QTR-Quadtone RIP

You don't want to convert to gamma 1.8. Just assign that as your pshop
working profile for future use. As noted in a later post here by
another, the 2.2 and 1.8 do differ in the %K shown between the
workspaces. Mentioned is 1.8 96% vs 2.2 92% levels looking the same.
That 4% visual difference is enormous at that end of the scale when
you are editing a print.It means that you are also likely seeing
values of 98% or better as different from 100% onscreen.It indicates
that 1.8 is expanding the shadow areas visually by a factor of 2. If
you are already seeing good shadow detail onscreen with what you are
currently doing but not getting it in print, using the Graymatt.icc to
softproof in photoshop should be showing a drastic change when you set
it up and then check and uncheck( turn it off and on). The point of
softproofing is to use the printers icc profile view to edit your
photo so that it's values do match for your printer/paper/ink
characteristics. You must have your monitor properly set up and
profiled for all this to work as well. Likewise if your printer is way
out of sync with the generic Graymatt.icc profile, it won't work right
either. Note that you would want to do most of your editing genericaly
with one of the available workspaces and do the final print editing on
a copy intended for use with the specific printer etc.In other words
save a master, make a copy and edit it with graymatt.icc or other
softproof for the specific printer turned on. If your printer is
indeed linearized this will work. It ought to work no matter what your
workspace is. You are simply doing in pshop what you don't want to
have to do with the slider in QTR so as to not mess up your printers
linearization.
 My comment about using gamma 1.8 to edit and not gray_lab was just to
say that I found no changes necessary between it and the graymatt.icc
softproof view to get the tonal values I wish.
 As regards Roy's comment, I don't think he meant that you couldn't
use the graymatt.icc to softproof for luminance. It has always worked
fine for that. I think he was referring to being able to use the
create_icc tool for icc's that work to softproof not only for
luminance but also show color tones eg:sepia,cool etc.

Hope I have clarified my posting a bit.
Regards
Duane

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Duane,
> 
> Thanks for sharing your experience with this issue. The only gray 1.8
> that I have is gray gamma 1.8. When I convert to it from the gray
> gamma 2.2 space, the shadows are also compressed (using the info
> window in Photoshop to check the K % value). I am do not understand
> why the deep shadow steps are compressed when converting to these
> other spaces?
> 
> I can see deepest shadow detail on my screen but I loose it in the
> print unless I use the gamma slider to open up the tone curve. I would
> prefer not to do this, since I assume the response is no longer
> linear? I tried the gray matte paper profile and others for soft
> proofing and didn't see any change.
> 
> I think the basic problem is there is no software that allows you to
> softproof the QTR Printer output. Roy mentions this in his ICC
> Info.txt file, " The current version creates profiles for the printing
> side.  A soft-proofing version is coming soon."
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ken
> 
>  
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@> wrote:
> >
> > Don't know the answer to your question as to why but---It's my
> > understanding that the gray-lab.icc is based on a 2.2 workspace. I
> > found the same problem you did. So, I tried changing to gray 1.8 and
> > recalibrating my monitor. That worked to give me a better onscreen
> > image in the shadows. I also found that there was really no need to
> > use gray-lab at all then. I also discovered in using the Gray Matt icc
> > for soft proofing, by accident, that the print and screen matched
> > whether or not I used the Gray matt conversion before printing. Since
> > that time, I use gray1.8 as the workspace,softproof with Gray Matt icc
> >  and still do convert to it before printing (or more recently, with
> > custom icc's via Create-icc program). I actually could get by with
> > just editing in gray1.8 and printing but I fear that I might be
> > missing some subtle refinements or something. I have experimented with
> > doing this and can see no difference visually. You can test this by
> > editing an image in 1.8 and, when you have it as you wish, use the
> > Gray Matt.icc to softproof and switch back and forth. You can easily
> > tell if the image changes when you do that. If it doesn't you are home
> > free. Use BPC but not paper white when doing this. It is true that the
> > 2.2 workspace does compress the shadow appearance somewhat.So does
> > Adobe98 and any other 2.2 based workspace.
> > 
> > Hope this is of some use to you.
> > 
> > Regards
> > Duane
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > Tom Moore pointed out something interesting in an earlier post: when
> > > converting to Roy Harrington's provided gray-lab.icc profile to
use as
> > > a working space, the shadow end of the scale blocks up (using
the B&W
> > > test image provided at the Northlight Images website). In the readme
> > > file provided in the profile folder, it says using this as the
working
> > > space "spaces the grayscale values linearly with respect Lab or
> > > Luminosity". It is then suggested to convert to either Gray Matte
> > > Paper or Gray Photo Paper when printing. This conversion also blocks
> > > up the deep shadows.
> > > 
> > > Since Roy is the expert and source of knowledge when doing B&W
> > > printing, I must not understand something - or many things :)  It
> > > seems that there is no value in using spaces that block up shadow
> > > detail in an image. So why are these icc profiles provided in
the QTR
> > > installation? What is the recomended working space for adjusting
> > > images in Photoshop prior to making prints using QTR?
> > > 
> > > I am using a Windows XP computer and an Epson 2200 with the
regular UC
> > > inks. So far I have been printing on Epson Enhanced Matte paper and
> > > Ilford Smooth Pearl.
> > > 
> > > Thanks for any observations,
> > > 
> > > Ken
> > >
> >
>