Digital BW, The Print

Whatever works for EACH workflow is the best there.  We agree on that, don't
we?

A non-brightened, slightly warm paper will match better (here) on a
D50/5000-K screen.  But, white, OBA papers look better on a 6500-K screen.
I look at my prints first under an Ott equivalent, then IN daylight --at a
window, not bounced off walls.  So, my screen is closer to this.

I guess that's why I don't understand folks asking--or being told--this
is/what is the correct way to do THEIR screen, paper, lighting, printer,
etc.

Seth 

==-----Original Message-----
==From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 

==That makes a lot of sense to me - at least given my current 
==knowledge.  He has matched his white point to his lighting.  
==The difference in gamma is simply managed by colorsync (image 
==file values are not altered until it's edited - your 
==workspace is more important for this reason).  (I am still 
==getting my head around setting the luminance.)  Do a soft 
==proof with Simulate Paper White (and Ink Black) checked and 
==if you have a monitor white point that matches your viewing 
==conditions (checked by doing an incident light reading) then 
==you should get a very good match.  Else the Colorsync 
==software is flawed.  I suspect a big issue is that a lot of 
==people don't Simulate Paper White - especially if you are 
==printing to matte paper, checking that baby can be depressing 
==as all that paper warmth and weak black is displayed.  But 
==that's reality.  RC paper (there's that term again) soft 
==proofs turn the white a little blue - again reality.
==
==As for 1.8 vs 2.2 vs other, it's interesting to note that in 
==an article on the X-Rite website they mention there is a 
=="proposed" "standard" which has D50/1.8.
==