Digital BW, The Print

I had some interesting responses on the DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint 
list to my question of how to get "legacy" PiezographyBW files to print 
correctly in IP5, parts of which I will quote below. First on the 
nature of the issue:

> ...why would you expect to be able to print legacy files
> without adjustment, given that you are printing with both different
> ink and different software on a different printer?

and:

> This brings to light a serious deficiency in the old PiezoBW 
> workflow...it
> wasn't really color managed...meaning...you couldn't simply edit in a
> standard "color" space (Gamma 1.8 or 2.2) and expect to get screen to 
> print
> match.  What this really reflects is that the profiles were bad and 
> required
> further tweaking via custom dot curves to actually match the screen.

I think that both these posting are essentially correct. After all, for 
color, I'm using "printer targeting" adjustments to print 1290 legacy 
files on the 7600 with IP5. But there was also a solution posted:

> I have been having luck either assigning (not converting) gamma 2.2 to
> file, OR dropping the profile in IP5- while making sure it's default
> greyspace is set to gamma 2.2.

This was in line with a (gracious) response I got from Jon Cone:

> Well I would take the file without a profile attached, or ignored the
> profile. That's #1.  Then I would use one of the ColorByte Gamma 
> profiles
> for lightness/darkness adjustment. Then print through the inks/paper 
> profile
> in ImagePrint.

I tried assigning both 1.8 and 2.2 gammas to the PiezoBW legacy files 
and found that the Gamma 2.2 assignment resulted with a print that was 
very close to the Piezo print.


Now that the problem of printing PiezoBW legacy files is solved, I am 
moving on to printing new B&W files prepared for IP5. The issue here is 
that the unlike their color profiles, the ColorByte grayscale profiles 
canned be "previewed"
in the Photoshop "Proof Setup" facility. How are you dealing with this? 
Or is the normal PS view very close to how the print looks?

--Mitch/Bangkok

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]