Digital BW, The Print

>Recently I recieved  b/w prints made on an Epson 7600 and 
>9600. Contrary to the reports in the media color crossover and 
>metamerism were quite evident. I examined each print under 
>tungstun, fluorescent (3800K CRI 92 lamps) and daylight.
>
>The output from my Epson 1280 and Epson 7000 with MIS FS/N 
>Mix are far superior to what I examined. The 1280 and 7000 
>prints are smoother and and have a "fine art" presence that the
>7600/9600 prints lacked.

I assume that output from the 7600/9600 should identical to that from the 2200, is that right? In a review on www.luminous-landscape.com, Michael Reichmann states that B&W prints from the 2200 are so good and free of color casts that he is going to use it for all his B&W work instead of Piezography.

Having seen a couple of your B&W prints at Nina's in Paris, I can see that you're a master B&W printer, so I tend to believe your conclusion rather than Reichmann's.

Do you know how color prints on the 2200 compare to those on the 1280 in terms of color gamut and quality?

--Mitch/Bangkok

Sunday, July 28, 2002, 10:53:56 PM, Mitch Alland wrote:

MA> Michael Reichmann states that B&W prints from the 2200 are so good
MA> and free of color casts that he is going to use it for all his B&W
MA> work instead of Piezography. Having seen a couple of your B&W
MA> prints at Nina's in Paris, I can see that you're a master B&W
MA> printer, so I tend to believe your conclusion rather than
MA> Reichmann's.


I just read the Luminous Landscape review too. He seems SO sure about
it. Even telling us to forget about using the word "Metamerism" ever
again, almost cocky in his attitude. Yet, how can his results be so
different than what a few have reported here? Lack of knowledge and
experience? Michael seems quite learned and experienced. Willing to
accept a lower standard of B&W print and metamerism? Perhaps, but I
would hope to see less "attitude" and assuredness if this was the
case. I sure hope all he says is true and perhaps the expereinced
reported here were from poor examples. He's certainly staking a large
part of his reputation on it is he not? Otherwise he'll just sound
like an Epson lackey.

Best regards,
 Richard  

mailto:richard@...

Mitch,

Thanks for the title "Master" but you are being too kind. I have made 
my share of crappy prints as well.

I also read Michael Reichmann's review. I have not seen color images 
from these printer. The only thing that I can imagine is that the 
person who printed these images (they were done by two different 
people) were not not experienced with the printer to thoroughly 
refine the settings.

I sent a set of two of the images to Martin Wesley for him to look 
at, so perhaps he can offer an opinion as to what he see's as well.

Mike



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Mitch Alland <malland@m...> 
wrote:
> >Recently I recieved  b/w prints made on an Epson 7600 and 
> >9600. Contrary to the reports in the media color crossover and 
> >metamerism were quite evident. I examined each print under 
> >tungstun, fluorescent (3800K CRI 92 lamps) and daylight.
> >
> >The output from my Epson 1280 and Epson 7000 with MIS FS/N 
> >Mix are far superior to what I examined. The 1280 and 7000 
> >prints are smoother and and have a "fine art" presence that the
> >7600/9600 prints lacked.
> 
> I assume that output from the 7600/9600 should identical to that 
from the 2200, is that right? In a review on www.luminous-
landscape.com, Michael Reichmann states that B&W prints from the 2200 
are so good and free of color casts that he is going to use it for 
all his B&W work instead of Piezography.
> 
> Having seen a couple of your B&W prints at Nina's in Paris, I can 
see that you're a master B&W printer, so I tend to believe your 
conclusion rather than Reichmann's.
> 
> Do you know how color prints on the 2200 compare to those on the 
1280 in terms of color gamut and quality?
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok

As I just wrote a few minutes ago, the only thing I can figure is the 
two people who sent me the images were not yet up to speed with the 
printers. 

I read Michaels Reichmann's review as well and that is why I was a 
bit taken back when I saw the prints. I think that I will reserve 
final judgement once I see some more and people have had a good 
amount of time to work with the software and inks.

I was told by Daniel at Colorbyte that the 7600 and their RIP is 
doing amazing things. Maybe I can get Daniel to send me some print 
examples. That may be a better example.

Mike


> I just read the Luminous Landscape review too. He seems SO sure 
about
> it. Even telling us to forget about using the word "Metamerism" ever
> again, almost cocky in his attitude. Yet, how can his results be so
> different than what a few have reported here? Lack of knowledge and
> experience? Michael seems quite learned and experienced. Willing to
> accept a lower standard of B&W print and metamerism? Perhaps, but I
> would hope to see less "attitude" and assuredness if this was the
> case. I sure hope all he says is true and perhaps the expereinced
> reported here were from poor examples. He's certainly staking a 
large

> part of his reputation on it is he not? Otherwise he'll just sound
> like an Epson lackey.
> 
> Best regards,
>  Richard  
> 
> mailto:richard@c...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "mkravit" <mjkaia@k...> 
wrote:
<snip>
 The only thing that I can imagine is that the 
> person who printed these images (they were done by two different 
> people) were not not experienced with the printer to thoroughly 
> refine the settings.
> 

I'm getting a sample print from Thomas at Blair Editions, alias 
tssphoto. On Eclipse Satine BW, and he's running it once with the 
photo black and once with the matte black (I caught him just at the 
point that he was changing the grey cart option on their 7600).

By any chance is one of your bw samples from them?
Jim H.

Mitch,

I have the same image (from a 2 1/4 transparency) printed at 8x10 by the 2200 
and 1280 both on Epson Premium Luster paper.  I assume the 2200 used 
Ultrachrome inks with Photo Black since Matte Black smudges on non-matte 
paper.  The 1280 ink is Epson ink.  The color gamut and quality are 
identical.  Both prints are beautiful and perfect.  The only difference is 
that the 2200 is rated to last longer.

Helene 




> Do you know how color prints on the 2200 compare to those on the 1280 in 
> terms of color gamut and quality?



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

Mike,

I still have the samples you sent and I posted something awhile back but it
is worth revisiting at this point.

The samples include two images each printed once on a matte Oce art paper
(very rough)and one on a semi-gloss Ilford paper. My impression is the same
as yours. These prints do not equal prints done with grayscale inks. There
are strange unpleasant tonal splits, blue to yellow. Possibly this could be
corrected by better use of the printer.

The fact that the split is there may be an indication of why Epson came up
with the gray balancer software for the 2200 and makes me wonder how
difficult people will find it to get a good neutral tone. While buying
custom profiles is a possible solution, the fact that the inks and papers
vary from lot to lot may make this impractical unless you invest in your own
profiling software. The unfortunate truth seems to be that neutral B&W
printing is much more sensitive to tiny shifts in hue than color printing.

Re-examining the prints closely I see some metamerism that shifts from
neutral in tungsten light to yellow green in daylight. This seems to be
mostly confined to the 25 to 50% tonal range. One image has a lot of values
in this range and looks worse. The other has few values in that range and is
not too bad. The effect is much more pronounced on the semi-gloss Ilford
paper than the matte Oce. Perhaps this is also a product of the split tone
and can be corrected but I am skeptical. Metamerism is generally inherent in
the ink. The amount of metamerism is much, much improved over 2000P prints I
have seen. I am also seeing a fair amount of "bronzing" on the Ilford print,
not as bad as the gray scale pigment inks but still surprising.

I read Michael Reichmann's review of the 2200 as well. I hope that his
assessment of the color capabilities of the printer are correct as I would
purchase one for my wife's color work. He does say that there is slight
metamerism but that he finds it so small that it is not an issue for him.
From my own experience with B&W this is very personal and what doesn't
bother Michael may be very noticeable to me and others.

At this point we have conflicting reports. We are going to have to wait and
see what more people have to say as the printers get out into the
marketplace. Since we have some negative reports it is clear that B&W prints
with these inks are not automatic out of the box.

One thing is certain though. This will have a big impact on the grayscale
ink market and B&W inkjet printing. Large numbers of people that might have
given one of the grayscale inks a try, are going to be quite satisfied with
a 2200 instead. This will make grayscale ink printing a more alternative
process than it already is.

Michael completely skips over the issue of B&W print life in his review.
While the UltraChrome inks offer a color print life that is absolutely
compelling in the world of color printing, it is not up to B&W standards.
People who wish to sell their B&W prints in a market dominated by silver
fiber are going to have a hard time with UltraChrome prints. On that issue
alone the 2200, 7600 and 9600 are not going to be acceptable to a lot of
photographers.

Someone needs to get some UltraChrome step wedges to Paul Roark so that we
can see how they fade/warm compared to the grayscale inks.

Martin Wesley

http://www.borderless-photos.de/guests.html



----- Original Message -----
From: "mkravit" <mjkaia@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 6:22 AM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 7600/9600 B/W Output Not What I Hoped For.


> Mitch,
>
> Thanks for the title "Master" but you are being too kind. I have made
> my share of crappy prints as well.
>
> I also read Michael Reichmann's review. I have not seen color images
> from these printer. The only thing that I can imagine is that the
> person who printed these images (they were done by two different
> people) were not not experienced with the printer to thoroughly
> refine the settings.
>
> I sent a set of two of the images to Martin Wesley for him to look
> at, so perhaps he can offer an opinion as to what he see's as well.
>
> Mike
>
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Mitch Alland <malland@m...>
> wrote:
> > >Recently I recieved  b/w prints made on an Epson 7600 and
> > >9600. Contrary to the reports in the media color crossover and
> > >metamerism were quite evident. I examined each print under
> > >tungstun, fluorescent (3800K CRI 92 lamps) and daylight.
> > >
> > >The output from my Epson 1280 and Epson 7000 with MIS FS/N
> > >Mix are far superior to what I examined. The 1280 and 7000
> > >prints are smoother and and have a "fine art" presence that the
> > >7600/9600 prints lacked.
> >
> > I assume that output from the 7600/9600 should identical to that
> from the 2200, is that right? In a review on www.luminous-
> landscape.com, Michael Reichmann states that B&W prints from the 2200
> are so good and free of color casts that he is going to use it for
> all his B&W work instead of Piezography.
> >
> > Having seen a couple of your B&W prints at Nina's in Paris, I can
> see that you're a master B&W printer, so I tend to believe your
> conclusion rather than Reichmann's.
> >
> > Do you know how color prints on the 2200 compare to those on the
> 1280 in terms of color gamut and quality?
> >
> > --Mitch/Bangkok
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
&amp;amp;quot;flames.&amp;amp;quot;
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Martin Wesley" 
<mwesley250@e...> wrote:

> 
> Someone needs to get some UltraChrome step wedges to Paul Roark so 
that we
> can see how they fade/warm compared to the grayscale inks.
> 
> Martin Wesley
> 

I should be getting two step wedges on Eclipse Satine, one set with 
photo k and one set with matte k. I was going to do my own Colorado 
south window testing, but maybe I can send one to Paul, like the photo 
k since I'm more interested in the matte k ink anyway. Should still 
give some idea. Won't have them for another week.


Um, Paul contact me off list if you need this from me. Or I could do a 
side by side with my current MIS VM- but I let the test go for five 
weeks generally.
Jim H.

Just to chime in here, I did see a black and white print, 20x24in from a 7600 
two days ago. It was a typical Northwest Mountainscape printed on what looked 
like a semi luster epson paper. The Look was totally different than What 
Piezo or similar quad methods produce. Kind of like a air dried Fiber print, 
but really not rich in tonal range. It looked like a cheap print in my mind, 
but did have good blacks. It just looked like there where tones missing. It 
did not seem to be an example of fine art Black and white inkjet printing at 
all. Although some will probably like it. Maybe I've been looking at piezo 
prints too long, but I see no reason to buy this printer for black and white 
output. Color? sure....
Steve Meyers
http://www.xray-art.com



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

On 7/30/02 12:38 AM, "sdmey4@..." <sdmey4@...> wrote:

> Just to chime in here, I did see a black and white print, 20x24in from a 7600
> two days ago. It was a typical Northwest Mountainscape printed on what looked
> like a semi luster epson paper. The Look was totally different than What
> Piezo or similar quad methods produce. Kind of like a air dried Fiber print,
> but really not rich in tonal range.



Do you know how much effort was put into getting the 7600 to produce a good
grayscale ramp with a full range of tones?  Out of the box the Epson
profiles are weak for this purpose.  I am going to have a couple of profiles
build specifically for B&W printing and then make a judgment.  It is
unreasonable to expect that the 9600 and 7600 would require any less effort
than any other printer to produce good B&W prints.  Look at how much effort
Paul puts into his curves for the MIS inks.  Let's ask Cone how much effort
goes into profiling each paper for the Piezo inks.

It seems that the tendency is to write off the new Epsons based on viewing
some prints that may or may not have really demonstrated what the machine is
capable of.

At the end of the day, I may still get a 7000 to do my larger piezo
printing.  However, I bought the 9600 to do color and make big digital
negatives to use for making platinum prints and if I can also tweak it to
make good B&W prints than so much better.  I remain confident that it will
be a viable solution for at least a portion of of my B&W printing...

Lawrence


----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

Steve,

Thanks for chiming in.  Your opinion greatly appreciated and you answered
exactly the question in my mind re the 7600.

Steadman

  -----Original Message-----
  From: sdmey4@... [mailto:sdmey4@...]
  Sent: Monday, July 29, 2002 11:39 PM
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 7600/9600 B/W Output Not What I Hoped
For.


  Just to chime in here, I did see a black and white print, 20x24in from a
7600
  two days ago. It was a typical Northwest Mountainscape printed on what
looked
  like a semi luster epson paper. The Look was totally different than What
  Piezo or similar quad methods produce. Kind of like a air dried Fiber
print,
  but really not rich in tonal range. It looked like a cheap print in my
mind,
  but did have good blacks. It just looked like there where tones missing.
It
  did not seem to be an example of fine art Black and white inkjet printing
at
  all. Although some will probably like it. Maybe I've been looking at piezo
  prints too long, but I see no reason to buy this printer for black and
white
  output. Color? sure....
  Steve Meyers
  http://www.xray-art.com



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


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
              ADVERTISEMENT



  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



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

Martin Wesley writes:
 > Mike,
 > 
 > I still have the samples you sent and I posted something awhile back but it
 > is worth revisiting at this point.
 > 
 > The samples include two images each printed once on a matte Oce art paper
 > (very rough)and one on a semi-gloss Ilford paper. My impression is the same
 > as yours. These prints do not equal prints done with grayscale inks. There
 > are strange unpleasant tonal splits, blue to yellow. Possibly this could be
 > corrected by better use of the printer.
 > 
 > The fact that the split is there may be an indication of why Epson came up
 > with the gray balancer software for the 2200 and makes me wonder how
 > difficult people will find it to get a good neutral tone. While buying
 > custom profiles is a possible solution, the fact that the inks and papers
 > vary from lot to lot may make this impractical unless you invest in your own
 > profiling software. The unfortunate truth seems to be that neutral B&W
 > printing is much more sensitive to tiny shifts in hue than color printing.
 > [...]

I was fortunate to get to spend some time with Bill Atkinson last
week.  He has a 9600 and is working on developing some custom profiles
for it.  He's found that none of his normal profiling packages seem to
deliver results that give good neutral grayscales, so he's been
hacking his way to something better.  And, the profiles that he
generates will be freely available!

His results look wonderful, though he still has some fine tuning to
do.  I got a kick out of noticing a *slight* green deviation in the
almost white tones and then seeing it confirmed by a set of
spectrophotometer readings.  I'm not usually that astute!

This will probably only be useful to the bigger printer folk (7600 and
9600), and just how useful will depend on how successful Epson is at
delivering on their promised printer-to-printer consistency.  It'll be
worth keeping tuned to though.

g.

On 7/30/02 2:23 PM, "George Hartzell" <hartzell@...> wrote:

> I was fortunate to get to spend some time with Bill Atkinson last
> week.  He has a 9600 and is working on developing some custom profiles
> for it.  He's found that none of his normal profiling packages seem to
> deliver results that give good neutral grayscales, so he's been
> hacking his way to something better.  And, the profiles that he
> generates will be freely available!


George,

Thanks for the info.  I was going to have some profiles made but I will wait
for Bill's to be completed.  According to Bill they will be available from
the Epson website.

Bill has freely shared a number of helpful PS related actions and tips with
me privately in the past and his generosity with his time and expertise
never ceases to amaze me.

Thanks Bill!

Lawrence 


----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

----- Original Message -----

From: "George Hartzell" <hartzell@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 11:23 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 7600/9600 B/W Output Not What I Hoped
For.


> Martin Wesley writes:
>  > Mike,
>  >
(snip)

>  > While buying
>  > custom profiles is a possible solution, the fact that the inks and
papers
>  > vary from lot to lot may make this impractical unless you invest in
your own
>  > profiling software. The unfortunate truth seems to be that neutral B&W
>  > printing is much more sensitive to tiny shifts in hue than color
printing.
>  > [...]
>
> I was fortunate to get to spend some time with Bill Atkinson last
> week.  He has a 9600 and is working on developing some custom profiles
> for it.  He's found that none of his normal profiling packages seem to
> deliver results that give good neutral grayscales, so he's been
> hacking his way to something better.  And, the profiles that he
> generates will be freely available!

George,

I am not surprised. I still have not heard of a profiling package that was
capable of doing printer profiles for grayscale ink sets so I guess the same
applies in this case. Tell Bill to check his licensing on the profiling
software. They generally don't allow you to share them.
>
> His results look wonderful, though he still has some fine tuning to
> do.  I got a kick out of noticing a *slight* green deviation in the
> almost white tones and then seeing it confirmed by a set of
> spectrophotometer readings.  I'm not usually that astute!
>
> This will probably only be useful to the bigger printer folk (7600 and
> 9600), and just how useful will depend on how successful Epson is at
> delivering on their promised printer-to-printer consistency.  It'll be
> worth keeping tuned to though.

It is good news on the one hand that he is making progress and getting some
good results, but this is also frustrating for those who do not have access
to spectrophotometers, profiling software and, most importantly, the
expertise. The B&W capability of these printers has been promoted as a
feature that is available out of the box, or at least that is my impression.

Martin

On 7/30/02 3:12 PM, "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...> wrote:

> The B&W capability of these printers has been promoted as a
> feature that is available out of the box, or at least that is my impression.
> 
> Martin


I never really thought that was going to be the case.  I thought it was
aimed at the user who is printing mostly color and needed the occasional
'good enough' out of the box B&W.  Anything beyond that would require effort
just like anything else to get the best results.

Lawrence 
----------------------------------
Lawrence W. Smith Photography
http://www.lwsphoto.com
lsmith@...
----------------------------------

> >  Tell Bill to check his licensing on the profiling
> > software. They generally don't allow you to share them.
>
> Really? Isn't that like a programming package that won't allow you to
> distribute the programs? Time to find a different package.
>
> Tim

How can they attempt to legally restrict that?  Is the format of these
profiles a standard?  If so, I simply can't see them attempting the
restriction of publishing/distributing etc. profiles that YOU made legal...

Austin

It's just like the "learn to program" versions of compilers that they 
bundle in computer books, you can't redistribute what you make with 
them. There's a much more expensive version they'll be happy to upgrade 
you to that doesn't have the licensing restriction.

Whether they can enforce it is another matter...

-Jason

Austin Franklin wrote:

>>> Tell Bill to check his licensing on the profiling
>>>software. They generally don't allow you to share them.
>>
>>Really? Isn't that like a programming package that won't allow you to
>>distribute the programs? Time to find a different package.
>>
>>Tim
> 
> 
> How can they attempt to legally restrict that?  Is the format of these
> profiles a standard?  If so, I simply can't see them attempting the
> restriction of publishing/distributing etc. profiles that YOU made legal...
> 
> Austin

----- Original Message -----

From: "Austin Franklin" <darkroom@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 30, 2002 12:28 PM
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Epson 7600/9600 B/W Output Not What I Hoped
For.


>
> > >  Tell Bill to check his licensing on the profiling
> > > software. They generally don't allow you to share them.
> >
> > Really? Isn't that like a programming package that won't allow you to
> > distribute the programs? Time to find a different package.
> >
> > Tim
>
> How can they attempt to legally restrict that?  Is the format of these
> profiles a standard?  If so, I simply can't see them attempting the
> restriction of publishing/distributing etc. profiles that YOU made
legal...
>
Tim, Austin,

I have to admit I am just going on what I have been told by others who
queried ColorVision about their ProfilerPro packages. I believe C.D. Tobie
posted the same awhile back. I gather that if it is in the license you agree
to when you buy the software it is binding as a private contract. I am
certainly no lawyer though nor do I wish to be a test case.

I gather you can enter into licensing agreements and for a fee sell or
distribute profiles you make but at a steep price.

ProfilerPro creates an icm file from spectrophotometer readings and while
not good enough to print with they are very nice for on screen proofing.

Martin

Hi Jason,

I haven't seen those, but typically, with compiled code, more than simply
the compiled version of your program goes into the executable...but with a
profile, isn't the profile a standard format etc???.

Imagine if film came with this foolish "restriction"...unless you bought the
more expensive film, you weren't allowed you to show your pictures to other
people...

Something sounds fishy here...can anyone elaborate as to what exactly, is IN
a profile file???

Regards,

Austin

> It's just like the "learn to program" versions of compilers that they
> bundle in computer books, you can't redistribute what you make with
> them. There's a much more expensive version they'll be happy to upgrade
> you to that doesn't have the licensing restriction.
>
> Whether they can enforce it is another matter...
>
> -Jason
>
> Austin Franklin wrote:
> >>> Tell Bill to check his licensing on the profiling
> >>>software. They generally don't allow you to share them.
> >>
> >>Really? Isn't that like a programming package that won't allow you to
> >>distribute the programs? Time to find a different package.
> >>
> >>Tim
> >
> >
> > How can they attempt to legally restrict that?  Is the format of these
> > profiles a standard?  If so, I simply can't see them attempting the
> > restriction of publishing/distributing etc. profiles that YOU
> made legal...
> >
> > Austin

On Tue, Jul 30, 2002 at 03:28:29PM -0400, Austin Franklin wrote:
> 
> > >  Tell Bill to check his licensing on the profiling
> > > software. They generally don't allow you to share them.
> >
> > Really? Isn't that like a programming package that won't allow you to
> > distribute the programs? Time to find a different package.
> >
> > Tim
> 
> How can they attempt to legally restrict that?  Is the format of these
> profiles a standard?  If so, I simply can't see them attempting the
> restriction of publishing/distributing etc. profiles that YOU made legal...
> 

I think the framework for the format is standard but it can contain proprietary
algorithms. Most (or all) profiles are not simple 1 to 1 lookup tables for
input and output values - they would be far too large. Instead certain values
that are not explicitly defined are calculated via algorithms. It is this
which allows companys to place distribution controls over profiles created
with them.

cavet emptor - read the license agreement carefully.

I once had a lengthy email discussion about this with the ICC folks in the
know over at color.org. Sadly I've now deleted the emails.

-- 
Tony Terlecki
ajt@...
Running Debian/GNU 3.0 Linux

>  Tell Bill to check his licensing on the profiling
> software. They generally don't allow you to share them.

Really? Isn't that like a programming package that won't allow you to 
distribute the programs? Time to find a different package.

Tim


-- 
Tim Spragens

http://www.borderless-photos.de
http://www.borderless-photos.com

From the profiler RGB term
5. License Restrictions. You may not do any of the following 
yourself, or through any other person and you may not permit any 
third party with whom you have a business relationship to do any of 
the following: 
...(D) sell, license, sublicense, lease, rent, distribute, disclose, 
permit access to, or transfer to any third party, whether for profit 
or without charge, any portion of the Software or any product (as a 
separate product or bundled with any other products other than the 
Software) created with the Software (including, without limitation, 
profiles in .ICM or .ICC format), or, in particular, without limiting 
the generality of the foregoing, distribute the Software or any such 
product on any media, over networks, electronic bulletin boards, or 
websites, or allow any third party to use the Software; (E) publish 
or otherwise communicate any review of or information about Software 
performance to any third party without the prior written consent of 
ColorVision;


These seem pretty draconian and un-enforcable terms to me. (I hope no-
one on here has actaully reviewed the performance of this 
software...! If I was a journalist writing a review, my response to 
this would be - bollocks..)

This is especially so as in general, as I understand it, for a 
contract such as this to be truly binding, it must have the 
possiblitly of being ammended by both parties.

This isn't, as far as I can tell, something that is covered by say 
Copyright law, so there is no standard fallback set of statutes for 
what they are demanding.

Tim A

Martin Wesley writes:
 > [...]
 > I am not surprised. I still have not heard of a profiling package that was
 > capable of doing printer profiles for grayscale ink sets so I guess the same
 > applies in this case. Tell Bill to check his licensing on the profiling
 > software. They generally don't allow you to share them.

My understanding is that this issue isn't profiling the grays per se,
but rather that the correction that the printer/inkset/paper requires
has more kinks in it than the profiling software can suss out.  It
effects printing with the color inks too, it's just a subtle enough
thing that it's only obvious in the grays.  I'll mention the licensing
issue to him, but I'm pretty sure he's rolling his own.

g.