Digital BW, The Print

Tyler-
Thanks for the response.  Yes, I hadn't noticed that "ink black" is 
automatically invoked with "paper color" but that is exactly the 
issue and makes a lot more sense!  That all said, I'm familiar with 
the look-away approach to soft proofing (I've used some Jon Cone 
color setups pretty extensively with soft proofing), but on my setup 
the print blacks, particularly on VFA, are *much* stronger than what 
the soft proof depicts.  On the Cone color setup, the soft proof was 
quite accurate and useful.  So the paper/ink selection improves the 
acccuracy from grays at about 70% and lighter, but misrepresents the 
actual print blacks.

On the other issue, I am going to profile a few papers with the ABW 
Normal and Light settings.  I suspect that Epson designates 
the "Darker" setting as the standard one because it simulates the 
shadow compression of the typical 2.2 file profile and workspace.  
With ICC, of course, this is moot and I know that the light and 
normal settings are much more linear into the shadows than the darker 
setting.  I'll compare the numbers after I do the profiles tomorrow.

Best,
Walt 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
>
> I should keep my mouth shut because I'm not real up on create icc, 
but
> I think BPC is built in so is always on? The other options like 
paper
> white can be used at will depending on what is most useful at the
> time. I think it's washing out your blacks because "black ink"
> automatically comes on with it by default. I find it bears more
> resemblence to the print on than off, but the initial shock when
> turning it on is difficult. Turn away when switching it on, and come
> back a minute later, it'll look more acceptable.
> Regarding which output to profile, Ernst's post was most revealing.
> Despite my arguement earlier than in a hypothetical sense profiling
> will equalize out various initial settings or linearizations, it's
> best to find a setting that prints as closely as possible "same as
> source" as it will when printing with a profile. The first reason is
> that it minimizes potential tonal loss. Secondly, the less work the
> profile conversion has to do, the better job it will do. Lastly, it
> sounds like CreateICC has trouble with reversals, so at the least 
your
> output should progress from light to dark even if gamma is off, as 
you
> suggest. Regarding other problem papers, you might want to play with
> media settings as well.
> T
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets"
> <odets@c...> wrote:
> >
> > How are people using the Soft Proof with the Create ICC 
profiles?  I 
> > find that (using 2.3.2) checking BPC makes no difference in the 
> > appearance of the image on screen, but that selecting simulate 
paper 
> > white washes out the black unrealistically, *particularly in 
prints 
> > with large shadow areas.*  In high key or largely mid key images, 
> > however, the BPC and simulating paper white actually improves the 
> > accuracy of the preview.  So I find that the settings have to be 
> > changed (particularly simulate paper white) depending on the 
image.
> > 
> > On a related issue:  Steve's last post (or was it Tyler's?) 
suggests 
> > to me that for those profiling ABW output, what we should be 
> > profiling is the "light" output which is natively much more 
linear 
> > that the "darker," at least in the shadows.  The gamma shift on 
> > the "light" setting should be taken care of by the profile.  I'm 
> > going to give that a shot re the black compression issue that 
Paul 
> > and others have been talking about.  I am hoping it will also 
take 
> > care of some of the shadow "reversals" I have seen with non-Epson 
> > papers.  V. 2.3.2 will not accept any reversals or even flat 
spots 
> > (identical consecutive numbers), but refuses to make a profile 
with 
> > the message: "LAB data not in order).
> > 
> > Walt
> >
>