Digital BW, The Print

Hi Tyler

All I meant was that one could have a transfer function that didn't make
sense (say, clipped the bottom 1/3 of the pixels) but the wysiwyg would
still work.  We need to construct a transform that correctly implements a
sensible, rationally defendable, approach to the dynamic range compression
and then make sure the soft proof is done properly.  Getting wysiwyg doesn't
tell you whether you have sound starting point based on the "science" of it
all or whether that that "science" has been correctly deployed.  I think two
goals need to be met and the first could be regarded as more important:  1.
a sensible automated management of tonal compression, and 2. a good soft
proof.  We've had 2 for some time.  1 is a new arrival and is embedded in
the calculations done by QTR Create ICC prior to writing the ICC profile.
There'd be no sense having to always correct stupid tonal compression even
if we could clearly soft proof its damage.  Clearly it is automated and
while based on a very sensible approach it does obviate the need for human
subjective approval and, if necessary, tweaking.

Steve


> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:49:44 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ICC v. Transfer Function in Epson driver
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@b...> 
> wrote:
>> 
>> 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.
> 
> Lost me there. It seems to me the point of much of this (I admitt to ADD with
> regard to 
> this thread) is to get to a point of wysiwyg. When that is in order, now it's
> up to you to 
> make it pleasing. That's the way it's working here anyway.
> 
> ...
>> I still have a tough time with the soft proofs though.  The black point
>> shift on screen seems excessive....
> ...
>> (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!)
> 
> I think you can (or get very close), and soft-proof's implementation needs a
> little more 
> work. I think it's conceptually sound.
> Tyler
>