Digital BW, The Print

On 4/8/05 8:11 PM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:

> This is why I react strongly against "tweaking the monitor" to match the
> print.




I have used work arounds for matching my prints for many years, initially as
adjustments tagged for the different outputs in order for the screen to
represent a particular printers capabilities. It worked fine for me in a
closed environment, and then with the original piezo workflow and Tyler's
soft proof techniques. It also worked for me when the offset print houses
continued to be closed environments not yet ready to wrap their arms nor
money around open concept profiling systems (some are still there). I had
different curves saved for different printers used in order to give me a
general visual sense of where the values may fall. It worked for me before
this wonderful new world of color management was known as it is, or more
affordable, period. Remember the good old days, going by the numbers,
running your little eye dropper around checking values. The ability to
actually see what you would get in a print was just a dream.

For those who come into this new arena without this experience of
'tweaking', I'm sure it may be frustrating 'knowing' your way is the
'better' way.. But, there is more to it in my opinion.

I have been appreciative of the various posts lately from others talking
about their own techniques... And know there are others doing the same, who
may not wish to post.

They show a good understanding of what they need, and how to achieve it.
Just because the entire spectrum of the color managed workflow is not used,
or equipment not implemented, does not mean it is not understood.

The whole scope of color management has helped us, but there are varying
degrees in which you can implement it and still be quite effective,
depending on your workflow, environment, and pocketbook. .. As effective as
is possible considering you are trying to match two different ways of
'seeing' an image.
Carolyn