Digital BW, The Print

On 06/02/2010 David Kachel wrote:
> But with B&W I find that though print color is usually within a 
> single point of correct, contrast and density (brightness if you 
> prefer) don't look right in the print unless they look way over the 
> top on the monitor.

Two thoughts:

I think it's a common experience that mono images render a little flatter 
on paper than they appear on screen. This is especially the case if the 
black point is not sufficiently clipped to give a decent amount of L0. 
Monitors obscure the difference, compressing the very darkest tones so 
that they appear pretty much black, even with calibration.

I think this divergence is much more pronounced with LCD's, which are 
usually so bright and contrasty that profiling still leaves a gulf between 
screen and print. It is difficult or impossible to restrain many to the 
~100 Cd/m necessary, and glossy screens are hopeless. Even proof preview 
using the paper profile and 'paper colour' selected then isn't very accurate.

Personally I'm still using a 2004 Sony G420 CRT for imaging because I 
simply cannot afford a 1000GBP Lacie, NEC or Eizo LCD. I also work in a 
room without daylight, so I can control ambient light - it is my old wet 
darkroom so I still have the window shutters. I see colleagues using Dell, 
Apple Cinema LCD's etc, and they look fantastic and impressive. But in 
too-bright rooms, and with the intense rendition they give, they are much 
further away from print.

-- 
Regards

Tony Sleep
http://tonysleep.co.uk