Digital BW, The Print

Seems to me you have grasped the whole thing quite well actually. All
of your conclusions are correct. The only thing I can't verify from
direct experience is the "convert to profile" aproach. It makes
perfect sense, and is definitely worth trying. The only reason I
hesitate to say it's a go is because I think I saw a post from Jon
Cone that they couldn't verify the aproach there. I'd have tried it
myself, but I only use one paper here. It would be worth remaining in
16 bit if possible when you do your conversion.
Good work.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Kevin Gulstene <kevin@d...>
wrote:
> I have used Tyler Boley's write-up of 'matching your monitor's view to 
> your print' for some time now with good success. Thank you Tyler.  I am 
> starting to experiment with different papers and, unless I have 
> misunderstood something, this requires re-editing the image a little 
> for each paper.  I have created a number of 'profiles', one for each 
> paper I use.  I select the EAM profile and use that until I am fairly 
> happy with the image.  Then, if I want to use another paper, I select 
> that 'profile' within the soft proof set-up.  Of course the image on 
> screen changes to what it will look like on the new paper and I have to 
> edit the image again to make it look like I want it to on the new paper.
> 
> Would it be  equivalent, in terms of matching the print on different 
> papers to the screen, to edit the image is some default space like 
> gamma 2.2 and then use the 'convert to profile' function in PS to 
> convert the image to these same  paper specific profiles just before 
> printing.  That way I would only have to edit the image once.  As long 
> as the profiles I create are good, I can print the image on any paper I 
> use without re-editing?
> 
> This may be obvious to many, but I find the whole color 
> management/calibration thing a little baffling.  There seems to be an 
> endless number of ways to get it wrong.
> 
> Kevin