Digital BW, The Print

Steve,

 Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
> > For grayscale, gray gamma 2.2 seems widely accepted 
>>and displays my GS files the same in that mode as when they 
>>are converted to Adobe RGB for printing.


> My understanding is that Gray Gamma 2.2 is a subset of Adobe RGB. 

> ...by the nature of your workflow, ... you dictate to those using your
> curves the workspace they should use. 

One way to look at what I'm exploring is that with a "tweaking" layer (or
whatever one calls it), control of the print space is totally in the hands
of the user.


> ... If I work in QTR Grey Lab and then try to print with your curves I
> will not get the outcome you intended 

Probably true, but what I think I've been able to glean from the discussion
and my experience is that no "canned" profiles or workspaces will ever get a
perfect monitor to print match for everyone.  In the past I've used a
"custom dot gain curve" to get a good "soft proof" in the Photoshop
"View>Proof Setup>Custom" procedure.  I think maybe this custom view control
-- that I think is critical -- should be moved to the printing side of the
equation, where it could also be combined with the functions that are now
handled by the rip "linearization" procedures.





>... With QTR it doesn't matter ...

I don't think QTR can eliminate the monitor differences (one side of the
equation), although the linearization function can deal with the inkset and
paper batch variances (the major advantage that I think might be able to be
incorporated in a similar overlay curves layer in my approach).  

The one additional step that I don't see in the rips yet is the ability to
do the linearization visually instead of with instruments.  I think it can
be done with a good interface, and I think that would make the rips even
more appealing to a large set of users.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com