Digital BW, The Print

It'll work with any workflow.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "edrudolpho"
<erudolph@p...> wrote:
> 
> 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > >