Split Toning with QTR

[sanking]

I need to print a few landscapes for an upcoming exhibition. Because of time constraints I am going to print with the Epson 3800 using QTR. Many of the images include water, falls, streams, etc. I would like to split tone because I like what I have seen of this technique. I see in principle how to do this in QTR with 1st, 2nd and 3rd inks but it would probably take me a long time to figure out something that I would like, and I don't have a lot of time.

So question is, is there a repository somewhere of QTR profiles with specific split toning characteristics that I could download and try out.

Sandy King

[dwhistance]

Sandy

I'm not aware of any, however its easy to relinearise the standard curves for your own printer and then just use the built in QTR split-toning tools to create a split you like. I've found that it only takes a couple of attempts using a 21 step greyscale, however I am perhaps less fussy than many and generally try for a single split for all of my images rather than trying to optimise for each individual image.

David Whistance

[Walter Foscari]

Check out the QTR user group. Lots of info and stuff available for download.

http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/

Walter

[Peter Langham]

Sandy,

I would second the idea of going to the Yahoo QTR site and would recommend that you take a look at Richard Lohmann's curves posted by Leping Zha. They are in the files section under curves>3800.
They are for Harman gloss but can get you started with some of the other glossy papers (if you are using them)
Beyond that it is difficult to give suggestions without knowing what paper you are using. The process is very paper dependent.

Peter

[sanking]

Peter,

Thanks for your message. I did got to the Yahoo site and found the curves for Harman gloss. But I plan to print on a matte surface paper so don't know how useful they will be since split toning is so paper sensitive as you note.

This evening I have spent several hours experimenting with split toning with the curves included for Epson enhanced matt paper. I would prefer something else for my final prints but the exercise taught me that it a lot easier than I originally feared.

Sandy



Sandy,

I would second the idea of going to the Yahoo QTR site and would recommend that you take a look at Richard Lohmann's curves posted by Leping Zha. They are in the files section under curves>3800.
They are for Harman gloss but can get you started with some of the other glossy papers (if you are using them)
Beyond that it is difficult to give suggestions without knowing what paper you are using. The process is very paper dependent.

Peter

[Tyler Boley]

Sandy, sounds like you are already well on your way. I made some little test prints using the same image of 100% of each of the 4 provided curves that come with the 3800 qtr setup, and with those to ponder students were quickly coming up with curve combinations for their own prints very quickly and happily at a workshop last year, in a few short hours.
Each of the sets tend to be just a hair too colorful, so you just have to throttle them back a bit with the percent settings...

If you are using an unsupported paper, pick a paper whose curves seem to work well anyway, and you can make a qtr profile in about 10 minutes to bring it into line on your paper if necessary.
QTR is a great tool for printing B&W with the OEM ink.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

[sanking]

Well, I finished the project that involved printing a dozen images on the 3800 using QTR with split toning. The last time I printed most of the negatives, which were 5X7 originals, was about twenty years ago in silver with an enlarger. Frankly, I must have been a pretty lousy silver printer because the pigment inkjet prints from the 3800 are just vastly better than the silver prints I made back then. These are about 3X prints.

I have been using the 3800 primarily for making digital negatives for printing with carbon trasfer and this is the first time I have been able to make an extensive comparison with inkjet to my past silver printing. It was a very revealing exercise for me.

Sandy King




Sandy, sounds like you are already well on your way. I made some little test prints using the same image of 100% of each of the 4 provided curves that come with the 3800 qtr setup, and with those to ponder students were quickly coming up with curve combinations for their own prints very quickly and happily at a workshop last year, in a few short hours.
Each of the sets tend to be just a hair too colorful, so you just have to throttle them back a bit with the percent settings...

If you are using an unsupported paper, pick a paper whose curves seem to work well anyway, and you can make a qtr profile in about 10 minutes to bring it into line on your paper if necessary.
QTR is a great tool for printing B&W with the OEM ink.
Tyler
http://www.custom-digital.com/

[PViapiano]

Without getting into it too much right now, I think that the reason many inkjet prints are impressing some of us more than gelatin silver is the fact that there is so much you can do in PS to massage global and local contrast...way beyond what graded papers, two-bath developers, bleaching, intensifying, etc can do...at least that can be done with much more ease on the computer.

But hence, I feel that so-o-o much of inkjet work today looks overprocessed and overworked. I think it wise to take a clue from Richard Benson who states in his latest book The Printed Picture, that processes need to be looked at by themselves. You can't hold a palladium print up to a silver gelatin and pronounce Dmax to be deficient, and so on. The same applies to gelatin silver and inkjet...

I am continually surprised by things that I see when printing both in the darkroom and digitally. I admit that I print almost 98% in the wet darkroom these days, using my printer for digi-negatives for alt processes and gelatin silver contact printing. Last week I made an inkjet print (Epson 3800) of an image, and also a digi-neg for contact printing on gelatin silver. The contact print showed much more gradation of tone and subtle nuances than the inkjet print...same file was used for each...really surprised me.

All I'm saying re Sandy's last post, is...these are all different processes with a huge amount of variables to consider and the end result should be looked at for what it is and not compared to other processes...hard to do, I know.

[sanking]

No question. That is why I referenced the term "better" to my own silver work of about two decades ago. The current pigment inkjet work is better because the prints are so clean and there is almost perfect control of tonal values. Of course, the split toning adds a real interesting look as well but whether one likes that is a subjective issue. I know many people who don't like anything but the most neutral of neutral tone prints. That is not me, however, as nearly all of my carbon transfer prints have a different tone as I am constantly experimenting with new tissues.

Sandy King





All I'm saying re Sandy's last post, is...these are all different processes with a huge amount of variables to consider and the end result should be looked at for what it is and not compared to other processes...hard to do, I know.

[Peter Langham]

Hi Sandy,
What did you come up with for a split that worked for you?

Peter

[sanking]

I may have mentioned that the images I wanted to print were landscapes, most of them with flowing water (streams, falls, etc.). What I found that worked nicely was to use the sepia profile for enhanced matted at 100% for the shadows and the cool SE (not sure what this is but is very cool, bluish tone) for the highlights. Then I just blended it about 50/50 in the mid-tones.

If one likes carbon pigment neutral prints they probably would not like the look of these prints, but I think they are quite nice.

Sandy



Hi Sandy,
What did you come up with for a split that worked for you?

Peter

[mandoman7]

No question. That is why I referenced the term "better" to my own silver work of about two decades ago. The current pigment inkjet work is better because the prints are so clean and there is almost perfect control of tonal values. Of course, the split toning adds a real interesting look as well but whether one likes that is a subjective issue. I know many people who don't like anything but the most neutral of neutral tone prints. That is not me, however, as nearly all of my carbon transfer prints have a different tone as I am constantly experimenting with new tissues.

Sandy King

I've had a similar experience comparing recent 3800 prints to silver prints made 20 yrs. ago in the darkroom. I still have many mounted gelatin prints from the early 90's when I was doing galleries. Recent orders from those negatives provided an opportunity for comparison and it was illuminating. The upshot is that I feel comfortable selling my darkroom equipment now.

Concerning the warm tone vs neutral issue, which some feel strongly about, it always used to crack me up to see a magazine article on a platinum printer and the examples were essentially sepia colored digitally produced magazine prints, not platinums, but people would ooh and ahh, responding to the coloring apparently, because they were not looking at actual prints.

JY

[PViapiano]

The upshot is that I feel comfortable selling my darkroom equipment now.

Well, everyone sees things differently. I've had friends (laymen, mind you) who show me printed images that they absolutely love the quality of (they know I'm heavily into photography) and the photos have terrible color renditions, not properly color balanced, etc...others couldn't tell the difference btw inkjet and fibre if you held an 8-hour seminar on the subject, so I imagine most of the public is like this, too.

That being said, an artist has to please him/herself. It is an art, however which way you decide to realize your final image.

I, myself, at this moment am a quicker printer when using PS and inkjet printing. However, I can't say that my inkjet prints look better than my wet fibre. I've been wet printing for 1 1/2 years now, a babe in the woods, but it's getting better every day. I put a lot of time into it, and I care deeply about what I do.

For me, there is no deeper satisfaction in photography than to make a beautiful wet print in the darkroom or to make an exquisite pt/pd print. The journey of getting there is the reward for me...

A little off-thread, I know, and not necessarily directed at anyone in particular, but wanted to post as a continuation of my last post in this thread...

[PViapiano]

By the way, mandoman...

You have some beautiful images on your site! Just visited there and enjoyed myself...

I've PM'd you as well...

Paul

[Daniel Grenier]

.....That is why I referenced the term "better" to my own silver work of about two decades ago...... Sandy King

Sandy.

Results of this exercise aside, I'd interested in your thoughts on the actual prints themselves (silver vs inkjet). I mean the physical thing - the man-made silver, carbon, kallitype versus the machine-made inkjet.

Personnaly, as a small time collector, I have a definite reverence and admiration for the well crafted hand made silver and platinum print that I just cannot garner (read spend money on) the inkjet print and I would like to hear your sentiments on this topic.

(Now all you epson-only types back off. I am asking the OP here- not you. And no, I am not interested in an endless digital/analog debate ;) )

Thanks Sandy.

Daniel

[mandoman7]

By the way, mandoman...

You have some beautiful images on your site! Just visited there and enjoyed myself...

I've PM'd you as well...

Paul

Thanks Paul. My hands were in the soup for a few years, I took a break, and now am back at it with a different perspective on numerous levels. I totally agree with your point that the process is tied in with the artist's intentions and results, and that certain challenges can actually further rather than limit the distillation of an idea.

JY

[sanking]

Daniel,

It has been a long road. One of the main reasons I got involved in alternative printing more than two decades ago (and I have good printing skills in several different processes, including carbon transfer, kallitype and pt./pd) is that I could not get the look I wanted in silver. I have always placed a lot of importance on the surface qualities of prints (texture, sheen, dimensionality, etc) and silver prints simply do not do it for me. Never did, and two decades ago it was not digital versus analog question. I simply liked more making home made prints with a variety of different "looks." So it should not come as a surprise to anyone that I actually prefer the look of a well-made inkjet print to most silver prints, and especially silver prints on glossy papers.

That said, at this point in time I am primarily, almost exclusively, interested in making carbon transfer prints. The process is so flexible that it allows for a wide variety of looks, from matte surface prints on lightly sized art papers to prints on baked white enamel surfaces that will just blow your mind with the tri-dimensional qualitiy. This is how I spend a large part of my time, trying to make the most perfect carbon transfer print I can make. I love the process, and I love the beauty of the final product.

But, I do like the look of inkjet prints, especially those that are split toned as this is something I can not do in carbon, at least not without a huge amount of work. And that would be a huge amount of work on top of what already is a huge amount of work since I basically already make all of my materials, including the carbon tissue, the final support papers, prepping the aluminum supports, etc.

I don't know if that answered your question. I am definitely not an anti-digital type, in fact I print almost exclusively from digital negatives that I adjust in Photoshop. I am just personally not interested in making inkjet prints as my main creative outlet, though I was delighted to make a few for the specific exhibition in question. And it was kind of fun spending time learning what I could do today digitally with negatives from the past that I once printed in the wet darkroom.

BTW, I am attaching an image of a 12X18" carbon transfer print on an 18X24" sheet of aluminum that I made this past evening. I had previously printed the image in vandyke and in carbon transfer on paper and both were nice. But this one on aluminum is really a sight to see as the hard flat surface of the white enamel aluminum plate exaggerates in ways that one could never imagine the tri-dimensional quality of a carbon transfer print. Sadly, none of this will show on the monitor.


Sandy King


Sandy.

Results of this exercise aside, I'd interested in your thoughts on the actual prints themselves (silver vs inkjet). I mean the physical thing - the man-made silver, carbon, kallitype versus the machine-made inkjet.

Personnaly, as a small time collector, I have a definite reverence and admiration for the well crafted hand made silver and platinum print that I just cannot garner (read spend money on) the inkjet print and I would like to hear your sentiments on this topic.

(Now all you epson-only types back off. I am asking the OP here- not you. And no, I am not interested in an endless digital/analog debate ;) )

Thanks Sandy.

Daniel

[D. Bryant]

Sadly, none of this will show on the monitor.


Sandy King

I bet that thing looks stunning up close and personal!

Don Bryant

[Daniel Grenier]

....BTW, I am attaching an image of a 12X18" carbon transfer print on an 18X24" sheet of aluminum.....Sandy King

Thank you kindly for your insightful comments, Sandy. Aliminum you say? Who knew! Can'twait to see one in person.

Best regards.

[PViapiano]

Wow...Sandy, I'd love to see a photo of that, aluminum support and all, in its environment...like sitting up against a wall in your office, or something like that...just to get a better idea.

Wonderful image...

[PViapiano]

Sandy.

Results of this exercise aside, I'd interested in your thoughts on the actual prints themselves (silver vs inkjet). I mean the physical thing - the man-made silver, carbon, kallitype versus the machine-made inkjet.

Personnaly, as a small time collector, I have a definite reverence and admiration for the well crafted hand made silver and platinum print that I just cannot garner (read spend money on) the inkjet print and I would like to hear your sentiments on this topic.

(Now all you epson-only types back off. I am asking the OP here- not you. And no, I am not interested in an endless digital/analog debate ;) )

Thanks Sandy.

Daniel



I agree with you, Daniel...

[sanking]

How is this for atmosphere?

You have the print in the sun room, tripod on purple and gold LSU blanket, and dog on authentic Persian rug.

Sandy King




Wow...Sandy, I'd love to see a photo of that, aluminum support and all, in its environment...like sitting up against a wall in your office, or something like that...just to get a better idea.

Wonderful image...

[Don Hutton]

How is this for atmosphere?

You have the print in the sun room, tripod on purple and gold LSU blanket, and dog on authentic Persian rug.

Sandy King

I know people who would rather see that LSU blanket under the dog....

[PViapiano]

Yes! That's great, Sandy...so that's a white-enameled aluminum substrate. Wow, and that print is beautiful, really sets it off perfectly...

We should start a "Prints in their Environs" thread ;-)

....that's a nice daylight viewing room, btw.

[sanking]

I keep the easel in the far left corner of the room and often put freshly made prints on it to see how they wear on the eye over a period of a week or so. The room is indeed a nice viewing area as it has mostly glass on four sides (it is a hexagon) and two large sky lights in the roof.

Sandy





Yes! That's great, Sandy...so that's a white-enameled aluminum substrate. Wow, and that print is beautiful, really sets it off perfectly...

We should start a "Prints in their Environs" thread ;-)

....that's a nice daylight viewing room, btw.