Digital BW, The Print

Didzis,

>... Perhaps using the new version my shadow problem goes away ...

Probably not.


>... if I stay with the curves approach, I would 
>ideally need to adjust the curves to make the response 
>more linear, right?

Well, that was my very early assumption -- that people would tweak the
curves as needed to make them more "custom" profiles instead of "canned"
profiles.  However, few actually do this.  That is part of the attempt to
move to a more automated systems using Create ICC with the curves.  However,
I see that it may be causing other problems.

All of this has caused me to move have some approaches that are easier --
like the C86 "EZ" inkset, the 220 UT_R2, and now the 1800 3-MK 100% Eboni
carbon.  These mono inksets that allow one to re-linearize with QTR (or
Create ICC) are more reliable and less subject to problems.  The 3-MK is
particularly reliable because there is no mixing by MIS, there are no
cross-overs, and the approach has virtually no sensitivity to ink batch
variances.  In fact, the same underlying QTR curves set is used for every
paper.  So, bottom line, I recognize that the older inksets often involved
too much complexity and sensitivity to variables.



>> ... the ICC should -- if the monitor is calibrated and the 
>> systems are working right -- make a print that matches the 
>> monitor better than the old curves. 

>I have a calibrated monitor with spyder at 6500K 

(cold, try 5000)

>and Gamma 2.2

(probably not relevant)

> and I would say that I get a better match with the old 
> curves approach. 

That's odd.  Gray Gamma 2.2 usually compresses the 95 - 100%, whereas my old
curves had good separation between these points.

>The shadows in the prints are just compressed too much. 

Yes, I agree with that.

The truth is, I suspect perfectionists may still make their own dot gain
curves or viewing layers -- or they have much better equipment than I do.  I
do not find the "calibration" systems I've used perfect by any means,
particularly for B&W.  But they are really needed for color.  When you think
about it, in B&W we use 21 steps as our standard test strip, many use much
larger ones.  With color these systems need to calibrate a 3 dimensional
space.  To have 21-steps in each color, that might require 21 to the third
power -- 9261.  I'm too lazy to read a chart close to this large without a
strip reader, but I suspect the pros with top equipment do.

> 
> It is only in 90-100% range that the problem starts. 

Yes, and Gray Gamma 2.2 usually compresses this zone, although not as much
as your results in the 95-100% range.  So, I'm not sure even a "perfect" ICC
is going to give you a great match between your monitor and print.
Something else is going on. 

Do you use an LCD monitor that is very bright?  I found on some of my
family's laptops that print make with my curves matched them better (when
they were plugged in) than the ICC output did.

>I will give the 51-step wedge a try. Can I use the one that is 
>included with the Quadtone RIP Eye-One folder?

It's worth a try.  I recommend printing vertically and in the middle of the
page.  Try to avoid any area that is going to be touched with a roller.


Good luck.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com