Custom Curve Necessary?

Hi Dana,

Sorry you were sick. I was taking a break from it anyway so this can be a new start.

I started out thinking I would go with warm inks but after reviewing my old Piezotone(?) prints from 2002-2007, I decided to go back to the Selenium inkset.

My Photo Rag linearization looked pretty good but the one for Canson Baryta Photo was, like you say, horrible. I printed the same target for both tests (one I made using Colorport for the i1Isis I have for measurements). The target is in Gray Gamma 2.2 and the squares read from 0-100% in 5% increments. QTR is 2.7.5.

I posted a couple of workflow screenshots earlier, though they were a bit small and hard to read on the Forum, so I can re-send those to you if they would help.

Right now I’m thinking about using a different Baryta paper like Epson Exhibition Fiber and I’m going to run a linearization check on that this afternoon using the canned curve (this one: 3800-3880-MPS-EPexFiber.quad). Maybe that would make things easier.

Thank you for your questions—if you can think of any others, or have other thoughts, please let me know.

Peter

Dana—

One quick question. The 21-step target supplied with QTR (Step-21-gray.tif) is an untagged grayscale file and the target supplied with the Linearization Checker is an untaggged RGB file (21steps-Eye1.tif). The target I made with Colorport is Gamma 2.2 grayscale. So I guess I’m confused—which should I be using?

thank you,
Peter

Dana—

Just wondering if you’d had any further thoughts on these questions?

Thanks,
Peter

Hi Williston~

I apologize for not responding sooner, I was out for a few days caring for my sick baby, then was involved in teaching workshops recently, so haven’t been on my computer as much as usual.

I did a quick print test, and it looks like either Untagged or Gamma 2.2 will produce the nearly identical results thru QTR Print Tool, BUT we always recommend using the Gamma 2.2 workflow that Piezography and QTR are designed to work with.

Best regards~ Dana