Digital BW, The Print

Hi Pete-

When you mentioned the dot gain 25% print space (you said screen 
preview), it occurred to me that you had probably not read Clayton 
Jones' article on the 2400:

http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

You should read this because Clayton is a very good printer who does 
not calibrate his monitor or use other instrumentation.  He has 
developed a workflow specifically for the 2400 ABW.  (I do have an 
idea that your monitor may be a problem though.)

On the sensitivity of the prints to viewing levels, I also have found 
this true, though not discussed on the board.  The ISO standards for 
viewing are 350-500 LUX for viewing and 2000 LUX for critical 
examination.  I begin by viewing at 50K and 350-500 LUX.  I then move 
the print around the house, near windows and end up with halogen 
illumination at about 600-1000 LUX.  I do critical examination of the 
print (for defects, spotting, etc.) again at 2000 LUX.  I would 
rather have a difficult-to-see print in low light than a "weak" print 
in brighter light, so my prints have to pass the "1000 LUX 'daylight' 
halogen test." 

I think the ISO standards are unrealistic.  Very few homes have many 
places where levels are as high as 500 LUX (particularly at night) 
and very few galleries shown work at levels that low. (They seem to 
average out at daylight halogen around 1000.)

If you want to measure LUX with a standard light meter, 350-500 LUX 
is an EV of 6-6.4 at ASA 100.  2000 LUX is an EV of 8.5.

Be sure to read Clayton's article.

Best,
Walt 





<kafoozalem@b...> wrote:
>
> 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>