Digital BW, The Print

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

From: "Antonis Ricos" <antonisphoto@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 2:42 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: OPM vs Epson driver


> John,
>
> it's not so much about "how  good" OPM is at resampling: it just doesn't
at all!
> It  sends to the printer whatever gray tiff you open as is.
>
> So, you are correct, the closer to 720 the file is, the better. You may
not see a
> big difference past, say 400-500 dpi, but will certainly see pixelation if
you
> send a 360 dpi image. The same image printed through the Epson driver will
> print smoothly. In that sense, there is an extra step that one needs to
take if
> their files are below 400 dpi (at 100% final print size).
>
> As for the 16 vs 8 bit....  it definitely likes the 16bits better (it was
originally built
> that way) , but an 8bit 720 dpi file will be just fine.
>
> Just to clarify: this is not about scanning resolutions and extracting
info from
> the original etc - it's just about matching device dots to pixels.
>
Antonis,

Would this be a case where converting back to 16-bit just prior to printing
would be in order?

I know you beta tested the IJC/OPM software and are a long time user of the
Piezo/R9 plug-in. Can you give us your comparison of print quality and
workflow quality of the two?

Martin

On 6/5/03 4:03 PM, "Martin Wesley" <mwesley250@...> wrote:

> Would this be a case where converting back to 16-bit just prior to printing
> would be in order?

Martin,

That's what I do.  I scan in 16 bit.  I then adjust the image to 720 and do
my tonal corrections in 16 bit.  I then frequently convert to 8 bit for
dodging/burning, sharpening or to use another filter and then convert back
to 16 bit before I print.  I think you could also save the 720 to the end of
the workflow...if you wanted to minimize the crunch on your processor.

Robert

> Would this be a case where converting back to 16-bit just prior to printing
> would be in order?


Martin,

yes, exactly - or to 720dpi  for that matter.


> 
> I know you beta tested the IJC/OPM software and are a long time user of the
> Piezo/R9 plug-in. Can you give us your comparison of print quality and
> workflow quality of the two?

well.... yes, I suppose I should. I would need to print the same file both ways 
and upload detailed scans of the prints. I can do that with the 1280/PT 
seleniums. ..   OK, "coming soon"....

Meanwhile, by way of a (lengthy) prologue:

The main difference between IJC/OPM and systems that use canned profiles 
is not just the accurate match of the profile to the user's system but the fact that 
you gain "analogue" control of the tonal distribution of your print.  This applies 
to any Raster Image Processor that gives you single channel control of the 
printer, not just OPM.

When you tweak RGB curves, or  tweak a grayscale file based on a monitor 
preview (or printed output) you are altering the digital data in the picture. 
That's normally where people are careful with scans and histograms, do some 
moves in 16bit etc. trying protect the tonal integrity of that data.  I call that 
"digital" corrections or adjustments that take place  in the digital domain.

When you tweak how much ink - and in what combination of colors or grays - 
is layed down for each digital value in the image, you are performing an 
"analogue" correction. Sure, it's handled digitally, but it is not dependent on 
the digital data in the image file. It only becomes related to it  when the 
software "looks up" the digital value in the image and matches it up with your 
choice of amount of ink(s). In this scenario, you can lighten/darken etc without 
affecting the precious bits and bytes in the original file. I call it  "analogue",  
(like audio D/A converters) because it occurs at the point where pixels are 
converted into the appearance of a continuous tone print. 

This "analogue" option is not available when the controls are locked away in a 
black box like the Epson driver or the R9 plug in or ImagePrint etc. Now, there 
may be good reasons for locking them away - there is serious complexity in 
reproducing CcMmYK color prints from RGB files and companies like 
Colorbyte have brought a lot of science to help us out. 
In the case of bw, it takes  a fairly knowledgable user to make a profile and 
understand how you partiton the grayscale into the 2-7 inks you may be using 
to print. So, this may not be for everyone, and there may be plenty of happy 
users of canned profiles (as Tyler points out) - fair enough.  Of course, as 
profiles become available for OPM, not only are they canned and easy-to-use, 
the whole thing is free, which is another matter to consider!

By the same token, we need to be aware of what we are doing to our digital 
data when (and if) we have to twist it because of  inaccuracies in our printing 
systems. When you make a bw print with a "locked" system, then adjust your 
image to improve that print, some of the adjustments are part of  the artistic 
interperetation, of course, but a fair amount may be aimed at  counteracting 
the effects of an out-of-whack system. You will never be able to separate the 
two without  access to the print controls of the driver independently of the 
image file.

So, these are the theoretical reasons for seeking out systems that allow 
"analogue"  tweaks. Now, it doesn't mean that everything else is garbage, nor 
that the ability to have these controls automatically makes a software superior.  
I am happy to see the introduction into the arena of monochrome printing  of 
the Ergosoft product (at inkjetmall), because it appears to address the issues I 
am talking about. I have not had any experience with it (because I am 
Windoze-challenged) but have pretty high hopes for its performance based on 
reviews and on line discussions.  It may be several times the cost of IJC, but I 
believe it also supports more large format printers without the limitations of 
IJC. We've seen leapfrogging before - let's see what's in store next....
 
Antonis

I feel like the godfather character- I keep trying to get out and they
keep dragging me back in! I really don't mean to be argumentative, and
I think OPM/IJC has many great attributes. However I have to take
issue with a lot of this, but you know, with a lot of love.
As Antonis says, editing a master file for the anomalies of a given
output system is unwise at a glance. Certainly saving a master file
with those edits is not a good idea. But in fact, correcting for
output at any given time is SOP in this day and age. We convert our
master color file to the output profile either manually or on the fly
all the time, that's the idea. We certainly don't save the converted
file, that is destructive and it's usefulness for the future is very
limited. We may even have a little editing to do to optimize our print
through that profile and printer. Again, saving the master with those
particular edits would be unwise.
For mono printing systems, we may have a master 16 bit gamma 2.2 (for
example) file. Our output system, whether Piezo, RGB driver after
curves, ImagePrint, IJC, whatever, is never perfectly linear or
possibly not appropriate for that given print. So we may have a final
curve we want to apply to print they way we want today on whatever
output system we have today. Why would anyone save their file in that
state? It's device specific. Also, if our work habits are refined, a
final curve to a high bit file is not very destructive at all. It's
not an issue.
I'll be willing to bet that, with OPM/IJC and the new Ergosoft option,
after initial sep curves are developed or canned ones selected, final
densitometer linearization is an overall correction applied at INPUT
to the file on the fly. That's exactly the same thing as applying a
final correction curve, exactly. Any other method of linearization
would be ridiculously complex and have to alter each and every ink
channel.
So, that a file needs some kind of optimization for printing is not a
plus or minus of any particular product or output system, but more of
a convenience feature of whether or not it happens on the fly or you
do it yourself in Photoshop.

Black box printing systems-
Piezo plugin and Pro
ImagePrint
Epson driver with RGB cures user can't edit (for experience reasons)
Maybe some others, I'm not paying much attention at this point

With these, if you have no flat spots, reversals, harsh transitions or
other major problems, with well made master files a final tweak is not
a problem. I'd say, for those not interested in delving the depths of
individual channel control with the new systems, it's no different
than what an overall linearization is going to do on the fly with
these new systems. If the correction can be handled by the particular
percentage points Photoshop offers in a custom grayscale space, you
can even save it out and apply it when printing on the fly, assuming
your output system accepts grayscale in.

Obviously, new systems have extraordinary features for those who
choose to work with them and I'm certainly stoked about the
possibilities. But an output system is not dictating an unwise or
destructive workflow, it may however make for a much more convenient
one. Let me know if I'm missing something, please.
This is worth restating-
> Of course, as
> profiles become available for OPM, not only are they canned and
easy-to-use,
> the whole thing is free, which is another matter to consider!

Tyler

Tyler,

I think the point here is that you can have one master file that you print
from...no edits for output...and then print that file with many different
options (toners, printers, inksets, papers, etc.) and not have to edit the
file to move between the options.  Given the lack of consistency that I see
in printers, inksets and papers this strikes me as a really important
function of an output system.  If I make a print today...I want to have the
ability to make an identical print in two years when I've switched printers
and have new inks...and maybe even a different paper.  If my system is
properly calibrated I can do that.  If I don't have control over this...I'm
at someone else's mercy.  Admittedly, the RGB partitioned workflow gave some
ability to do this...the controls were just much more limited...and didn't
integrate well to a measured approach based on densitometry.

Robert

On 6/6/03 11:53 AM, "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...> wrote:

> I feel like the godfather character- I keep trying to get out and they
> keep dragging me back in! I really don't mean to be argumentative, and
> I think OPM/IJC has many great attributes. However I have to take
> issue with a lot of this, but you know, with a lot of love.
> As Antonis says, editing a master file for the anomalies of a given
> output system is unwise at a glance. Certainly saving a master file
> with those edits is not a good idea. But in fact, correcting for
> output at any given time is SOP in this day and age. We convert our
> master color file to the output profile either manually or on the fly
> all the time, that's the idea. We certainly don't save the converted
> file, that is destructive and it's usefulness for the future is very
> limited. We may even have a little editing to do to optimize our print
> through that profile and printer. Again, saving the master with those
> particular edits would be unwise.
> For mono printing systems, we may have a master 16 bit gamma 2.2 (for
> example) file. Our output system, whether Piezo, RGB driver after
> curves, ImagePrint, IJC, whatever, is never perfectly linear or
> possibly not appropriate for that given print. So we may have a final
> curve we want to apply to print they way we want today on whatever
> output system we have today. Why would anyone save their file in that
> state? It's device specific. Also, if our work habits are refined, a
> final curve to a high bit file is not very destructive at all. It's
> not an issue.
> I'll be willing to bet that, with OPM/IJC and the new Ergosoft option,
> after initial sep curves are developed or canned ones selected, final
> densitometer linearization is an overall correction applied at INPUT
> to the file on the fly. That's exactly the same thing as applying a
> final correction curve, exactly. Any other method of linearization
> would be ridiculously complex and have to alter each and every ink
> channel.
> So, that a file needs some kind of optimization for printing is not a
> plus or minus of any particular product or output system, but more of
> a convenience feature of whether or not it happens on the fly or you
> do it yourself in Photoshop.
> 
> Black box printing systems-
> Piezo plugin and Pro
> ImagePrint
> Epson driver with RGB cures user can't edit (for experience reasons)
> Maybe some others, I'm not paying much attention at this point
> 
> With these, if you have no flat spots, reversals, harsh transitions or
> other major problems, with well made master files a final tweak is not
> a problem. I'd say, for those not interested in delving the depths of
> individual channel control with the new systems, it's no different
> than what an overall linearization is going to do on the fly with
> these new systems. If the correction can be handled by the particular
> percentage points Photoshop offers in a custom grayscale space, you
> can even save it out and apply it when printing on the fly, assuming
> your output system accepts grayscale in.
> 
> Obviously, new systems have extraordinary features for those who
> choose to work with them and I'm certainly stoked about the
> possibilities. But an output system is not dictating an unwise or
> destructive workflow, it may however make for a much more convenient
> one. Let me know if I'm missing something, please.
> This is worth restating-
>> Of course, as
>> profiles become available for OPM, not only are they canned and
> easy-to-use,
>> the whole thing is free, which is another matter to consider!
> 
> Tyler
> 
> 
> 
> 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 http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
> 
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Robert Morrison
<rmorrison@p...> wrote:
> Tyler,
> 
> I think the point here is that you can have one master file that you
print
> from...

well yeah, and all I'm saying is that we've always been able to do
that if somewhat clunkier than you can now.
It's just easier to automate that process, do it more precisely, and
have it done for you on the fly by the driver now.
These are good things.
Tyler