Digital BW, The Print

Hi Jeff,

Basically, whether one uses adjustment layers, a Custom Dot Gain, or
soft-proof to "correct" an image for printing really doesn't matter. They
all accomplish the same goal; that is, our ability to accurately display in
PS what the print will look like when it comes off the printer.

I started with the Dot Gain method, documented by Mitch Alland (among
others), because I felt familiar with it from my old Piezography days.
However, thanks to a suggestion by Martin I have since moved to the
soft-proof method, per a document in the Files section of this group written
by Tyler Boley. The soft-proof method allows me to keep my grayscale file in
a standard gray gamma--2.2 in my case--and, yet, be able to visualize the
final print. Very similar to the way you're working using adjustment layers.
I probably wouldn't prefer the adjustment layer approach because I might
make a mistake by forgetting to turn off the paper-specific adjustments if
directing the file to some other use.

Actually...I was thinking about this the other day...does it really matter
which "soft proof" method is used to visualize the final print? Whichever
printing method/workflow is chosen--IP, Roark, BO, etc.--the image must be
edited and finalized for that methodology, right? In other words, I could
not take an image worked up for BO printing via Dot Gain 20% (using
Clayton's methods, for example), then, print it through IP via GG 2.2 and
have the same print produced, right? This is kind of a question to the
group... Doesn't the final print have to be tailored to your chosen workflow
in order to produce first-rate consistent results? I've been kind of curious
about this lately... Three years from now, when we all have the bestest,
greatest, straight out-o-the-box quadtone printer available, or we're using
some other ingenious workflow/inkset developed by Paul, will we be able to
reproduce the same prints we're generating today using the same files? My
guess is...not unless you're workflow is based on some standard gray working
space throughout, like GG 2.2; assuming, of course, that 2.2 will be the
"standard" working space at that time. Any other method using some sort of
"custom tailoring" to properly produce the final print would have to be
re-worked, would it not? Just a thought................

Alan Huntley

>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "jsinger986" <jsphotos@...>
>To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>Sent: Friday, October 31, 2003 8:23 PM
>Subject: [Digital BW] Dot gain in Photoshop (was 1280 vs. 2200 question)
>

>I've never fully grasped the dot gain method.   I think I understand what
you are
>doing, but I don't see how it differs from creating "print" adjustment
layers.  I see how
>it does... but fundamentally its the same thing... I think.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "A. Huntley" <Alan.Hun=
tley@c...> wrote:
snip
>... Doesn't the final print have to be tailored to your chosen workflow
> in order to produce first-rate consistent results? I've been kind of curi=
ous
> about this lately... Three years from now, when we all have the bestest,
> greatest, straight out-o-the-box quadtone printer available, or we're usi=
ng
> some other ingenious workflow/inkset developed by Paul, will we be able t=
o
> r eproduce the same prints we're generating today using the same files? M=
y
> guess is...not unless you're workflow is based on some standard gray work=
ing
> space throughout, like GG 2.2; assuming, of course, that 2.2 will be the
> "standard" working space a t that time. Any other method using some sort =
of
> "custom tailoring" to properly produce the final print would have to be
> re-worked, would it not? Just a thought................

Right. This is one of the premises of color management. The the image is ke=
pt in an ideal image space, not output referenced. Then the chosen device at=
 print time, characterized by a profile (or whatever), as accessed via a con=
version to that devices profile, the file left intact.
For color it tends to work, there are widespread accepted end goals, and co=
lor management evolves daily. For B&W output, we have no widely accepted sta=
ndard to profile (or linearize) to. What density should middle gray be? You =
can linearize all of these printing methods (StudioPrint, QTR, OPM, rgb curv=
es, etc.) to a number of target densities. So some kind of file adjustment m=
ay still be necessary for a given device and it's chosen target densities.
But your thought is on the money.
One thing you might try, is to leave your file intact and do a profile conv=
ersion to that device preview space you mentioned, and then print. I've had =
some luck with that. The unfortunate part being that Photoshop has no adjust=
ment point at 95% in custom dot gain curves, and that is usually one of the =
spots needing attention from device to device.
Tylerâ€