Digital BW, The Print

It is interesting that you should bring that up Ernst. Most recently I
learned that using the QTR profiles for soft proofing and simply
editing to that, gave the simplest and easiest workflow of all for
B&W. Even the canned profiles for gray, matt and photo work reasonably
well. Roy's latest icc programs would be better yet.

I also learned, by accident, that the GG1.8 gray workspace was closer
to the QTR space than was GG2.2. At least that seemed to be the case
as doing initial editing in 1.8 before using QTR to softproof showed
the least need for changes. I had been following the advice to convert
to labgray for editing, prior to the discovery.

In any case, if you are using QTR softproofing for final editing or if
you are converting to it, it doesn't seem to matter much which
workspace you prefer outside of that.(I suppose I'm advocating heresy
for saying that :} )

What is truly amusing to me is that, here I go again, "altering the
display to suit the printer output" and editing to that. Not only that
but using strict color management to do so.

Regards
Duane
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
> 
> If there's one mailing list and group of people that could
> promote a perceptual greyscale curve for use in B&W
> photography it should be this list. Roy gave us that space and
> it is closer to human visual response than any of the gamma
> (old photography attempt to perceptual) and dotgain
> (completely different concept) choices.
> 
> I know that Gamma 2.2 works and isn't in contradiction with
> the rest of the workflow but why not promote a conversion to
> the QTR space as it is available ?
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
>