Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 2/8/05 12:55:26 PM, westsidemaurice@... writes:


> 
> 
> Thanks Bill. I just ordered the Sharma.
> 
> Excellent book. You won't be disappointed.
> 
> Same with ImagePrint, which seems focused on their specific software
> and services.
> 
Their on-line tutorial is part of their installation package; I don't know if 
its accessable otherwise. You might send them an email.
> 
> I'm actually very happy with my color prints and I get very credible
> (not good-enough, but credible and neutral) B&W with QTRgui.
> 
QRT is a minor miracle, in my opinion. If you like the results with the 
default printing curves it is a very easy and friendly solution. If you venture off 
the default printing path--to linearize or build new printing curves--you'll 
need to read and master the documentation, and you'll need either a 
densitometer or spectrophotometer.
> 
> My problem:  I've been approaching this as a photographer with a
> highly developed color eye (I can accurately state a CC number with
> which to correct and can usually directly translate that into my
> 2200's language)... I keep wanting to rely on eyes and logic, rather
> than upon gizmo quantification.
> 
I understand where your coming from on this, and I'm sympathetic to how you'd 
like to approach the digital darkroom, but--in my opinion--it won't work. Or, 
perhaps more accurately, it will only work to a point. It really depends on 
how much control you need over the printing process. Understanding color 
management fundamentals, and how to impliment color management, is the foundation 
you've got to build to explore inkjet printing in-depth.
> 
> My IMPRESSION (correct me if I'm wrong) is that profiles are
> essentially the same as the cookbooked color "settings" that small
> town studio photographers used to use to start "ring-around" test
> prints...they used ring arounds (like in Elements) because they
> couldn't personally judge color accurately.
> 
Yeah, that is completely wrong! Essentially, a profile is just a small 
document that is attached to an image file. It can be authored in different ways for 
different purposed, but the core idea is to pass information about the image 
file accurately through your digital system. Profiles that photographers 
generally take advantage of are: source profiles, that describe the color space the 
file exists in (sRGB or Adobe RGB 1998, for example) and the color signature 
or gamut of the creation device (digital camera or scanner, for example). The 
color engine in your computer, and the color engine in Photoshop, use this 
information to move the image file to various devices--like a display or an 
inkjet printer--as accurately as possible; destination profiles describe the color 
signature of the display or printer.

Profiles don't change or alter the information in an image file but they are 
important to how that information is processed as the file moves through your 
system.

If you think of an image file as a "package of pixels", profiles are the 
detailed label attached to the package.
> 
> These gents typically accumulated piles of Macbeth and other
> surprisingly accurate  "color analyzers" which were crutches that
> prevented them from getting to the skill level of a good color lab
> professional. I have the impression that history is repeating itself
> here. I imagine my tune will change if/when I graduate to an advanced
> DSLR from scanned negs and trans.
> 
Right now, the technology that supports the digital darkroom is not as 
transparent as the technology that supports the traditional wet darkroom (but its 
getting there very quickly). I agree with you, that there seems to be a lot of 
gizmos's and black box stuff to deal with; and it would be nice to just use 
your eyes. Understanding color management basics doesn't require any equipment or 
specialized software (though it can help).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Bill Kennedy
> > Associate Professor of Photocommunications
> > St. Edward's University
> > 512/448-8680


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]