Digital BW, The Print

The web-based tutorial included with ImagePrint.
Abhay Sharma's Understanding Color Management.
Glossary information at www.dpreview.com, written by Vincent Bockaert



Bill Kennedy
Associate Professor of Photocommunications
St. Edward's University
512/448-8680


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

Thanks Bill. I just ordered the Sharma. 

I didn't find anything by Bockaert that seemed directly to the point
of printing profiles...I'll look again. 

Same with ImagePrint, which seems focused on their specific software
and services.

I'm actually very happy with my color prints and I get very credible
(not good-enough, but credible and neutral) B&W with QTRgui.

My problem:  I've been approaching this as a photographer with a
highly developed color eye (I can accurately state a CC number with
which to correct and can usually directly translate that into my
2200's language)... I keep wanting to rely on eyes and logic, rather
than upon gizmo quantification. 

My IMPRESSION (correct me if I'm wrong) is that profiles are
essentially the same as the cookbooked color "settings" that small
town studio photographers used to use to start "ring-around" test
prints...they used ring arounds (like in Elements) because they
couldn't personally judge color accurately. 

These gents typically accumulated piles of Macbeth and other
surprisingly accurate  "color analyzers" which were crutches that
prevented them from getting to the skill level of a good color lab
professional. I have the impression that history is repeating itself
here. I imagine my tune will change if/when I graduate to an advanced
DSLR from scanned negs and trans. 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, BKPhoto@a... wrote:

> The web-based tutorial included with ImagePrint.
> Abhay Sharma's Understanding Color Management.
> Glossary information at www.dpreview.com, written by Vincent Bockaert
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Kennedy
> Associate Professor of Photocommunications
> St. Edward's University
> 512/448-8680
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

In a message dated 2/8/05 12:55:26 PM, westsidemaurice@... writes:


> 
> 
> Thanks Bill. I just ordered the Sharma.
> 
> Excellent book. You won't be disappointed.
> 
> Same with ImagePrint, which seems focused on their specific software
> and services.
> 
Their on-line tutorial is part of their installation package; I don't know if 
its accessable otherwise. You might send them an email.
> 
> I'm actually very happy with my color prints and I get very credible
> (not good-enough, but credible and neutral) B&W with QTRgui.
> 
QRT is a minor miracle, in my opinion. If you like the results with the 
default printing curves it is a very easy and friendly solution. If you venture off 
the default printing path--to linearize or build new printing curves--you'll 
need to read and master the documentation, and you'll need either a 
densitometer or spectrophotometer.
> 
> My problem:  I've been approaching this as a photographer with a
> highly developed color eye (I can accurately state a CC number with
> which to correct and can usually directly translate that into my
> 2200's language)... I keep wanting to rely on eyes and logic, rather
> than upon gizmo quantification.
> 
I understand where your coming from on this, and I'm sympathetic to how you'd 
like to approach the digital darkroom, but--in my opinion--it won't work. Or, 
perhaps more accurately, it will only work to a point. It really depends on 
how much control you need over the printing process. Understanding color 
management fundamentals, and how to impliment color management, is the foundation 
you've got to build to explore inkjet printing in-depth.
> 
> My IMPRESSION (correct me if I'm wrong) is that profiles are
> essentially the same as the cookbooked color "settings" that small
> town studio photographers used to use to start "ring-around" test
> prints...they used ring arounds (like in Elements) because they
> couldn't personally judge color accurately.
> 
Yeah, that is completely wrong! Essentially, a profile is just a small 
document that is attached to an image file. It can be authored in different ways for 
different purposed, but the core idea is to pass information about the image 
file accurately through your digital system. Profiles that photographers 
generally take advantage of are: source profiles, that describe the color space the 
file exists in (sRGB or Adobe RGB 1998, for example) and the color signature 
or gamut of the creation device (digital camera or scanner, for example). The 
color engine in your computer, and the color engine in Photoshop, use this 
information to move the image file to various devices--like a display or an 
inkjet printer--as accurately as possible; destination profiles describe the color 
signature of the display or printer.

Profiles don't change or alter the information in an image file but they are 
important to how that information is processed as the file moves through your 
system.

If you think of an image file as a "package of pixels", profiles are the 
detailed label attached to the package.
> 
> These gents typically accumulated piles of Macbeth and other
> surprisingly accurate  "color analyzers" which were crutches that
> prevented them from getting to the skill level of a good color lab
> professional. I have the impression that history is repeating itself
> here. I imagine my tune will change if/when I graduate to an advanced
> DSLR from scanned negs and trans.
> 
Right now, the technology that supports the digital darkroom is not as 
transparent as the technology that supports the traditional wet darkroom (but its 
getting there very quickly). I agree with you, that there seems to be a lot of 
gizmos's and black box stuff to deal with; and it would be nice to just use 
your eyes. Understanding color management basics doesn't require any equipment or 
specialized software (though it can help).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> > Bill Kennedy
> > Associate Professor of Photocommunications
> > St. Edward's University
> > 512/448-8680


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

Bill,  

How'd your college manage to find a teacher who could write
coherently?  :-)

As I read your answer to my main Bushian dismisunderstanding (!) a
profile allows various already well-profiled monitors printers to
understand and display/print a file in the same way, so long as the
paper is already known. Right so far? 

Following that logic the other direction, profiling would NOT appear
important if/while my entire system is under control and relatively
stable (eg no aging CRT monitor) and if I print only through one
healthy printer with Epson's reliably consistent OEM pigment set (I do
envision a 4000 one of these days, so that change could be an issue).

Hm? 

I'm not trying to dodge the bullet here, I'm just trying to dig out
from under all the marketing BS and generic confusion that I'm hearing
from advocates of various gizmos, ink alternatives, and applications. 

John 





> > 
> > My problem:  I've been approaching this as a photographer with a
> > highly developed color eye (I can accurately state a CC number with
> > which to correct and can usually directly translate that into my
> > 2200's language)... I keep wanting to rely on eyes and logic, rather
> > than upon gizmo quantification.
> > 
> I understand where your coming from on this, and I'm sympathetic to
how you'd 
> like to approach the digital darkroom, but--in my opinion--it won't
work. Or, 
> perhaps more accurately, it will only work to a point. It really
depends on 
> how much control you need over the printing process. Understanding
color 
> management fundamentals, and how to impliment color management, is
the foundation 
> you've got to build to explore inkjet printing in-depth.
> > 
> > My IMPRESSION (correct me if I'm wrong) is that profiles are
> > essentially the same as the cookbooked color "settings" that small
> > town studio photographers used to use to start "ring-around" test
> > prints...they used ring arounds (like in Elements) because they
> > couldn't personally judge color accurately.
> > 
> Yeah, that is completely wrong! Essentially, a profile is just a small 
> document that is attached to an image file. It can be authored in
different ways for 
> different purposed, but the core idea is to pass information about
the image 
> file accurately through your digital system. Profiles that
photographers 
> generally take advantage of are: source profiles, that describe the
color space the 
> file exists in (sRGB or Adobe RGB 1998, for example) and the color
signature 
> or gamut of the creation device (digital camera or scanner, for
example). The 
> color engine in your computer, and the color engine in Photoshop,
use this 
> information to move the image file to various devices--like a
display or an 
> inkjet printer--as accurately as possible; destination profiles
describe the color 
> signature of the display or printer.
> 
> Profiles don't change or alter the information in an image file but
they are 
> important to how that information is processed as the file moves
through your 
> system.
> 
> If you think of an image file as a "package of pixels", profiles are
the 
> detailed label attached to the package.
> > 
> > These gents typically accumulated piles of Macbeth and other
> > surprisingly accurate  "color analyzers" which were crutches that
> > prevented them from getting to the skill level of a good color lab
> > professional. I have the impression that history is repeating itself
> > here. I imagine my tune will change if/when I graduate to an advanced
> > DSLR from scanned negs and trans.
> > 
> Right now, the technology that supports the digital darkroom is not as 
> transparent as the technology that supports the traditional wet
darkroom (but its 
> getting there very quickly). I agree with you, that there seems to
be a lot of 
> gizmos's and black box stuff to deal with; and it would be nice to
just use 
> your eyes. Understanding color management basics doesn't require any
equipment or 

> specialized software (though it can help).
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > > Bill Kennedy
> > > Associate Professor of Photocommunications
> > > St. Edward's University
> > > 512/448-8680
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

John-

I'd invest in a display calibration and profiling kit. The new Monaco Optix 
is getting good reviews. You have to trust your display.

Use the default printing profiles that come with the 4000 and print on Epson 
media. You'll have some really good choices. You'll be printing on the OEM 
path with both matt and glossy surfaces.

If you have issues with grayscale printing, and you most likely will, try 
either the QRT or Bowhaus' IJC/OPM RIP's. These are grayscale RIP's; they won't 
make a color print (although they will make a grayscale print from a color 
file; but that's another story). You can use the OEM print driver for color, the 
RIP for grayscale. Both QRT and Bowhaus provide really good default printing 
curves (not profiles). The Bowhaus linearization function is easier to use and 
it can improve grayscale printing with UltraChrome inks.

Or, when you're ready to purchase the 4000 consider the package that includes 
the ColorBurst RIP. ColorBurst is an excellent professional application; 
you'll have default ICC printing profiles for both color and grayscale printing. 
ColorBurst packages factory linearization files with their profiles (called 
"environments"); not as a dead-on accurate as linearizing your own machine, but 
very close and very useful. The default profiles/environments include a much 
wider range of papers than the OEM print driver and ColorBurst's technical 
support is excellent.

With any of these options you don't have to worry about authoring custom 
printing profiles. That should keep you safely away from as many gizmos and 
doodads as possible!


Bill Kennedy


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