Digital BW, The Print

Hi Paul,

I was similarly bothered by the compressed shadow values that are
typically seen.  I thought it was strange that I could have a high-end
display and a high-end profiling device and software and not get decent
separation.  What I finally realized was that this has nothing do to with
my system being off -- it was entirely the definition of Gamma 2.2.
The gamma curve is just a simple exponential: output = input ^ gamma,
and the slope at 0 (i.e. black) is 0 (i.e no contrast) and you have to get 
a ways out before you get decent contrast.

Each of the possible gray spaces has it's own shape -- i.e what the internal
numbers "mean" in gray value is different for each space.  In other words
K=95 means something different in each space.  It's instructive to take
a 21step and Assign different gray spaces to it and see the changes.  You'll
see it different on the display and on the PS info pallette (setup with K and Lab).
For instance, K=95 in GG2.2 is only Lab=1.

This is all the reason for my making a Gray Lab space, it makes for evenly
spaced steps.  With this gray space I have no problem seeing nice even
steps with a 51 step wedge (2% increments).

Photoshop together will color management have the capability of either
approach in getting the monitor and print to match.  Your "first" is basically
softproofing where you check "Preserve Color Numbers" and you see on 
the screen what the print will come out like.   It's done by measuring actual
output and the softproof simulates that on the screen.  The "second" is
by making a print profile to be used as the Print Space (rather than 
Same As Source).  Here the profile is used as a correction for the output.

I think the second is easier to use since don't have to setup softproofing
each time and you don't need to target your data file to a specific output.
But the first is probably more accurate since it can simulate ink and paper
color as well as gray value.

Roy

--- 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