Digital BW, The Print

On Wednesday, June 11, 2003, at 04:13  PM, Phil Rose wrote:
> Carl,
> Does this mean the same as saying that a particular ijc profile
> should produce the same result with one version of OPM as with
> another?
Supposedly, but they are still looking at this problem.
>  I posted earlier that your linearized EAM_MK profiles
> seemed to give noticably different results when I used them with
> OPM 1.02b5 compared to using 1.02. I guess this this might be
> more a result of my 2200 being made to work "better" with
> 1.02b5, rather than the profile needing to be "corrected" for that
> OPM version.
I don't know the answer to that one either.
>
>
> Would my densitometer data for a 26-step grayscale (printed
> using your "cool" EAM profile with 1.02b5)  be useful  in order for
> me to to understand where I am?
If you have IJC, then simply use your densitometer data to linearize 
the profile for your system.  I don't know if the densitometry data 
alone would be of much value.
>  I'll be getting that data shortly.
> Have you already posted (or could you post) your grayscale
> densities for EAM paper somewhere so I can compare?
The values I used to linearize are embedded in the profile and can be 
viewed and modified in IJC.  Since the densitometer I'm currently using 
does not conform to any specific ANSI standards I don't think a 
comparison of these values to ones from another densitometer would be 
very meaningful.  I'm also currently looking around for a better 
instrument.

Carl