Digital BW, The Print

Jim, I'm not aware of a way to diagnose a bad profile. I assume that you are
using the same driver settings as you did when you printed the profile
targets (e.g. paper type, etc.)?

A way to check the system would be to use a Canon paper and a Canon provided
profile, or a third party paper with a manufacturer provided profile that
you feel confident is good. The colour calibration routine essentially takes
machine to machine variances out of the equation.

I suggest you check the "simulate paper" box when you soft proof. Jeff
Schewe calls this the "suck button", because it makes things look pretty
bad, especially with matte papers. It's trying to simulate the reduced
contrast, paper base tone, etc. of the printed output. I generally add a bit
of saturation and a curve which brightens the output a bit when I soft proof
colour images. With b/w output it's just the brightening curve. Printed
output will always be somewhat different than what you see on the screen.
Beaming electrons vs. reflected light. The quality of your monitor profile,
room lighting, etc. all come into play.

Wish I could offer more help.

Terry.

Hi Terry,

After a couple of months, I did figure out the convert to profile method you
mention and have been using that, exactly as you described. Unfortunately,
my results are still lacking. Is there a way to diagnose a bad ICC profile?
When soft-proofing, I preview back and forth between relative and
perceptual, without simulate paper checked and the match is almost
imperceptible. When I check the simulate paper box it becomes significantly
worse. I know that this is supposed to happen, I am just wondering to what
degree. To bring the original up to the soft-proof copy takes a lot more
processing, at least for me. I have a very good eye and am somewhat of a
stickler. I wish it was just a matter of increasing exposure, contrast and
vibrance. But I also generally have to adjust some colors in the image.

I appreciate your effort in trying to help.

Jim