Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Nelson"
<pnweb@s...> wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> > Users are so pesky, looking at their prints under various light
sources.
> > Regarding profiling for different illumination color temperatures,
> > it's pretty common these days. Particularly for work for specific
> > installations or exhibits.
> 
> Assuming we regard printing for specific installations or exhibits as
> "pretty common".    
> 
> I agree that the occasional fine-art photographer may have the need or
> ability to predict the lighting where his work will be displayed.  But
> most of us (artists who display their work in galleries) are
> displaying it FOR SALE.   Which means we cannot predict the lighting
> where the customer will display it after purchase.
> 
> My experience in balancing BW prints specifically for one kind of
> light, say tungsten or "daylight" fluorescent or whatever is that it
> IS possible to optimize it for a particular light but that the result
> looks dramatically WORSE under other light.     For example with the
> default Epson driver, 2200 BW output looks pinkish under "daylight"
> fluorescent and greenish under true daylight.   I can make it look
> neutral under the fluorescents but then it looks REALLY green under
> daylight!

I didn't recommend it, i said it's being done. For color as well.

> So forget that!   There are other technologies (quadtone, photographic
> printing, etc) that don't have those problems.  So why tie yourself
> into a knot optimizing a mixed-color inkset for particular light
sources?

Well, what can one do?
People do the darndest things.
Tyler