Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
...
> I am currently very happy with Adobe
> RGB/Gray Gamma 2.2.
> 
> I don't care which is chosen - what I do find ironic though is that
people
> set a workspace of gray gamma but linearize to a different workspace
such as
> LAB.  At a minimum they OUGHT to be the same to remove one layer of
transfer
> complexity when we are not working in a colour synchronised workflow
(that
> would manage this complexity for us).  I would love someone to give me a
> credible explanation as to why they are different?

Requirements of an optimum working/editing space are complex and
differ from "good" output linearization, or say, a monitor space. This
is one reason we have color management. There is a great deal of sense
in selecting LAB as a standard for output, it's based on years of
stufy on how humans see.
In some ways that decision makes more sense than why one may select a
particular working space, they just happened to be the ones that come
with Photoshop.
If you wanted to carry your ideas forward, it would be very easy to
make a custom gray space with the same gamma as LAB, or, for a Roarke
RGB workflow, use a custom gamma RGB space that matches that output's
gamma.



> ...QTR does not go so
> far as to allow a user to define the type of linearization though - that
> really would be quite a masterpiece.

Well, it's just going to cost you more. If I recall, OPM/IJC
linearizes to a user selectable choice of gammas 1.8 or 2.2 (someone
correct me). A user would have to report to you regarding whether or
not there is a good monitor match using the corresponding gray working
spaces.
StudioPrint is linearized to whatever the user selects. We linearize
to 20% dot gain, and use a 20% dot gain gray working space. While
monitor match is pretty good, soft proof is still much better.
Other users select a gamma based space, and adjust the target output
dot gain to suit, visually I assume.
The only way to properly display (to the degree you may be seeking),
on a monitor, a device/workflow/whatever is to characterize it and use
soft proof. I can even find fault with that, but it's miles ahead of
where we were before softproof.
Lastly, I have to come back to monitor calibration. If you would
prefer developers linearize their processes to the look of a generally
accepted working space on monitor....
...whose monitor?
Tyler