Digital BW, The Print

You have the old version.  I will email you the newer one off-list.  (I know
Roy is continuing to  tinker with the subject but not, I believe, in a
manner which would affect this conversation.)  It is exactly the same as the
old one but without BPC embedded.  When I next have MK ink in the 4800 I
will try to experiment a little - it is difficult to test these things with
PK output because the black is that much better.  (I use the AB&W driver for
PK output at the moment and so like you have the printer linearity as a
given.  The ICC profile should take any linearity bumps etc into account.)
One thing I would suggest is to print a step wedge with an offset grad in it
(eg 21step.psd in the Curve Design->Images folder - at least on the Mac
download).  Print it with colour management and then compare it with your
soft-proof.  At least you are then looking at an uncluttered comp which may
aid comparison.

FYI I have my greyscale space set to GG2.2 and when I print using the AB&W
driver I always just use "Darker" with no tweaks.  It is this output I have
profiled and any adjustments are made to the image rather than the driver
controls.

PS: what is the black point of your monitor?  (it is stored in the ICC
profile made by your i1)

Steve

100's is not the plural of 100


> From: wwodets <odets@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:42:22 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: For Steve: Re: [Digital BW] QTR and Create ICC . . .
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> wrote:
>> Hi Walt
>> 
>> There is a new version of QTR Create ICC which does not have the BPC
>> embedded.  Which one are you using?
>> 
> I would have thought that I was using the vesion with BPC
> incorporated, because checking BPC in the Soft Proof dialogue makes
> no difference in the screen view.  Is there another way to identify
> it?  And how do I get the new one?
>  
>> The other thing to remember is that colour management is an
> extremely
>> finicky thing.  A ton of factors come into play (including ambient
> lighting,
>> the accuracy of profiles and settings, the colour of other objects
> in the
>> filed of view etc).  For example, are you looking at your prints in
> a
>> lighting booth with a controlled colour temperature equal to that
> used to
>> profile the monitor and illuminate the ink on paper when creating
> the
>> printer profile?  Funnily enough I think things can actually be more
>> difficult for B&W.  I wonder what goes on with the monitor BPC and
> the
>> interaction between the print profile and the monitor profile.
> Let's say
>> your print black point is L*=10 and so is your monitor black
> point.  If your
>> are looking at your file (without a soft proof) then the deepest
> black you
>> can see is L*=10.  One would think that you already have your soft
> proof
>> (ignoring the other factors - gamma and white point - for now)
> because the
>> monitor black is as weak as the print, ie that a soft proof would
> not change
>> the look of the image on screen at all.  But I wonder if when you
> ask PS to
>> soft proof the print it has to show you a simulation of the weaker
> than
>> perfect black (according to the selected colour settings).  And
> hence the
>> black point gets ratcheted above L*=10 in the simulation.  It
> shouldn't and
>> probably doesn't but at times I do wonder because I too find that
> the
>> displayed black point in a soft proof for anything printing to
> matte paper
>> seems overly light.  BUT I also recognise that I am not looking at
> my prints
>> in a lighting booth and most likely my work area lighting is a lot
> duller
>> than the D50 standard.
> 
> I don't use a booth for viewing, but I use a D50 light (measures at
> 5100K) at between 350 and 500 LUX (measured and adjustable) in an
> otherwise darkened room.  I also "walk" any print around the house.
> I have been able to get very good correspondence print to screen with
> other color management systems.  In using the Create ICC profile, I
> have calibrated the monitor to 5000K and 2.2 with both a Spyder 2 and
> the i1 Match.  I prefer the latter because it actually uses the
> hardware for black point (Spyder2 just gives generic settings for
> black and white point).  Yes, this is an LCD monitor, but it has
> performed capably in a variety of other workflows, including color.
> I am using a 2.2 workspace (or assigned profile).
> 
> The problem I am seeing is more one of a gamma shift than a black
> point shift.  But it is nothing subtle at all--the screen view is
> unusable for predicting the print.  I am guessing, but I'd say the
> print gamma is shifted down 10-15 points (darker) compared to the
> screen.  The print blacks are also more compressed, not just darker
> than the screen but with less separation and detail than visible on
> the screen.  What I am after on the screen is not a point-for-point
> correspondence to the print, but a more-or-less "good impression" of
> the print, especially of gamma and contrast.  I can fairly easily get
> this by just doing a PS curve matching the screen to print by eye,
> but then I cannot use the PS color management.
>> 
>> At any rate, I tend to no longer soft proof that much when doing
> B&W. (I
>> only take a quick peek at soft proofs for hue which are a whole
> different
>> kettle of fish.)  Once you have selected your ink and paper your
> black and
>> white points are locked in place.  I find that I can work up an
> image in
>> Gray Gamma 2.2 and get it to my satisfaction on screen (so this is
> a colour
>> managed representation of the file dependent on my display's
> capability and
>> the accuracy of my display profile) and simply print it with the
> applicable
>> QTR Create ICC profile (with BPC) and know that the luminance axis
> has been
>> scaled properly for the black and white points dictated by my
> ink/paper
>> combination.  I just find it works well and as a result my first
> print at
>> size is the level of "soft proof" I then need.
> 
> Incidentally, because I am printing through the ABW driver, I am not
> linearizing the printer.  The profiles on ABW that I've done reveal
> what I see by eye:  "darker" is quite linear down to about 70 or 80
> on the wedge and then there is a shallow toe leveling off (the
> compressed blacks).  The "lighter" setting on the driver is a very
> smooth curve with a very smooth gamma "sag" from about 20 to 80.  So
> it appears to me that Epson isn't doing a terible job with the
> linearization of this printer, but is using (and labeling) the ABW
> controls oddly:  e.g. "darker" as a setting for more punch, etc.
> 
>  
>> PS:  The gamma you select when profiling the monitor does not
> matter (except
>> in so far as it is arguably better to use the native gamma of the
> display so
>> that the monitor doesn't have to contort so much when chomping on
> its lookup
>> tables) - the colour management module takes care of any
> differences.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Steve
>> 
>> 100's is not the plural of 100