Digital BW, The Print

Your comments continue to reflect those made 150 years ago...amusing.

Mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki" 
<tawow@s...> wrote:
> 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