Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
...
> > Requirements of an optimum working/editing space are complex and
> > differ from "good" output linearization, or say, a monitor space. ...
> > 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.
...
>...Everything I have read about CIELAB is that it is a
> very broad colour space, encompassing Adobe RGB, SRGB et al, but
that it is
> not very "useful" for editing, principally because it is not as
intuitive as
> RGB and its broader gamut doesn't offer much incremental value. I am
sure
> this is contended!

Steve, my wording above was perhaps confusing. I did not mean to imply
LAB makes sense as a working or editing space, but as an output
standard for linearization. 

...
> With reference to my point above, do you linearize over 0 to 1 or
over the
> dynamic range for that curve?

I still don't see the logic in your previous assertions. an input
value of 0 will always map to "no ink", paper white. It's density will
always be determined by the particular paper. 1 (one) will always be
the dmax capable from the particular hardware/workflow/materials.
There are no input values "outside" that range. I don't see how any
other approach can be useful. Put in a different paper, less white or
with a coating that can't print as black, and everything changes. But
I still want the full linearized range between, so why would I clip
info or whatever?
I'm not challenging what you have been saying, I've just not carefully
followed it due to brain constraints on my end.
StudioPrint is linearizing between paper white and ink black, though I
can select where that black point is based on what the readings are
telling me (there may be a better black point than max ink load).
But I still want to send the RIP ALL the values of the file.

...
> It is not linearizing to monitor per se, eg if linearization to LAB is
> deemed critical and 2.2 is considered a satisfactory compromise for
editing
> then I could perhaps live with the difference (because it is so
small) only
> if my primary issue is suitably resolved.  It is getting the
linearization
> intended: a linearization to x (LAB, 2.2 or whatever) over the range of
> values within which the printer can record changes tonal change, ie
> linearization over the dynamic range of the printer.

As far as I can tell, unless we are talking in circles or I'm not
paying attention, that's what we are doing. That's what color output
profiles are doing, and QTR linearization, Paul's RGB curves, etc. are
doing. Linearization is always accomplished between the end points of
the output dynamic range.
The remaining issue of this thread, which you raise and has always
been unresolved, is a universally accepted standard to which we all
linearize B&W. But the side issiue I have been pushing, is that with
good color management and calibration practice, it's not a big
problem. Because once a linearized (to whatever) device is well
characterized, any file (assuming we know what it is supposed to look
like, iow tagged) can be made to print on it as expected given
reasonable expectations.
Sorry if I'm missing the point, or telling you things you already know.
Gotta get to work around here.
Tyler