Digital BW, The Print

got it!
Just ignore me then.

Unless it's some kind of bleed, which you could determine with a loup, I'm stumped.

Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Joost Horsten" <j.h.j.h@...> 
wrote:
>
> 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
> >
>