Digital BW, The Print

Hi Tyler,

Thanks for your reply. With "better" I mean "sharper" or "more 
detail". I don't see relevant differences in overall matching of 
monitor and print proofs.

Joost


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost 
Horsten" <j.h.j.h@> 
> wrote:
> >
> > Tyler,
> > 
> > As also replied to Eric, I know what you're saying. But 1) the 
> > EEM/HPR combo is known to give very similar results (curves are 
often 
> > interchagned)
> 
> well, perhaps by folks somewhat less discerning than you <G>.
> 
> >  and more important 2) I'm using a curve calibrated for 
> > HPR, not EEM. So, if there would be any difference, then HPR 
should 
> > give the better results, which is not the case.
> > 
> 
> "better" is always a tricky concept in this brave new world. Would 
you say that it is better 
> in terms of match to monitor when soft proofing?
> Don't mean to push this too far, I think the real issue is that the 
two papers do not, in 
> fact, preform the same. Never did for me either.
> Also, there have been over the last year or so a lot of batch 
variance for me and others I 
> know with PhotoRag, could be a factor as well.
> Tyler
>