Digital BW, The Print

Bill,  

How'd your college manage to find a teacher who could write
coherently?  :-)

As I read your answer to my main Bushian dismisunderstanding (!) a
profile allows various already well-profiled monitors printers to
understand and display/print a file in the same way, so long as the
paper is already known. Right so far? 

Following that logic the other direction, profiling would NOT appear
important if/while my entire system is under control and relatively
stable (eg no aging CRT monitor) and if I print only through one
healthy printer with Epson's reliably consistent OEM pigment set (I do
envision a 4000 one of these days, so that change could be an issue).

Hm? 

I'm not trying to dodge the bullet here, I'm just trying to dig out
from under all the marketing BS and generic confusion that I'm hearing
from advocates of various gizmos, ink alternatives, and applications. 

John 





> > 
> > 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]