Digital BW, The Print

Paul.
That is essentialy the method I use to print BO with my 1200's,
instead of Clayton's workflow, with the exception that it is reversed
from yours as my monitor is visualy pretty linear already and I force
the papers to match scales instead of the monitor. In my case if the
print is ugly, I make the monitor equally ugly and then reverse the
curve as you did.
There may indeed be fancier($$$$$) ways but I too like to keep the
boat afloat and save those dollars for more ink,paper,frames,matts etc
etc that can't be obtained with just elbow grease:)

Regards.
 Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Here is a simple (if crude) method to match the monitor to the print
that
> seems to work. (Obviously I'm talking only of B&W.)
> 
> I left the monitor view as is.  Mine happens to be "profiled" with
> Spyder2Pro, but it seems clear from the previous feedback that my cheap
> monitor and card are just not going to give the same results as a good
> graphics setup.  (On the other hand, mine may be typical of what we
> monetarily challenged types use.)
> 
> I printed a 21-step test print on EEM using my standard 2200-UT7-Neutral
> curve.
> 
> I then compared the print to my standard monitor view.  They did not
match.
> 
> So, I made a simple Photoshop curve that adjusted my monitor so that it
> matched the print.
> 
> I then made a second curve that I will call a "negative" of the
first curve.
> I noted the amount I had to move the Output of the individual points
on the
> first curve to get the monitor match the print.  I then moved the
output on
> the second curve points that amount in the opposite direction.  So, for
> example, at 50% (AdobeRGB curve input 127), I had to move the
default (127,
> 127) point up to (127, 132), a change of 5, on the first curve to
get the
> view on the monitor to match my print.  So, on the second,
"negative" curve
> I moved the point down to (127, 122), 5 units down instead of 5
units up.
> (At the 95% point this didn't work because the change was too much, so I
> just set it at half way to the 90% point.) 
> 
> This second, "negative" curve I saved as my "Monitor" curve.
> 
> A made a small, new RGB file as a holder for curves layers.  On this
file I
> made a curves layer set that had, as the first, bottom layer, my Monitor
> curve.  The second, top layer was my standard 2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral
curve. I
> called the layer set Neutral + Monitor.
> 
> Then to print a test strip, I converted the standard 21-step test to
RGB as
> usual, then I simply dragged the "Neutral + Monitor" layer set to
the file
> and printed. 
> 
> The resulting print matched my monitor almost perfectly -- as well
as any
> other system I've tried.
> 
> For those with full Photoshop, this seems like an easy way to not only
> adjust for the monitors, but also to "linearize" curves for
different but
> similar papers and correct or other glitches that may affect the
print ramp.
> This, in effect, adds a "linearization" layer to the standard curves
that
> adjusts for both the monitor and other differences.  It was an entirely
> visual process that takes nothing except visual comparison of the
monitor to
> a test strip.
> 
> If the monitor and print match, is anything else really needed?  Do we
> really care if the ramp matches Lab or any other space?
> 
> For PS Elements users, I wonder if a number of building block curves
on a
> small file would allow those users to build up a monitor adjustment
curve
> that would similarly work.  I think separate gamma (50% density)
curves and
> end point curves might be able to be mixed and matched to take care
of many
> of the typical problems that I've seen.  I don't have Elements 3,
but I'll
> see if it works in Elements 2 later.
> 
> Any thoughts on the feasibility of this approach?
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com