Digital BW, The Print

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul D. DeRocco [mailto:pderocco@...] 
> Sent: Wednesday, March 10, 2004 12:21 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> I'm not surprised you can get decent B&W from your 2200, but 
> I can't make heads or tails of your color management

That may be because my explanation was not a model of clarity.  What I was
trying to say: I work in RGB, soft proof, and the last thing I do before
printing is convert to grayscale.  PS assigns the name "untagged gray" to
the source space.  I can do one of two things: Print with the print space
same as source space (untagged gray), with color controls selected in color
management.  Or, I can select proof setup as the source space and print
space same as source.  Of course then I select ICM with no color management.
The print is the same either way.  I calibrate my Trinitron every couple of
weeks with SpyderPro, and the print looks just like the screen (discounting
the backlit effect).  Same with the occasional color print.
> 
> My experience with the 2200 is that it's not quite dead nuts 
> neutral when using color inks. RIPs like ImagePrint do an 
> even better job, by using mostly black ink, and only enough 
> color ink to neutralize the tone.

I guess neutral is in the eye of the viewer.  It's not cold, not warm, but a
little toward the cool side.  The tonal range is excellent. In my studio I
have quartz, northlight, tungsten and fluorescent viewing lamps - it seems
not to change much from one to the other.  To tone the prints a little I
suppose I will have to spring for IP6 when it comes out.  In the digital
world there is no end to spending money, but it's not a choker, esp
considering access to all the paper profiles.

> I think the main difference is that with film, all 
> degradation (noise, color inaccuracy, defocusing) is doubled 
> by the need to go through the scanning process. 

More so than I would have imagined.  Darkroom prints and inkjet prints are
different things to begin with, but now they're a _whole_ lot different.  I
was showing some of the inkjet prints from the 10D to a friend who has the
finest Leica glass you can get and uses the printer that HCB used, and he
was pretty impressed.  The darkroom prints look almost "artsy" with all the
film grain (35mm TriX).  I would not say which was "better" -- just
different.  I guess digital's not just a passing fad.