Digital BW, The Print

No Clayton you completely missed my point and a lack of technical knowledge
is clearly getting in the way of your comprehension.  Focus and perhaps
learn something - if only about what I did and did not say.

I merely said that often people make judgements about print settings by
printing a step wedge, measuring the numbers (or just looking at the
printout) and seeing that "there is not good separation" between 95 patch
and the 100 patch.  What I was saying was "don't forget that there isn't
intended to be good separation between 95K and 100K in the GG 2.2 space."
They are meant to be very close.  This is simply fact and defined by the
nature of the space.  So if Epson has modelled their default "darker"
setting such that it gave an optimal transform of a GG2.2 workspace to their
printer then a step wedge printed through Adv B&W would show those patches
as being very close together (and the 90K patch not far behind).  That's a
good thing.  

If your image looks good in GG2.2 you have there ensured the shadow detail
you desire, visually - you have made it such that the pixel values are not
too close together in the shadows (so-to-speak).  You might have set one
area to be 85% K because 90% K is too dark in GG 2.2.  It is here that you
should be ensuring that your "shadows aren't blocked up".  From there you
simply care about the best possible rendition of that in the narrower print
space.  You would want that printer to put 95K very close to 100K with 90K
not far behind because that is what you have in your image file.  If the
printer did something different then it's doing you a disservice by
over-opening the shadows more than you intended.  We have had some
interesting conversations very recently on this forum that have been
complete misled by a lack of understanding of this point.

Once again, a GG2.2-tagged step wedge printed in a colour managed workflow
will show a 95 patch that is very close to 100 and a 90 patch that isn't far
behind 95.  Adv B&W is not a colour managed workflow but as we have recently
discussed, there is reason to believe that Epson has modelled Adv B&W's
default response on a GG2.2 space.  This is speculation but the bunching of
the K steps at the darker end of the scale is consistent with a 2.2 gamma
space.  Epson could have just had the Adv B&W response be extremely linear.
Or they could have said to themselves "well most people use Adobe RGB and so
why don't we model Adv B&W's default behaviour such that it produces a 2.2
gamma-like response because after-all it's not a colour-managed workflow and
we don't do it then the user will have to do some arbitrary print s-curve
for decent output."  In the latter case, if we printed a step wedge through
Adv B&W's default setting then we would see the 95% K patch being printed
very close to the 100% K etc etc.

The other point I made was another SIMPLE one.  You're better off making
tonal adjustments in a sophisticated image editor like Photoshop rather than
with a simple printer driver.

Couple these two things together and of course you can do whatever you want
and I don't care.  But I would suggest and did say that IF Epson has
modelled the default Adv B&W response on a GG 2.2/Adobe RGB space then it
makes sense to edit in that space (if you are not already doing so), print
with the default settings and use a sophisticated image editor to ensure you
have visually pleasing tonal separation.  This can be improved further by
profiling the Adv B&W settings with an ICC profile such as that generated by
QTR Create ICC so that you have a good soft proof to work with.  I do the
latter and it works extremely well.  And yes, if I print a step wedge
through this workflow the 95 patch is printed very close to the 100 patch -
RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.


> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:12:16 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on Semi-Matte
> + ImagePri
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership
> without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the
> membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
> Moderators. See ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² in the Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
> FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
> DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL,
> USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH
> DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR
> TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>  
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>