The soft proofs, while approximate, are invaluable, and save a lot of ink and paper.
I don't begrudge Jon his $99 (somewhat higher in $AUD), given the amount of embedded IP. But posting profiles from the other side of the planet is tedious. And for those using desktop printers and multiple papers, getting a new printer is probably more economical that a complete reprofile. I may consider some if and when he goes back to giving us the option of scanning our own charts, but that's unlikely. I know at least one photographer who runs a large format printing service who moved away from piezo partly over this issue. I'm not convinced that the current approach is encouraging wider adoption of the system.
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <berel.lutsky@...> wrote :
Responded to this off line last week, but I am stuck in the airport for too long today, So here's my 2 cents. I am a long time user of Piezography, through several versions and generations of development. Including the stage before QTR. What you are getting is a turnkey BW system that has been engineered from the beginning to maximize the potential of the ink sets and the Epson print driver. The question that one needs to answer when subjecting this to a DIY process is how much time do I want to spend making curves and/or mixing inks vs. making prints. The real short answer is that the IJM K6/7 curves provided free to QTR users will, 99% of the time will not need any linearization. You can view the curves in QTR, and wil see right away that they look different from those created in QTR, both in their shape and overlap. There are special instructions for using them in QTR which should be followed for best results, Only problem and it is a small one is that there is no PS soft proof available. Two solutions for this Hard way is a workaround to create an ICC profile which can only be used for soft proofing-look at the Northlight website- the easy way is to set a calibrated monitor to a soft proof profile a
Of gray Gamma 2.2 for viewing. This will give you a good look at output densities and shadow detail. This works well most of the time, with the curves provided. If your paper is not profiled choose something similar. The needs of specific images/papers can usually be addressed with a slight curve adjustment in PS or LR. Try to print to the needs of your image, not a step wedge,
Berel Lutsky
Associate Professor of Art
UW Manitowoc
920-683-4735