Digital BW, The Print

Alan,


as with any software, the more control it gives you the more
learning you have to do. Photoshop Elements is easier than
the full version but you also have fewer controls.  For those
who don't want the extra controls IP is fine. I bought the Mac
version when it first came out - about 2 rev numbers ago.
i am not familiar with the current product, but I hear people
are happy with bw and color just as you mention. 

I didn't pursue it because I was frustrated with canned profiles,
and the choices IP made (back then) in their "recipes" for the 
grayscales. For example, they would send me a profile
that allowed tiny white dots to show in the deep shadows
because they cut the "cyan" too soon in trying to get 
better dmax. Even if I had insisted that they fix it, it would
be days before I would get a working profile. Now, if I
make that mistake myself, I fix it in under 5 minutes.

In my book, its worth the learning curve to use IJC and make
your own profiles. The PC version offers a lot of  "handholding"
that the Mac version didn't have. They both work the same
in terms of the underlying "engine", but the PC version will
help you better not to get lost if you are new.

For example, when it launches, IJC will ask what is it that
you want to do - such as start a new profile, tweak an old
one or just change the tone - and take you to the appropriate
tab in the program.  Likewise, it will make it very clear 
if you save a profile with or without linearization embedded.
Also, it gives you good strating profiles or curves so you
are not totally starting from scratch....   etc etc.

I am hoping that for people who are new to it, the interface
adapts to multiple levels of expertise. At the beginning it
tries to guide you more, but as you get experienced you 
can turn off some of the extra dialogs or pop-ups.
Maybe you can ask Bowhaus for the manual and decide
for yourself if you are up to the task (!).

The scanner method of linearizing profiles is better than 
eyeballing but not as accurate as a densitometer.
i haven't done much with the scanner myself. I use an 810
X-Rite - probably not too difficult to find on Ebay these days.
When you are saying that you are trying for the "very best"
in bw printing, you must also decide if you are ready to
learn new software and get whatever equipment it takes.
The "very best" won't come from canned profiles, only
the "easiest", which you've already done. 

Keep in mind that for the PC, there is also StudioPrint
that allows you to build your own profiles. It doesn't
offer the option of the scanner but it works well
with the eyeOne and similar spectros. In fact, it also allows for
automatic entry of the readings from the instruments it
supports.  The catch, of course, is that it is several
times the cost of IJC/OPM in return for which you also
get the benefit of a full RIP (color/bw, postscript option etc).

Currently, OPM for the PC does not have an option for Postscript,
does not allow image imposition (to gang several separate
files in one print job) and does not allow the user to save
settings as a job. IJC (for either platform) accepts any set of numbers 
from either spectro or densitometer, but the 26 numbers have to be
typed in manually. 

As for sepia on the 2200 - i made some "extreme sepia" profiles
for a project I was printing last year that looked terrific. With IJC, there is
no limit other than that of the inks themselves. A full-color
UC set offers more than you'll ever need for toning.
So, whether you decide to bathe the whole image in yellow
or just tint the highlights using an alpha channel - it's all there
for you. I can't tell you how exactly that compares to the current 
version of IP, just that with IJC you can make your own creative decisions
instead of leaving them to someone else, outside the studio.


Antonis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Huntley@c...> 
wrote:

......

> Any insight you might provide would be greatly appreciated as I'm trying to make a 
buying decision before 1/5/05 (discount on the pre-release version.) Anyone else who 
would care to voice an opinion, please do.
> 
> Thank you,
> Alan Huntley