Digital BW, The Print

Because of Paul's concerns I printed out two targets yesterday 
(drying you know) of a linear 51 step target on HPR, one unmanaged, 
the other through the ICC profile I created for the paper.  Both, 
however, were printed through the ABW driver ("neutral"). I'll have 
time later today to read the 94-100 patches and I'll post the numbers.

As for matching the monitor, isn't that the whole thing?  If the 
blacks are clipped on the monitor, you open them up in PS.  My Sony 
LCD clearly shows separation in the 90-100 area, calibrated to 2.2 
and 5K and with a luminance level of only 40 cdm2.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> 
> 
> 
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@v...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:00:15 -0700
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: RE: [Digital BW] ICC v. Transfer Function in Epson driver
> > 
> > I've printed several samples this morning to further explore the 
flat
> > 95-100% print separation issue.  Consistent with what Roy noted, 
I've found
> > QTR Create ICC 3.2.1 does not always work with un-even 
increments.  On the
> > other hand, if there are 1% increments from 100 - 95%, then 5% to 
75% and
> > then 10% steps on the rest of the scale, the print is about the 
same as if
> > there are 5% increments all the way.  In both cases there are 
steps in the
> > 95 - 100% where the "lighter" input step is printed darker than 
the adjacent
> > "darker" input step.  On the other hand, they are all so close 
that this
> > "posterization" could be random printing artifacts and X-Rite 
reading
> > errors, and there is no visible separation or "posterization."
> > 
> > Of more relevance, I'm not generating enough 95% - 100% 
separation with the
> > Create ICC approach to have visual separation in that region.  
For example,
> > looking just at the case where the input text file has 5% steps 
over the
> > entire scale, the 100% - 95% separation or difference is Lab L 
0.46.  This
> > is with the C86 and MIS EZ inks on EEM.  (PS CS2, Print with 
Preview, Let PS
> > Determine Colors, Perceptual, and Black Point Compensation on)  
The driver
> > with no ICC loaded has a 100% - 95% separation of L 2.39, with 
every 1% step
> > being measurably separated.  For comparison, the 2400 with Eboni 
loaded, in
> > the ABW mode with neutral and normal tone settings (and no ICC 
loaded in the
> > PwP) has a 100% - 95% separation of L 2.30.
> 
> You should compare separation not with Epson ABW but with an Epson 
colour
> managed print.  The Adv B&W print is the equivalent of a linearised 
but not
> profiled print.  Epson ABW is missing this management and that's 
why using
> QTR Create ICC can fill the gap in Epson ABW workflow.  That's not 
to say
> the luminance managed approach is for you but it puts you on an 
even keel
> with the colour community.
> 
> 
> > 
> > The gammas generated by these printing approaches is different, 
and that, of
> > course, would have some effect on the 100% - 95% separation.  
Looking at the
> > 50% density as a relative measure of gamma, the 2400 (EEM, ABW, 
neutral,
> > normal tone) and C86 EZ (Epson Color Controls gamma 2.2, 
Contrast -10) have
> > essentially the same L 58 50% density.  The C86 with the ICC has 
a 50%
> > density of L 54.
> 
> More where you'd expect it.
> > 
> > My main concern is that a visually un-separated 95 - 
100% "wastes" limited
> > grayscale by essentially clipping the darkest 5%.  It is true, of 
course,
> > that with 16 bit files this is much more tolerable than is was 
with 8 bits
> > and a barely sufficient 256 total steps.
> > 
> > I have noticed that Epson drivers in printers aimed only at the 
color market
> > often if not typically clipped the darkest 5% also, as did some 
samples of
> > B&W output that were printed by Image Print on a 9600.
> > 
> > Additionally, without a custom dot gain curve, my monitor 
(profiled with
> > SpyderPro 2) also has no visual 100% - 95% separation.  However, 
I'd thought
> > in an earlier thread many said that they do have such 
separation.  So, I'd
> > assumed my modestly priced CRT and video board were largely 
responsible for
> > the lack of deep shadow separation.
> > 
> > On LCD displays I have on other computers in my house, still 
modestly
> > priced, the 95% - 100% steps are separated.
> > 
> > In short, my "wasting grayscale" concerns aside, the ICC approach 
I'm
> > getting -- i.e., clipped darkest 5% -- matches my old CRT monitor 
quite
> > well.
> > 
> > On the other hand, the 2400 ABW and C86 prints (close to the old 
standards
> > I'd used from the Piezo days forward) match my LCDs better.  If 
matching the
> > monitor is the issue, I'm not sure matching an older CRT is a 
worthwhile
> > goal.  I suspect LCDs more like my newer, entry level Princeton 
displays are
> > more typical of the larger market I'm most interested in 
facilitating.
> > 
> > What kind of 100% - 95% print separation (Lab L differences) are 
others
> > seeing with the Create ICC approach?  Is it just my system?
> > 
> >
> I'll post some test results when I switch over to MK ink.
>