me, and I like the results. I
use an Imacon to scan my 
> negs then print with QTR. I also shoot color digital & convert to
B&W using Gerg Gorman's
> PS action ( http://www.gormanphotography.com/bw_conversion.pdf).
Both of these 
> processes were arrived at after trial & error. My suggestion would
be to look at B&W 
> prints, the tone & timbre of which you like, and work to achieve
that 'look' & feel.

> And take good notes!
> Best,
> Julian Kaiser
>

I have to agree, shoot RAW, and do your conversion, but keep the file  
(newly created B/W file) as an RGB file but use the lab profile. This  
is what I do because of my sharpening process. I do multiple  
sharpening using luminosity mode. Luminosity mode is not available if  
the file is B/W.
Joel
On Jun 24, 2008, at 1:19 PM, cmcoffin wrote:

> If you shoot digital using the RAW format the color data is in the
> file regardless of the "setting" you use in the camera. If you are
> shooting in JPG the color data is not there. Considering the processes
> that your camera is using to create the b/w file from the incoming
> color data I would suggest shooting color and converting in post
> production, either with Photoshop or Lightroom or some other such
> program. You will have more flexibility in refining the tone of your
> final print using color temperature and color luminosity as well as
> the other more traditional b/w tools. You could think of like using
> polycontrast black and white paper with a color enlarger and b/w negs
> for those that still remember the darkroom!
> Best of luck!
> c
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "jlk4410" <Jlkmmw@...> wrote:
> >
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Native Texan Photographer"
> <dhedgpeth@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hilly,
> > > you accidentally put your question in another persons post. I  
> don't
> > > know the answer myself, but would be interested in finding out. My
> > > guess would be to shoot in color and then convert to BW. I would
> > > assume that Photoshop would give you better tonal range, and QTR  
> would
> > > allow a better print. However, I'm not positive about digital,  
> and I
> > > haven't shot BW for over 20 years.
> > >
> > > Uncle Dannie
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "hillary_555" <hillary_555@>
> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > hi,
> > > > i'm trying to make b/w pictures....may some one help me to  
> guide,
> > > > which one is better to take color picture and then to be  
> converted
> > > > to b/w or to swicth on b/w mode since the beginning...
> > > >
> > > > rgds
> > > > hilly
> > > > http://innerbeauty-owners.blogspot.com/
> > > >
> > >
> > Shooting B&W film is still a joy for me, and I like the results. I
> use an Imacon to scan my
> > negs then print with QTR. I also shoot color digital & convert to
> B&W using Gerg Gorman's
> > PS action ( http://www.gormanphotography.com/bw_conversion.pdf).
> Both of these
> > processes were arrived at after trial & error. My suggestion would
> be to look at B&W
> > prints, the tone & timbre of which you like, and work to achieve
> that 'look' & feel.
> > And take good notes!
> > Best,
> > Julian Kaiser
> >
>
>
> 



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

You should shoot in raw and convert after.  Doing in Camera leaves you very little adjusments.


Tom

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

Whether one is better than the other is open for discussion 
but there are more differences than one would expect at 
first sight.

Color photography reduces the color spectrum already to 3 or 
4 hue separations. Digital to RGB, analogue to CMY (in some 
cases there's an extra one). Translating that to B&W (with 
and without digital filtering)  is different to shooting 
(with and without lens filters) the real life, full spectrum 
on a B&W emulsion  that has a continuous color sensitivity 
curve (panchromatic, orthochromatic, etc). There are camera 
integrated and external digital B&W converters with a choice 
of color sensitivity simulations (film choices) + the usual 
B&W color filters. A simulation though as there is no full 
spectrum available to start from. Digital B&W sensor cameras 
(usually customised color ones, often for infrared B&W 
photography) exist for several reasons. Removing the 
anti-aliasing filter and Bayer RGGB separation filter brings 
the camera closer to analogue B&W film. The basic color 
sensitivity (infrared bias!) however is not similar to 
existing B&W film but lens or sensor filters can change that.


For analogue photography and scanning film afterwards there 
is also the issue what scans best. Normal B&W films are 
harder to scan than color negative due to the usually higher 
Dmax. Color negative also gives better latitude in the 
camera in most cases but is also subject to the hue 
separations described above and there is the orange mask to 
deal with. B&W chromogenic film is something in between, 
scans well and acts like a normal B&W film in the camera.. 
Existing C41 processing labs will stay around for a while 
but the number of them is lot less than in the past and not 
all film formats can be developed as easy as it was 5 years 
ago. The grains or better dye clouds of color film and 
chromogenic B&W film are different to B&W emulsion grain. In 
the translation through CMY or monochrome dye layers>RGB 
pixels>B&W pixels you get another image structure than with 
scanning B&W film. Easier in editing afterwards though. With 
normal B&W scanned film that has the grain more or less 
resolved some issues can appear in editing as the tonal 
distribution is both pixel and grain related. Sharpening for 
example will influence the tone curve at the same time.


Some of what I described above but more subjective motives 
as well must have resulted in the fact that I still use 
normal B&W film in my MF folder cameras next to color 
negative and I can count the B&W images that were made on 
color negative film on one hand. Most likely I will still 
carry a B&W MF film camera when I finally have a DSLR (must 
give up on that idea that an equivalent affordable DRF will 
appear next year). Maybe I need that switch in gear to make 
the mental switch between B&W and color content in the real 
world.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten, Ernst


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

Thank you Ernst, that is an excellent summary!  Certainly much better 
than I could have provided. ;>)

The only thing I would add is that the Adobe Lightroom 2.0 Beta (and 
also version 1.2) have some wonderful tools for greyscale mixing.  They 
allow for subtle controls to emphasize, lighten, or darken greyscale  
values from color images.

I have been using color negative film in my 4x5 to allow me to use the 
Lightroom adjustments in post processing for B&W images.  But, most of 
my digital work and film work is in color.

Best,
Michael

Reversed gamma numbers in my other post:
Should be,

aRGB and sRGB are 2.2

ProPhotoRGB is 1.8 - Lightroom's internal color profile.

Sorry-- but questions remain for printing from Lightroom on a Mac.

George