Digital BW, The Print

That gets a bit circular doesn't it? The first question is does the scaling
make sense and then the second is whether the soft proof implementation was
done correctly.  One could get a match between display and print but still
not have a visually appealing result in print.

I find, at least thus far, the results of the scaling to be very good in
print.  I have not had to edit an image to any extent for print - I have
been happy with the tonal management by the profile.  It would be nice if
more experienced eyes than mine could confirm the same.

I still have a tough time with the soft proofs though.  The black point
shift on screen seems excessive.  (BTW this is true whether I use a QTR ICC
profile or a GM EyeOne Match profile.)  My Apple Display has quite a good
black point, L*=3.6, and so the shift to a matte paper of around L*=15 is in
fact quite a change.  I also do not have a D50 light box for print viewing
and it's most likely that the my general viewing environment around my
display is well less than D50.  These factors would of course explain the
result.  In general, because I have been happy with the prints I have tended
to soft proof less - just a quick check to confirm thoughts re hue
preference.

(BTW it is interesting to note that the dynamic range we can achieve in B&W
on photo paper now exceeds a quality display.  You can't soft proof the
print range!)

Steve


> From: Roy Harrington <roy@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:06:15 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ICC v. Transfer Function in Epson driver
> 
> 
> Looks fine -- but then again, it's hard to tell what you should be getting.
> 
> The real question should be:  what does the graph of "the screen" look like?
> In other words and more important which matches what you see on the screen.
> I don't know of anyway to "measure" this match accuracy.  But that's what
> I think we really want to know.
> 
> Roy
>