Digital BW, The Print

Steve Kale:  I can read Aristotle, Nuclear Physics,
Isiac Newton and understand them - I even can do a bit
of Calculus and use a densitometer and a step wedge -
and a slide rule - if that betrays my age.  But I must
admit I find your posts mostly unintelligible and
completely unhelpful. Mostly your posts leave me at a
loss and if misunderstood , you deserve most of the
blame for that.

Clayton's, on the other hand, are enormously helpful
toward achieving what I'm after- namely beautiful
prints. 

If you want to be helpful - as opposed to
demonstrating how "smart" you are - you would need to
stop being insulting to others and tune up your
communication skills.  There are quite a few
scientists who can not only think clearly but
communicate to other intelligent people in a way that
is not insulting, makes sense, and is usable and
helpful.  Maybe, you could take a few lessons from
others such as Clayton, Paul, and Tyler...I can always
hope...

Michael J. Vendrell

--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:

> 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 \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
> Guidelines\ufffd 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 \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND
> > \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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 
> \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com