Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:

(snip)
> 
> I believe there is one called the ColorMouse that is much cheaper,
> and 
> you may be able to find a better price on the others by shopping 
> around. Dan can tell you more about the Swatchbook. But all you'll 
be 
> able to do with them is measure inks for CMYK custom setups for a
> CMYK 
> workflow like I use. It's really not a workflow I recommend for 
many, 
> you'll need a RIP, there aren't many good ones, or affordable ones. 
> For the printer/paper/ink combo I use it's great for the look I'm 
> after. But for most an RGB workflow or Piezography will be better.
> If you want to use a photospectrometer to nail Dan's RGB workflow, 
> you'll also need Profiler Pro, another investment. There have been 
no 
> reports that any other software can tough it out and actually build 
a 
> profile from non color inks.
> You could build a CMYK ink setup as above, but using the RGB 
driver, 
> work in CMYK, then do Dan's CMYK/Multichannel/RGB conversion to
> print, 
> but you'll have some black ink things to solve by eye. For 
everything 
> up until K kicks in, it would work well.
> > 
> > I assume that this type of measurement and adjustment is also 
valid 
> > for printing through the Epson driver as well as through the RIP?
> > 
> See above, PS6 and Profiler Pro will actually allow you to see a 
real 
> preview of your actual inks on the monitor using Dan's method.
> Notice how often Dan is mentioned? I'm not sure it's possible to
> print 
> quads and not be a Dannite, even unwittingly. If I knew whether the 
> chicken or the egg came first, I could even suggest the Cone driver
> is 
> Dannite.

I need to go over Dan's material again but I am very interested in 
closing the monitor to printer loop with greater accuracy than my 
eyes, so this may be the way to go. I can also see the payback in 
working with many different papers using the MIS VM inks where you 
are changing tone as well as. I would love to get a profile for the 
Elcipse papers for example which did not come close to any of the 
Piezo curves. I don't know that I want to have to wait for someone 
else to do all the work.

> 
> > I think it is past time for me to get a copy of Real World
> Photoshop 
> > (Blatner and Fraser). In playing with this I notice that the 
> > histogram is filled and smoother in comparing the adjusted 16-bit 
> > file to the 8-bit.
> 
> Convert your 8 bit to RGB, run the sep curves and look how bad it 
is 
> then!
> Now do the same with the 16 bit staying in 16 bit all the way and 
> you'll see quite an improvement. Does it print better?

I need to start from scratch on this process and compare. My other 
thought is to work entirely in 8-bit RGB. I develop my film in pyro 
so I have different data sets on each channel from a raw scan. A side 
by side comparision seems in order.
> 
> > I believe in your last post you said you drop down to 8-bit just 
> > before printing.
> 
> PressReady won't accept 16 bit files, since all the damage has been 
> done at that point, dropping down doesn't really hurt. Even though
> the 
> Epson driver lets you hit the print command out of PS6 in 16 bit, 
I'm 
> sure it's dropping it down on the fly, rather than making real use 
of 
> all those bits.
> I was hoping no one was actually paying attention enough to ask me
> why 
> I don't use the Cone driver! I was doing this workflow before it 
came 
> out with different inks and it was hard to let go of direct control
> of 
> the inks. I can tweak a few things a little more to my liking, the 
> black and overall hue of my prints are subtly different than with 
the 
> Cone driver.The tonal transitions and dithering with his driver and 
> profiles are so great, it was very hard to aproach that level of 
> quality, and I'd never suggest I bettered it.

I have found it a good idea to stay with a workflow (computer, 
camera, enlarger,..) that is going well for you unless something 
offers a really big jump in quality. In making the switch I always 
seem to lose ground until I figure out the quirks of the new process.

Thanks again for all the info!

Martin