Digital BW, The Print

Steve.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I think two very different issues are getting bundled into this one
topic.
> The differences between them are very important to understand. The
first is
> whether having a good monitor profile (and proper colour management
> settings) is important or not. 

Nothing said diminished the importance of a good monitor match(profile
to be precise). Paul simply stated that he was having difficulty in
getting his done even with the "proper" tools. Failing that, he did
what any resourcefull person would do and looked for a workaround to
get past the problem. That doesn't denigrate or "dumb down" anything.
It also is useful to others to discuss his thinking and process.

I mentioned mine was linear and I didn't have that problem. I do
profile it. How good that is may be debated but it's good enough to
get the job done.
Proper color management settings is a vast wasteland of contentions
and you are correct that it's important for color. Good luck on
getting a consensus accross the board on the proper part.

Aside from that, for B&W work the average user only needs a
representative image onscreen to work with.One which allows them to
successfully edit their image to taste and prepare for printing.
Which end you work the process from when the only objective is to end
up with a good paper print is not one of the fixed laws of nature.
It also doesn't absolutely require one to invest in bundles of
esoteric software and hardware and embark on an unwanted digression
from ones prime intent-photographs.

None of this says that good color workspaces and profiles are
unimportant. It's like tea and coffee. You pays your money and takes
your choice. 

>The second is the fact that the print space
> is very different from the displayed workspace.  I regard the first as
> important and would urge that what I would call "dumbing down" the
monitor -
> deliberately moving it away from a well-profiled state - is not a wise
> course of action, particularly if it results from a lack of
understanding of
> the second. 

Nothing said indicated a lack of understanding of the differences
between monitor and paper representation. Paul also made that clear.

In my case, I suspect that you misunderstood my comments on BO
printing. I did not say anything about changing the monitor in any
way. I simply said that I used photoshop curves to simulate the actual
print output and used that to design printing curves. I did make the
assumption that anyone with eyes can see that a paper print can't
exactly match a monitor, so didn't feel a need to state such.
Even soft proofing with ICC profiles won't get to that state, although
not long ago some one took me to task about the claimed ability of new
LCD monitors to perfectly match. I had made a comment like yours about
the different dynamic range between paper and monitors.

The BO curves method came about simply because it was convenient and
worked nicely. It didn't require anything beyond looking at the test
scales. No densitometer needed. Not even a need to scan the test
scales and measure in pshop. No dumbing down there either just using
better tools, the human eyes, coupled with what I already had before
me on screen. I believe even QTR developes curves with a visual method
if I understand it's process correctly. The KISS principle is very
hard to beat.

I think we just have a different philosophical bent. I am perfectly
willing to use technology to accomplish the things I want to do when
it proves to be most desirable and convenient. I prefer however that
technology not do me-ie: I am a control freak when it comes to myself.
On the other hand I have zero interest in controling others.
I like to know why and how the lights come on when I flip the switch
even though I might decide to just light a candle instead.

Duane