>>But if QTR ignores profiles as Michael says, now I have no clue why Roy
would suggest "For Windows where it's necessary to save a tiff file, you
should Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or Gray Photo Paper.
Then save the file for printing in QTRgui." I could see soft proofing, but
why convert the profile?
You have to convert because it ignores profiles. Basically when a program is
profile aware it does the conversion on the fly behind the scenes. But when
its not profile aware you have to do the conversion manually. The reason
there is Matte and Photo choices is because each has a different black point
and so you are doing black point conversion as part of the process.
Mike
2009/3/13 grangermacy <grangermacy@...>
> Thank you Michael and Paul.
> The light has come on - and that leads to a few more thoughts.
>
> Since QTR's output is linearized, if I want my monitor to match the print I
> should be using a linearized gray space - Gray-Lab or GG22 with Paul's
> curve. Brilliant!
>
> So if I use GG22, I would think I should apply the curve immediately on
> opening the file rather than just before printing as Paul suggests. This way
> I'll have 'linear' vision during editing. I think that would be ok as long
> as I'm in 16bit depth. Brilliant still?
>
> But if QTR ignores profiles as Michael says, now I have no clue why Roy
> would suggest "For Windows where it's necessary to save a tiff file, you
> should Convert to Profile using either Gray Matte Paper or Gray Photo Paper.
> Then save the file for printing in QTRgui." I could see soft proofing, but
> why convert the profile?
>
> Thanks so much. The cloud is starting to lift.....
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com <QuadtoneRIP%40yahoogroups.com>, "Paul
> Roark" <paul.roark@...> wrote:
> >
> > >... Roy Harrington is suggesting Gray-Lab for a workspace and
> > > Paul Roark is suggesting Gray Gamma 2.2.
> >
> > My approach -- editing in Gray Gamma 2.2 -- does require that you place
> an
> > adjustment curve on the file, perhaps via a layer, before printing with
> QTR.
> > (You could, alternatively, convert the files working space.) The curve I
> > use is at http://www.paulroark.com/BW-Info/GG22-to-QTR.zip With Roy's
> > approach you don't need to do this step. So, in that respect Roy's
> approach
> > is more straight forward, at least if QTR printing is the predominate
> target
> > of the file editing.
> >
> > I like to stick with existing industry standards as much as possible.
> Gray
> > Gamma 2.2 (which I often abbreviate as "GG22") is, in effect, a subset of
> > Adobe RGB, which is probably the most common working space. I believe
> Adobe
> > Elements uses GG22 if no other space is designated. So, if a novice just
> > converts a file to grayscale and prints it with the Epson driver, with no
> > real knowledge of these issues, an inkset and printer setup that is close
> > for GG22 will most likely give a reasonable match to the monitor. I've
> > found that many who simple purchase a system from MIS do just this. So,
> if
> > what I make is, in effect, rather "plug and play," the support costs are
> > less, at least for systems that use the Epson driver, which is usually
> where
> > I start. The exception, of course, is the 3MK 1800 system that can't be
> > handled by the Epson driver.
> >
> > GG22 files also display appropriately on the internet.
> >
> > > I don't want to have to guess at my shadows in Photoshop.
> > > So I really want to start out on the right foot.....
> >
> > Either approach, if used correctly, should give a good match between the
> > monitor and print.
> >
> > I started with systems that used a straight line space like QTR and
> resisted
> > changing to GG22 for a while because I thought the compressed shadows
> wasted
> > too much of our limited 8 bit file depth. However, with 16 bit now the
> > standard, the "inefficiency" that bothered me at first turns out to be an
> > advantage. Not only do I have a reserve of shadow information in that
> > compressed GG22 toe, but with glossy printing and its huge dmax, the
> > compressed shadows give an interesting effect of being able to see
> further
> > into them as the light level increases. You, in effect, don't run out of
> > shadow detail and have them just go gray.
> >
> > > Since I'll be using UT14 I'm thinking I'd be wiser to stay with
> > > Roark's GG2.2.
> >
> > UT14 is one of the inksets that is fairly plug and play. I've made ICCs
> > with QTR's Create ICC-RGB program that are also available for the Epson
> > driver. These ICCs should "see" whatever profile is attached to the file
> > and print appropriately.
> >
> > > But I also have PrintFix Pro and will be developing my own profiles
> > > and curves.
> >
> > I use QTR regularly with the curve adjustment approach. If it's on a
> layer,
> > I just edit in GG22 with the layer inactive and check the layer box when
> > printing with QTR. It's easy to convert back and forth.
> >
> > I like to avoid any more conversions than necessary. While most of us on
> > these lists now start with high bit depth files, there are lots of people
> > who simply convert their digital Jpegs to grayscale and print. So, I've
> > geared much of what I do to making the systems default to something
> that'll
> > work OK for these people.
> >
> > > as a Vista user should I be saving my TIF in a different workspace
> > > to bring it into QTR?
> >
> > I don't use Vista that much, but I don't think there is any difference in
> > this respect.
> >
> > Hope this helps.
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>
> >
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]