Digital BW, The Print

> > > BTW, a 256 step wedge comes right on the piezo software
> > > CD -- that's what I used for the exact same test a couple of days ago.
> >
> > Is the flush image a 256 step wedge?  The others certainly aren't...  I
> > thought you said you measured a gradient?
>
> The 21step file (both Piezo's and Paul Roark's) have steps on the bottom
> but the top is just a gradient.

That is the one I thought you were using when you did your measurements
(21step)...but that's not a 256 step wedge.  What's the 256 step wedge you
are referring to?

BTW, do Rourke's "curves" print "more than 1000 tones" also?  Here is Jon's
response...of course, it doesn't answer the question...

"So if it could not and the smoothing was a bit choppy and the transitions
between tones was coarse and the eye could see all the breaks between the
overlapping inks and stuff like that - would you then say that PiezoBW looks
bad and it would need more tones to overcome those bits, and we would be on
the other side of the sun in a parallel universe doing the exact same thing
but just not as good and having a different discussion as to why we don't
use more tones than 256 so that the screening is not apparent, and the
overlapping inks is not noticeable, and that scaling is improved, and that
vignettes and blends are not blemished with digital artifacts and....... ;)"

Sigh.  I don't believe you need 1000 tones to do any of this...that under
200 would be perfectly enough.  That's why I'm curious what Rourke's curves
do...as people say they can see absolutely no difference in the same image
printed with Rourke's curves and Piezo, except Rourke's curves give a darker
black if I remember right...  I think you see where I'm going.

Austin