Digital BW, The Print

No need to get angry Mike!

You are the one who speaks from a confusing context.
If I made a mistake it is only because of what you
have written. So before you get upset with me and my
not choosing my words carefully - look at your words.
I can only understand what you write. If you want me
to understand you then try consistency in your words
which you write! It is only common courtesy to
practice what it is you expect from others before you
correct them. 

You called the Piezo profiles "canned profiles" and
explained that they compress the blacks. Now you say
of course they get lighter from one tone to another.
The profiles can not evenly distribute tone from one
point to another and then compress at the same time.
It is linear. Yes black appears only at 100% and then
graduates in a lighter fashion from 99, 98, 97, 96, 95
and so forth until 0. How can you have compression and
even distribution at the same time? Compression
implies a curve in the shadows. The Piezo is linear.
So your suggestion implied a curve in "your" shadows
and I was only trying to help you.

You must understand that I read a few messages ago
that you announced to this list that you were having
profiles created at your expense for the ImagePrint.
So I read this and think that you believe somehow that
the Piezography profiles are poor or "canned" as you
wrote which implies negative associations. You were
very excited to get profiles created for the
ImagePrint and receive recognition for it. This to me
sounded as positive association. So it is only natural
to infer that you are having problems with your Piezo
system which you believe another system would correct.

Now you write you do not even use the Piezography
anymore. So now what do your observations mean? I am
only an observer but it seems to me that this list is
controlled by a few men who are trying either to out
best each other or to be negative against other user's
systems in favor of their own preferred system if it
differs. If you read the list back which I have done
this morning it is very plain that it is dominated by
men who either subtly or with much robust attacking
other men users with opinions which differ from their
own. I subscribed under the condition that it
discusses all systems. You have even written that you
have a mandate of some sort to protect others from
making the same mistakes that you have with the Piezo
system. Others using the same system have not made
your mistakes. I am one who tried and returned to
Piezo for the control. Your mistakes are your
mistakes.

Yes Mike, I do not know your work only your words. I
am not angry with you Mike. But you do not need to
attack people when they try to help you. No one is the
best expert. Everyone has something to learn from
everyone. Look at the world around us - how can we
expect peace if strangers on a list can not help each
other? 

-della




> Della,
> 
>> If you really believe that canned shadows cause
>> compression then it is an indication of your scan
>> quality. I once had shadow compression. Then I
>> switched to professional scans from a Screen drum
>> scanner and now a Hell drum scanner. Mike, you owe
>> your work this favor of using a drum scan made by a
>> scanner operator.
> 
> Della, have you ever seen my work?
> You really don't know what you are talking about. I
never said that canned
> shadows cause shadow compression. I said that if you
look at what the Piezo
> driver does you will see that it IMO compresses the
shadows. Print out a 21
> step wedge and read the densities on a densitometer.
Next compare them to
> the densities on a Stoffer Step tablet. I think you
will find out that the
> shadows are compressed.
> 
> I am not using the Piezo driver so I have no problem
with compressed
> shadows. I use a professional level RIP. I also own
a Howtek D4000 drum
> scanner. I scan in RAW mode with white and black
points pushed out to 0 and
> 256. I capture all detail there is to capture as far
as the scanner is
> capable. I have has "professional" drum scans made.
My scans are superior as
> they do not clip data.
> 
>> How do I know this? Because what you call "canned
>> profiles" is an indication of your input failure.
The
>> Cone profiles print lighter at 99% than they do at
>> 100% which is full black. 98% is still lighter than
>> 99% and so forth. Each % tone is separate and
distinct
>> so that there can be no compression. It can not be
any
>> other way. Please try a drum scan made by a
>> professional. It makes it so much difference. If
you
>> do not believe this, you owe it to yourself to make
a
>> test pattern of 100 grays to verify it. You will
love
>> the difference that a scan can make.
> 
> Of course the 99% patch is lighter than the 100%
patch, so on a so forth.
> But until you measure them against a known standard
in densitometric
> readings you have no clue as to what they are
supposed to be.
> 
>> But if you have professional scans than something
may
>> be wrong with the way you treat your shadows in
your
>> imagework. Did you follow the calibration
instructions
>> from the manual?
> 
> Once again, I have no problem with shadows using a
professional RIP.
> Please do not take my statements out of context.
Read them carefully and try
> to understand what I an saying before you respond.
> 
> Mike

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Movies - coverage of the 74th Academy Awards\ufffd
http://movies.yahoo.com/