Digital BW, The Print

<Seems low for EEM with matte K, but not impossible.  Did you arrive at
the 25% by  finding that the measured density of the 100% patch of the
LK wedge was equal to the measured density of the 25% patch of the K
wedge on the print of the ink separation file (printed in calibration
mode with default ink limit set to 75 for all inks in the calibration
profile)?>

LK¹s Ink Limit was set at 60.  I went through the process in the
documentation for setting the default ink limit and decided that it was a
very arbitrary call up in the 70 to 90 range.  I then decided that I would
maintain your existing ink limits for K and LK.  (Even though I note that
Roy references a higher range than a default set to 75 in his
documentation.) The documentation implies (but is not explicit) that these
limits should be determined prior to determining the partitioning.


<No it is not an abrupt switch, the two inks are blended and you can see
the transition by running the graph_curve script with your .quad warm
curve file (from the curvedropbox).>

Got it.  What is the x axis on this chart?  Ink percentage? I am surprised
to see (in the graph of the unlinearized curve file) LK peaking way up in
the 63% range and K not beginning until the high 40s, despite partitioning
at 25%.  I would love an explanation of this in layman terms.


<Mine usually are about the same dmax or higher after linearization.>

Hmmmm...I would expect the linearization curve to use a fixed dMax reading
and that the movement we see is down to reading variance/drying effects but
I guess that depends on the math.


The ink limit variables and boost variable still baffle me.  Presumably,
right up to the boost level the maximum ink deposit is 75% K coverage and
maybe the very last remnants of LK. At the boost level we kick in more ink.
Is the boost variable the level it kicks in or the ink coverage to which it
climbs?  If the latter, then why would boost not be equal to 100?
Presumably the argument is that we get good coverage at 75 (hence the
default ink density) and a push to 90/95 is plenty at the very top end.  If
this is to combat dot gain I would have thought that this would already be
factored into the underlying driver such that 100% gave maximum and optimal
coverage.  Perhaps Roy can comment on these points.

Steve





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