开云体育

Am 06.02.2025 um 20:09 schrieb Roy Harrington: Dear Roy: I am sorry to say that the math you suggest cannot be applied in the present case. The problem in your above equation is that the 'b' in the

The ink transition could be very different. Although the density could be corrected in linearization, but transition (pre-linearization) defines the ink amount and the "grittiness" or "roughness" of

The trouble is that he's got it wrong. He shows how he interpreted it and it's just not correct and not what the PDF says. Please stop saying it's an "alternate" interpretation. Roy -- the

Ok so it was a space between the folder Quad P5000. Once I removed the space it worked. Thanks Walker and Roy.

This is kind of a PSA I guess. When I teach workshops in digital negatives and DTP processes using QuadToneRIP, many people get heartburn at the notion of spending anywhere from $300 to $3000 for a

Agree completely with Michael. And for folks like me who use QTR for selective toning of regular prints (not DTP or negatives), this tonal transition can be profoundly impacted. I often use "copy

I believe Hendrik got the desciption here https://www.quadtonerip.com/Calibration.pdf I was surprised by it, so I tried it (experiment vs theory, lol)

Roy, Linearization does correct everything when doing the process carefully as you say, but I suspect the resultant component curves could be very different. Basically, at any given density, one

Your description of method 2 makes no sense. All the values are simple ratio -- darkness of one ink vs darkness of another ink. So K vs LK and LK vs LLK -- then calculate K vs LLK. It's just

Here is plot after linearization. Minor differences between the two curves, nothing to write home about. Likely multiple sampling and using average values would fix the minor differences.

I think in his example Shilesh demonstrated the difference between the two approaches we are discussing. Curve 1 illustrates *method 1*: Here the printed luminosities of all lighter inks are referred

Hello Roy, Thank you for your comments & thoughts. Amen to experimenting. The curve 1 and 2 renditions come from respective *.quad files data (of course pre-linearization), imported into Excel for

This seems worth some comments. First -- experimenting is the best! Nothing is obvious without trying it. So experimenting and trying things out is always recommended. I'm not really sure where the

I can also make curve 1 behave like curve 2 by changing Highlight from 5 to 0 in the Gray Curve tab. So, I think there is no right or wrong way, rather there are a lot control variables available to

OK, so I did my experiment: * Epson P900, OEM inks * Only used PK, LK, and LLK on Epson Premium Luster * Calibration printed at 70% density * Lmin of LK was 55% step of K * Lmin of LLK was 25% step

Hello Paul, I was only referring to K universally as the darkest ink, whether it be MK or PK. LK and LLK as the next lighter shades. In your write-up, you also refer the lighter density inks in

yahoo.com@groups.io> wrote: Be careful to distinguish between MK and PK. They are different due to the different types of coating on matte paper v. "Photo" (glossy, pearl, semigloss, & satin. I use

I did not know about that guidance. That LK is a fraction of K, and LLK is a fraction of LK (but reflected back in terms of K) . I have made curves from scratch and have not noticed any strange

Dear Shilesh: Thank you very much for your reply. Very helpful, because it clarifies the procedure. What you explain is what I was thinking of, originally. But I was misguided by the descriptions in