QTR-Quadtone RIP

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

Hello Ken,

Thank you for asking the question I didn't know how to phrase. I get
pleasing results but felt something a little better is possible. Just
wasn't sure how to ask the question.

Seeing as how I use sRGB as my work space and am happy with screen
image and NEARLY get a match twixt screen and print, I'll eagerly await
the response. :-)

Sandy

Friday, June 2, 2006, 9:27:29 AM, you wrote:
p> What is the recomended working space for adjusting
p> images in Photoshop prior to making prints using QTR?

p> I am using a Windows XP computer and an Epson 2200 with the regular UC
p> inks. So far I have been printing on Epson Enhanced Matte paper and
p> Ilford Smooth Pearl.

p> Thanks for any observations,

p> Ken






-- 
Best regards,
Sandy
 ep@...

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
>

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
> >
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@...> wrote:
>
> soft proofing

Ken, are you using the current QTR version, 2.4x?  It has a utility in
it to create your own soft-proof curves.

Ed

Ken,

If you are looking at the info palette it is probable that the shadows are
not compressed, though they appear to be. This relates to the fact the same
density is represented by different K% in different grayscale gamma spaces. 

I created a grayscale step wedge in gray gamma 1.8, made a copy of it, and
then converted (not assigned) the copy to gray gamma 2.2 using Edit/Convert
to Profile. When I measure the same patch on the two different step wedges I
see that the K% is different. 

The issue is whether the different values of K represent different densities
of gray. I think they do not. 

In my example, when I measured the same grayscale patch in the two different
grayscale wedges, I get 96% K in the gamma 1.8 space and 92% K in the gamma
2.2 space. These actually represent the same density. 96%K in a 1.8 gamma
space is the same level of gray as 92% K in a 1.8 gamma space. (See the
"Companding Calculator" calculator on this great website:
http://brucelindbloom.com)

Though it is not too intuitive, an analogy is that PC monitors calibrated to
gamma 2.2 monitor have a darker display for the same RGB values sent to Mac
gamma 1.8 monitor. Since gamma 2.2 displays darker, 92% black on a gamma 2.2
monitor would be the same level of gray as 96% gray on a gamma 1.8 monitor. 

Seeing compressed shadows on actual prints is a different issue. If you are
actually converting between gray spaces instead of assigning the gray
spaces, it seems like the prints should not have different shadows. 

Steve Bye

-----Original Message-----
From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of prof_mgt551
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 7:03 AM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Roy's working space blocks up shadow detail? Why
use it?

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

Steve,

Thanks for sharing your insights. I like your analogy. However, I see
the change in K% occuring when converting from Gray Gamma 2.2 to QTR -
Gray Lab or QTR - Gray Matte Paper. Wouldn't these spaces be in the
2.2 gamma space? I am still not understanding this process.

Thanks for trying to provide some light on this subject.

Ken

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Bye" <steve_bye@...> wrote:
>
> Ken,
> 
> If you are looking at the info palette it is probable that the
shadows are
> not compressed, though they appear to be. This relates to the fact
the same
> density is represented by different K% in different grayscale gamma
spaces. 
> 
> I created a grayscale step wedge in gray gamma 1.8, made a copy of
it, and
> then converted (not assigned) the copy to gray gamma 2.2 using
Edit/Convert
> to Profile. When I measure the same patch on the two different step
wedges I
> see that the K% is different. 
> 
> The issue is whether the different values of K represent different
densities
> of gray. I think they do not. 
> 
> In my example, when I measured the same grayscale patch in the two
different
> grayscale wedges, I get 96% K in the gamma 1.8 space and 92% K in
the gamma
> 2.2 space. These actually represent the same density. 96%K in a 1.8
gamma
> space is the same level of gray as 92% K in a 1.8 gamma space. (See the
> "Companding Calculator" calculator on this great website:
> http://brucelindbloom.com)
> 
> Though it is not too intuitive, an analogy is that PC monitors
calibrated to
> gamma 2.2 monitor have a darker display for the same RGB values sent
to Mac
> gamma 1.8 monitor. Since gamma 2.2 displays darker, 92% black on a
gamma 2.2
> monitor would be the same level of gray as 96% gray on a gamma 1.8
monitor. 
> 
> Seeing compressed shadows on actual prints is a different issue. If
you are
> actually converting between gray spaces instead of assigning the gray
> spaces, it seems like the prints should not have different shadows. 
> 
> Steve Bye
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of prof_mgt551
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 7:03 AM
> To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Roy's working space blocks up shadow
detail? Why

> use it?
> 
> 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
>

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
> > >
> >
>

Ed, thanks for your suggestion. I am using QTR 2.4.1 and understood
that you can create your own curves, but didn't understand this to
mean I could create my own soft-proof ICC profile that I could use in
Photoshop to soft proof my image.

I used a curve posted on this forum for Ilford Smooth Pearl, printed a
gray scale and used the QTR-Create-ICC program to linearise the
output. I have tried using the new Linearised ICC profile to softprood
the image in Photoshop, but it is still on the heavy side (too dark).\

Is QTR-Create-ICC program what you are referring to, or is there some
other capability that I am not aware off?

Thanks for sharing your thoughts,

Ken

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

>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@> wrote:
> >
> > soft proofing
> 
> Ken, are you using the current QTR version, 2.4x?  It has a utility in
> it to create your own soft-proof curves.
> 
> Ed
>

Duane,

You know the process for using QTR profiles better than I do. I can't
comment on that. But I want to clarify something I said that I am not sure
you agree with.

My point is that 96% K in a gamma 1.8 space and 92% K in a gamma 2.2 space
represent exactly the same density -  it is a density of 2.4. You cannot
compare the K values of spaces with different gammas. You can compare the
densities.

Am I missing something?

Steve

-----Original Message-----
From: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com [mailto:QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of dlruckus
Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:47 PM
To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Roy's working space blocks up shadow detail? Why
use it?

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
> > >
> >
>







 
Yahoo! Groups Links

Hi Ken.... yes, QTR-Create-ICC is what I was talking about.  Did you
use it according to the instructions, i.e., did you measure one of the
reference tiffs?

Ed


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@...> wrote:

>
> Ed, thanks for your suggestion. I am using QTR 2.4.1 and understood
> that you can create your own curves, but didn't understand this to
> mean I could create my own soft-proof ICC profile that I could use in
> Photoshop to soft proof my image.
> 
> I used a curve posted on this forum for Ilford Smooth Pearl, printed a
> gray scale and used the QTR-Create-ICC program to linearise the
> output. I have tried using the new Linearised ICC profile to softprood
> the image in Photoshop, but it is still on the heavy side (too dark).\
> 
> Is QTR-Create-ICC program what you are referring to, or is there some
> other capability that I am not aware off?
> 
> Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
> 
> Ken

Hi Steve. I don't think we disagree at all. As you said(below)

> Though it is not too intuitive, an analogy is that PC monitors
calibrated to
> gamma 2.2 monitor have a darker display for the same RGB values sent
to Mac
> gamma 1.8 monitor. Since gamma 2.2 displays darker, 92% black on a
gamma 2.2
> monitor would be the same level of gray as 96% gray on a gamma 1.8
monitor.


they do not "look" the same for the same values. My point is that we
edit files by looking at them and being able to better see
distinctions in deep shadow areas is helpful in doing this. It also
turned out for me that it closely matched the "view" given by
softproofing with Graymatt.icc. That meant it was more wiziwyg with
the resultant prints. I don't know why that should be unless the
linearisation undertaken by QTR is giving the same "visual" spacing to
the hardware output as gamma 1.8 does to the screen. If, as you noted,
2.2 at 92%K looks as dark onscreen as 1.8 does at 96%K it would mean
that the next 8% of 2.2 values would be squeezed into only 4% of
remaining monitor space for a 0 to 100% screen range eg:compressed
visualy although not numericaly in the sense of the file numbers.

It is anything but intuitive dealing with the whole issue of spaces
and color management I most assuredly agree. The strange thing about
the softproofing process is that(to me at least) it appears to be
doing something that everyone who knew a little about color management
had fits about. ie: adjusting the monitor to match print output
instead of setting up the printer via profiles to match a fixed
colorspace. It is not quite doing that, of course, but it sure comes
close. It does adjust your monitor to show you what you will get if
you print the file as is. I am not a luddite and I use every
technological tool I can afford but, frankly, what I care about is
knowing what the output will look like. Anything that easily enables
that is what I will use.

Ken's issue of not getting what he sees on screen would mean to me the
same as what you indicated. There has to be a problem somewhere in his
setup. Either his monitor is not correctly profiled or his printer is
not truly linearised or there is something in his workflow that is
being missed.



--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Bye" <steve_bye@...> wrote:
>
> Duane,
> 
> You know the process for using QTR profiles better than I do. I can't
> comment on that. But I want to clarify something I said that I am
not sure
> you agree with.
> 
> My point is that 96% K in a gamma 1.8 space and 92% K in a gamma 2.2
space
> represent exactly the same density -  it is a density of 2.4. You cannot
> compare the K values of spaces with different gammas. You can
compare the
> densities.
> 
> Am I missing something?
> 
> Steve
> 

I don't know about the density thing. It wasn't something I gave
thought to. I'm not sure about your 2.4 figure though. I don't think
workspaces have any direct connection with the physical density of a
printers output. In my understanding it's like a universal pie cutter.
Whatever the size of the pie, it whacks it up into 6 (in this case 100
symbolic) pieces. That is why it is called device independent I think.


Regards
Duane




> Behalf Of dlruckus
> Sent: Saturday, June 03, 2006 12:47 PM
> To: QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [QuadtoneRIP] Re: Roy's working space blocks up shadow
detail? Why

> use it?
> 
> 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
>

I don't have much working knowledge with the specific system you are using, but maybe 
detached point of view might help...

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Steve. I don't think we disagree at all. As you said(below)
> 
> > Though it is not too intuitive, an analogy is that PC monitors
> calibrated to
> > gamma 2.2 monitor have a darker display for the same RGB values sent
> to Mac
> > gamma 1.8 monitor. Since gamma 2.2 displays darker, 92% black on a
> gamma 2.2
> > monitor would be the same level of gray as 96% gray on a gamma 1.8
> monitor.

I have to assume we are all working out of Photoshop, otherwise this discussion gets way 
too out of hand, so- the Mac 1.8 vrs PC 2.2 issue has been dead for years. Monitor 
calibrating brings the display to a standard established by the icc, regardless of what 
individual internal system standards are in place. They will be "corrected" to meet that 
standard. Next, Adobe's color management always incorporates that monitor calibration 
into it's display of imagery overcoming individual system idiosyncracies. We have a PC and 
3 Macs, all calibrated with the same sotfware and device, all display imagery in Photoshop 
the same.
> 
big snip
>...
> linearisation undertaken by QTR is giving the same "visual" spacing to
> the hardware output as gamma 1.8 does to the screen.

Roy might pop in, but my understanding is that QTR linearizes to LAB. None of your 
standard grayscale spaces have tonal progressions the same as LAB, pretty sure that's why 
he developed his custom space based on LAB.
You may find overall brightness with one more similar than the other, but progressions at 
the extremes will never be the same.
>...
snip
>...The strange thing about
> the softproofing process is that(to me at least) it appears to be
> doing something that everyone who knew a little about color management
> had fits about. ie: adjusting the monitor to match print output...

not really but I can see how one might deduce that. In fact, it really alters information 
going to the display to more acurately reflect what that file will print like through a given 
device. UNaltered and acurate monitor calibration is vital for that to work.

> instead of setting up the printer via profiles to match a fixed
> colorspace.

Actually that does not occur either ( I hope I'm not sounding too critical, this stuff get's 
confusing). Calibrating/profiling the printer and using that profile in the printing process 
really attempts to convert the color space to the printer space in a pleasing and 
predictable manner. No printer can actually match the common working spaces.

This all sounds like semantics and you probably know all this anyway, I'm just restating 
the less than obvious in case it may shed some light.

> Ken's issue of not getting what he sees on screen would mean to me the
> same as what you indicated. There has to be a problem somewhere in his
> setup. Either his monitor is not correctly profiled or his printer is
> not truly linearised or there is something in his workflow that is
> being missed.

Yes, I think that is exactly right. In my limited experience with QTR I found it very easy to 
get inadequate tonal progression down near 100% unless the limits where conservatively 
set and linearization carefully done, at least with the inks and papers I was using. Beyond 
that, if that setup is not profiled well, softproof will not be reliable, furthur complicated by 
the possibility of an uncalibrated monitor.
Now if all this is well set up, you should be able to work in 1.8 or 2.2 or whatever, and 
conversion to a good profile of your QTR setup should make that choice irrelevant.
Steve's point about 95% displaying differently depending on space is correct, but if you 
edit to see what you want in there using a good softproof profile, it shouldn't matter which 
you use as a master working space.
OK, that's how it all "should" work. If you are using canned QTR setups and profiles, and 
an uncalibrated display, the problem could be anywhere, not necessarily inherent in how 
QTR prints.
Of course the frustrating part is when you do it all right, and spend the ,money and time, 
and it's still not what one hopes... and I've seen that happen too. It usually does actually 
work though.
I made some QTR profiles here for a K7 user, I don't think it ever worked quite right for 
him but he found a good workaround by finding a workingspace that seemed a good 
match to the output if I recall.
One more thing, in softproof, if you check "preserve coor numbers, you'll see the native 
output of your system if NOT printing through a profile. Sometimes editing for that view, 
then printing with no color adjustment can work as well.
Tyler

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:
>
>...the Mac 1.8 vrs PC 2.2 issue has been dead for years. Monitor 
> calibrating brings the display to a standard established by the icc, regardless of what 
> individual internal system standards are in place. They will be "corrected" to meet that 
> standard.

my apologies, this is incorrect as most of you probably know. When calibrating the user of 
course has a target gamma choice, generally 1.8 or 2.2 with sometimes more choices as 
well.
But that difference will only be visually apparent with apps that are not icc aware. With 
apps that are, those differences will disappear as the monitor profile is in the loop and the 
gamma differences "corrected".
Hence-

> Next, Adobe's color management always incorporates that monitor calibration 
> into it's display of imagery overcoming individual system idiosyncracies. We have a PC 
and 
> 3 Macs, all calibrated with the same sotfware and device, all display imagery in 
Photoshop 
> the same.

Tyler

Hi Ed,

The procedure I used was outlined in an article on the NorthLight
Images website for using PrintFix Pro to linearise the QTR output.
Here are the steps that I used:

1. Converted the Step-21-gray file (contained in the eye-one folder)
to the QTR-Gray-Photo Paper space, saved as a tiff and printed the
file using QTR and the Ilford Smooth Pearl curves provided on this
website.
2. Read the L values of the printed 21 step scale and entered these
into a tab delimited text file.
3. Used QTR-Create-ICC program to convert the tab delimited text file
into an icc file.
4. Converted the original Step-21-gray file into the new icc space
created in step 3, saved this file and printed again in QTR
5. A reading of this new print showed that the scale was linearised.
However when compared to the screen view of the image in Photoshop on
a calibrated display, the printed version is slightly darker or heavier.

So the process did linearise the gray scale, but the new icc profile
does not create a close softproof match. The print doesn't look bad at
all. It looks good when viewed by itself, but when compared to the
display verion, then some difference can be seen. The difference is
not dramatic, but enough that it is not possible to accurately adjust
a gray scale image in Photoshop based entirely on what is viewed on
the display.

There is something not quite right and I am not sure exactly what
might be causing the problem. I prefer not using the gamma adjustment
slider in QTR to correct the discrepency between the printed and
display version, since I assume this would cause the output to no
longer be linear, thus in some respect degrading the image quality.

Thanks for input on this.

Best wishes,

Ken


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

>
> Hi Ken.... yes, QTR-Create-ICC is what I was talking about.  Did you
> use it according to the instructions, i.e., did you measure one of the
> reference tiffs?
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@> wrote:
> >
> > Ed, thanks for your suggestion. I am using QTR 2.4.1 and understood
> > that you can create your own curves, but didn't understand this to
> > mean I could create my own soft-proof ICC profile that I could use in
> > Photoshop to soft proof my image.
> > 
> > I used a curve posted on this forum for Ilford Smooth Pearl, printed a
> > gray scale and used the QTR-Create-ICC program to linearise the
> > output. I have tried using the new Linearised ICC profile to softprood
> > the image in Photoshop, but it is still on the heavy side (too dark).\
> > 
> > Is QTR-Create-ICC program what you are referring to, or is there some
> > other capability that I am not aware off?
> > 
> > Thanks for sharing your thoughts,
> > 
> > Ken
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@...> wrote:
>
> Hi Ed,
> 
> The procedure I used was outlined in an article on the NorthLight
> Images website for using PrintFix Pro to linearise the QTR output.
> Here are the steps that I used:
> 
> 1. Converted the Step-21-gray file (contained in the eye-one folder)
> to the QTR-Gray-Photo Paper space...

No, never convert a profiling chart before printing it...

Tyler

Ken, let's see if anyone else has any thoughts on your method and your
problem.

A couple of things occur to me.  One is your viewing environment.  Is
the light illuminating the print of the right brightness?  After all,
the monitor is emitting light.

Another is the dpi.  I believe virtually all the QTR profiles are made
at 1440 dpi, but some folks like to print at 2880.  This would result
in a lot more ink being laid down.  So, if you are using a 1440 curve
and want to print at 2880, you want to decrease your ink limit in the
QTR driver to about -35% (I think).

The third thing is, did you read the Eye-One read me in the Curve
Design folder that comes in the QTR 2.4.1 download. It describes two
parts to the process.  Linearizing a curve for your printer, and
building an ICC profile for printing and soft-proofing.

Ed

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@...> wrote:

>
> Hi Ed,
> 
> The procedure I used was outlined in an article on the NorthLight
> Images website for using PrintFix Pro to linearise the QTR output.
> Here are the steps that I used:
> 
> 1. Converted the Step-21-gray file (contained in the eye-one folder)
> to the QTR-Gray-Photo Paper space, saved as a tiff and printed the
> file using QTR and the Ilford Smooth Pearl curves provided on this
> website.
> 2. Read the L values of the printed 21 step scale and entered these
> into a tab delimited text file.
> 3. Used QTR-Create-ICC program to convert the tab delimited text file
> into an icc file.
> 4. Converted the original Step-21-gray file into the new icc space
> created in step 3, saved this file and printed again in QTR
> 5. A reading of this new print showed that the scale was linearised.
> However when compared to the screen view of the image in Photoshop on
> a calibrated display, the printed version is slightly darker or heavier.
> 
> So the process did linearise the gray scale, but the new icc profile
> does not create a close softproof match. The print doesn't look bad at
> all. It looks good when viewed by itself, but when compared to the
> display verion, then some difference can be seen. The difference is
> not dramatic, but enough that it is not possible to accurately adjust
> a gray scale image in Photoshop based entirely on what is viewed on
> the display.
> 
> There is something not quite right and I am not sure exactly what
> might be causing the problem. I prefer not using the gamma adjustment
> slider in QTR to correct the discrepency between the printed and
> display version, since I assume this would cause the output to no
> longer be linear, thus in some respect degrading the image quality.
> 
> Thanks for input on this.
> 
> Best wishes,
> 
> Ken
>

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "edrudolpho" <erudolph@...> wrote:
>
> Ken,....
> The third thing is, did you read the Eye-One read me in the Curve
> Design folder that comes in the QTR 2.4.1 download. It describes two
> parts to the process.  Linearizing a curve for your printer, and
> building an ICC profile for printing and soft-proofing.
> 
> Ed

I agree with Ed...Ken there is something not right with your workflow.

Firstly strip the linearization out of the stock profiles you would like to use, then reinstall 
them.

Open the 21 step ramp – do not convert to any space in Photoshop. In Print with Preview 
use Same as Source (Do not color manage).

Print the 21 step ramp with QTR and selected paper profile.

Read the 21 patches and place linearization results back into the stripped profiles. (You 
have to drop the text file into one of the QTR scripts for linearization results...forgot which 
script...not at my main computer.) Reinstall this new profile using the install script.

To build ICC profiles...

Print the 21 step ramp with all settings same as above using the new linearized QTR 
profile. Do not color manage...yet!

Read the 21 step ramp, drop text file into QTR-ICC "builder."...now that new file becomes 
your ICC profile to soft proof and print with color management.

Thanks Ed for your additional thoughts. I use a solux lamp to view
prints plus sometimes a tungsten lamp (since most of my prints will be
displayed under tungsten lighting). I position the prints a distance
from the light that is appropriate for the light intensity. Also, I
print at 1440 dpi. As far as the process, I used the linearise
procedure outlined on the NorthLight Images website for using the
PrintFix Pro. I hadn't look at the eye-one-readme.pdf since it
appeared to be oriented to using the the GretabMacbeth Eye-One
hardware. But I'll look it over and see if there is anything that may
apply.

Best wishes,

Ken

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "edrudolpho" <erudolph@...> wrote:
>
> Ken, let's see if anyone else has any thoughts on your method and your
> problem.
> 
> A couple of things occur to me.  One is your viewing environment.  Is
> the light illuminating the print of the right brightness?  After all,
> the monitor is emitting light.
> 
> Another is the dpi.  I believe virtually all the QTR profiles are made
> at 1440 dpi, but some folks like to print at 2880.  This would result
> in a lot more ink being laid down.  So, if you are using a 1440 curve
> and want to print at 2880, you want to decrease your ink limit in the
> QTR driver to about -35% (I think).
> 
> The third thing is, did you read the Eye-One read me in the Curve
> Design folder that comes in the QTR 2.4.1 download. It describes two
> parts to the process.  Linearizing a curve for your printer, and
> building an ICC profile for printing and soft-proofing.
> 
> Ed
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Ed,
> > 
> > The procedure I used was outlined in an article on the NorthLight
> > Images website for using PrintFix Pro to linearise the QTR output.
> > Here are the steps that I used:
> > 
> > 1. Converted the Step-21-gray file (contained in the eye-one folder)
> > to the QTR-Gray-Photo Paper space, saved as a tiff and printed the
> > file using QTR and the Ilford Smooth Pearl curves provided on this
> > website.
> > 2. Read the L values of the printed 21 step scale and entered these
> > into a tab delimited text file.
> > 3. Used QTR-Create-ICC program to convert the tab delimited text file
> > into an icc file.
> > 4. Converted the original Step-21-gray file into the new icc space
> > created in step 3, saved this file and printed again in QTR
> > 5. A reading of this new print showed that the scale was linearised.
> > However when compared to the screen view of the image in Photoshop on
> > a calibrated display, the printed version is slightly darker or
heavier.

> > 
> > So the process did linearise the gray scale, but the new icc profile
> > does not create a close softproof match. The print doesn't look bad at
> > all. It looks good when viewed by itself, but when compared to the
> > display verion, then some difference can be seen. The difference is
> > not dramatic, but enough that it is not possible to accurately adjust
> > a gray scale image in Photoshop based entirely on what is viewed on
> > the display.
> > 
> > There is something not quite right and I am not sure exactly what
> > might be causing the problem. I prefer not using the gamma adjustment
> > slider in QTR to correct the discrepency between the printed and
> > display version, since I assume this would cause the output to no
> > longer be linear, thus in some respect degrading the image quality.
> > 
> > Thanks for input on this.
> > 
> > Best wishes,
> > 
> > Ken
> >
>

Hi John,

Thanks for sharing your ideas on this issue.  I have not created any
curves and am using the curves provided with QTR or posted on this forum
(Ilford Smooth Pearl). Also, I am using a Windows XP system, so I have
to convert the file to the ICC profile in Photoshop that I want to
print. Sorry, but I am new to QTR and  am a little confused by your
suggestions.

> Firstly strip the linearization out of the stock profiles you would
like to use, then reinstall
> them.

Are you referring to QTR curves when using the word "profiles"? (I think
of profiles as ICC profiles). If so, then to strip out the
linearization, do you mean to open the curve in QTR Curve Creator and
under the linearization tab clear the numbers? To reinstall, does this
mean save the adjusted curve or does it mean use the "create curve"
button?

> Print the 21 step ramp with QTR and selected paper profile.

Here do you mean,  to convert the image to  a different output space icc
profile, such as the  QTR Gray Photo paper? Or do you mean to use the
original QTR curve (with the original linearization numbers)?

> Read the 21 patches and place linearization results back into the
stripped profiles. (You
> have to drop the text file into one of the QTR scripts for
linearization results...forgot which
> script...not at my main computer.) Reinstall this new profile using
the install script.

What do you mean by "using the install script". I have no "install
script" file in the QTR folder.

> To build ICC profiles...
>
> Print the 21 step ramp with all settings same as above using the new
linearized QTR
> profile. Do not color manage...yet!

What is the difference between the "QTR-Linearize-Data" and the
"QTR-Create-ICC" scripts in the eye-one folder?

Thanks for all of your help

Ken

Hi Tyler. I'll gladly defer to your experience and knowledge. I did
allude to some of the things you expanded apon but you say them much
better. You are right of course about the workspace info.
I have noticed what you mentioned about QTR near the 100% region. It
was when I was working with glossy/semi-gloss papers. The limits,
among other things, became very critical. I don't work much with
B&W/QTR and glossy(older machines) so haven't devoted a lot of time to
tinkering with them.
It is much easier to get excellent(IMHO of course-you might think them
terrible) results with matt papers. Since I don't have to satisfy
client needs, I only have to deal with my own limited ones so there is
still a lot to learn about rips and QTR. I work with the issues as
they come up. I like to think of it as "learning by disaster";-) It's
less painfull that way.
Thanks for the preserve color # tip. I'll have to try that for fun.
It will be nice to screw up intentionaly for a change.


Regards
Duane




--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:

> 
> Yes, I think that is exactly right. In my limited experience with
QTR I found it very easy to 
> get inadequate tonal progression down near 100% unless the limits
where conservatively 
> set and linearization carefully done, at least with the inks and
papers I was using. Beyond 
> that, if that setup is not profiled well, softproof will not be
reliable, furthur complicated by 
> the possibility of an uncalibrated monitor.
> Now if all this is well set up, you should be able to work in 1.8 or
2.2 or whatever, and 
> conversion to a good profile of your QTR setup should make that
choice irrelevant.
> Steve's point about 95% displaying differently depending on space is
correct, but if you 
> edit to see what you want in there using a good softproof profile,
it shouldn't matter which 
> you use as a master working space.
> OK, that's how it all "should" work. If you are using canned QTR
setups and profiles, and 
> an uncalibrated display, the problem could be anywhere, not
necessarily inherent in how 
> QTR prints.
> Of course the frustrating part is when you do it all right, and
spend the ,money and time, 
> and it's still not what one hopes... and I've seen that happen too.
It usually does actually 
> work though.
> I made some QTR profiles here for a K7 user, I don't think it ever
worked quite right for 
> him but he found a good workaround by finding a workingspace that
seemed a good 
> match to the output if I recall.
> One more thing, in softproof, if you check "preserve coor numbers,
you'll see the native 
> output of your system if NOT printing through a profile. Sometimes
editing for that view, 

> then printing with no color adjustment can work as well.
> Tyler
>

At 12:56 PM Monday 6/5/2006, you wrote:
>No, never convert a profiling chart before printing it...

I'm learning all this stuff too and just made my first icc profile today from Paul Roark's article on doing it with a scanner.

I used his 21-step test strip and not Roy's one that came with QTR - does that matter?

Also I converted the test strip to Grey-Lab.

Do I have to do it again?

Sorry if these are dumb questions,
Richard 
--
http://smallfield.vze.com
http://photos.smallfield.vze.com


   "I've travelled a long road in jazz ... I can't 
   regain the time I've lost, but I've learned from 
   the experience and it's not impossible to shape  
   a future which will have profited from the time 
   that was lost."
   --Dexter Gordon

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "dlruckus" <dlruckus@...> wrote:
>
> ...
> I have noticed what you mentioned about QTR near the 100% region. It
> was when I was working with glossy/semi-gloss papers. The limits,
> among other things, became very critical. I don't work much with
> B&W/QTR and glossy(older machines) so haven't devoted a lot of time to
> tinkering with them.

I think I was trying to push it too hard, attempting to eek the last possibe damx out of it. 
But It seemed best to just pick a limit that that was reasonble and retained good 
separation right down to that limit point. The linearization process can't pull that back 
apart if if you've moved into an area of unpredictable behvior.
I wish I had more time to play with it, right now I'm just using Roy's profilier to help with 
other output systems. So my advice has to be taken with a grain of salt.

> ...I work with the issues as
> they come up. I like to think of it as "learning by disaster";-)

Why do I feel so comfortable with that description?

> It's
> less painfull that way.

Really? You've reached a higher zen printing state than I have!
Tyler

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, Richard Smallfield <r.smallfield@...> wrote:
>
> At 12:56 PM Monday 6/5/2006, you wrote:
> >No, never convert a profiling chart before printing it...
> 
> I'm learning all this stuff too and just made my first icc profile today from Paul Roark's 
article on doing it with a scanner.
> 
> I used his 21-step test strip and not Roy's one that came with QTR - does that matter?

It depends on a couple of things, can you direct us to the article?
Assuming this is a "normal" aproach to profiling, what matters is that the numeric values 
of the 21 step chart exactly match those in the reference file used for comparison when 
building the profile.

> Also I converted the test strip to Grey-Lab.
> 
> Do I have to do it again?

As you might be able to tell from above, if you've converted the chart before printing, the 
numbers sent to the printer will no longer match the reference, therefore the resulting 
profile will be incorrect.
Again, I'm making assumptions about the procedure and need to see it before answering.

> 
> Sorry if these are dumb questions,...

well. the inevitable "it depends" answer get's pretty dumb sometimes too...
Frankly, when it comes to using Roy's software for profiling, I wouldn't trust any procedure 
but his if you are not experienced with this stuff. As you can tell by now, there is a LOT of 
confusion and bad info out there about color management and I know Roy is on top of it.
Tyler

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@...> wrote:
>
> Hi John,
> 
> Thanks for sharing your ideas on this issue.  I have not created any
> curves and am using the curves provided with QTR or posted on this forum
> (Ilford Smooth Pearl). Also, I am using a Windows XP system, so I have
> to convert the file to the ICC profile in Photoshop that I want to
> print. Sorry, but I am new to QTR and  am a little confused by your
> suggestions.

OK...I'm not sure how QTR is set up with Windows as I'm on a Mac.

But I give some educated guesses...

>> Firstly strip the linearization out of the stock profiles you would
like to use, then reinstall
> them.
>Are you referring to QTR curves when using the word "profiles"? (I think
of profiles as ICC profiles).  If so, then to strip out the
linearization, do you mean to open the curve in QTR Curve Creator and
under the linearization tab clear the numbers? To reinstall, does this
mean save the adjusted curve or does it mean use the "create curve"
button?

It's confusing for sure...let's use "curves" for QTR paper curves and "profiles" for ICC 
profiles from now on.

Since you have a densitometer you can re-linearize the stock curves that came with the 
download. You must strip the linearized info from the curve. Just how you do that on 
Windows I'm not sure but once you do use the new curve to print the 21 step ramp. As 
mentioned do not convert the 21 step ramp and do not color manage the Print with 
Preview.

>What is the difference between the "QTR-Linearize-Data" and the "QTR-Create-ICC" 
scripts in the eye-one folder?


 "QTR-Linearize-Data" is the script that produces linearized values that you have to copy 
and paste into the curve file that was stripped of linearized info early.

"QTR-Create-ICC" is the script that produces the ICC profile to print with using color 
management in Photoshop...meaning softproofing and using the ICC printer profile in 
"Print with Preview" window.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "John Vitollo" <jvlist@...> wrote:
> Since you have a densitometer you can re-linearize the stock curves that came with the 
> download. You must strip the linearized info from the curve. Just how you do that on 
> Windows I'm not sure but once you do use the new curve to print the 21 step ramp. As 
> mentioned do not convert the 21 step ramp and do not color manage the Print with 
> Preview.


Forgot to add after you do the above (print the 21 step wedge with the newly linearized 
curve) read it and drop that info in the "QTR-Create-ICC" script.

Hi John, Thanks for sharing your knowledge about this topic. At this
point, since I need to modify the existing curve that I am using for
the Ilford Smooth Pearl paper, I need to review the procedure for
creating QTR Curves. Hopefully this will help me to apply the
procedure that you outlined. Using the curves for Epson Enhanced matte
and Moab Entrada Natural has resulted in a satisfactory screen/print
match when using the Epson MK black ink. Hopefully, by modifying the
curve, I can get a little closer to this with the Ilford paper using
the Epson PK black ink.

Best wishes,

Ken

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "John Vitollo" <jvlist@...> wrote:
>
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "prof_mgt551" <prof_mgt551@> wrote:
> >
> > Hi John,
> > 
> > Thanks for sharing your ideas on this issue.  I have not created any
> > curves and am using the curves provided with QTR or posted on this
forum
> > (Ilford Smooth Pearl). Also, I am using a Windows XP system, so I have
> > to convert the file to the ICC profile in Photoshop that I want to
> > print. Sorry, but I am new to QTR and  am a little confused by your
> > suggestions.
> 
> OK...I'm not sure how QTR is set up with Windows as I'm on a Mac.
> 
> But I give some educated guesses...
> 
> >> Firstly strip the linearization out of the stock profiles you would
> like to use, then reinstall
> > them.
> >Are you referring to QTR curves when using the word "profiles"? (I
think
> of profiles as ICC profiles).  If so, then to strip out the
> linearization, do you mean to open the curve in QTR Curve Creator and
> under the linearization tab clear the numbers? To reinstall, does this
> mean save the adjusted curve or does it mean use the "create curve"
> button?
> 
> It's confusing for sure...let's use "curves" for QTR paper curves
and "profiles" for ICC 
> profiles from now on.
> 
> Since you have a densitometer you can re-linearize the stock curves
that came with the 
> download. You must strip the linearized info from the curve. Just
how you do that on 
> Windows I'm not sure but once you do use the new curve to print the
21 step ramp. As 
> mentioned do not convert the 21 step ramp and do not color manage
the Print with 
> Preview.
> 
> >What is the difference between the "QTR-Linearize-Data" and the
"QTR-Create-ICC" 
> scripts in the eye-one folder?
> 
> 
>  "QTR-Linearize-Data" is the script that produces linearized values
that you have to copy 
> and paste into the curve file that was stripped of linearized info
early.
> 
> "QTR-Create-ICC" is the script that produces the ICC profile to
print with using color 
> management in Photoshop...meaning softproofing and using the ICC
printer profile in 
> "Print with Preview" window.
>