Digital BW, The Print

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> Tyler
> 
> It finally works very well.
> 
> I am not at all refusing to acknowledge the accomplishments of so many.
> Rather I am praising the very significant progress this represents.
 Other
> than Imageprint's ICC approach, this is the first "colour-managed"
approach
> to B&W tonal range management discussed on this forum in the last three
> years.

I'm afraid that says more about the list activity than anything else.
There's a lot going on in the rest of the world.

>  There have been expressed desires, hopes and wishes - but no
> implementation.

PiezographyBW ICC was introduced in 2003. I have one friend that has
been using it on an 1160 since then, another on a 1280. Both make
beautiful prints, both use soft proof  effectively and print through
the profiles.
iQuads came out in 2004, they are essentially a custom version of the
same thing.
I'm selecting these products to mention not to hype them in
particular, but to show just one example of significant implementation.

> Yes we have used colour management tools to do proofing but
> not for the much more critical management of tonal range. 

I don't find that to be as critically necessary as you. In fact I
don't currently utilize a profile conversion in my printing data path
for B&W printing. Many don't and are doing fine.

> In the last three
> years (other than the discussion building towards QTR Create ICC)
there has
> been no progress made in the dynamic management of tonal compression
other
> than to suggest people do an "s-curve".
> 
> QTR Create ICC finally takes knowledge that has been available to
the colour
> world for many years and applies it to B&W.  This is fantastic.
> 
> My point was simply to say that even if one didn't have the ability to
> deploy a general, colour-managed approach such as QTR Create ICC,
one can
> achieve the same result with as much rigour for any given workspace by
> deploying a "smart(er) linearization".  It's a pity we didn't.  But
in the
> end we leapfrogged to a workflow (QTR ICC) that works for any
workspace -
> all's well that ends well.

Honestly, you lose me here, and I think I'm just done with the
conversation. I don't know who all these "we" folks are. The
apparently dumb and pitiful linearization I and many others are using
seems to be dandy and ended well some time ago.

> Congratulations Roy and thanks very much for all the hard work over
the last
> year.

Well of course.
T