Epson R3000 - Epson B&W versus QuadTone RIP

[Frank Petronio]

Playing with my new Epson R3000.... Is there any consensus whether the Quadtone RIP will produce better results than the Epson's B&W controls?

I know better than to ask such an open question and I will test it myself, but since there are so many variables, the short answer would be appreciated! I certainly wouldn't mind not messing with the RIP.

[Oren Grad]

I've done some testing of QTR against Epson ABW with my 3880. So far my impression is that QTR offers slightly higher quality - smoother tones, greater sharpness and improved rendering of fine detail - at the cost of a steep learning curve due to incomplete documentation, some up-front work in generating one's own profiles, and a less-integrated workflow, at least on Windows systems.

That said, as I've slowly gained experience, I have greater respect for ABW than I used to. Once you get the hang of it, it can produce very presentable results with relatively little effort.

[Ken Lee]

By better results, what are you looking for: perfectly neutral B&W ? Finely tuned warm tones ?

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know about a consensus but reading things written by people whose opinions I respect - e.g. Tyler Boley, Jon Cone - and on my own experience I think QTR is better. If nothing else it gives more flexibility in terms of using different tones in different parts of the image, e.g. cooler tones in shadow areas, warmer tones in neutral midtones, warmer highlights. However, it's been several years since I tried Advanced B&W, possibly some changes have been made since then. When I did try it I thought it did a very respectable job on straight b&w prints or straight sepia.

[Frank Petronio]

I'd just like a nice neutral B&W, nothing fancy, low metarism is good too.

Any tips for using Harman by Hahnamuelle (sp) Glossy Baryta with AWB as far as settings? I downloaded the paper's profile to start with....

[Ken Lee]

Given that the inkset is the same with either of the 2 approaches you mention, metamerism will be determined by your choice of paper.

As far as I know, we get less metamerism by choosing papers with no OBAs (optical brightening agents). My experience with Canson Platine (100% rag + no OBAs) bears this out: less metamerism indeed.

The disadvantage of QTR "out of the box", is the limited choice of pre-existing profiles, IE limited choice of papers. Perhaps one of them is a non-OBA formula, I don't know.

On the other hand, QTR lets you create your own profiles (warning: learning curve ahead). That's how others have made the ones which "ship" with QTR.

Another option not mentioned yet, is the Piezography inksets in one form or another. They have concentrated heavily on the issue of gray tonality. If you get their dedicated inks, you get not just K, LK, and LLK (gray, light gray, and light light gray) but 6 or 7 gray inks. They also have a solution which works with QTR.

For the record, I got a custom profile from CHROMiX for my Epson R2400 and Canson Platine, and just use the Epson inks to make monochrome prints directly from Photoshop. The colors are quite close to what I see on the monitor - as close as those inks will allow anyhow. I test with this target image. Their profiles are quite good and affordable.

For toned inkjet images (warm, cool, green - whatever you like), you might find this brief article helpful. It takes around 10 seconds to do, and you can't beat the price.

Depending on your audience, using either a RIP or the Epson B&W (or Piezography) may be overkill. If, however, you're on the quest for the Holy Grail of a perfectly neutral inkjet print...

[Brian Ellis]

I don't know about a consensus but reading things written by people whose opinions I respect - e.g. Tyler Boley, Jon Cone - and on my own experience I think QTR is better. If nothing else it gives more flexibility in terms of using different tones in different parts of the image, e.g. cooler tones in shadow areas, warmer tones in neutral midtones, warmer highlights. However, it's been several years since I tried Advanced B&W, possibly some changes have been made since then. When I did try it I thought it did a very respectable job on straight b&w prints or straight sepia.

". . . warmer tones in neutral midtones . . . "

Well I certainly got that garbled. Sorry, meant to just say "neutral midtones," not "warmer tones in neutral midtones."

[Bruce Watson]

Playing with my new Epson R3000.... Is there any consensus whether the Quadtone RIP will produce better results than the Epson's B&W controls?

There seems to be. Among people who have used both, nearly all of them stick with QTR. The ones that don't tend not to be willing or able to learn QTR's somewhat quirky way of doing things.

If you're going as far as QTR, you might want to try the Piezography K7 inks too. Scary good. Once you climb the learning curves and dial in your workflow you can get some knock-your-socks-off B&W prints.

[Lenny Eiger]

You know, I always go to the person's site before I answer these kinds of questions. Frankly, you know the difference, and will be able to see it easily. So - basically, what Bruce said....

Lenny

[lbenac]

For the record, I got a custom profile from CHROMiX for my Epson R2400 and Canson Platine, and just use the Epson inks to make monochrome prints directly from Photoshop. The colors are quite close to what I see on the monitor - as close as those inks will allow anyhow.

This is also what I use except with a R2880 and the profile might have been made by somebody else. Proof in CS5, assign the custom Platine icc and good to go.
I have been considering getting a K7 system but:
1) Once I add up the cost of shipping and the custom curve it is a sizeable investment
2) I do not print a lot and the ink is good only for two years so while the ink in itself is a lot cheaper than Epson's if I have to change it every two years the price difference disappears or even reverse.

I am glad to hear that you get good result with an identical system than mine.

Cheers,

Luc