Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@h...> wrote:
...
> Exactly.  That's what I have now.   They are both Lab, L* based and
> not only are they the same they match the human eye the best.
> 
> You may be getting the same effect using dot gain 20% for both.  I'm not
> as sure about the math of dot gain though.  The dot gain 20% tells
> you how the midpoint is affected -- 50+20 = 70 but I'm not sure how
> you should calculate all the other points.

I think it's a technical misnomer in StudioPrint. Dot gain is a
measured physical result, as you mentioned. So in StudioPrint, it has
to be a simulation, and it has to be a "simple" dot gain. That is, mid
point moves by the spec, other points move in some fashion apparently
agreed upon by those wiser than I. You see the same effect in
Photoshop my using only the mid point. I have not seen a spec for how
the rest of that works. But "simple" dot gain (mid point only) seems
to be a convention out there.
I suppose I could measure the actual output then derive and enter a
more complex curve, but this seems to be working and damn, there's
work to do.
I think, for our purposes, gamma would have been a better user
selectable descriptor. Not sure why they picked that, could be for
simulated proofing etc..
I could use 0% dot gain, but I think it'd be a pretty bad editing
space, and considerable loss when having to convert incoming files to
it. I think in the newest version, the target is more user definable,
haven't tried it yet.
I agree LAB is a good choice if you have to pick one.
Tyler