Digital BW, The Print

I have to agree that I don't particularly like either of the Simulate check boxes.
These are both Photoshop features not ICC features.  There is no info about
what PS is really doing with these.  The only thing that the ICC profile has in it
that I think is relevant is the media white-point and black-point.  These are
just the values read for the paper white and the darkest ink patch.

The major difference between 2.3.0 and 2.3.2 is that the former used a single
gray transfer tag so soft-proof really didn't show anything.  The new one uses
the color lookup tables which have two curves -- a gray one for printing and a
color one for the softproofing.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield <scho@m...> 
wrote:
>
> Do you mean simulate black ink instead of "ink color" in the  
> softproof dialog (CS2) ?  Also, I agree that checking simulate paper  
> color and/or black ink when softproofing  is not at all realistic  
> (even when looking away to avoid brain tricks).  Just doesn't cut it  
> for me.  Like putting a fog layer over the image.  I get excellent  
> screen/print matches with neither of these options checked, using a  
> calibrated Apple LCD monitor.
> 
> Carl
> 
> 
> > I have discovered that the soft proofing is different in 2.3.2 than it
> > was in 2.3.0, as follows:
> >
> > In 2.3.0, paper color can be selected but this does not automatically
> > select ink color.  This is a very accurate soft proof.  It is not
> > possible with any combination of soft proof settings to select ink
> > color.
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > With Epson canned color profiles, soft proofing works as with 2.3.0.
> >
> > 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.
>