Digital BW, The Print

Julian: My interim step was just to use the Woolf workflow and curves
which worked well right out of the box. While I'm happy with that
approach, I just may go back and work with the Randall workflow and
curves sometime if I ever have the time to diddle with them. Or, if
someone just does the work for me. <g> As you can probably tell, I
just like simple approaches that work. And both the Roark and Woolf
did that for me. 
Bob Michaels

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Julian Thomas"
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> As an interim measure why not try a curves move to straighten things
out?
> Scan a printed stepwedge - use 'info' to measure the wedges and then
> construct a curve to compensate before you make the switch to RGB
and the
> Randall curves?
> 
> Julian
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <bob@b...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, February 25, 2003 1:36 PM
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Which MIS inks? VM or FS? Roark or Woolf?
> 
> 
> Alessandro: I tried the Randall workflow in my 1280 and it just didn't
> work right for me. The transitions in both prints and step wedges were
> uneven. Jeff Randall read a previous post of mine and graciously
> contacted me off list to discuss it. He said the curves were written
> for a 1270 and he'd never tried them on a 1280 but they might not work
> as there seemed to be a difference in other curves for 1270 vs same
> curves for 1280. Of course, one of the things I've learned here is
> that what works for some people doesn't seem to work for others.
> 
> I'm curious, did you find the Randall workflow and curves worked out
> of the box on a 1280?
> 
> Bob Michaels
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Alessandro Pardi
> <alessandro.pardi@i...> wrote:
> > Peter,
> > if you go the FS way, do yourself a favor and use Randall's workflow
> rather
> > than Woolf's, as the former is a real ink partitioning workflow
> (i.e. dots
> > free). Just as Saint Roark's, by the way.
> >
> > Alessandro
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bob_Michaels <bob@b...> [mailto:bob@b...]
> > Sent: martedì 25 febbraio 2003 2:28
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Which MIS inks? VM or FS? Roark or Woolf?
> >
> >
> > Peter: I've used both inks and workflows. You can't go wrong with
> > either one as they both are excellent. But if I were pressed to make a
> > choice, I'd say the VM inkset / Roark workflow in a 51/49 decision. It
> > just seemed a slight tad easier to learn out of the box. But, again I
> > have to say that you have the two top choices of everything out there
> > in my opinion and either would do you well.
> > Bob Michaels
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "flabes23
> > <peter.bongard@t...>" <peter.bongard@t...> wrote:
> > > Hi!
> > > Which MIS inks do you guys recommend: The VM Quadtone or the FS
> > > Hextone-inks? Which one has the better quality (more shades of gray,
> > > contrast,...) and which workflows is better (Paul Roarks or John
> > Woolfs)?
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > Peter
> 
>