Digital BW, The Print

I suspect what they were doing was matching as best as possible a 2.2 gamma
space (eg Adobe RGB and Gray Gamma 2.2).  Note in 2.2 gamma, 95% K is L=1
and 90% is L=6.  So if you have a print range from say L* 15 to 97 you'd
expect 95% K to be printed very close to where 100% K is printed, say around
16, and 90% K not too much lighter.  It's reasonable for Epson to choose the
very commonly-used Adobe RGB space as their baseline for the default
settings.  (Remember the initial buzz around Adv B&W when people were saying
you could just bang an Adobe RGB file straight to Adv B&W...)  It's quite
likely that by choosing a setting other than Darker you are opening the
shadows up more than they are on your display.

At any rate, if you are able to, a better approach is to profile the AB&W
output with QTR Create ICC and manage your lightness axis in PS rather than
with the print driver.


> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:59:21 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on Semi-Matte
> + ImagePrint
> 
> Hello Steve,
> 
>> You mentioned that you are using the LIGHT setting in the ABW
>> driver.  Me too.  I can't understand how come Epson have
>> selected their DARKER setting as the default.
> 
> Well, I guess it isn't the first mysterious thing Epson has done <g>.
> How about why did they put BO in the 2200 and not in the 2100?
> 
> 
> 
>> For me and my setup (on a 4800) it blocks up the shadows far too
>> much with little separation.  I had been wondering if there is
>> something in my own setup forcing me to go have to go with the
>> LIGHT setting, but I now think perhaps it's simply that I want
>> more separation in the shadows...
> 
> It's easy to see it at work, just print a step wedge at each of the 5
> settings.  The dark end steps get more compressed as the setting gets
> darker.  It's pretty severe at "Darker" and "Darkest".  Who knows what
> Epson was thinking...