Digital BW, The Print

Thanks for the responses.

John Moody - Steve Kale is correct.  When I save after performing my color to bw 
conversion the file is still in ProPhotoRGB.  

John Dean - thanks also.  Don't apologize.  You comment is what spurred me to finally ask 
this question.  

Let me preface the rest of my message my saying that I'm not opposed to doing my own 
testing, and will do so.  I don't want to be a copycat, and do things just because "John and 
Steve on the forum told me to!"  I'd just like to approach my testing with an understanding 
of the theory behind it and not just blind trial and error.  I appreciate all of your patience 
with me as a beginner.

It sounds as though John Dean is working in GG2.2 and printing through QTR with no 
color management, and Steve Kale is working in ???? space and printing with "let ps 
determine colors" with profiles he has created with an i1 and QTR.  Is this correct?

I asked the original question because I have seen on this forum that many people work in 
GG2.2.  It seems that many (not all) of the active posters on this forum are shooting some 
sort of b&w film and scanning.  Therefore it makes sense for them to scan directly into a 
gray space.  My real curiosity is that for those of us shooting digital, that start out in an 
RGB space, is it useful to convert to a gray space after our color to b&w conversion, and 
before continuing the rest of our edits in PS?  Are there any downsides to staying in RGB?  
Possible tints introduced, file size . . . something else?  I only ask because my current 
workflow includes Photokit Sharpener, which requires an RGB working space.  

Another question I have is why greygamma 2.2, and not greygamma 1.8?  When I bought 
my first set of piezotones for a 1280, the documentation from Cone said to use GG1.8.

The context of my question is that I am currently in transition from ImagePrint on a 2200 
to a yet to be determined RIP on a 7800.  That RIP is likely to be QTR, and the 7800 is 
likely to be running K7.  Tyler has me thinking about StudioPrint too - if only they had a 
Mac version.  I am currently evaluating K7 in my 2200, but have found the generic curves 
to be insufficient, and I am therefore preparing to purchase a GTM i1 asap.

Thanks for your patience.

Best 

Josh

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
> Your reasoning is not flawed.  You don't have to work in GG2.2 if you are
> doing a conversion to a grey printer profile as the document exits PS on its
> way to the printer driver.  But a few things have moved along since the note
> you are quoting.  The QTR-Gray Matte Paper and QTR-Gray Photo Paper profiles
> were very generic profiles and are now a little dated (but better than
> nothing).  You can, if you have an Eye-One Photo device, create your own
> grey printer profile so that you are converting the luminance of your
> document to match the ACTUAL profile of YOUR printer.
> 
> 
> > From: joshhackney <joshhackney@g...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Wed, 21 Sep 2005 14:19:36 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: B/W on the 9600
> > 
> > A recent post from John Dean started my brain spinning.  Could someone help
> > calm my 
> > thinking?! 
> > 
> > John Dean wrote:
> > 
> > "And he would probably get much better results printing out of greyscale 2.2
> > with QTR 
> > rather than trying to use RGB and the Epson print driver by itself."
> > 
> > Considering that I am using a completely digital workflow, including digital
> > capture, is it 
> > still necessary to convert to graygamma 2.2?  My images are captured RAW and
> > then 
> > created in ProPhoto from ACR.  Color to B&W conversion is performed with a
> > channels 
> > layer.  In a zip file that I downloaded from the qtr download site called
> > "grayspaceXYZv2.zip" there is a document titled "gray-readme.rtf", and it
> > says,
> > 
> > 
> > "In the past when printing to QuadToneRIP in the Print with Preview dialog the
> > Print Space 
> > was always Same as Source.  This disabled the Photoshop color management
> > system 
> > during output to QuadToneRIP and the printer.  With soft-proofing it was
> > possible to 
> > preview what the output would look like.  However you would still have to edit
> > your file to 
> > take into account the different between the look of profile attached to the
> > image and the 
> > soft-proof profile.  Which basically means you are editing to a particular
> > paper/ink setup. 
> > Most of the time this is OK but if you'd like to try a different type of paper
> > such as photo 
> > paper rather than matte paper you would need to re-edit the image for the new
> > paper.
> > 
> > With the two new generic print profiles the color management system of
> > Photoshop can be 
> > used the automatically convert between the look on the display, matte paper
> > and photo 
> > paper.  In other words you just edit to a generic working space profile.  The
> > Photoshop 
> > color management system converts the data for display and will also now
> > convert for the 
> > print using perceptual intent and black point compensation ­all seamlessly
> > without having 
> > to even use soft-proofing.  Since QuadToneRIP already has builtin linearized
> > profiles we 
> > can use two generic ICC profiles to handle both matte and photo papers.
> > 
> > To use this simply, in Print with Preview select a Print Space Profile either
> > Gray Matte Paper 
> > or Gray Photo Paper rather than Same as Source when you print.   You should
> > also have 
> > Intent: Perceptual and Black Point Compensation selected."
> > 
> > 
> > The document I just quoted uses the expression "Generic working space
> > profile".  
> > Considering this information, my thinking is that is shouldn't matter if I use
> > a generic 
> > working space profile that is RGB or gray gamma 2.2.  What difference does it
> > make if I 
> > manually convert from RGB to graygamma 2.2, or if PS does it for me when it
> > converts 
> > from RGB to this gray matte paper print space.
> > 
> > Is my reasoning flawed?
> > 
> > It certainly would be easy to change my workflow and convert to graygamma 2.2
> > after 
> > doing my color to black and white conversion.  It's not that I want to
> > eliminate this step.
> > I'm just trying to understand what's going on so that I can do or not do the
> > conversion 
> > because it is needed, not because I am following a recipe like a robot.
> > 
> > Thanks for any insights.
> > 
> > Best.
> > 
> > Josh