Digital BW, The Print

And not my intention either.

I agree that the two intents (or rather: perceptual vs relcol+bpc) quite
often lead to different results.  Yet I have not had anyone or anything
explain adequately to me why this is so for the B&W subset (other than a
"it's just so" type of answer which I find unsatisfactory and, obviously,
react against).  Each tackles the issue of black point mapping but obviously
(as empirical observation suggests) in different ways.  More to the point,
the perceptual intent is the only one that allows freedom to the profiling
package manufacturer and so it is interesting to note that when allowed they
choose a path that doesn't replicate relcol+bpc.  Presumably they do this
with good reason - if the bpc method for mapping black point did such a
great job I suspect a similar algorithm would be deployed in the perceptual
intent (unless of course it got in the way of a non-greyscale axis goal).

One possible explanation for the nature of the Epson profiles is that they
are unhappy with the combined implementation of relcol+bpc and so they wrote
their own black-point-mapped relcol intent.  (There are, of course, other
possible explanations.)

If we can learn more about what the colour guys know about black point
mapping or "handling the gray axis in the calculation of the perceptual
rendering intent" there exists a possibility to improve/expand QTR Create
ICC beyond the current relcol+bpc which is labelled "perceptual".

My goal is to try to push that along if I can.

Steve

PS:   PM 5 has a setting to allow the user to "define handling the gray axis
in the calculation of the perceptual rendering intent".  Unfortunately I
don't have PM 5 and can't see from the online user manual what the options
are. If anyone has info on this it would be appreciated.


> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>

> Again, for some reason, possibly the way we both write, we seem to
> descend into something that feels a bit "tit for tat". It's not my
> intention, and it's uncomfortable.
> So- uncle
> Tyler