Digital BW, The Print

Hello folks,

Since Roy posted his Lab grayscale profile, that's what I've been 
using for both the working grayscale and proofing spaces. I print 
through QTR/QTRGui on Epson Heavyweight Matte, Epson Enhanced Matte, 
Hahnehuhle Photo Matte, and on Ilford Glossy Smooth/Pearl; and the 
only change I make is to limit the ink by -15 on the Glossy paper. I 
am pleased with the resulting prints.

Your friend in Photography,

Johnny
 

 
 

>
> --- 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