Digital BW, The Print

Hello Walt,

>I don't think Steve at all meant that the shadows should be left
>compressed because "that's what 2.2 looks like."  

Thanks for your reply.  You do make it more understandable.


>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.  

If you are using GG2.2, but not with DG20.  But I can see it both
ways.  I've tried both and have preferred DG20 because it always
seemed to be closer to the finish line right out of the starting gate.
But the 2400 does gives us finer control than we've had before with
it's choice of five output gamma settings (which may give more
"breathing room" for opening up the shadows - it's hard to go lighter
than "Light"), so maybe it would be better to use GG2.2 with this
printer (it does eliminate an extra step if you want to make a copy
for web page display - until now that's been the only real
disadvantage I've found in working in DG20, although a relatively
minor one).  

With earlier printers the output gamma choices were 1.5, 1.8 and 2.2,
which were pretty big jumps.  Using GG2.2 + GG2.2 output was always
too dark and compressed and GG2.2 + GG1.8 was too light. DG20 + GG1.8
was right on the money.  With the 2400 however, if "Darker" is
equivalent to GG2.2 then maybe GG2.2 + "Dark" (or "Normal") may be the
ticket.  Anyway, the 2400 really is a whole new ball game so I will go
back and do some more experiments.  


>While the "light" profile is more radical in the midrange, it is 
>actually smoother (simpler) in the shadow range.  

Yes, where most of our difficulties have historically been.  Lots of
people seem to like it. 


>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.

Well, we all probably end up with prints we like even though we take
different routes to get there.  I don't care what people use as long
as they are happy and satisfied.  My interest in writing the articles
is in helping beginners get started with what I've found to be the
easiest, least complex and most practical approach.  In my case I've
found that to be working with DG20 and GG1.8 gamma setting (in the
older printers).  When I got the 2400 I found that that translated
into DG20 + "Light" and I was off and running with hardly a hiccup. 
But as Paul Roark mentioned the other day, there is a lot more
emphasis today being placed on adhering to a standard, so I'm going to
do some further experiments with GG2.2 on the 2400 (as mentioned
above).  If I find that as good a result can be had with the same ease
and simplicity while adhering to the standard then I will change the
recommendations in the article.  I'm not welded to those settings. 


 
>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.  

Ok, I'm willing to try it and I am interested in seeing the results. 
Please contact me by email to discuss the details.  Thanks very much.

Regards,
Clayton


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