Digital BW, The Print

Now that we have not one but two solutions for printing bw in Mac OS X with
user-defined profiles, I'd like to invite users of either QTR or IJC/OPM to share
their experiences, comments and/or problems.

I realize IJC/OPM for OS X was only released a few days ago,
but maybe some have already had a chance to use it . I would rather limit
comments to the new version, if possible, since there are so many improvements
in it over the OS 9 release.

The aim is to look at the pros and cons of each software. I don't think we
should look at this as a way to pick a winner, however. We are lucky to have both
at this point and it could be useful to know how they differ or not in their
approach.

Since we have the creators of each s/w on the list,
 Joe Berndt (IJC/OPM) and Roy Harrington (QTR) may also offer to shed light on 
aspects that may not be completely understood by some users.

To kick this off, I asked Carl Schofield for his opinion, knowing that he has worked 
with both QTR and IJC/OPM. What follows is his response - and I hope others will 
jump in with comments in a similar vein.

Antonis



------------------
Excellent print quality can be obtained from either IJC/OPM or QTR and it is basically 
a matter of which profiling approach seems most comfortable to the user.  As I see it, 
the fundamental steps for profile construction in both IJC and QTR are establishing 
ink limits for the ink/paper combination being used, partitioning the gray inks, and 
finally linearizing the profile.  Ink limit determination is done in essentially the same 
way for both IJC and QTR and it is after this preliminary step that IJC and QTR diverge 
in their approach to completing the profile.  IJC uses a graphical approach for 
partitioning the inks which requires that the user either select pre-defined curves for 
each ink channel (very easy for standard quads, but not for UC inks) or construct/
tweak the curves themselves with a curve editor.  The latter requires some experience 
and familiarity with how the ink curves should look and some tweaking to get the 
partitioning correct.   In QTR the user defines ink partitioning points quantitatively 
from comparative density measurements of test strips and then QTR generates the 
curves automatically.  Although this approach is relatively straight forward and does 
not require expertise in curve construction it is somewhat tedious.  Linearization is 
also basically the same process for both IJC and QTR, but easier to do in IJC and also 
more flexible in terms of data input.  Soft proofing and printing are both handled in 
Photoshop with QTR whereas a separate program (OPM) is used for both printing and 
softproofing profiles made with IJC.  Both handle profile blending in a similar manner, 
but softproofing the blends is more easily accomplished within the print preview 
window of OPM.  On the other hand, the use of standard icc softproof profiles allows 
more accurate proofing as well as image editing within Photoshop with QTR profiles.  
Both IJC/OPM and QTR are excellent packages for profile development and printing.  
QTR needs to have better integration with a good GUI and I believe that Roy is 
working in that direction.  IJC/OPM has been significantly improved with the latest OS 
X release, as you have noted in your prior comments to the group, but needs some 
tutorial assistance for users having no prior experience working with curve 
construction.  Additional pre-sets for the UC inkset would also be a helpful addition.

____________________________

Thanks for the information and the comparison.

What are the differences in terms of price?  I'm sure the 'value factor' is also something 
many consider.

Thank you.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis" <antonisphoto@y...> 
wrote:

> Now that we have not one but two solutions for printing bw in Mac OS X with
> user-defined profiles, I'd like to invite users of either QTR or IJC/OPM to share
> their experiences, comments and/or problems.
> 
> I realize IJC/OPM for OS X was only released a few days ago,
> but maybe some have already had a chance to use it . I would rather limit
> comments to the new version, if possible, since there are so many improvements
> in it over the OS 9 release.
> 
> The aim is to look at the pros and cons of each software. I don't think we
> should look at this as a way to pick a winner, however. We are lucky to have both
> at this point and it could be useful to know how they differ or not in their
> approach.
> 
> Since we have the creators of each s/w on the list,
>  Joe Berndt (IJC/OPM) and Roy Harrington (QTR) may also offer to shed light on 
> aspects that may not be completely understood by some users.
> 
> To kick this off, I asked Carl Schofield for his opinion, knowing that he has worked 
> with both QTR and IJC/OPM. What follows is his response - and I hope others will 
> jump in with comments in a similar vein.
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------
> Excellent print quality can be obtained from either IJC/OPM or QTR and it is basically 
> a matter of which profiling approach seems most comfortable to the user.  As I see it, 
> the fundamental steps for profile construction in both IJC and QTR are establishing 
> ink limits for the ink/paper combination being used, partitioning the gray inks, and 
> finally linearizing the profile.  Ink limit determination is done in essentially the same 
> way for both IJC and QTR and it is after this preliminary step that IJC and QTR diverge 
> in their approach to completing the profile.  IJC uses a graphical approach for 
> partitioning the inks which requires that the user either select pre-defined curves for 
> each ink channel (very easy for standard quads, but not for UC inks) or construct/
> tweak the curves themselves with a curve editor.  The latter requires some experience 
> and familiarity with how the ink curves should look and some tweaking to get the 
> partitioning correct.   In QTR the user defines ink partitioning points quantitatively 
> from comparative density measurements of test strips and then QTR generates the 
> curves automatically.  Although this approach is relatively straight forward and does 
> not require expertise in curve construction it is somewhat tedious.  Linearization is 
> also basically the same process for both IJC and QTR, but easier to do in IJC and also 
> more flexible in terms of data input.  Soft proofing and printing are both handled in 
> Photoshop with QTR whereas a separate program (OPM) is used for both printing and 
> softproofing profiles made with IJC.  Both handle profile blending in a similar manner, 
> but softproofing the blends is more easily accomplished within the print preview 
> window of OPM.  On the other hand, the use of standard icc softproof profiles allows 
> more accurate proofing as well as image editing within Photoshop with QTR profiles.  
> Both IJC/OPM and QTR are excellent packages for profile development and printing.  
> QTR needs to have better integration with a good GUI and I believe that Roy is 
> working in that direction.  IJC/OPM has been significantly improved with the latest OS 
> X release, as you have noted in your prior comments to the group, but needs some 
> tutorial assistance for users having no prior experience working with curve 
> construction.  Additional pre-sets for the UC inkset would also be a helpful addition.
> 
> ____________________________

At 4:58 AM +0000 7/8/04, Antonis wrote:
>Now that we have not one but two solutions for printing bw in Mac OS X with
>user-defined profiles, I'd like to invite users of either QTR or 
>IJC/OPM to share
>their experiences, comments and/or problems.
>[snip]

And I hope to learn a lot from this thread. But at the outset I find 
myself stumbling over the word "profile" because I tend to think of 
profiles in the context of color printing. So early on I hope for an 
explication of what B&W profiles are.

Thanks.
--
Sam

Please take a look at the respecive sites:

http://harrington.com/QuadToneRIP.html

http://www.bowhaus.com/inkjetcontrol/


That's always a good starting point for comparisons anyway.

QTR is $50

IJC/OPM is $249.95



Antonis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "luisvcool" <lvictoria@t...> 
wrote:
> Thanks for the information and the comparison.
> 
> What are the differences in terms of price?  I'm sure the 'value factor' is also 
something 

> many consider.
> 
> Thank you.

Sam,


good question - I can only answer for the use of the word "profile"
in IJC:  It is a small file that contains a look-up table that when used
in OPM it tells the printer what intensity of ink to put down for a given
gray value.

As an example, you can map a 50% image gray to a 50% ink laydown for
a given jet - or not. You can map it to 55% or 45% or anything else.
These numbers are for illustration only - internally the math is done
in 16 bit.

The confusion comes from the fact that color management
uses the word "profile" to describe files (icc) that also contain look up
tables but are far more complex because they have to describe
the color behaviour of a device. They also have to work independently
of a specific application - as long as the app is icc-savvy. 

The difference to keep in mind is that "profiles" in IJC are only meant
for OPM (hence cannot be used in Photoshop, for example). They are
only useful in this one task; making a print from a grayscale file
on one of the supported printers, regardless of the type of inks
 a printer is loaded with (they can be color or mono).

Antonis



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless 
<samcc@v...> wrote:
......

>But at the outset I find 
> myself stumbling over the word "profile" because I tend to think of 
> profiles in the context of color printing. So early on I hope for an 
> explication of what B&W profiles are.
> 
> Thanks.
> --
> Sam

At 4:58 AM +0000 7/8/04, Antonis quoted Carl Schofield as writing:
>[snip]
>In QTR the user defines ink partitioning points quantitatively from 
>comparative density measurements of test strips and then QTR 
>generates the curves automatically.
>[snip]

I hope someone, ideally Roy I guess, will add a sort of sidebar or 
box on the options for measuring density well enough to exploit QTR. 
When Roy started QTR, I had the impression that to do it well would 
require something I wouldn't otherwise need and would be expensive. 
But even if that was true then, I'm not sure it would be now.


>Soft proofing and printing are both handled in Photoshop with QTR 
>whereas a separate program (OPM) is used for both printing and 
>softproofing profiles made with IJC.  Both handle profile blending 
>in a similar manner,
>but softproofing the blends is more easily accomplished within the 
>print preview window of OPM.  On the other hand, the use of standard 
>icc softproof profiles allows more accurate proofing as well as 
>image editing within Photoshop with QTR profiles.

Probably I should upgrade Photoshop to CS anyway, but I'm still 
curious to know whether PS 7 - I assume not 6? - is good enough to 
make the most of QTR?


And speaking of softproofing, I assume QTR and IJC require an equally 
good monitor/display and adjustment of it? But again I wonder which 
options are now thought good enough to exploit the software to best 
effect.

In general, I think it would help me get a feel for what QTR-IJC 
compare-and-contrast conclusions might mean for me if posters 
included notes on which hardware and software they use.
--
Sam

> I hope someone, ideally Roy I guess, will add a sort of sidebar or 
> box on the options for measuring density well enough to exploit
QTR. 
> When Roy started QTR, I had the impression that to do it well would 
> require something I wouldn't otherwise need and would be expensive. 
> But even if that was true then, I'm not sure it would be now.
>

With regard to QTR...

There are a an ever-increasing number of ink curves now, so you don't
necessarily need a 
densitometer. I ended up buying an eye-one, but before that I used an
Xrite 810. I have 
compared  my results and the 810 is fine. You have to manually type
in your readings, but 
otherwise it works fine. The 810 was $117 on ebay. Before that I used
my scanner (Epson 
3200) to estimate the relative densities of the inks for QTR. That
was a little trickier but in 
practice it worked just fine and I made good prints with a previously
unsupported printer 
(a 980) without any real difficulty. 

The eye-one lets you easily make a very very good softproof that
includes the color cast of 
the paper-ink combination. Before that I just used a dot-gain curve
calculated from 810 
measurements. Sure, it was not as good, but more than adequate.
Before that I used a 
scanner  and photoshop to make the curves. A bit more twiddling, but
I had very a decent 
softproof made with a dotgain curve in PS.   

> 
> >Soft proofing and printing are both handled in Photoshop with QTR 
> >whereas a separate program (OPM) is used for both printing and 
> >softproofing profiles made with IJC.  Both handle profile blending 
> >in a similar manner,
> >but softproofing the blends is more easily accomplished within the 
> >print preview window of OPM.  On the other hand, the use of
standard 
> >icc softproof profiles allows more accurate proofing as well as 
> >image editing within Photoshop with QTR profiles.
> 
> Probably I should upgrade Photoshop to CS anyway, but I'm still 
> curious to know whether PS 7 - I assume not 6? - is good enough to 
> make the most of QTR?
> 

I have used PS 6 and 7, but mostly just 7. I have not upgraded to CS.
They both worked 
fine.
 
> And speaking of softproofing, I assume QTR and IJC require an
equally 
> good monitor/display and adjustment of it? But again I wonder which 
> options are now thought good enough to exploit the software to best 
> effect.

To set up the dot gain using PS, you mostly end up matching a print
and the screen image 
that produced it. So even if the monitor is not perfectly calibrated
you can make a usable 
closed-loop system, meaning that you are at least seeing what you
print. What you lose is 
that your files won't print for someone else very well. 
Theoretically, this should be less of 
an issue if using the spectro-measured approach, but is not necessary.

What I have found to be really nice with QTR is that it is a very
well layed-out minimal 
system that is very straightforward. You need only a minimal
understanding to get great 
prints. Almost none if there are ink curves ready for your
printer-ink-paper combo. 

But the real beauty is that you can control the ink lay down for each
channel and do 
whatever you want to or need. If you are willing to do a little bit
under the hood work, you 
can do all sorts of nice things quite easily. It took me about an
hour while watching TV to 
totally change the way the toner was being applied. I have a
nonstandard inkset to 
minimize costs and swapping between color and BW.  I decided that I
wanted the LM and 
LC inks to be laid down as a function of the density of all of three
grays, but not the black. 
So, a few additions in one script and voila, great toning. You don't
need to be a computer 
wiz, nor an imaging expert to figure it out either - hey its not
color ;-).

Costa Colbert

> Now that we have not one but two solutions for printing bw in Mac OS 
X with
> user-defined profiles, I'd like to invite users of either QTR or 
IJC/OPM to share
> their experiences, comments and/or problems.

I got a copy of IJC/OPM on Monday and have used QTR off an on for 6 
months or so.  I have used IJC/OPM and QTR to make excellent prints 
(for me) with both systems on my 3000.  Here are my thoughts about the 
two systems:

-- Installation --

Installation of IJC/OPM was as simple as installing any commercial 
product - just click the installer select a destination and that was 
it.  

Installation and setup of QTR is more involved but won't be 
intimidating for most.  Depending on your OS X version some additional 
free software may need to be installed (links to the packages are 
included in the documentation) as well as Roy's QTR.  Then a new 
printer needs to be setup in the print center.  It's all straight 
forward stuff which would be problem free if it came with one of the 
iconically driven step-by-step picto-docs.

-- Profile Generation --

Both systems allow you to create user defined custom 'profiles' for 
different ink/printer/paper combinations.  As Carl said, they follow 
the same basic steps: determine an ink limit (the maximum amount of 
each ink to use), partition the inks (decide how much of what type of 
ink goes on the paper for a given grey value), linearize the output 
(make nice even tonal steps in the output).

IJC/OPM was a more intuitive and streamlined system for me, although 
in fairness I did all my 'learning' on earlier versions of QTR so the 
learning curve for the second system benefited from that.  Generating 
curves with IJC/OPM is visual and interactive with an almost 
'create-a-curve-wizard' feel.

Both systems have the essential linearization step which takes the 
bumps out of the curves and allows mere mortals to produce remarkably 
good results with quadtones very quickly.  For the toy-challenged 
among us IJC/OPM allows you to use a scanner and a slick piece of user 
interface to complete the linearization curve while QTR requires a 
densitometer - nothing a quick visit to your local friendly lab won't 
fix.

For the experts there seems to be more control in the shape of the 
curve in IJC/OPM.

With IJC/OPM I produced startling good results in about 30 minutes and 
5 pieces of paper.  I can now produce profiles for different papers in 
about 10 minutes and a couple sheets of paper.

With the most recent version of QTR (I tried it early on in it's 
incarnation) I was up and profiled in an hour or so.  It is more 
cumbersome to produce additional profiles but it is not difficult.

-- Printing / Output --

QTR prints from photoshop.  Print with preview, set the printer 
settings appropriately and off you go.

OPM is a stand alone program used to print.  Equally simple: open the 
file, select a profile or two profiles and blending percent, scale the 
image if you want, select a paper size, select a gamma and print.

It's like falling off a log for both systems.

OPM/IJC prints faster for me on my 3000 and the printer and QTR 
sometimes get in a snit with each other which I fix with a power down 
and a coffee.

I had no banding problems with either system.  Both produce dotless 
highlight and smooth tonal transitions.

IJC/OPM produced much better black than the piezo plug-in I had been 
using up until trying these new systems.  Using Piezotone inks with 
the portfolio black I have a DMax of 1.84 on HPR (vs 1.73 with 
piezography) and a Dmax of 1.6 on EEM (vs 1.54 with piezography).  I 
haven't measure the QTR output because the people at the lab are 
getting a little tired of me and my new densitomer hasn't arrived yet. 
 I suspect similar results might be had with QTR but I can't say for 
sure.

-- Documentation --

OPM/IJC has brief but good documentation.  The QTR documentation has 
all the relevant information but in a less accessible form - you have 
to read it, you can't just skim it.

-- Price --

QTR -> 50 USD
IJC/OPM -> 250 USD

-- Soft Proofing --

Both systems need some method of matching the printed output to the 
monitor output.  Pick your favorite method.  I create a custom dot 
gain curve (ala Tyler B.) from densitometer readings of a 21 step 
wedge.  Ray and Carl have a much more sophisticated method but that 
requires expensive tools.  Or you can do it one of the good old 
fashioned ways and create a custom dot gain curve by inspection or 
create a custom photoshop adjustment curve to add at the end of your 
image twiddling.

Sam,

I find that on a calibrated monitor set up with a 1.8 gamma in the
Photoshop prefs for grayscale, I get a very close match to what
OPM prints (using the 1.8 default on OPM and setting the linearization
to -6 for the profile).
True, the shadows may look a tiny bit more open in the print, but I
never had a problem anticipating that.
The other thing that may throw you is that "monitor black" and
"print black" can be very different and no gamma or gain curve can
fix the 100% point of the display. For this reason I prefer to work
on a Sony Artisan that gives you complete manual control
 over the contrast of the display.

The issue of color and paper preview, as has been noted here, can
be solved by making soft proof profiles to use in Photoshop. Those
can be made for any print driver, not just the ones we are discussing here.
 I am sure opinions will differ - but I find that once the grayscale itself is
accurately displayed, I would rather see a hard copy proof and judge
the effect of ink color or paper density on a real print. Even with
color work on the best monitor, nothing beats how our eyes (i.e. brains)
respond to reflective copy when it comes to that final tweak.

Antonis


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless 
<samcc@v...> wrote:

.......

> And speaking of softproofing, I assume QTR and IJC require an equally 
> good monitor/display and adjustment of it? But again I wonder which 
> options are now thought good enough to exploit the software to best 
> effect.

I agree that a gray space the same gamma or dot gain as the output
system does indeed work well, and beyond that just a custom gray space
used as a preview. Both will cut down on test prints considerably.
I do find the icc profiles made specifically for soft proofing are
helping me a lot. It's not so much the ink tint and paper base hue,
that's nice I suppose but not essential by any means. I find some very
critically chosen separations, particularly near 100%, more accurately
predicted with the icc soft proof profiles, particularly with ink
black checked.
Takes a while to get used to the look of it, but ink on paper always
looks so different than the monitor that I need all the help I can get.
Those with EyeOne Photo may want to give it a try, it's very easy to
do. If custom dot gain in PS had some more curve points, or allowed a
simulated dmax like profiles do, it would surely help.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
<antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> Sam,
> 
> I find that on a calibrated monitor set up with a 1.8 gamma in the
> Photoshop prefs for grayscale, I get a very close match to what
> OPM prints (using the 1.8 default on OPM and setting the linearization
> to -6 for the profile).
> True, the shadows may look a tiny bit more open in the print, but I
> never had a problem anticipating that.
> The other thing that may throw you is that "monitor black" and
> "print black" can be very different and no gamma or gain curve can
> fix the 100% point of the display. For this reason I prefer to work
> on a Sony Artisan that gives you complete manual control
>  over the contrast of the display.
> 
> The issue of color and paper preview, as has been noted here, can
> be solved by making soft proof profiles to use in Photoshop. Those
> can be made for any print driver, not just the ones we are
discussing here.
>  I am sure opinions will differ - but I find that once the grayscale
itself is

> accurately displayed, I would rather see a hard copy proof and judge
> the effect of ink color or paper density on a real print. Even with
> color work on the best monitor, nothing beats how our eyes (i.e. brains)
> respond to reflective copy when it comes to that final tweak.
> 
> Antonis
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam McCandless 
> <samcc@v...> wrote:
> 
> .......
> 
> > And speaking of softproofing, I assume QTR and IJC require an equally 
> > good monitor/display and adjustment of it? But again I wonder which 
> > options are now thought good enough to exploit the software to best 
> > effect.

Hello Tyler,

That one hint about ink black checked has solved my problem with 
proofing once and for all. It seemed the proof was just a tad too 
light for the final printing and still required some tweaking after 
the proof print. Now that final tweaking won't be needed. Thanks 
again, Tyler.

Your friend in photography,

Johnny




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> I agree that a gray space the same gamma or dot gain as the output
> system does indeed work well, and beyond that just a custom gray 
space
> used as a preview. Both will cut down on test prints considerably.
> I do find the icc profiles made specifically for soft proofing are
> helping me a lot. It's not so much the ink tint and paper base hue,
> that's nice I suppose but not essential by any means. I find some 
very
> critically chosen separations, particularly near 100%, more 
accurately
> predicted with the icc soft proof profiles, particularly with ink
> black checked.
> Takes a while to get used to the look of it, but ink on paper 
always
> looks so different than the monitor that I need all the help I can 
get.
> Those with EyeOne Photo may want to give it a try, it's very easy 
to
> do. If custom dot gain in PS had some more curve points, or 
allowed a
> simulated dmax like profiles do, it would surely help.
> Tyler
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Antonis"
> <antonisphoto@y...> wrote:
> > Sam,
> > 
> > I find that on a calibrated monitor set up with a 1.8 gamma in 
the
> > Photoshop prefs for grayscale, I get a very close match to what
> > OPM prints (using the 1.8 default on OPM and setting the 
linearization
> > to -6 for the profile).
> > True, the shadows may look a tiny bit more open in the print, 
but I
> > never had a problem anticipating that.
> > The other thing that may throw you is that "monitor black" and
> > "print black" can be very different and no gamma or gain curve 
can
> > fix the 100% point of the display. For this reason I prefer to 
work
> > on a Sony Artisan that gives you complete manual control
> >  over the contrast of the display.
> > 
> > The issue of color and paper preview, as has been noted here, can
> > be solved by making soft proof profiles to use in Photoshop. 
Those
> > can be made for any print driver, not just the ones we are
> discussing here.
> >  I am sure opinions will differ - but I find that once the 
grayscale
> itself is
> > accurately displayed, I would rather see a hard copy proof and 
judge
> > the effect of ink color or paper density on a real print. Even 
with
> > color work on the best monitor, nothing beats how our eyes (i.e. 
brains)
> > respond to reflective copy when it comes to that final tweak.
> > 
> > Antonis
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Sam 
McCandless 
> > <samcc@v...> wrote:
> > 
> > .......
> > 
> > > And speaking of softproofing, I assume QTR and IJC require an 
equally 
> > > good monitor/display and adjustment of it? But again I wonder 
which 
> > > options are now thought good enough to exploit the software to 
best 
> > > effect.

Hi Tyler 

I don¹t know whether you have followed the discussion that Roy and I were
having about soft proofing (QTR question for Roy) but I was intrigued by
your comments below.   In the colour world one would choose an intent and
check Use Black Point Compensation.  Furthermore one would most properly
check Simulate Paper White (and, as a result, Ink Black).  Although many
find the initial effect of doing so quite off-putting it does actually lead
to better soft-proofing.  I was wondering what the difference is when in the
B&W world we check Preserve Colour Numbers (rather than using a rendering
intent).  How does Simulate Ink Black (and I guess one should also check
Paper White) work in a Preserve Colour Numbers world?  I guess at the heart
of this I am wondering why Preserve Color Numbers is used.  Because we use
Same as Source at printing?  Can you help me muddle through this?

Steve

From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>

 I find some very
critically chosen separations, particularly near 100%, more accurately
predicted with the icc soft proof profiles, particularly with ink
black checked.
Takes a while to get used to the look of it, but ink on paper always
looks so different than the monitor that I need all the help I can get.
Those with EyeOne Photo may want to give it a try, it's very easy to
do. If custom dot gain in PS had some more curve points, or allowed a
simulated dmax like profiles do, it would surely help.
Tyler




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

When preserve numbers is checked, soft proof is simply showing you-

this device/paper/ink will make these particular numbers (tones,
levels, whatever) look like this WITHOUT any conversion.

So it really is a "profile" in the strictest sense, a characterization.
Intent, BPC, etc. are all relevant only when converting, and are user
choices about the method of conversion. We are not using these
profiles for printing, therefore not converting to them. Without
preserver numbers checked, softproof is showing you how your file will
look WITH conversion to the profile, so also allows you to select
those options in the preview. In the normal color world, using device
profiles, these are all relevant issues as you mention.
Paper white and ink black are preview options only, and have nothing
to do with how conversion will take place. Therefore those options are
available whether or not the preserve box is checked. I don't want to
get too lengthy about complicated color management issues here, but
here's a quick barely adequate explanation-
Without paper white or ink black checked, preview matches the white
point of the profile to the white point of the working space to the
white point of the monitor profile, all to their various 100,0,0 LAB
representations. Similarly, black ink does the same at the 0,0,0 LAB
point. So the supposed full scale of the profile is matched to the
supposed full scale of the monitor.
Since any profile includes a "device" black point and white point,
which is really measured paper white and dmax, Photoshop provides the
ability to take advantage and use that info, converting those values
through the various profiles to represent their monitor space
equivalent. It's purely a proofing option and unrelated to other more
common icc related issues.
I get tongue tied just trying to explain, but I hope that helps.
Tyler


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tyler 
> 
> I don¹t know whether you have followed the discussion that Roy and I
were
> having about soft proofing (QTR question for Roy) but I was intrigued by
> your comments below.   In the colour world one would choose an
intent and
> check Use Black Point Compensation.  Furthermore one would most properly
> check Simulate Paper White (and, as a result, Ink Black).  Although many
> find the initial effect of doing so quite off-putting it does
actually lead
> to better soft-proofing.  I was wondering what the difference is
when in the
> B&W world we check Preserve Colour Numbers (rather than using a
rendering
> intent).  How does Simulate Ink Black (and I guess one should also check
> Paper White) work in a Preserve Colour Numbers world?  I guess at
the heart
> of this I am wondering why Preserve Color Numbers is used.  Because
we use

> Same as Source at printing?  Can you help me muddle through this?
> 
> Steve
> 
> From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
> 
>  I find some very
> critically chosen separations, particularly near 100%, more accurately
> predicted with the icc soft proof profiles, particularly with ink
> black checked.
> Takes a while to get used to the look of it, but ink on paper always
> looks so different than the monitor that I need all the help I can get.
> Those with EyeOne Photo may want to give it a try, it's very easy to
> do. If custom dot gain in PS had some more curve points, or allowed a
> simulated dmax like profiles do, it would surely help.
> Tyler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Thanks this is helpful and confirms what I thought.  I assume then that you
also use Simulate Paper White to see how the image is affected by the warmth
or otherwise of the paper?  I had been thinking about this Simulate Paper
Black/White issue recently in light of some comments from people over the
last couple of months in relation to monitor choices, if I recall correctly,
about not knowing what black point was used.  In reality, the black (and
white) point we care about is what 100% black looks like for a given
printer, ink and paper combination.  With the ICC profile approach, these
are each known and can be soft-proofed for.

From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 2004 17:22:08 -0000
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Preview was QTR and IJC/OPM - opinions?

When preserve numbers is checked, soft proof is simply showing you-

this device/paper/ink will make these particular numbers (tones,
levels, whatever) look like this WITHOUT any conversion.

So it really is a "profile" in the strictest sense, a characterization.
Intent, BPC, etc. are all relevant only when converting, and are user
choices about the method of conversion. We are not using these
profiles for printing, therefore not converting to them. Without
preserver numbers checked, softproof is showing you how your file will
look WITH conversion to the profile, so also allows you to select
those options in the preview. In the normal color world, using device
profiles, these are all relevant issues as you mention.
Paper white and ink black are preview options only, and have nothing
to do with how conversion will take place. Therefore those options are
available whether or not the preserve box is checked. I don't want to
get too lengthy about complicated color management issues here, but
here's a quick barely adequate explanation-
Without paper white or ink black checked, preview matches the white
point of the profile to the white point of the working space to the
white point of the monitor profile, all to their various 100,0,0 LAB
representations. Similarly, black ink does the same at the 0,0,0 LAB
point. So the supposed full scale of the profile is matched to the
supposed full scale of the monitor.
Since any profile includes a "device" black point and white point,
which is really measured paper white and dmax, Photoshop provides the
ability to take advantage and use that info, converting those values
through the various profiles to represent their monitor space
equivalent. It's purely a proofing option and unrelated to other more
common icc related issues.
I get tongue tied just trying to explain, but I hope that helps.
Tyler





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

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Thanks this is helpful and confirms what I thought.  I assume then
that you
> also use Simulate Paper White to see how the image is affected by
the warmth
> or otherwise of the paper?

I do, but I can't claim it's as helpful as ink black for critical
editing. Many people do not like the way either or both look because
of the apparent compression. It's a psychological actually. I open an
image to begin work, click those on without looking too hard, walk
away and get a coffee or whatever, come back and all looks fine. Bruce
Fraser recommends clicking them with your eyes diverted.

>  I had been thinking about this Simulate Paper
> Black/White issue recently in light of some comments from people
over the
> last couple of months in relation to monitor choices, if I recall
correctly,
> about not knowing what black point was used.  In reality, the black (and
> white) point we care about is what 100% black looks like for a given
> printer, ink and paper combination.  With the ICC profile approach,
these
> are each known and can be soft-proofed for.

Exactly.
Tyler