Digital BW, The Print

On 20/12/2013 20:31, benjschneider2@... wrote:
> I spent a lot of time putting a layout together for Blurb's service only
> to find at the end that they want all files submitted in the sRGB color
> space..  I have been using Adobe1998 for years!  Making the conversion
> made the images look less appealing then I would like.

I have to suspect you didn't convert correctly. Most should look pretty 
much identical even on a wide gamut monitor.

A common mistake is to simply tag A98RGB as sRGB. IE 'save as' (or 'Assign 
profile') with the sRGB profile embedded. The result will be a horribly 
flat image without much contrast or saturation, because the RGB values 
within the file itself haven't been changed at all.

You must first use 'Convert to profile' in PS to map A98RGB values to 
sRGB, and only then save with sRGB as the tagged profile. Obviously you 
want to save these separately, as distinct versions from your A98RGB 
reference files.

The POD print process has a narrowed CMYK gamut that more closely 
resembles sRGB than A98RGB, so sRGB is a better guide to how the book will 
appear. Some POD will provide their printer profile if you want a more 
accurate proof preview, and check on out of gamut colours.

For B&W POD you have to use RGB files. Grayscale (eg in Gray 2.2 gamma 
space) will print horribly, as only the K channel will be printed. You 
need CMY as well, and that requires RGB files.

Unfortunately this is a weakness of the POD process, since small 
variations in CMY densities produce distinctly non-neutral-toned B&W 
printing. I've seen POD books where B&W image colour wanders randomly 
through very dark greenish via neutral to very dark cyan or navy blue, 
page to page. HP Indigo presses, which are far the most common POD 
printers, can be quite erratic in this respect, as if there is some jitter 
in the calibration. It's not clear whether the operator has been sloppy or 
it's inherent, but a 2-3CC variation looks quite obvious on facing pages.

I have seen whole books where neutrality has been OK, but never utterly 
consistent. That's why I have so far held back from B&W POD, but I am 
being picky. The consumer viewer would probably not be bothered.

Colour images don't seem to be as susceptible. I've seen good, consistent 
colour POD several times, including Blurb. But only on the most costly 
papers. They were my images, so I knew what they should look like.

Toned B&W also work pretty well, but the subtler the tone, the more 
revealing of colour variation. Sepia no problem. A subtle selenium split 
is less likely to survive unmolested.

> I also did not like the software they make you use.  I find it very
> limiting, after using InDesign and Quark and would rather use one of these.

Most POD including Blurb, will accept PDF so you can use PS or Quark or 
whatever you like. Blurb also provides an InDesign plugin. You aren't 
obliged to use their software at all, that's just a convenience for 
non-designers.

> I would much appreciate some suggestions in this matter from someone that
> has had good experiences in this matter.

Only indirect, because of the issues mentioned above I'm still hesitant 
about B&W. If anyone knows of POD where neutral B&W invariably emerges as 
neutral B&W print, I'd love to know.
-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk