Digital BW, The Print

Antonis,

You are correct that I am looking to get good control of B&W printing 
and am interested in have a good profiles to work with. I don't want 
to have to depend upon what is currently being marketed and would 
like the ability to produce my own. On the one hand I could just 
eyeball it but I really am not comfortable with that. I am guessing 
that any instrument that would give repeatable readings would be a 
giant step forward.

Since I don't plan to do much of this as I hope to settle on a small 
number of ink/paper combinations and get on with making photographs, 
a large investment is not only impossible but doesn't seem 
worthwhile. Is this they type of situation that as you pay more and 
more you are gaining smaller and smaller improvements in quality? In 
other words would I see a huge improvement using Profiler Pro and a 
Colormouse but a much smaller improvement in moving from that setup 
to a XTP-41 and one of the high-end software packages?

Since I might only be doing say 20 profiles until I found my 
ink/paper combinations and then 2 or 3 occasionally when a new paper 
came out, it seems that the tedious patch at a time measuring still 
might be acceptable. Even some of the 700+ patch targets should be 
able to be done in say 3 hours. So it would take 60 hours to do the 
first 20. In my situation, where there is not expectation of economic 
return, it seems better to spend the time than the $1,000 difference 
between the Spectrocam or Color Swatchbook to get the DTP 41 which 
would obviously cut that 60 hours down to a small fraction.

If I am making some naive assumptions here in my ignorance, please 
let me know.

A couple of half way measures suggest themselves and perhaps you can 
tell me if they are worth the cost. One would be to buy the 
Swatchbook at $1400 and use it as a highly accurate densitometer to 
measure step tables to move accurately create correction curves in 
Photoshop. The second is to spend the $900 to just get the Profiler 
Pro and rely on my Linoscan 1400 to get no so accurate data off the 
targets. Would one approach be inherently better than the other?

Thanks for the education in all this stuff,

Martin

P.S. If you want to get rid of any of those X-rites, let me know. <g>


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Antonis Ricos" 
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Martin,
> 
> I have been following this discussion for a while....  As one who 
should have 
> bought stock in X-Rite years ago (5-instrument deep now), here are 
some 
> thoughts.
> 
> - The DTP 41 is a defacto industry standard considered 
a "reasonably priced" 
> alternative to the Gretag-Macbeth Spectrolino. It is built for 
commercial use 
> and has _very solid_ tech support behind it, but it is not without 
its 
> idyosyncracies. If you let it sit for a few months, you may need  
to jump start 
> the motors (using a command-line interface on the host computer), 
not a fun 
> thing. If you buy it, opt for the UV attachment. 
> What it doesn't do compared to the Spectrolino is that you cannot 
program 
> several reads of the same patch, something that makes readings of 
noisy 
> processes a bit more accurate (needed for art papers). You can work 
around 
> that with the DTP-41 if your profiling software allows averaging 
among several 
> reads - it's just not that convenient.
> 
> - The Digital Swatchbook and program that comes with it is a great 
instrument 
> and software. You have the equivalent of a reflection densitometer 
with the 
> convenience of instantly transfering data to the host computer, 
saving it and 
> being able to export it. Really nice for doing any reflective 
densitometry 
> (curves and such).  This is just a small bonus to the 
spectrophotometric 
> abilites. As has been pointed out here, this is not an ideal 
instrument for 
> profiling because a profile gets better with more patches which in 
turn gets 
> tedious to do one at a time. But if all you are doing is filling 
out the CMYK data 
> in Photoshop and making a quick-and-dirty profile, it's great cause 
you don't 
> need special targets (as you do to auto-read in the DTP-41).
> 
> - If you are going to compare instruments, you have to compare how 
many 
> bands they read. The more bands they break the spectrum down to the 
more 
> accurate they are likely to be. Also, the software they come with 
will make a 
> big difference in use. I only have X-Rite instruments and cannot 
compare to 
> anything else. But I would want to make sure that if you are paying 
> significantly less for the same features, you are not giving up 
something 
> important either by way of tech sup. or accuracy. X-Rite and 
Macbeth have 
> been standards in the industry for a long time. 
> 
> - Regarding profiling software, I guess since you are using this 
for mono / 
> quad you only have one choice. But if you (also) do color, there 
are a lot of 
> companies with similar claims out there,  hovering in the 3-5+ K 
dollars. I don't 
> know how much of those claims they deliver. I have the Lino and 
Praxisoft 
> products, but Monaco claims superiority, ColorBlind used to 
rule.... who 
> knows. I don't know anyone who has bought _everything_ and done 
side by 
> side profiles. I tend to use Lino for CMYK and CompassProfile for 
RGB, but I 
> am not ready to recommend them over the current offerings. This is 
a pretty 
> nasty area to compare and determine who has the best value for 
money. 
> Tread carefully, the waters are deep is all I am saying. 
> 
> Even question if you need all this instrumentation for bw. I would 
put that 
> money into a good RIP instead and get control of the individual 
channels - but 
> I haven't done it (with Epsons) and don't have specific 
recommendations like 
> Dan and others here. Just wanted to put in a word of caution before 
the 
> Absolute kicks in....
> 
> Antonis
> 
> .
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
> <mwesley250@e...> wrote:
> > Scott,
> > 
> > Thanks for the feedback. This is definately a field where few of 
us 
> > have much experience.
> > 
> > So I gather the inaccuracy with the Spectrocam occur when you are 
> > using it in their fixture and moving it over a test strip but if 
you 
> > do the patches individually they are okay?
> > 
> > Tyler is on his third or fourth one due to defects and recalls so 
I 
> > am concerned about their quality control.
> > 
> > I seem to recall in the Colormouse specs that it required 4 sec 
for 
> > each measurement which would slow you down, manually or 
> > automatically, on even the 127 patch test. What is the 
measurement 
> > time for the Spectrocam?