Digital BW, The Print

Hi Antonis,

Just to thank you for your imput... its appreciated. I'm impressed in 
your faith of your list members, I hope they "jump in" soon to.

McGillicuddy

>Hi Antonis,
>
>Just to thank you for your imput... its appreciated. I'm impressed 
>in your faith of your list members, I hope they "jump in" soon to.
>
>McGillicuddy -

I'm using the flavor of MIS VM inks called "Sepia-Neutral" or just 
"Sepia" on an 1160, but without necessarily expecting or even wanting 
the prints to resemble the (usually RGB) scan on my monitor, whether 
I profile it (with ProveIt! software both w/ and w/o the 
SequelChroma4 colorimeter) or use profiles canned by Apple or Sony.

In the case of a B&W original, the screen-print resemblance is 
sometimes nevertheless a pretty good one at _some_ stage(s) of the 
work flow. But whether it is or not, with a few proofs (on Epson 
Archival Matte), I can get a pretty faithful copy, when that's what I 
want, of anything from a neutral B&W original to a faded B&W to an 
honest-to-God sepia print.

That's what I usually do for old photos I'm trying to re-print. But I 
typically see a good likeness of that pretty-faithful copy on the 
screen only in a few stages of the work flow and almost never at the 
end. (Only when I don't apply one of the neutral-to-sepia curves as 
called for at the end of the work flow.)

In the case of a color original, there is of course hardly ever any 
screen-print resemblance at all except for neutral prints, near the 
end but before a curve is applied.

Some screen-print difference and therefore some proofing seems to me 
inevitable. So I haven't bothered with soft proofing yet. Maybe I 
should. But in my limited experience, it often takes only a few 
sheets of EAM to get to something worth keeping. And I sometimes 
learn something along the way.

McCandless, Sam (nearly a newbie)              samcc@...