Digital BW, The Print

Thanks, Steve.

I see the wisdom of it now.  Pretty slick.

Regards, Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 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@h...>
> > 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