Digital BW, The Print

I've followed this entire thread about workspaces, tonal management, 
etc. and what is most striking is how convoluted the non-managed 
workflow is and how simple and reliable the QTR ICC workflow is.

Clayton's recent experiment with gamma 2.2 is a laudable effort (the 
highlights are this, the midtones are flat,etc.), but it is so 
complex.  The reason it is complex is that it is an effort to use a 
workspace as a printer profile, or said differently to try to make 
the screen look like the printer output (with a given set of driver 
settings like "light.").  What we really want to do is make the 
printer output look like the screen. 

I have been through three workflows on the 2400, the last the QTR 
Create ICC.  The first was an attempt to use the Epson ABW driver 
controls to make the printer output match the screen.  This was very 
complicated, very time-consuming and quite unreliable, and it had to 
be repeated for each different paper.  The second workflow was more 
like Clayton's, a "Gamma 2.2" workflow in which I used a PS "viewing 
curve," a layer curve, to make the screen look like the printer 
ouput.  Again, this was very time consuming to create, I was 
constantly tweaking it because different images didn't display quite 
right, and a new curve was needed for each paper.  Conceptually, the 
first attempt was an effort at making the printer output look the 
screen, but it was much too complex, inflexible and unreliable.  The 
second attempt was an effort to make the screen look like the printer 
output.  The third flow is the QTR Create ICC flow.  This is dead 
simple to create and to use, and results are dead stable.  For a new 
paper, a new profile is made, about a five minute job.  I feel like 
I've been released from purgatory with this solution and I am saving 
a small fortune in ink and paper.

As nearly as I can discern, the resistance to the QTR Create ICC flow 
is that it is unfamiliar, seems too technical and, most importantly, 
requires the purchase of a densitometer or spectrometer.  The 
familiarity should be there from color management, as the function is 
the same.  The ICC workflow, in fact, requires a lot less technical 
fiddling than other solutions, certainly for anything like the same 
level of reliability and consistency.  The cost of the instrument 
remains a problem.

So, is there not someone out there with the time and inclination to 
provide BW profiles for printer/ink/paper combinations?  This could 
be done by charging a customer a "first time" or "royalty" fee of $50 
for a profile, with this money going to Roy.  On top of that would be 
an additional fee for the first profile and any additional profiles 
(for other papers, etc.).  This is an idea whose time has come.  It 
would expand Roy's income, it would relieve a tremendous amount of 
suffering on earth, and it would cut into Epson's profits on wasted 
ink and paper.

Any takers on this?

Walt

P.S.  The one thing my suggestion leaves out is the issue of monitor 
calibration, but I suspect the Adobe Gamma is plenty good enough for 
this.  I have always used a calibrated monitor, so I'm not sure about 
this.