Digital BW, The Print

Thanks, Roy.  

I think I understand now.  

Working on a PC means I have to import the final image into QTR for 
printing.  So, if I use the soft proofs built from your 21 step 
wedge, I would have to add an adjustment layer and tweak the images 
to my satisfaction first, as always.

Using your new Gray Lab spaces, I would still have to make the 
conversion manually in PS to the Matte or Photo Gray space, and save 
it as a converted file for importing into QTR for printing.  
Certainly faster and easier than creating a separate adjustment layer 
and tweaking it.  I guess the Mac still has a few advantages over the 
PC.

So, I have a choice of two excellent ways to get in print what I saw 
on screen.  

Great contribution to a perennial problem.

Thanks again, Lou

p.s.  I have ProfileMaker, and I don't recall any restrictions on 
sharing profiles with that software.  Is i1 Match different??



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> --- 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