Digital BW, The Print

Mark:

I've recently discovered the hard way that your view is correct.  I 
am a long time user of the Piezography plug-in, and have been using 
the Piezotone ICC profiles for a couple of months.  Initially, my 
prints of 21-step targets, and even of a number of photographic 
images, were very encouraging.  (So much so that I posted an 
endorsement of the ICC profiles on the 3000 list.)  

Recently, however, I have found that the profiles are incapable of 
correctly printing a whole variety of more complex images.  The 
problem is a little hard to describe (I'm sending the actual prints 
to Jon Cone) but if I had to pick one word it would be 
posterization.  (My girlfriend, who has a sharp eye, looked at one 
print and said it looked like a charcoal sketch, which will give you 
some idea of the profile's failure to differentiate between subtly 
different tones.) The same images printed with the plug-in are fine, 
with all the tones distinct.

Until I read Mr. Cone's reply to your initial post, I wondered how in 
the world he could have won a prize with the same printer, ink, and 
profile combination.  Now I see.

Chuck



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Hahn" 
<markhahn2000@y...> wrote:
> I'm not suggesting that it isn't useful information or that it 
> shouldn't be done, but it is far from the whole picture (so to 
speek:)
> 
> Just like lens tests *not* showing Leica or Zeiss lenses to be 
*that* 
> much better than anything else... image magic is complex and is 
hard 
> to measure.
> 
> I think any complete test would have to compare the easily measured 
> variables and then include actual images to balance out the 
> judging... in the end you want images and not targets or stepwedges.
> 
> I would like to see the results if they get posted somewhere though.
> 
> mark
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Gus J Grubba 
> <gus@g...> wrote:
> > Well... but that's what it was. It was testing the print quality. 
If
> > you introduce "artistic feel", objectivity is lost. I understand 
> your
> > point but I don't think it can apply here. The testes were done 
in a
> > "measurable" way. If you need to interpret its artistic values, it
> > becomes really hard to be objective.
> > 
> > g
> > 
> > MH> This seems way too simplistic to me because it completely 
> ignores the
> > MH> aspect of "artistic feel" in the resulting prints.  A target 
> may be
> > MH> good for showing the dither pattern, general accuracy of 
tonal 
> output
> > MH> for a given gradient, but actual photos are much more complex 
> and 
> > MH> have infinitely variable gradiations etc. not tested in this 
> > MH> shootout.  I'm not arguing against the findings since I've 
> never used
> > MH> the Piezography system, and I don't doubt that it is very 
good, 
> but
> > MH> don't have much faith this being the acid test for b&w print 
> quality.
> > 
> > MH> mark