Digital BW, The Print

Hi Steve,

I've been following your interesting discussion. Haven't always 
understood it, but it got me to thinking.

I disagree with your statement that the two tonal spaces can be made 
the same. In color or in b&w.

The same frustration you are having trying to get the same "impact" in 
a b&w print (on matte paper) as you see on your monitor also occurs 
when printing color on matte paper.

I think you are quite right that to keep the matte print from looking 
"flat", the mid tone gamma should match the gamma of the monitor image. 
To accomplish this we have two bad choices:

1. clip the highlights and the shadows from the image to keep the gamma 
the same as the display thus loosing details in the highlights and 
shadows.

2. compromise by using an "s" curve to keep the midtone print gamma as 
close as possible to the display and compressing the highlight and 
shadow gamma (flatter curve) so we don't completely through away the 
shadow and highlight detail, but this detail is now less noticeable or 
easy to see.

A combination of 1 and 2 above may be the best choice for many images 
printed on matte paper with pigment inks.

The best approach is to extend the tonal range of the print, which 
means printing on glossy paper. Otherwise, compromise is in order 
whether one has colorsync to make the conversion from screen to print 
or not.

I think what I'm saying is that a "linearized" printing curve on matte 
paper will show all image detail from the display, but in a way that 
often looks too flat, lacking impact and realism.

Today I was building qtr curves for German Etching paper with FS inks 
on my 1160. I made a good curve that showed all the steps of the step 
wedge in the same relation that they appear on the monitor. But prints 
using this curve lacked realism though they successfully displayed all 
the tones in the photograph. I then made a qtr curve that incorporated 
an "s" curve from photoshop (it's cool that qtr lets you do this, 
though it took me a while to figure out the cryptic directions!). The 
general print looks better, though it's harder to see details in the 
extreme shadows and highlights as expected.

I think the reason I've rambled on here is that my point is  trying to 
match gamma from monitor to matte paper and keep a linearized scale is 
impossible. It's like trying to fit a 3 inch diameter pipe into a 2 7/8 
inch pipe. It won't fit unless you grind down the outside of the 3 inch 
pipe. And of course, it's no longer a 3 inch pipe.

And this leads me to conclude that linearizing print output by 
measurement is kind of a waste of time. A compromise needs to be made 
that only the skilled eye of a printmaker can shape for most pleasing 
results. There is no translation tool automatic solution. The photoshop 
"soft proof" using icc profiles is a way to visually accomplish this by 
limiting the output of the monitor to match the range of the print. The 
monitor can be changed to match the print, but not the other way 
around. This is the only way to " make the two tonal spaces the same 
and not have the issue to begin with!"

-bruce

On Saturday, Dec 4, 2004, at 17:13 US/Pacific, 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com wrote:

> The funny thing is, in B&W we
> have chosen to work between two different colour/tonal spaces without 
> the
> benefit of a translation tool (colorsync) when we could easily make 
> the two
> tonal spaces the same and not have the issue to begin with!
>
>
> Steve