Digital BW, The Print

Hi Walt,

By your standards my monitor may well be poorly calibrated since it 
was done visually with reference to various test charts. In theory it 
is Gamma 2.2 and 65K. Given my circumstances I think I'll side with 
the "monitor calibration doesn't matter too much crew"! Given that it 
is a TFT monitor and shadow values vary by a zone from the top to the 
bottom of the screen I rest my case! In any case I do keep an eye on 
the RGB values of key zones (esp zone 2 shadow and zone 8 highlights)
during image preparation so I am not soley relying on the impression 
of tonality the monitor gives me.
The devil is certainly in the detail! This morning I realised that my 
semi gloss test prints from yesterday are far more sensitive to the 
strength of light they are viewed in than are trad darkroom prints. 
As a result I feel I should factor in some adjustment so that some 
shadow detail  can be seen in low light (lower than the 60 watt bulb 
from 3 feet I have been using). I suspect this is not nearly such a 
big issue with matte papers. Looks like I shall be chasing my tail 
again today-I have already changed the image preview onscreen again --
this time to dot gain 25%. I am beginning to see why you experts bite 
the bullet and buy the eye 1!

Thanks again --muddling through,
Pete.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
<odets@c...> wrote:
>
> Pete-
> 
> The devil is in the details with all this stuff.  It is amazing how 
> one person's workflow simply doesn't work for others.
> 
> That said, I think what you are doing should work, but I have some 
> quewstions.
> 
> How are you calibrating the monitor?  Some experienced people on 
the 
> board seem to feel that this is not too critical, but that is not 
my 
> experience, particularly with regard to gamma (for BW).  What you 
> want here is accuracy and consistency.  I use the i1 and though 
some 
> find it fine, I did not have good results with the Spyder or Spyder 
2 
> (which do not allow a selection and calibration of luminance 
> levels).  You also need a monitor profile *in the Windows system* 
so 
> that PS can do the file to monitor conversion properly.  My monitor 
> is calibrated for 2.2, 65K and luminance of 40 cdm2 (which is lower 
> the the usually recommended value, but works for me).
> 
> I think U.S. Prepress is gray space 2.2 and color space Adobe RGB 
and 
> that should be fine.
> 
> In PS, do not use a print space for ABW (unless you are using a BW 
> profile from QTR Create ICC).  Set "color managment off" (or "same 
as 
> source" in CS and earlier) and no print space can be selected.  
> 
> I have not used QTR as a RIP, so I cannot comment on that.  I use 
> only the Create ICC with an i1 to produce profiles.
> 
> Good wishes,
> Walt 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "petexp2" 
> <kafoozalem@b...> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Walt,
> > "I hope all this hasn't been too obvious, but I didn't have a 
sense 
> > of your experience level". 
> > Not a bit of it --it was just the answer I needed to galvanise 
> myself 
> > for another bout of testing and printing. What you seem to be 
> saying 
> > is that it is the invisible parts of ABW which are most useful. 
> > Certainly the editing functions on there own seem inferior to PS. 
I 
> > have only produced one B&W print so far which is not enough to 
> > validate the workflow I was using though I was very happy with 
the 
> > result. I couldn't detect any crossover in my semi gloss print (a 
> > world of difference to my attempts with the Epson 2100). My 
> > adjustment curve semed to produce a satisfactory smooth 21 step 
> wedge 
> > but I concede that using curves is a blunt tool which should be 
> used 
> > as a last resort for very minor tweaking. 
> > You have convinced me to do further testing to see if the various 
> > gamma controls in ABW gets me closer to the desired result thus 
> > requiring no adjustment curve or at least a far less radical 
curve 
> > adjustment. My adjustment curve was needed to undo the 
> Epson "punch" 
> > which certainly compresses the shadows.
> > Whilst I don't have access to an i1 etc I believe I have done a 
> > passable job in calibrating the monitor to gamma 2.2. CM in PS is 
> set 
> > up for US prepress defaults and I have been using "printer colour 
> > management" as the print space profile. In the 2400 driver I opt 
> for 
> > Gamma 2.2 and Adobe RGB as the colour mode and there are some 
minor 
> > corrections to brightness contrast and colour (the first tests 
were 
> a 
> > bit yellow. My test on the ICC profile downloaded from Epson also 
> had 
> > a yellow cast so I decided not to use it).
> > I think my set up is consistent with the gamma 2.2 workflow you 
> > advise. Can you see any problems? Would you advise me to trial 
the 
> > QTR rip (without an i1)? It is on my "to do" list!  I believe it 
is 
> > for matte papers only which I intend to use for the bulk of my 
> work. 
> > I just thought I'd first get the colour set up sorted with the PK 
> > installed and see what semigloss B&W looked like at the same 
time. 
> > I'd like to be able to do the occasional quality b&w on semigloss 
> for 
> > an audience of trad photographers in my postal club who can be 
> > somewhat scathing of matte prints (perhaps I should send the 
prints 
> > out framed under glass! That would confuse them. Lol!).
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Pete.
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
> > <odets@c...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Pete-
> > > 
> > > I think the ABW driver is worth using if only because the 
> dithering 
> > > and screening is different from the color mode.  I presume that 
> > this 
> > > handles dot patterns and ink crossovers differently.  Certainly 
> my 
> > > experience trying to print BW images in the color mode of the 
> Epson 
> > > driver have shown the latter to be obviously inferior.  
> > > 
> > > If you are using the various tonal adjustment controls in the 
ABW 
> > > driver, I do think that is a problem.  The ABW driver is a sort 
> of 
> > > combination RIP and image editing program and I wouldn't want 
to 
> > use 
> > > the image editing component of this.  I think this driver is an 
> > > effort to accomodate people who do not use PS or the like.  The 
> one 
> > > component I do use is the gamma setting, because the shadows 
are 
> > > smoother in the normal or light positions.  Epson seems to like 
> to 
> > > compress the shadows for "punch."
> > > 
> > > I find that the screen image with a calibrated monitor (Gamma 
> 2.2) 
> > is 
> > > very close to the ABW output--so close that soft proofing is 
> almost 
> > > unnecessary.  I do however use the QTR Create ICC because it 
> allows 
> > > PS to manage both the file to screen and file to printer 
> > > conversions.  This is an incredibly good workflow and much more 
> > > accurate and reliable than anything one can do with PS curves.  
> The 
> > > ouput is remarkably refined and delicate.  I tried the use of 
> > curves 
> > > to avoid buying an i1 and it was O.K., but ultimately a big 
waste 
> > of 
> > > time.  I then just went to a gamma 2.2 workflow (file, screen, 
> > > printer) and it was good.  The BW ICC profiles are superb and 
> much 
> > > more flexible than the other options.
> > > 
> > > You didn't say anything about monitor calibration which made me 
> > think 
> > > that you might be using the ABW "editing" controls or PS curve 
to 
> > > match the print to an uncalibrated monitor.  Since monitor 
space 
> > > really isn't what we want in a print (or can get in a print) 
this 
> > > wouldn't be the way to go.
> > > 
> > > It's occurred to me that someone might provide standard or 
custom 
> > > profiles for those using the 24/48/78/98 series printers using 
> QTR 
> > > Create ICC.  This could be done by including the $50 fee in the 
> > first 
> > > purchase of a profile, that being given to Roy.  It would be 
> worth 
> > > every penny.
> > > 
> > > I hope all this hasn't been too obvious, but I didn't have a 
> sense 
> > of 
> > > your experience level. 
> > > 
> > > Good wishes,
> > > Walt
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "petexp2" 
> > > <kafoozalem@b...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Is setting up to use ABW worth the bother? Having spent days 
to 
> > > achieve 
> > > > WYSIWYG for colour images why not just use these settings to 
> > > produce 
> > > > mono? I have taken great care to produce a neutral mono 
> greyscale 
> > > with 
> > > > a smooth transition through a 21 step wedge as part of my 
> tests. 
> > I 
> > > have 
> > > > developed a curves adjustment layer to apply to the image 
file 
> to 
> > > get 
> > > > the gamma and shadow values spot on prior to sending to the 
> > printer 
> > > so 
> > > > I do not really need the gamma adjustments offered by ABW 
mode 
> > > > (lighter,darker etc). 
> > > > Any changes you make in ABW are previewed on a pathetically 
> small 
> > > > picture of Epson's choosing (nice lady but not really 
> appropriate 
> > > for a 
> > > > landscape photographer). I would much rather preview in 
> Photoshop 
> > > where 
> > > > I can apply colour tone as required and if I want to lower 
> > > highlight 
> > > > values to reduce bronzing I can do it without lowering the 
> > midtones 
> > > too 
> > > > (unlike highpoint shift). All the other sliders cannot be 
> > > accurately 
> > > > judged on the small preview picture meaning endless test 
prints 
> > to 
> > > view 
> > > > the changes. They also seem to presume you haven't achieved 
> > WYSIWYG 
> > > > when viewing in PS.
> > > > Am I missing something or has ABW got nothing going for it?
> > > > 
> > > > Pete.
> > > >
> > >
> >
>