Digital BW, The Print

Hi Clayton.

Let me not answer for Steve but for myself.

I, like you, saw better out-of-the-box results (in terms of tonal 
scale and shadow compression) with the light setting.  I've continued 
to use it even though I am now using the QTR Create ICC and I get the 
same print regardless of the driver settings (i.e. the correct 
profile converts for any given driver setting).

On the other hand, the ICC profiles necessary for the file to screen 
and file to printer conversions *are* more radical on the light 
setting.  The darker setting requires a much milder profile and I 
think there is some theoretical value in that. 

What I think Steve meant is that you want the least radical 
conversion possible, the simplest driver settings and that the 
shadows should be opened up in the file adjustment in PS.  I agree 
with all that.  But the ease of this process is pretty much dependent 
on a calibrated monitor and PS managing color (the two conversions).  
You are not using such a workflow and I think it would be very 
difficult to use the screen to open up the shadows in PS (without 
your additional curves, etc.).  In your case, I think the light 
setting is the right way to go.  I don't think Steve at all meant 
that the shadows should be left compressed because "that's what 2.2 
looks like."  He meant that one should make the image displayed in 
2.2 look like what one wants it to look like on paper.

All that said, I have the intuition (it hardly qualifies as an idea) 
that the ICC profiling is more accurate using an unmanaged target 
with better shadow separation and that the ICC file to printer 
conversion works more accurately in compressing shadows than in 
opening them up.  While the "light" profile is more radical in the 
midrange, it is actually smoother (simpler) in the shadow range.  So, 
I am continuing to use the light driver setting with the ICC 
workflow.  I am probably getting exactly what Steve is getting in the 
end.

I would like to make the offer of sending you a 2400/VFA ICC profile 
for use in a color managed workflow and just see what you think of 
it.  I'd be happy to myself pay Roy the fee on this just because 
you've made such useful contributions to the forum.  I think you'd at 
least be interested in the concept and the results.  (You should have 
some kind of monitor profile to make this work, although the screen 
image is so close *without* a soft proof with this workflow that I'm 
not sure this is too important.)

Good wishes,
Walt



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
>
> 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
>