Digital BW, The Print

Tyler

No need to apologise.  We were talking linearization in the sense that I made the comment 
that a linear L* "linearization" may not be optimal.  If it is to be followed with colour 
management then it is.  (As you note it becomes somewhat less important but true 
linearity is very helpful.)  But if not, as has been the case up until recently in B&W, then 
one would question the sensibility of linear L* and promote in its place a "linearization" 
that reflected white and black point luminance scaling for a mandated workspace (which I 
nicknamed "smart linearization").  (The linearization would only be valid for one workspace 
for reasons we've already covered.)  So in the context of historical conversations about 
best-practice linearization (when there was no opportunity for colour management to 
follow), what I had sensed as a general agreement or fallback to  linear L* was improper 
and would have been best replaced by  "smart linearization" or something similar.  If I 
were a RIP designer and did not wish to attempt to match QTR Create ICC, I would at least 
want to provide a linearization option which, assuming a particular workspace, performed 
BPC and wtpt scaling to result in a L* profile that was indeed not linear but rather curved.  
(Indeed if I had, say, a 7 grey inkset I were promoting for use - without colour 
management - with a set of provided "linearised" curves I would build into those curves 
the luminance curvature I'm talking about.)  If we simply stop at linear L* then there exists 
a need for colour or, in our case, luminance management.

Cheers

Steve




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> wrote:
>

> Again, I thought we were discussing linearization. My apologies. Linearization has 
nothing to 
> do with ICC specs.
> 
> Tyler
>