Digital BW, The Print

Chatzebussi,

>  ... Please give us an example (or two) of what typical
> "short toe" or "long toe" films ...

The comparison that comes to mind is the difference between (at least the
old) Tri-X Pan Professional (long toe), Tri-X Pan (medium toe), and standard
Plus-X (short toe) films.  The long toe films were said to by Kodak, in its
F-5 publications, to be characterized by, "excellent gradation and brilliant
highlights ... especially suited to low-flare interior tungsten or flash
conditions."   On the other hand, short toed Plus-X was said to be,
"especially suitable for daylight use." (F-5 circa 1976)

I find when I'm working up an image in Photoshop that I often go area by
area and convert the small areas to long toe characteristics.  On the other
hand, pulling shadow detail out of a long toe films was more of a problem
due to the low contrast down there.  So, I avoided them for my typical
outdoor shooting.  Note that in the digital era, however, the information is
still there, it's just not being displayed with as much shadow contrast in
GG 2.2.


> ... Where could I see what the "Grey Gamma 2.2
> space" does as opposed to the "Dot Gain 20" space regarding the
> overall compression parameters (curve or actual pictures, please).

I find Photoshop Elements 4 to be the best program to see the differences.
Starting with the R220 Readme, I'm converting to Elements 4 as the standard
program.  Its simplified treatment of color spaces alone makes it worth the
$50 on eBay.  To see the differences, in Elements 4, one just opens a
21-step test file in the "No Color Management" mode (set in Edit>Color
Settings).  This strips off any embedded profile, so it's "untagged" (but
treated like GG 2.2 -- the most common default gray space from what I can
tell).  Once open, one can then go to Color Settings and alternatively check
GG 2.2 and Dot Gain 20%, and see the monitor display change.  These changes
are reflected in the color managed printing that ICCs provide.  (They are
not carried forward in non-color managed workflows, which include my older
approaches and "Advanced B&W.")

While it's not on my index yet, my draft R220 Readme has a section on this.
See http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/R220_EZ_Readme.htm   With the R220, I'm
converting to 2 alternative workflows:  (1) driver Color Controls by
themselves and (2) Roy's Create ICC program inserted in Print Preview before
the driver Color Controls.


> Which of the two working spaces is more appropriate for "low key"
> rendering?

I'd say Gray Gamma 2.2.  As I indicated above, I find myself, as a practical
matter, making each area of the photo a low key one, but I like to combine
this with shadow separation.  With GG2.2, the information is still in that
file, it just needs to be pulled out.  On the other hand, what we do in
Photoshop is far more radical than the differences in these gray working
spaces.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com