Digital BW, The Print

I would also go one step further and say that you could soft-proof the old
way but then had to "correct" the "crude" tonal transformation with an s
curve to regain punch.  By using CMM Roy has gained access to Perceptual
Intent rendering which makes that whole task automatic and a little more
"rigorous".


> From: Roy Harrington <roy@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 05:35:58 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Difference between Gray LAB and Proofing Profiles
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ldina" <lbdina@c...>
> wrote:
>> 
>> Roy,
>> 
>> I have built "proofing profiles" using your 21 step grayscale for
>> QTR.  They seem to do a very good job of simulating what I will get
>> off my printer.  And, so do you new LAB spaces.  Thanks for your
>> great work.
>> 
>> What is the difference between the two?
> 
> Well I discovered that except for the proofing color any of the soft proofs
> seemed to work equally well for my editing.   It makes sense since all the
> QTR profiles are linearized to the same Lab scale.
> 
> The icc profiles I made with the Eye-One work well but they are kind of time
> consuming and particularly space comsuming.   The few soft proofs I have
> for downloading are bigger that the total size of everything else put
> together.
> Each profile is about 500K whereas these new generic ones are less than
> 500 bytes each (yes, 1/1000 the size).   There's also a matter of licensing
> I can't distribute profiles made with i1Match software so I just have been
> distributing soft-proofs.
> 
> So the new lab space and lab printing profiles are my own and they are
> simple, grayscale only, mathematically straight rather than measurements.
> Since I can distribute the icc profiles themselves rather than just
> soft-proofs
> they can be used for printing and take advantage of the color management
> in Photoshop.
> 
>> 
>> I'm guessing that your LAB Matte and LAB Photo Paper profiles are
>> generic profiles which eliminate the need to create proofing profiles
>> with a specto and profiling software for those that don't have these
>> tools or don't want to fool with them.  When I use either technique
>> for proofing (checking the Preserve Color Numbers box) the results
> 
> There's basically two approaches for soft-proofing and printing.
> The old way without using CMM (color management) is to print without
> profiles -- i.e.  Same as Source -- and use the soft proofing to show what
> is going to come out.  Here we make the profile but soft-proof with
> Preserve Color Numbers.  This says "show me what happens if I don't
> use CMM".  You are simulating the print space.
> 
> The new way is to use CMM for printing and let the CMM convert your editing
> space into the print space on the fly.  You really have no need to soft-proof
> anymore (as long as you don't need the color).   If you unclick the Preserve
> Color Numbers there's no change in the display.  The regular view is as
> good as the soft-proof without any extra work.   Also since you are using the
> CMM you can actually deal with any working space not just the gray lab space.
> 
> Roy
> 
> 
>> are nearly identical.  Both seem to give me great results.  The 21
>> step proofing profile, of course, lets me see the actual color toning
>> of the actual profile.
>> 
>> Just trying to better understand.
>> 
>> Thanks, Lou