Digital BW, The Print

Hello Steve,

>People get hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K and 
>95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big 
>difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a small difference 
>between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that the shadows are 
>"blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch is not 
>significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2 says they are 
>meant to be bunched at the ends.

So according to what you are saying, photographers who now do digital
printing aren't supposed to bring their personal aesthetic judgments
to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to plug in the numbers
and accept what comes out because someone somwhere decided that GG2.2
is what we're supposed to use and that dark values are supposed to be
bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the shadows are
blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up (and not because
they see it in a wedge - they see it in their prints).  It just so
happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues and printer
clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the primary problem that
people have been struggling with for the last several years.  It's
been a universal complaint.

I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I (and countless
others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge is the best way
to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it does.  I don't care
what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided should be the ideal
ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is based on over 20
years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in the most
efficient manner I can.

It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting produces the most
well separated dark zones and the darker settings compress them.  When
the darker settings are used, it forces us to compensate for the
compression with our image adjustment curves or profiles or whatever
method is used, which often means greater manipulation of the original
image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do the greater chance
of negatively affecting the final result (combed histogram, etc).  In
my experience the "Light" setting produces the best prints while
requiring less work and manipulation.  

If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends" then no thanks, you
can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to have blocked up
shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone as "hung up" who
doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm