Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
...
> > I assume a step wedge printed with one of your processes linearized to
> > lab separates to your satisfaction.
> 
> Yes, but that is how I designed them.  I think there may be
advantages to
> that set of target densities, so I intend to continue that for the
> foreseeable future.

Yes, I agree. But here's the dilamma-
You designed them to print nicely and evenly spaced on paper, from a
2.2 gamma file, NOT to match what you see on the monitor or reproduce
a 2.2 gamma progression. Had they been designed to print with a gamma
2.2 progression of tones, you would have seen on paper a similar
compression of shadows. I'm not saying that would have been the way to
go at all, or that there is anything wrong with your appraoch, I'm
only trying to point out the disconnect.
For example, if the entire workflow was designed for a gamma 2.2
working space, and a print process developed to present that same
progression, then one would naturally edit one's tones accordingly
(probably openning shadows), and they would print accordinly.

So it seems to me that the simplest solution to the mismatch is the
working space, since the aproach to linearizing the proggression of
tones on paper makes common sense as is.
> 
> > Gamma 2.2 will not display those values the same at all.
> 
> True.  A custom dot gain curve like you explained years ago is what I've
> used for some time to get the monitor to match the print.

That remains viable, but as you no doubt have run into, more curve
points would be nice to nail it.

> > It may be worth your time to download Roy's gray lab working space,
> > install it, open a step wedge, assign (don't convert) Roy's space to
> > it, and see if you get a better match.
> 
> Oh yes, I've done that, and it doesn't change the results.

I'm very suprised actually, with a 21 step file open, if I assign 2.2
I can barely distinguish 95% from 100%, if I assign Roy's lab, it
opens right up. It's a dramatic difference.
I wonder what could be different there, and can see why you might have
discounted it if you don't see what I see here.

> Contrary to the majority of frequent posters here, I'm not sure B&W
> photographers need to be burdened with much concern about color
spaces, etc.

I just don't see any way around it. Those settings and how they are
used effect everything. Unfortunately color management at the OS
level, and in the apps, has forced us to deal with it. It can't be
turned off, even "do not color manage this bla bla" is misleading,
there are still profile and setting dependant conversions going on
behind the scenes. There is no "none" to select in the profile
selction list at the OS level, etc..
This evolution has made things more difficult for everyone, but also
much better than where we were before. I can do things now that were
impossible before these controls, both B&W and color.

I guess it depends on how far those photographers want to pursue the
technology behind their craft. That may sound condescending and I
don't mean that at all. I know several amazing photographer/printers
who never got on top of their craft and consistantly come out of the
darkroom with amazing results. I think they are exceptions though, I
can't think that way, I have to get to the bottom of it.

I was not really answering your original post, but was thinking back
more to when you posted about disappointing monitor calibration results.
If you come up with some easily implemented aproach to monitor/print
matching for B&W I think that's great. The main point of Carolyn's
earlier post was that there are many many ways to do things.

But I'm still wondering why you don't see a difference with that lab
space...
How about this.. use the soft proof method above as you have been, but
instead of a custom curve, load Roy's gray space. Keep "preserve"
checked as before.

Of course, if you are after a solution to use in other apps, possibly
even some not icc aware and/or without soft proof features, some
simpler solution is necessary, as you suggest. I believe you said you
got a good match with your curve method, and as implied by Carolyn, if
it works...

Tyler