Digital BW, The Print

> > ...

> > Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
> > printer?  Or are both necessary?
> >
> > Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
> > luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
> > or monitor calibrating device?

> 
> Yes, it is possible, and for some of us, preferable.
> 
> This is only my opinion, and that of Dan Margulis, author of
> Professional Photoshop, ...

I have Spyder2PRO and carefully calibrated my monitor.  It made no
difference in the luminance values from the (free) Adobe Gamma visual
calibration I'd previously done.  Moreover, the color temperature the Spyder
recommended was way too cool.  So, for B&W I definitely don't think
sophisticated monitor calibration is needed.

What is important is to get the best luminance match between the monitor and
the print.  This can be done visually.  In fact, that may be the best way it
can be done.  I use the Photoshop preview/soft proof method, which relies on
a custom dot gain curve you make manually.  The process is described here:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Monitor-Profiling.htm 

One major reason I need to use this is that the standards I've used for my
curves are based on a standard 50% value that is half way between the Lab
luminance spectrophotometer/densitometer readings of matte black (relatively
weak) and paper white.  This puts the midpoint a bit lighter than Lab L = 50
(which is what the Kodak gray card is), and also lighter than where the
mid-point was with Adobe Gamma & the Spyder.  Additionally, the amount of
shadow detail that shows with my system was less than what the standard Lab
curves show.  This shadow detail appears to vary with the hardware you have,
but the custom dot gain curve can overcome the hardware variances.

There are several ways to approach this issue, but if one has Photoshop, it
can be done just fine for B&W without the use of a sophisticated monitor
profiling system.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com