Digital BW, The Print

While I don't doubt the experience and qualifications of the various experts 
that have been cited, I think it is important to have a calibration device 
for a simple reason that none has mentioned. As time goes on . . . years, or 
even months if you are working your system to death, the monitor grows 
tired, your phosphors are not what they used to be (if you don't believe me, 
ask your wife of many, many years), and the eye/brain combo is notorious for 
lying to us . . . so your "objectivity" could well end up being blind-sided 
subjectivity.

I am sure that those with infinitely more inkjet experience than I could 
make a far superior print, but I would like to see one made on "set" 
equipment today, and then the same repeated (by eye only) on the same "set" 
equipment three or four years hence . . . it won't match.

It is one of the reasons for the zone system in chemical photography . . . 
standardize, standardize, standardize, then you can go out and do what you 
wish (and know what will happen). The calibration available in the digital 
world brings us some similar aspects.

Paul Aparycki

then again, with everything digital being out-dated by next week, maybe it 
doesn't matter? (beginning to feel like sisyphus here ;-))))


> That's interesting.  A number has no meaning without a colour space.
>128
> grey is different in GG2.2 and GG1.8.  You certainly have no idea what
> colour is produced by your printer if you send it 128 grey unless
you can
> measure it or have an unbelievable memory for colour. Looking at the
>numbers
> alone doesn't get you anywhere.
>
> Unfortunately colour management is only as good as your weakest
>link.

>Mark