Digital BW, The Print

During the workflow for VM printing, it's wrong to use curves to 
adjust the tonal range of the image, then apply the PR tone curve? 
The right way would be to apply a PR tone curve, then using that 
curve make adjustments there? (I apologize as I can be thick-headed 
sometimes<g>) The past few images I've been trying it the latter and 
I'm not quite there yet, but I'm closer than I ever was.


I had another question not regarding the VM curves, but my 1280 
printer. It gives out a high pitch squeal as it's printing. I'm kind 
of thinking it's something to do with the rod that the heads slide 
on. My question was what would be a good lubricant to use on the rod 
(no pun intended) to see if that does fix it? I appreciate any help 
about these questions. Thank you all so much.

matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Betea [mailto:mbetea@...] 
 
> During the workflow for VM printing, it's wrong to use curves to 
> adjust the tonal range of the image, then apply the PR tone curve? 
> The right way would be to apply a PR tone curve, then using that 
> curve make adjustments there?

My understanding is that all adjustments to the image should be made
prior to applying the Roark curves.  I make all my adjustments, then
save the image, then apply sharpening and the Roark curve and print it.
When done, I always put the image away without saving the sharpening or
Roark curve.  Seems to work for me.

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Mathews" 
<ed@l...> wrote:
> My understanding is that all adjustments to the image should be made
> prior to applying the Roark curves.  I make all my adjustments, then
> save the image, then apply sharpening and the Roark curve and print 
it.
> When done, I always put the image away without saving the 
sharpening or
> Roark curve.  Seems to work for me.
Hmm, looks like it's back to the drawing board. No matter what I do 
if I make adjustments prior to applying the Roark curves I get 
posterization. And the histogram still reflects a good amount of data 
still (it doesn't look jaggy or like a comb at all). Now without 
adjusting anything, applying the Roark curve then using that for 
adjustments doesn't give me any posterization, but then the images 
don't have the contrast I would like.

Appreciate the help Ed, I guess though no one else has ever had this 
problem. Thanks.

matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matt Betea [mailto:mbetea@...] 
<snip>
> Hmm, looks like it's back to the drawing board. No matter what I do 
> if I make adjustments prior to applying the Roark curves I get 
> posterization.

You are certainly not the first to encounter this.  I had a heck of time
with it with my old 1280, with all of Paul's curves.  Others have
reported this as well.  I ended up using another set of curves which
worked pretty well for me (the Tyler curves).  But with all the same
exact computer equipment (except the new replacement 1280), I now get
excellent results with the MW curve.  Luckily, I like the tone of that
curve the best, and really don't desire much else, because I still get
it to some degree with the others.  Paul suggests I move to the UT B&W
inkset, but I'm happy with what I'm getting now and a little leery of
the clogs I've heard reported here with the new inks.  I might wait a
little.

> And the histogram still reflects a good amount of data 
> still (it doesn't look jaggy or like a comb at all). Now without 
> adjusting anything, applying the Roark curve then using that for 
> adjustments doesn't give me any posterization, but then the images 
> don't have the contrast I would like.

I've actually never bothered to look at the histogram after applying the
curve.  I probably shouldn't at this point because I like what I'm
getting and I might be scared if I do!  But have you considered bumping
up the contrast in the printer dialog box by using the sliders?  My
normal setting for my tastes requires +10 in the contrast slider.  I
adjust the image so the contrast is good on my screen, but the prints
are indeed a little flat from there if I print without further
adjustment.  So rather than blow out the highlights and shadows on the
image itself, I adjust the contrast from that point with the sliders in
the print dialog box.  Plus 10 is my default, and 90% of my prints look
good that way.  At that setting, my stepwedge shows excellent
smoothness, and great separation of tones throughout almost all the
percentages.  My 0% to 5% even shows great separation, at the expense of
a little lack at the bottom end, where 95% is about pure black.  But
that doesn't bother me, because I like the look and have never really
needed to see all the detail in the darkest of shadow areas anyway.  I
always printed in the darkroom like that too.

Thanks,
Ed
http://lightandsilver.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Ed Mathews" 
<ed@l...> wrote:
> You are certainly not the first to encounter this.  I had a heck of 
time
> with it with my old 1280, with all of Paul's curves.  Others have
> reported this as well.  I ended up using another set of curves which
> worked pretty well for me (the Tyler curves).  But with all the same
> exact computer equipment (except the new replacement 1280), I now 
get
> excellent results with the MW curve.  Luckily, I like the tone of 
that
> curve the best, and really don't desire much else, because I still 
get
> it to some degree with the others.  Paul suggests I move to the UT 
B&W
> inkset, but I'm happy with what I'm getting now and a little leery 
of
> the clogs I've heard reported here with the new inks.  I might wait 
a
> little. 
> I've actually never bothered to look at the histogram after 
applying the
> curve.  I probably shouldn't at this point because I like what I'm
> getting and I might be scared if I do!  But have you considered 
bumping
> up the contrast in the printer dialog box by using the sliders?  My
> normal setting for my tastes requires +10 in the contrast slider.  I
> adjust the image so the contrast is good on my screen, but the 
prints
> are indeed a little flat from there if I print without further
> adjustment.  So rather than blow out the highlights and shadows on 
the
> image itself, I adjust the contrast from that point with the 
sliders in
> the print dialog box.  Plus 10 is my default, and 90% of my prints 
look
> good that way.  At that setting, my stepwedge shows excellent
> smoothness, and great separation of tones throughout almost all the
> percentages.  My 0% to 5% even shows great separation, at the 
expense of
> a little lack at the bottom end, where 95% is about pure black.  But
> that doesn't bother me, because I like the look and have never 
really
> needed to see all the detail in the darkest of shadow areas 
anyway.  I
> always printed in the darkroom like that too.

I'll keep trying, thanks for the help. Guess I should start using the 
title "What printer for MIS b&w inks?" Maybe I'll get some more 
responses as those seem to be popular threads. Thanks.