Digital BW, The Print

Jim-

It's a shame to perpetuate the idea that there is some conflict 
between visual evaluation and a measured workflow.  There are 
certainly different ways to get to the same result or equally good, 
but different, results.  The "color managed" workflow, which is 
pretty much universal among professional printers, is designed not to 
determine the results, but to provide a more reliable and consistent 
method of achieving visually satisfactory results with a minimal 
waste of time, paper and ink.  It actually does that.

So, we could be measuring the wrong thing, but likewise we could also 
be looking at the wrong thing.  Think of the comparative visual 
illusions we are subject to.  No one is ultimately interested in how 
a print measures, but the measurements help us interpret what we 
believe we are seeing.  

Best,
Walt


   




--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "jamesdsteele2001" 
<photographybysteele@p...> wrote:
>
> When I hear some of these discussions I'm reminded of a quote
> attributed to Henry Kloss who designed speakers.  "If it sounds 
great
> and it measures bad, you're measuring the wrong thing"
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> --- 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
> >
>