Digital BW, The Print

Will Carl's softproofing method work only with QTR or can it work with other workflows?

Ed


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> 
> Carl Schofield developed a means of soft-proofing using an Eye-One which I
> think is very good
> 
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2004 09:04:45 -0700
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] How reliable/ precise is your b&w print workflow?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Bernhard,
> > 
> > I share your frustration with respect to variables.  The papers, inks, and
> > printers all contribute to the issue.  One thing I think might be helping me
> > is to leave the printer on over night.  The warming up of the printer during
> > the day seems to be, in part, related to how long it has been on.  (Room
> > temperature, humidity, and sometimes I think phase of the moon also probably
> > contribute to the problem.)
> > 
> > The shadow compression you describe makes me think the 2100 might be like
> > the 1290, which prints darker than the US version (1280).
> > 
> > The bottom line for me is that I rely on hard copy proof prints before
> > making critical prints.  This, of course, is no different than the darkroom
> > was -- unfortunately.
> > 
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> > 
> > _________________
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Bernie Ess [mailto:albatros-@...]
> > Sent: Friday, October 15, 2004 3:18 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: [Digital BW] How reliable/ precise is your b&w print workflow?
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > When I started b&w printing on an Epson, I thought one of the
> > advantages over the darkroom was that once its well set up, there
> > would be no trying and experimenting and that I would have 100%
> > predictable results.
> > 
> > Now, a few hundreds or probably thousands of prints later I find that
> > this is
> > not exactly the case. On my 2100/UT7 workflow I find the following
> > issues:
> > 
> > 1. My output from the file + Roark curves is roughly, but never
> > exactly what I see on my monitor. When I look at the grayscale on my
> > flat panel the 100% to 0%
> > steps are quite well separated, but in the uncorrected print the deep
> > shadows (around 95%
> > black) are not well resolved, 95% comes out totally
> > black: So I had to make a curve that boosts the deep shadows.
> > 
> > 2. I often find myself having to do several prints of the same photo,
> > because the general "look" of the print is not like on the screen, see
> > also my other message about the foliage and trees.
> > 
> > 3. The most mysterious thing is that my output seems to vary from time
> > to time. Sometimes I find the prints too dark compared to the screen,
> > sometimes they are slightly too light.
> > 
> > Finally its not that different from the darkroom, I would say
> > gradually more predictable (maybe even by a large margin, but that is
> > probably because my traditional darkroom skills are so poor).
> > 
> > So, do you have a 100% WYSIWYG workflow?
> > 
> > Thanks for your input,
> > 
> > Bernhard
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >