Digital BW, The Print

Hello Roy

This is my first introduction to the group, as I joined it when 
someone posted a reference to this posting on the Colormanagement 
group in answer to a question I had put.

We have a fineart and photographic printing and giclee reproduction 
business and have been in this business for over three years now. In 
the past year we have been also printing B&W for photographers.

I have downloaded the files and am looking forward to testing this 
out. I am running a Colorspan printer with four blacks, and wanted 
just such a profile for myself to use in soft proofing the images I 
am about to send to the printer.

The differences I can see here are that I am working with ARGB files 
(converted from the scanner profile) as I scan the B&W negs in RGB 
16 bit. I do not convert to greyscale, but send the files to the 
printer in RGB. The RIP handles them this way best, and I then use 
the profile for the media I am using, in 4 black inks in the RIP. 
This profile is a proprietary one for the RIP and can't be used to 
soft-proof in PS.

Would it give the same results if I convert the target files from 
greyscale 2.2 Gamma to ARGB 1998 before sending them to the RIP to 
be printed?

I also am using Gretag Macbeth Profilemaker Pro 4.1.5 with the Eye 
One. I presume I can use this to generate the profile in the same 
way, using your instructions?

If so, when converting to the ARGB profile, should I print one file 
in each of the two rendering intents (perceptual and relative) to 
generate a profile for each of the two possibilities of conversion 
for the files I send out?

Best regards,

Ellie Kennard
Innovative Imaging Studio
http://www.iistudio.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy 
Harrington" <roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> I've done a short write up with all the needed files and 
information.
> Download from here.
> 
> http://harrington.com/SoftProofing.sit
> 
> I've done this on a Mac but there's no reason this shouldn't work 
just
> as well on Windows -- locations as probably different.
> 
> Roy
> www.harrington.com