Digital BW, The Print

On the paper front:

Received my shipment of the Schoellershammer Velvet 225 from Digital 
Art Supplies and ran of 4 Piezo test prints using the Orwell, 
Concorde Rag, ConeTech Matte and Epson Photo Paper profiles.

I find it to be very similar to Museo with comparable blacks and 
color. The surface is smoother, about halfway between Epson Archival 
Matte and Museo. It should coat very nicely and I will give it a try. 
The base color is perhaps a little whiter than Museo. Seems to be not 
quite as sharp as Museo.

Leaving EAM aside because of the archival issues, my favorites are 
still Torchon, with German Etching and Turner in second place. Of 
course with a sheet price of $4 for 11x17 Torchon I don't know how 
much I will be using! Torchon with the Schoellershammer Velvet 
surface would be just about perfect for the pigment inks.

Digital Art Supplies shipped me a nice set of swatches, which 
included Hahnemule Structure 150. This looks like a whiter, lower 
textured lightweight version of Torchon, perhaps too light. Has 
anyone given this a try with Piezo? Opinions?

I also noted that Digital Art Supplies carries the full Hahnemule 
line under their original names and a very large selection of other 
papers as well.

Thanks,

Martin Wesley

Martin,

consider this calculation:

100 sheets of Torchon at the price you found them.......$ 390
CA sales tax and shipping about.......................................$   40
TOTAL.................................................................................... $ 430

OR

100 sheet of Torchon at $2.14.............................................$ 214
Filemaker Pro 5......................................................................$ 249
Shipping about ......................................................................$   25
TOTAL..................................................................................... $ 488

Net cost to buy Filemaker 5.5...............................................$   58  !!

And, no I don't work for filemaker or mediastreet.

Now for the facts:

11x17 Torchon at Digital Art Supplies ................................. 3.90
11x17 Torchon at mediastreet.com....................................... 2.13

11x17 Structure 150 at DASupplies.......................................2.12
11x17 Aspen Moguls 150 gsm/70 lb. at mediastreet.com..1.45

Structure 150 has a dmax of 1.68 with piezo - typical of Hahnemuehle. It is 
among the lightest with deep black. I never looked too closely, because I can't 
imagine anything bigger than letter size, and at the time I thought that EAM at 
40 cents a letter sheet and  192 gsm was a no brainer. Frankly it still is for me 
(the cheapest Structure is 1.04 a letter sheet).

And you don't mention where you get German Etching. Would that qualify you 
for the... server edition of Filemaker (http://store.filemaker.com/r1.html)?? <g>

For those reading this and not following what I am getting at:
In the Files section of this group you will find a FileMaker database with paper 
info as I have been gathering since earlier this year. Many have tried using 
other programs to access the data (also available in other formats) , spending 
a fair amount of time and effort. While there is nothing wrong with that route, at 
the end you don't get the powerful scripts and layouts that make accessing the 
information a breeze. Also, every time I update it, you have to do the work all 
over again. 

So, I am suggesting here that the cost of buying the program can be defrayed 
by the potential savings you may get being steered to the best source for a 
paper. I realize this isn't for everyone and there are inherent limitations: you 
may be using papers or sources or inksets not listed, you may be a power 
user with high-end databases etc.  But, hey, the data is free!!!
By the way, Filemaker runs on both Mac and PC.

I hope this is of practical use to someone.

Antonis



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., mwesley250@e... wrote:

> On the paper front:
> 
> Received my shipment of the Schoellershammer Velvet 225 from Digital 
> Art Supplies and ran of 4 Piezo test prints using the Orwell, 
> Concorde Rag, ConeTech Matte and Epson Photo Paper profiles.
> 
> I find it to be very similar to Museo with comparable blacks and 
> color. The surface is smoother, about halfway between Epson Archival 
> Matte and Museo. It should coat very nicely and I will give it a try. 
> The base color is perhaps a little whiter than Museo. Seems to be not 
> quite as sharp as Museo.
> 
> Leaving EAM aside because of the archival issues, my favorites are 
> still Torchon, with German Etching and Turner in second place. Of 
> course with a sheet price of $4 for 11x17 Torchon I don't know how 
> much I will be using! Torchon with the Schoellershammer Velvet 
> surface would be just about perfect for the pigment inks.
> 
> Digital Art Supplies shipped me a nice set of swatches, which 
> included Hahnemule Structure 150. This looks like a whiter, lower 
> textured lightweight version of Torchon, perhaps too light. Has 
> anyone given this a try with Piezo? Opinions?
> 
> I also noted that Digital Art Supplies carries the full Hahnemule 
> line under their original names and a very large selection of other 
> papers as well.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Martin Wesley

on 8/10/01 1:13 AM, antonisphoto@... wrote:

> Now for the facts:
> 
> 11x17 Torchon at Digital Art Supplies ................................. 3.90
> 11x17 Torchon at mediastreet.com....................................... 2.13
> 
> 11x17 Structure 150 at DASupplies.......................................2.12
> 11x17 Aspen Moguls 150 gsm/70 lb. at mediastreet.com..1.45


From what I see Antonis, MediaStreet seems to be the cheapest place to buy
the H. papers across the board, once you know what *they* call it. Your
database is the charm for that!

Thanks,
Todd

What do I need to know about choosing a grayscale working space. I've tried
gamma 2.2, dot gain 20%, and no color management. Frankly I do know what the
heck I'm doing here.

FWIW, I ultimately convert the file to Adobe RGB in order to use Roark's
Variable-Tone method, but I keep an archive of the files in grayscale too.

Suggestions?

Todd

Todd,

You wrote:

>...What do I need to know about choosing a
> grayscale working space.  ... I ultimately convert
> the file to Adobe RGB in order to use Roark's
> Variable-Tone method,  ...

Here is the section on settings from the letter I send people using the MIS
version of the variable-tone inkset:
PHOTOSHOP & EPSON DRIVER SETTINGS

The following setup is for printing the Variable-Tone/Mix MIS inks with an
Epson 1160 on Epson Archival Matte paper. (Transfer functions will be used
to adjust for other paper types, to the extent necessary.)

Photoshop general color settings (Edit, Color Settings) are the Photoshop 5
Default spaces.

The Epson driver is used to print this inkset. (File, Print)

Epson driver dialog box settings:

Print:

(Source space - sRGBIEC61966-2.1)


Print Space - Profile: Same As Source

Page Setup: ...

Properties:

Media type - Matte Paper-Heavyweight

Ink - Color

Mode - Custom, push Advanced button

Advanced:

(Paper and ink same as above)

(Print Quality - 1440)

Half toning - Error Diffusion

(High Speed -- Off if heavy blacks or microbanding)

Color Management - Color Controls

Mode - Automatic

Sliders - Leave at 0 to start

The Yellow slider controls the toner.

Use for fine-tuning only.

More "yellow" = cooler print;

Less "yellow" = warmer print.

Leave all other sliders at 0.


Paul
http://www.PaulRoark.com





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

on 8/10/01 2:51 AM, Paul Roark wrote:

> Todd,
> 
> You wrote:
> 
>> ...What do I need to know about choosing a
>> grayscale working space.  ... I ultimately convert
>> the file to Adobe RGB in order to use Roark's
>> Variable-Tone method,  ...
> 
> Here is the section on settings from the letter I send people using the MIS
> version of the variable-tone inkset:
> PHOTOSHOP & EPSON DRIVER SETTINGS

Thanks Paul.

Next question.

My older "final" images (for Paul's var tone method) are in Adobe RGB, and
in the last week I've made a bunch of grayscale scans which either have no
profile attached, or Gray Gamma 2.2. The Defaults Paul spoke of specify
sRGB, and Gray Gamma 2.2.

So, should I use Convert to Profile to bring the Adobe RGB images into the
sRGB space, and use Assign Profile to bring my untagged grayscale files into
Gamma 2.2? I get confused as to when to Convert and when to Assign profiles.

Thanks,
Todd

Todd,

You wrote:

>...My older "final" images (for Paul's var tone method)
>are in Adobe RGB, and
>in the last week I've made a bunch of
>grayscale scans which either have no
>profile attached, or Gray Gamma 2.2.
>The Defaults Paul spoke of specify
>sRGB, and Gray Gamma 2.2.

>So, should I use Convert to Profile to bring
>the Adobe RGB images into the
>sRGB space, and use Assign Profile to bring
>my untagged grayscale files into Gamma 2.2?

I really don't know.  It you have a test file you might try it with the
various options and just see what happens.  Let us know.

I'm not an expert in these color spaces.  My impression is that the larger
ones might encompass all of the smaller ones and, and thus make no
difference.  Also, if the color space of the image is limited, I wonder if
these tags make much difference.

Perhaps one of the color experts on the group can share some expertise here.

>I get confused as to when to Convert and when to Assign profiles.

So do I.  I usually try to avoid all the profiles, etc. and go with the
standard, default settings.  However, we have found that some of the printer
settings make a big difference.  I think trial and error will be needed to
find out which settings mess up the system and which ones make no
difference.

Paul

on 8/10/01 10:25 PM, Dan Culbertson wrote:

> 
>> What do I need to know about choosing a grayscale working space. I've tried
>> gamma 2.2, dot gain 20%, and no color management. Frankly I do know what the
>> heck I'm doing here.
>> 
>> FWIW, I ultimately convert the file to Adobe RGB in order to use Roark's
>> Variable-Tone method, but I keep an archive of the files in grayscale too.
>> 
>> Suggestions?
>> 
>> Todd
> 
> Since you will be converting to a 2.2 gamma RGB working space it would be
> good idea to use a 2.2 gamma grayscale space.  A 20% dot gain working space
> is just another way of assigning a source profile (curve) to the file.  The
> 2.2 gamma is better unless you are creating images for a standard printing
> press.  Once you convert to Adobe RGB your initial grayscale profile is no
> longer important.  The Adobe RGB profile is now assigned to the file and is
> used as the basis for the monitor representation and the conversion to a
> printer profile on the way to print.  If you have a good RGB profile for the
> printer you can use it in the RGB preview option in Photoshop 6 to see how
> the image will actually look when it prints.  But that can't be a canned
> Epson RGB profile -- they are non-standard and do not work correctly in
> Photoshop.
> 

Thanks Dan,

So the files that are untagged get Grayscale Gamma 2.2 *assigned* to them,
and the ones that are presently tagged as Dot Gain 20% get *converted* to
Grayscale Gamma 2.2?

Todd

> What do I need to know about choosing a grayscale working space. I've tried
> gamma 2.2, dot gain 20%, and no color management. Frankly I do know what the
> heck I'm doing here.
> 
> FWIW, I ultimately convert the file to Adobe RGB in order to use Roark's
> Variable-Tone method, but I keep an archive of the files in grayscale too.
> 
> Suggestions?
> 
> Todd

Since you will be converting to a 2.2 gamma RGB working space it would be
good idea to use a 2.2 gamma grayscale space.  A 20% dot gain working space
is just another way of assigning a source profile (curve) to the file.  The
2.2 gamma is better unless you are creating images for a standard printing
press.  Once you convert to Adobe RGB your initial grayscale profile is no
longer important.  The Adobe RGB profile is now assigned to the file and is
used as the basis for the monitor representation and the conversion to a
printer profile on the way to print.  If you have a good RGB profile for the
printer you can use it in the RGB preview option in Photoshop 6 to see how
the image will actually look when it prints.  But that can't be a canned
Epson RGB profile -- they are non-standard and do not work correctly in
Photoshop.

-- Dan Culbertson
so many years, so little time...

Dan,

Since you are working with a grayscale image in a 2.2 Gamma Grayscale 
color space, how are calibrating the on screen grayscale view to the 
final print? Or does this flow through using Paul's workflows? Or 
have I missed something all together?

Martin Wesley

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson 
<danculb@b...> wrote:
>  
> > What do I need to know about choosing a grayscale working space. 
I've tried
> > gamma 2.2, dot gain 20%, and no color management. Frankly I do 
know what the
> > heck I'm doing here.
> > 
> > FWIW, I ultimately convert the file to Adobe RGB in order to use 
Roark's
> > Variable-Tone method, but I keep an archive of the files in 
grayscale too.
> > 
> > Suggestions?
> > 
> > Todd
> 
> Since you will be converting to a 2.2 gamma RGB working space it 
would be
> good idea to use a 2.2 gamma grayscale space.  A 20% dot gain 
working space
> is just another way of assigning a source profile (curve) to the 
file.  The
> 2.2 gamma is better unless you are creating images for a standard 
printing
> press.  Once you convert to Adobe RGB your initial grayscale 
profile is no
> longer important.  The Adobe RGB profile is now assigned to the 
file and is
> used as the basis for the monitor representation and the conversion 
to a
> printer profile on the way to print.  If you have a good RGB 
profile for the
> printer you can use it in the RGB preview option in Photoshop 6 to 
see how
> the image will actually look when it prints.  But that can't be a 
canned
> Epson RGB profile -- they are non-standard and do not work 
correctly in

> Photoshop.
> 
> -- Dan Culbertson
> so many years, so little time...

Dan,

Thanks for all the input on this. I am not sure I am taking it all in 
though. I need to sit down and play with it to get it clear in my 
head.

Martin

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson 
<danculb@b...> wrote:

(snip)
> 
> I may have missed something but I thought the idea was to convert 
the
> grayscale image to RGB before printing.  Once you have converted to 
RGB if
> you have a good RGB profile which shows how it will actually print 
then you
> can use that to preview the final print.  Unless (and this is what 
I missed
> in Paul's workflow) you make color tweaks in the driver.  Since a 
(snip)

> Dan,
> 
> Since you are working with a grayscale image in a 2.2 Gamma Grayscale
> color space, how are calibrating the on screen grayscale view to the
> final print? Or does this flow through using Paul's workflows? Or
> have I missed something all together?
> 
> Martin Wesley

I may have missed something but I thought the idea was to convert the
grayscale image to RGB before printing.  Once you have converted to RGB if
you have a good RGB profile which shows how it will actually print then you
can use that to preview the final print.  Unless (and this is what I missed
in Paul's workflow) you make color tweaks in the driver.  Since a profile is
always made with no tweaks in the driver other than a media type selection
my comment on profiles and previewing is not appropriate to a workflow which
uses driver tweaks instead of tweaks in the RGB file.

Further, from within the grayscale image (before conversion to RGB), there
is no way you are going to truly preview either any tweaks you might make in
RGB or any tweaks you might make in the driver.  So (basically) there is no
way, with this workflow, to get any *real* grayscale preview of the final
print at all.  

On the other hand, if the driver tweaks are relatively consistent it would
be quite possible to find an RGB gamma conversion at print time that gives
at least a somewhat consistent translation of the on-screen rendition.  To
do that one would have to make a series of custom Adobe RGBs each with its
gamma and print a standard print through each of them (selected in the Print
Space printer dialog).  The print that matches the screen most closely
reflects the custom Adobe RGB version that should be used from then on in
the print space.  Thus, the standard 2.2 grayscale gamma working space will
will be calibrated with the final print by the print process itself.  Don't
even need to convert the file to Adobe RGB before printing since by
selecting your custom Adobe RGB version in the print space the grayscale to
RGB conversion is done automatically at print time.   Not really a preview
since it won't show any color tinting that the slider adjustments would
create and it won't work if there is a lot of difference in the slider
settings from print to print.  Only works for a standardized workflow which
is what I think Paul has set up.

Note that making custom versions of Adobe RGB is actually a lot easier in
Photoshop 5 than Photoshop 6 since PS 5 lets you save them as standard RGB
profiles while Photoshop 6 makes you save the whole color settings setup
which you then select as "Working RGB" in the print dialog box.  So don't
trash that old version of 5.0!!!  It does a few things PS 6 does not.

-- Dan Culbertson
so many years, so little time...

Dan, 

glad you caught that one!... and while you are at it, you can use those profiles 
for Custom proofing  too ( view>proof setup>custom). Since you only have 
gamma controls in RGB, a gray dot gain curve or CMYK set up may actually 
give a better soft proof. But we digress....


Antonis




--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson <danculb@b...> 
wrote:

> Oops - I just started seeing what I could do in PS 6 with this and realized
> that you still can save custom working space setups as profiles.  It is a
> bit more buried in the menus than in PS 5 -- but it is there.  In Color
> Settings select RGB and select Adobe RGB.  Then in RGB select "Custom 
RGB."
> Then change the gamma and click "OK."  Then go back to RGB and select 
"Save
> RGB" and you can save it as an ICM profile in the folder where your ICM
> profiles normally reside.

I wrote:
> Note that making custom versions of Adobe RGB is actually a lot easier in
> Photoshop 5 than Photoshop 6 since PS 5 lets you save them as standard RGB
> profiles while Photoshop 6 makes you save the whole color settings setup
> which you then select as "Working RGB" in the print dialog box.  So don't
> trash that old version of 5.0!!!  It does a few things PS 6 does not.

Oops - I just started seeing what I could do in PS 6 with this and realized
that you still can save custom working space setups as profiles.  It is a
bit more buried in the menus than in PS 5 -- but it is there.  In Color
Settings select RGB and select Adobe RGB.  Then in RGB select "Custom RGB."
Then change the gamma and click "OK."  Then go back to RGB and select "Save
RGB" and you can save it as an ICM profile in the folder where your ICM
profiles normally reside.  So make, say, an Adobe 1.1, Adobe 1.2, Adobe 1.3,
etc. and you can have a full range of RGB profiles that will convert your
grayscale file to an RGB file with an applied gamma.  Whichever Adobe RGB
gives you the best match between your standard grayscale working space (be
it 1.8 or 2.2) is the one you would use in the Print Space in the print
dialog box to make the print match your monitor.  I used to do this in PS 5
for making gamma changes to RGB files with actions (where it is a bit easier
to call up a profile than a curve) but it should work fine in the print
dialog as well.

-- Dan Culbertson
so many years, so little time...

> Dan,
> 
> Thanks for all the input on this. I am not sure I am taking it all in
> though. I need to sit down and play with it to get it clear in my
> head.
> 
> Martin

Maybe I should summarize:

Set your default working space to either 1.8 or 2.2 (either one is good, I
use 2.2)
Scan your negative into that working space or scan it and open it with no
conversion.
Once opened, assign that grayscale working space to the file if your default
settings don't do that already.
Adjust your file so that it looks good on the monitor.
When you are ready to print, choose Adobe RGB gamma x.x in the print space
drop down dialog ("Adobe gamma x.x" is the edited Adobe RGB working space
you created and saved as a profile).
Set your printer color sliders according to the workflow recommendations and
print.

That should be it. You need to create multiple versions of Adobe RGB with
different gammas and select the one which works best, but once you do that
you have a monitor-to-print calibration profile which takes you through RGB
and applies a gamma.  Note that I am not at all sure why you need to go
through RGB with the workflow, but since converting to RGB was a part of the
original workflow I just gave you a way to do apply a quick RGB calibration
curve to that process.  If I were using it I think I'd just skip the RGB
part, and in the RGB step above just apply a grayscale dot gain in the
printer space dialog instead and then set my sliders.  Which ever of the
standard dot gains worked best would be the one I'd select as standard from
then on.  Unless you need to significantly change the slider settings then
you would have to come up with a new dot gain for those settings.

PS -- I've found that it is very helpful to have a couple of fifths of
Absolut around when trying to figure out workflows and how to use them.

-- Dan Culbertson
so many years, so little time...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Dan Culbertson 
<danculb@b...> wrote:
(snip)

Dan,

Well that gets printed out for the "How To Binder"

> 
> Maybe I should summarize:
> 
> Set your default working space to either 1.8 or 2.2 (either one is 
good, I
> use 2.2)
> Scan your negative into that working space or scan it and open it 
with no
> conversion.
> Once opened, assign that grayscale working space to the file if 
your default
> settings don't do that already.
> Adjust your file so that it looks good on the monitor.
> When you are ready to print, choose Adobe RGB gamma x.x in the 
print space
> drop down dialog ("Adobe gamma x.x" is the edited Adobe RGB working 
space
> you created and saved as a profile).
> Set your printer color sliders according to the workflow 
recommendations and
> print.
> 
> That should be it. You need to create multiple versions of Adobe 
RGB with
> different gammas and select the one which works best, but once you 
do that
> you have a monitor-to-print calibration profile which takes you 
through RGB
> and applies a gamma.  Note that I am not at all sure why you need 
to go
> through RGB with the workflow, but since converting to RGB was a 
part of the
> original workflow I just gave you a way to do apply a quick RGB 
calibration
> curve to that process.  If I were using it I think I'd just skip 
the RGB
> part, and in the RGB step above just apply a grayscale dot gain in 
the
> printer space dialog instead and then set my sliders.  Which ever 
of the
> standard dot gains worked best would be the one I'd select as 
standard from
> then on.  Unless you need to significantly change the slider 
settings then
> you would have to come up with a new dot gain for those settings.
> 
> PS -- I've found that it is very helpful to have a couple of fifths 
of
> Absolut around when trying to figure out workflows and how to use 
them.
> 
Are you absolutly sure about that?

Martin

on 8/11/01 9:02 PM, Dan Culbertson wrote:

> So make, say, an Adobe 1.1, Adobe 1.2, Adobe 1.3,
> etc. and you can have a full range of RGB profiles that will convert your
> grayscale file to an RGB file with an applied gamma.  Whichever Adobe RGB
> gives you the best match between your standard grayscale working space (be
> it 1.8 or 2.2) is the one you would use in the Print Space in the print
> dialog box to make the print match your monitor.  I used to do this in PS 5
> for making gamma changes to RGB files with actions (where it is a bit easier
> to call up a profile than a curve) but it should work fine in the print
> dialog as well.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding this.

One makes a few different RGB profiles, each with a different gamma, and
when converting from grayscale to RGB, choose the profile which gives the
best match. But instead of just doing a mode change, or even a convert to
profile, you can just select that profile in the driver?

If that is what you are saying, I don't think it would work with Paul
Roark's method, as that requires you to attach an RGB curve set to the file
before printing. If the conversion isn't allowed to occur until the file
reaches the driver you won't get the opportunity to properly apply the
curves. So the different gamma spaces are a good idea, but you still need to
Convert To Profile to apply them when using Paul's method.

Does that sound right?

Todd

Dan,

I posted the below question, but never mind. I read further along in the
list and found your answer in a post to Martin. I hadn't realized that first
you convert from grayscale to your RGB working space, then to your custom
RGB in the driver. I got it now.

Todd

> 
> Just want to make sure I'm understanding this.
> 
> One makes a few different RGB profiles, each with a different gamma, and when
> converting from grayscale to RGB, choose the profile which gives the best
> match. But instead of just doing a mode change, or even a convert to profile,
> you can just select that profile in the driver?
> 
> If that is what you are saying, I don't think it would work with Paul Roark's
> method, as that requires you to attach an RGB curve set to the file before
> printing. If the conversion isn't allowed to occur until the file reaches the
> driver you won't get the opportunity to properly apply the curves. So the
> different gamma spaces are a good idea, but you still need to Convert To
> Profile to apply them when using Paul's method.
> 
> Does that sound right?
> 
> Todd

>> PS -- I've found that it is very helpful to have a couple of fifths
> of
>> Absolut around when trying to figure out workflows and how to use
> them.
>> 
> Are you absolutly sure about that?
> 
> Martin

After a fifth or two you are absolutely sure of everything (except how to
stand up without falling over).  Perhaps that is why they call it "Asolut"
:-)

Dan

> If that is what you are saying, I don't think it would work with Paul
> Roark's method, as that requires you to attach an RGB curve set to the file
> before printing. If the conversion isn't allowed to occur until the file
> reaches the driver you won't get the opportunity to properly apply the
> curves. So the different gamma spaces are a good idea, but you still need to
> Convert To Profile to apply them when using Paul's method.
> 
> Does that sound right?
> 
> Todd

Ahh, didn't realize there was a required RGB curve in there - if you have to
use an RGB curve in RGB space then it wouldn't work directly from grayscale
to the printer.  However, as you note, it will still work as a way to
calibrate the monitor to the printer when used on the RGB file on its way to
the printer. In fact, short of a real RGB profile, I think it is the only
way to do a simple gamma adjustment on an RGB file in the print dialog
printer space drop down.

However, see my other posts on converting from grayscale to RGB then doing
curves adjustments in RGB.  To avoid histogram gaps either make sure your
destination  RGB space is an identical gamma as your source grayscale space
*or* first convert to multichannel, make two more copies of the original
channel (so you have a total of three) *then* convert to RGB.  As this extra
step prevents any possibility of gray to RGB conversion histogram gaps and
consequent posterization I rather recommend it as a standard practice.

Dan