Digital BW, The Print

Paul- or others familiar...

Could some info be related on the choice of using sRGB as the space 
to print from and what are the implications of choosing anything else 
(i.e. a Cone Profile or Adobe RGB 1998)?

Much thanks,

Cleavis

on 2/27/02 12:18 AM, lyonscox wrote:

> Paul- or others familiar...
> 
> Could some info be related on the choice of using sRGB as the space
> to print from and what are the implications of choosing anything else
> (i.e. a Cone Profile or Adobe RGB 1998)?
> 
> Much thanks,
> 
> Cleavis
> 

I use adobe rather than sRGB, just because it's my preferred space for color
work. There are subtle differences between the two, but nothing major.
However, I recommend you print a 21step wedge each way to see for yourself,
what I consider minor someone else may consider major.

In another post someone spoke of updated curves. In the case where the
curves for one platform are not as far developed as those of the other
platform (i.e. Mac vs PC) I am finding that, at least on my Mac & 1160, the
PC curves work great. I ran out of ink in my 1270 so I can't say, but as the
Mac curves are at version 6, and the PC curves are at version 11, I'd give
the PC curves a try even on a Mac. Worst case scenario you might need to
make a gamma adjustment to the file, or on the master channel of the curve,
but for my 1160 even that wasn't necessary.

Todd Flashner

Cleavis,

You wrote:

>Could some info be related on the choice of using sRGB as the space
>to print from and what are the implications of choosing anything else
>(i.e. a Cone Profile or Adobe RGB 1998)?

I think the main differences are in the conversion from grayscale to RGB.
The color spaces map the values differently.  sRGB compresses the shadows a
bit.  Adobe is more linear.  Both use identical RGB levels at each point
(that is, r=g=b).

(In retrospect, Adobe might have been the better choice.  The sRGB is mostly
a matter of history.)

Paul

I have an image I've been playing with this evening.
Seems that any way I approach it, once I go to print it 'solarizes' 
and I haven't a clue as to why.

I am printing in RGB with the warm curve for 1270.
The tone are tight as it is and on the darker side.
Tried working from RBG scan to greyscale and back.
Tried working from Greyscale scan to RGB and print.

Little miffed at this point.

TIA for comments/guidelines,
Cleavis

on 3/3/02 1:02 AM, lyonscox wrote:

> I have an image I've been playing with this evening.
> Seems that any way I approach it, once I go to print it 'solarizes'
> and I haven't a clue as to why.
> 
> I am printing in RGB with the warm curve for 1270.
> The tone are tight as it is and on the darker side.
> Tried working from RBG scan to greyscale and back.
> Tried working from Greyscale scan to RGB and print.

Hi Cleavis

First things first, it's imperative that you are using the right curves for
your printer and (possibly) OS, and that your Epson driver settings are set
properly. The driver settings also vary by printer.

Check the workflow page on the MIS site to make sure you have the most
recent curves and settings:

<http://www.inksupply.com/index.cfm?source=html/workflow_roark.html>

When I was working with the 1270 curves they were not perfected, but I see
Paul has made a new set since. Still I don't think they were so bad as to
"solarize" so be doubly sure you are printing on the proper side of the
paper, if that's possible with the paper you are using. BTW, what paper are
you using? Paul's curves are written for EAM, which also works quite well
for several other papers, but some papers may require extensive adjustments
from there.

How and when did you apply the curves? My preference is to apply them as an
adjustment layer at the top of the layer stack. As such I can just click
them on or off. Some people prefer to dupe their working file, flatten it,
then apply the curves directly to it. A flat file will be much faster to
print from; if it's not good trash it, go back to your working file and
repeat. The point is you don't want Paul's curves in the middle, or at the
bottom, of a layer stack.

Todd

SNIP

> Still I don't think they were so bad as to "solarize" <

Future clue folks, if your print is solarizing then do a nozzle 
check.  It turns out I was missing the entire second slot on the 
pattern.  Realized that when I did a 'test strip' print and it was 
light in the 75-80 slots.  Seems resolved with a single cleaning 
cycle.

>so be doubly sure you are printing on the proper side of the paper, 
>if that's possible with the paper you are using<

This like leaving the dark slide in place? :-)


>BTW, what paper are you using? Paul's curves are written for EAM>  

Doing 'proofs on Lyson Matt I think.  I forget.


> How and when did you apply the curves? My preference is to apply 
>them as an adjustment layer at the top of the layer stack. As such I 
>can just click them on or off. 

This my preference as well...glad to know someelse does it too.

Thanks,
Cleavis

Cleavis, a couple of points.
First, I always print a nozzle check before any series of prints. Saves
paper!

Second, a step wedge should be the first thing you print when you encounter
a problem.  I have taken to incorporating a step-wedge in my progress
prints, especially when printing with a new paper, so that I can tell if
tonal problems are in the image or the process.

Bill

on 3/3/02 2:59 AM, lyonscox wrote:

SNIP

> Still I don't think they were so bad as to "solarize" <

Future clue folks, if your print is solarizing then do a nozzle
check.  It turns out I was missing the entire second slot on the
pattern.  Realized that when I did a 'test strip' print and it was
light in the 75-80 slots.  you using? Paul's curves are written for EAM>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]