Digital BW, The Print

Steve -

Thanks.

Yes, I too noted that the Epson profiles do not allow simulate ink 
color.

My display calibration is good (i1) at 65K/2.2.  I am viewing the 
monitor in a semi-darkened room, which makes the blacks more intense, 
and they are quite good I think.  My print viewing is at 5K (measures 
actually 4950) and 450-500 lux.  

I am going to try working up a new print from scratch with the soft 
proof and simulate ink color and see what I come up with for a 
print.  It will be too contrasty I think, an effort to comensate for 
the "unrealistically" weak monitor blacks shown in soft proof.  I'll 
see.

Having just looked at the Epson canned profile for VFA (which allows 
paper white without ink black), I might just use that!  I need the 
paper white for a good soft proof and I don't need the paper black. 

I am surprised that a profile itself dictates these PS settings--
sounds like differences in the format rather than just the correction 
curve.  But I don't know what I'm talking about on this score.

Walt


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
>
> Walt
> 
> > 
> > In 2.3.1, when paper color is selected, ink color is automatically
> > selected.  There is no way to select paper color without ink 
color.
> >
> 
> This is the same with the GM i1 Photo profiles.  If you select 
Simulate
> Paper Color then Simulate Ink Black is automatically and 
irreversibly
> checked (except by unchecking Simulate Paper Color).  One can 
Simulate Ink
> Black without simulating paper color but not the other way around.
> Interestingly, the Epson provided profiles (Mac 4800 driver) don't 
allow you
> to Simulate Ink Black at all.
> 
> We're not sure what Adobe does when you check these settings, what 
it looks
> for etc. I know this is one area where Roy would like to know more -
 for
> obvious reasons.  
> 
> > Regardless of what has been said, the ink-color-checked soft 
proof does
> > not provide an accurate soft proof of the print output with 
regard to
> > darker tones.  Having looked at BW photographs for 40 years, I am 
quite
> > confident of that.
> > 
> 
> BTW on a properly calibrated display, unless either (a) your 
display's black
> point is as weak and exactly the same as ink on the paper you are 
looking
> at, or (b) you are not illuminating your print with the same 
lighting as was
> done using the profile ie D50, then it is simply not possible that 
the two
> can have the same black without checking Simulate Black Ink (when 
allowed).
> As we have discussed many times this is not an exact science though 
and a
> multitude of things (such as other colours in the filed of view) go 
into the
> mix.  As I noted a day or so ago I also found the black point shift 
to be "a
> lot" but in line with a GM generated colour profile for the same 
paper (ie I
> gained comfort that at least QTR ICC appeared to generate the same 
look as a
> GM profile).  I put the print vs display difference down to the 
very real
> fact that my print viewing conditions are not D50.  In fact they 
are far
> from it.  I have halogen ceiling lighting that is probably at best
> 3100Kelvin.  Hence the recent discussion on Solux bulbs.  In 3100K 
lighting
> the prints will look considerably darker than soft proofed display.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve
>