Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
Steve-

Yes, I agree.  The profiles were non-linearized and through the ABW 
driver and I was not able to reduce the ink flow usefully in the ink 
control of the ABW (the blacks got way too weak before anything got 
better).  The Arches looks like a problem paper to me, despite its 
virtues.  The equivalent 92, 94, 96, 98, 100 figures for Red River 
Dourian are:  17.61, 16.82, 16.63, 16.54 and 16.30.  On HPR they are: 
17.63, 17.14, 16.94, 16.69, 16.80; and on Velvet Fine Art they are: 
17.60, 16.41, 15.48, 14.47, 13.83).  

Walt  


>
> This is a different issue.  You have your shadows compressed.  With 
QTR, the
> Linearize function will take care of this for you. I am assuming 
you got
> this result with Epson Adv B&W else you would correct it with 
Linearize
> before doing the profile.  If I am right then the issue is as the 
Epson
> driver puts more ink down in the shadows you don't get an increase 
in
> density causing this blocking up.  Personally, given the best of 
these
> numbers is not very good I would not use the paper.  If you really 
want to
> use the paper then you need to find a way to reduce the ink load 
being put
> down by the Epson driver.  Make sense?
> 
> 
> > From: wwodets <odets@c...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:43:45 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Carl and Steve:   ICC v. Transfer Function 
in Epson
> > driver
> > 
> > Carl and Steve: 
> > 
> > This is exactly the problem I mentioned in an earlier post about
> > profiling the Arches Smooth paper.  The Lab values were linear up 
to
> > a 90% gray.  After that (for the 92, 94, 96, 98 and 100% gray) LAB
> > values read: 19.39, 19.06, 18.70, 18.95, 19.39.  Rather than
> > correcting this nonlinearity, Create ICC produced an unusable 
profile
> > with a full scale, retangular spike between LAB 0 and LAB 8 (e.g. 
LAB
> > 5 was "corrected" to LAB 98).  So this supports Carl's 
description of
> > function (and, I think, reduces the utility of the program).
> > 
> > The abnormailty in this case was produced, I think, by the way the
> > ink sits on the Arches coating: way too wet.
> > 
> > Walt
>