Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> 
wrote:
>
> Agreed.  Since I have been a participant on this forum, the question of
> "what should we really be linearizing to" has been one of the deeper
> recurring questions.  I think the fall-back to linearizing L* hasn't really
> been that understood. 

I don't think this issue has quite the import you give it. Linearizing to L is done with QTR, 
sounds like Paul may be doing it, but it's hardly a standard. StudioPrint lets you linearize 
to contunuously variable and selectable dot gain percentage, I don't recall what Colorburst 
linearizes to. Every RIP (there are many) or calabratable driver may have it's own standard.

> The net-net of what we have learnt on this exercise
> is that, for a given workspace, one is likely best to target a
> "linearization" that generates a luminance curve that reflects bpc and wtpt
> scaling - rather than a straight (linear) line.  

If you mean it porportionally compensates for paper white and ink black, I'm sure that's 
right. It is from my experience. But BPC is a different math entirely from what I 
understand. We had this conversation long ago.

Regarding the rest, linearization and color management are two different functions. In 
fact, if good color management practice is used throughout, it could be agued that the 
results would be the same no matter what standard was chosen for linearization, within 
reason of course.

Linearizatioon puts the output system into a manageable state, color management lets you 
manage it however you like.
Tyler