Digital BW, The Print

Hello Tyler,

That one hint about ink black checked has solved my problem with 
proofing once and for all. It seemed the proof was just a tad too 
light for the final printing and still required some tweaking after 
the proof print. Now that final tweaking won't be needed. Thanks 
again, Tyler.

Your friend in photography,

Johnny




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> I agree that a gray space the same gamma or dot gain as the output
> system does indeed work well, and beyond that just a custom gray 
space
> used as a preview. Both will cut down on test prints considerably.
> I do find the icc profiles made specifically for soft proofing are
> helping me a lot. It's not so much the ink tint and paper base hue,
> that's nice I suppose but not essential by any means. I find some 
very
> critically chosen separations, particularly near 100%, more 
accurately
> predicted with the icc soft proof profiles, particularly with ink
> black checked.
> Takes a while to get used to the look of it, but ink on paper 
always
> looks so different than the monitor that I need all the help I can 
get.
> Those with EyeOne Photo may want to give it a try, it's very easy 
to
> do. If custom dot gain in PS had some more curve points, or 
allowed a
> simulated dmax like profiles do, it would surely help.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
> <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> > Sam,
> > 
> > I find that on a calibrated monitor set up with a 1.8 gamma in 
the
> > Photoshop prefs for grayscale, I get a very close match to what
> > OPM prints (using the 1.8 default on OPM and setting the 
linearization
> > to -6 for the profile).
> > True, the shadows may look a tiny bit more open in the print, 
but I
> > never had a problem anticipating that.
> > The other thing that may throw you is that "monitor black" and
> > "print black" can be very different and no gamma or gain curve 
can
> > fix the 100% point of the display. For this reason I prefer to 
work
> > on a Sony Artisan that gives you complete manual control
> >  over the contrast of the display.
> > 
> > The issue of color and paper preview, as has been noted here, can
> > be solved by making soft proof profiles to use in Photoshop. 
Those
> > can be made for any print driver, not just the ones we are
> discussing here.
> >  I am sure opinions will differ - but I find that once the 
grayscale
> itself is
> > accurately displayed, I would rather see a hard copy proof and 
judge
> > the effect of ink color or paper density on a real print. Even 
with
> > color work on the best monitor, nothing beats how our eyes (i.e. 
brains)
> > respond to reflective copy when it comes to that final tweak.
> > 
> > Antonis
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam 
McCandless 
> > <samcc@v...> wrote:
> > 
> > .......
> > 
> > > And speaking of softproofing, I assume QTR and IJC require an 
equally 
> > > good monitor/display and adjustment of it? But again I wonder 
which 
> > > options are now thought good enough to exploit the software to 
best 
> > > effect.