Digital BW, The Print

Hi Paul.
I hesitate to jump in and give advice to someone so much farther up on
the printing curve than I but I can give you my own experience for
whatever it is worth.

I do whatever it takes to be certain that the monitor gives me clearly
discernable steps on the 21step scale (thank you-it's yours). I don't
currently have an eye-one or spyder but I use a program similar to
Adobe gamma. I also use an inexpensive solution to paper profiling
(wiziwyg) which I use for color printing. I have learned that the soft
proofing method using the icc profiles works extremely well for screen
to print matching. ( Effectively I edit a copy of the file under
softproof until it is what I want and then print it.) This is done
after all normal editing on a master is finished and before printing.
What surprised me <and I'm still thinking about why it is that way> is
that toggeling the soft proof off and on when it had been final edited
for printing resulted in no major difference between the onscreen
image with and without softproof applied whereas there had been a big
change initialy.

I learned while printing color based greyscales and duo/quads that the
same profiles I used for color prints did, in fact, show up subtle
differences and gradations within monotones.I can actually make some
very nice toned B&W prints that way. It does not, of course, answer
the main problems with color Quads ie: metamerism, differential
fading, and actual maximum longevity, among others. Presumably those
same questions/problems are why very low gamut (all carbon?) B&W inks
have been your aim in so far as it is possible.

All this said, what does it have to do with B&W Quads and your
questions? Well, I guess I'm advocating some of both.

It is unaceptable to me to have my monitor not display the major tonal
changes along the 21step scale and my(hoped for) use of tones in the
finished print. That is true regardless of color or B&W end points.
I would fix that before anything and would not care how it had to be
accomplished. I do get a sense that something might be off somehow in
your monitors setup as mine was not at all difficult to do.

Once that is done you should have less trouble getting a good
screen/print match. Your curves are already designed to that end.
If you are trying something like QTR the softproof/print profiles he
has come up with would also work nicely.

Hope all this blather is of some use.
Regards.
Duane






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most
appreciated.
> 
> In my experience, monitors typically compress the deep shadow values
of an
> image.  That is, the typical monitor, profiled either manually with
Adobe
> Gamma or more accurately with, for example, Spyder2Pro, will show
almost no
> difference between 100% black and 90% black.  The monitor and print
may also
> show the midtones with different brightness and contrast
characteristics.  
> 
> If the monitor and print look different, there would seem to be two
basic
> approaches that could get them to match better:  
> 
> First, the view on the monitor can be altered to match the print.  
> 
> Second, the image file can be printed so that the print matches the
> monitor's view.
> 
> Would it be easier to accept what the Spyder2Pro does and simply
match the
> print to that?  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com