Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ldina" <lbdina@c...> wrote:
> 
> Roy, I was curious if you found the LAB Grayscale profile effective 
> and if you updated your original profile?
> 
> I'm probably missing something, but it seems this would have to be a 
> generic profile by its nature.  If used for viewing the tonal range 
> on a monitor, how would it be able to differentiate between a high 
> gamut glossy paper (like Kirkland Glossy which can hit an L* of about 
> 6) to lower gamut matte paper that can only display an L* or about 
> 20?  
> 
> Seems to me they would both display the same, but the output would be 
> very different.
> 
> If you have found it effective, I'd love to know how you use it and 
> how you handle different paper types.  I'd also like to get your 
> latest profile if your results are positive.
> 
> Thanks, Lou

Hi Lou,

I have been experimenting with this.  I find the Lab gray space better than
the gamma space.  At least I find the separations are better matched to the
print and to the eye.  But you are right about how different papers are
enough different that you can't switch back and forth without editing.

My current take is that the gray Lab space is best for editing, but that there
should be a way to do a mapping with perceptual intent rendering at
print time.   I think it's possible to have just a few profiles -- i.e. a
generic matte paper and a generic photo paper -- rather than making
a gazillion profiles for every combination.

Roy