Digital BW, The Print

I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most appreciated.

In my experience, monitors typically compress the deep shadow values of an
image.  That is, the typical monitor, profiled either manually with Adobe
Gamma or more accurately with, for example, Spyder2Pro, will show almost no
difference between 100% black and 90% black.  The monitor and print may also
show the midtones with different brightness and contrast characteristics.  

If the monitor and print look different, there would seem to be two basic
approaches that could get them to match better:  

First, the view on the monitor can be altered to match the print.  

Second, the image file can be printed so that the print matches the
monitor's view.

Would it be easier to accept what the Spyder2Pro does and simply match the
print to that?  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

A very quick answer.  I profile my Apple Cinema HD Display with an EyeOne
Display.  I can clearly see a difference between 90, 95 and 100.  For me, my
90% is L=10 and my 95% is L=5 etc and there is good separation.  So  a good
well profiled monitor can display what you would like to see.

The next question then is how to get a print to "match the screen" or much
more likely get a decent soft-proof that is consistent with
(methodology-wise) and matches the print.  In this regard, I have found no
substitute for Roy's path of creating an ICC profile which depicts the
characteristics of the print space, using this to soft proof, and then
converting to this print space (on the fly or prior to) at the time of
printing.  As to the details of how Roy created his Matte/Photo Paper
greyscale ICC profiles, you'll have to check with him but the use of
perceptual rendering to map 256 to paper white and 0 to ink black, and all
points in between, makes enormous sense.  This was my biggest issue with the
way these RIPs worked. Previously the points in between were a straight line
and the resultant gamma bore no resemblance to the workspace.

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:15:17 -0700
> To: DigitalB&WPrint <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most appreciated.
> 
> In my experience, monitors typically compress the deep shadow values of an
> image.  That is, the typical monitor, profiled either manually with Adobe
> Gamma or more accurately with, for example, Spyder2Pro, will show almost no
> difference between 100% black and 90% black.  The monitor and print may also
> show the midtones with different brightness and contrast characteristics.
> 
> If the monitor and print look different, there would seem to be two basic
> approaches that could get them to match better:
> 
> First, the view on the monitor can be altered to match the print.
> 
> Second, the image file can be printed so that the print matches the
> monitor's view.
> 
> Would it be easier to accept what the Spyder2Pro does and simply match the
> print to that?  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
>

Paul,

I have read your article, "Profiling the monitor to match the 
prints," and found it extremely easy to understand, and easy to 
apply to my own workflow. I use it all the time and it just makes 
good simple, sense, while helping me create prints which exactly* 
match what I see on my profiled monitor. Since the root issues here 
are sometimes quite technical in nature, discussions by the most 
knowledgeable among us often transgress into highly elevated techno-
babble, leaving many of us folks who just want to print, dismayed 
and frustrated. I really do appreciate simple solutions that I can 
understand and apply with ease. 

*exactly, of course, is a relatively subjective term

Thanks!

Jeff
http://www.pbase.com/k2kv



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most 
appreciated.
> 
> In my experience, monitors typically compress the deep shadow 
values of an
> image.  That is, the typical monitor, profiled either manually 
with Adobe
> Gamma or more accurately with, for example, Spyder2Pro, will show 
almost no
> difference between 100% black and 90% black.  The monitor and 
print may also
> show the midtones with different brightness and contrast 
characteristics.  
> 
> If the monitor and print look different, there would seem to be 
two basic
> approaches that could get them to match better:  
> 
> First, the view on the monitor can be altered to match the print.  
> 
> Second, the image file can be printed so that the print matches the
> monitor's view.
> 
> Would it be easier to accept what the Spyder2Pro does and simply 
match the

> print to that?  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Steve,


> ... I profile my Apple Cinema HD Display with an EyeOne
> Display.  I can clearly see a difference between 90, 95 and 100.  
>For me, my 90% is L=10 and my 95% is L=5 etc and there is 
>good separation.  So  a good
> well profiled monitor can display what you would like to see.

That suggests that the Spyder2Pro that I use with my Win XP and crt is
giving a different view than what you are doing.

It is my impression that Adobe RGB (1998) color files should display
essentially the same on modern, "calibrated" systems.  Is this so?  If so,
why are our "calibrated" systems showing different views?

> The next question then is how to get a print to "match the screen" or much
> more likely get a decent soft-proof that is consistent with
> (methodology-wise) and matches the print.

I undersand that we can modify the view.  What I'm  questioning is whether
it makes more sense to match the print to a standardized view.  So, the
first question might be whether there is a standardized view that is
relatively well accepted by the mainstream industry -- meaning large color
market.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

______________________

> 
> 
> > From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@verizon.net>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 11:15:17 -0700
> > To: DigitalB&WPrint <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> >
> >
> > I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most
> appreciated.
> >
> > In my experience, monitors typically compress the deep shadow values of
> an
> > image.  That is, the typical monitor, profiled either manually with
> Adobe
> > Gamma or more accurately with, for example, Spyder2Pro, will show almost
> no
> > difference between 100% black and 90% black.  The monitor and print may
> also
> > show the midtones with different brightness and contrast
> characteristics.
> >
> > If the monitor and print look different, there would seem to be two
> basic
> > approaches that could get them to match better:
> >
> > First, the view on the monitor can be altered to match the print.
> >
> > Second, the image file can be printed so that the print matches the
> > monitor's view.
> >
> > Would it be easier to accept what the Spyder2Pro does and simply match
> the
> > print to that?
> >
> > Paul
> > www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Hello Paul,

>I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most 
>appreciated.
>If the monitor and print look different, there would seem to be two
>basic approaches that could get them to match better:  
>First, the view on the monitor can be altered to match the print.  
>Second, the image file can be printed so that the print matches the
>monitor's view.

I haven't used a monitor calibration device so I can't speak to that,
but FWIW my workflow with a new image is to first do the rudimentary
levels adjustments, then make a print.

If there is a mismatch, I adjust the monitor profile (printer profile
is always kept "Same As source") to adjust the screen image to more
closely match the print.  I've found that Dot Gain 20% is a bit too
dark and 15% a bit too light, in most cases.  So now I use a custom
DG18% curve as the default and it is fine for 95% of my images and
have very good WYSIWYG.  This works well with both techniques, BO and
UT7.

As for the monitor, I use a Samsung 710 LCD and it clearly shows
differences in the 90-95-100% patches of the enhanced step wedge.  In
the 1% squares, at the low end I can see the difference in 99 and 100,
but 96-99 are difficult to distinguish.  At the high end I can see
differences in all five squares, 1-5%.   HTH.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Paul, my results with Spyder2Pro differ from yours. I can clearly see
tonal differences all the way down. Also, I have EyeOne Photo, and the
Spyder2Pro does a much better job here.
One problem is that none of this stuff seems as absolute is it should
be. With all these acurate devices and sophisticated software you'd
think results would be the same from them all. They are not. I have
used 5 different apps and 3 different devces, all different results.
You should be getting better results, I'd contact David Tobie at
ColorVision and see what he has to say. Perhaps things can be improved.
Tyler

Paul, the profound error that digital technology seductively
encourages is that there are absolutes in sensory material, such as
photographs. Data only refer to phenomena, they are not equivalent to
the phenomena.

If you have worked as I have with hundreds of photographers and art
directors, you know that they all have ephemeral notions of what's in
their imaged, whether printed, lurking in transparencies or negatives,
or not there at all except in their skulls. 

Those notions, often a little narcissistic, are noise in this system.
Limited practical, visual experience with photographic color and
fundamental Zone System amplifies that noise.

Additionally, many digital photographers are f64 anal, they want
unattainable and impossible-to-define perfection based on invariably
flawed film or files (nothing is as perfect as they imagine, and if
they imagine something very specific they cannot achieve it with the
precision they demand). 

Profiling is a short-term workaround, just like wax cylinders in
record players: I applaud your willingness to rethink basics.

I also applaud your writing...you are one of the only people who posts
coherently on these topics. 

John / Albuquerque



 

What I'm  questioning is whether
> it makes more sense to match the print to a standardized view.  So, the
> first question might be whether there is a standardized view that is
> relatively well accepted by the mainstream industry -- meaning large
color

> market.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
snip...
> Profiling is a short-term workaround, just like wax cylinders in
> record players...

Though color management will surely evolve, and where we are now will
become the dark ages, it works pretty well the vast majority of the time.
Digital files are just numbers, for display or reproduction, it makes
sense that those numbers must be related to the actual characteristics
of the devices. Without that, the numbers are just interim storage.
Even as storage, they must be assigned some indication of the
creator's intention.
Tyler

Hi Paul.
I hesitate to jump in and give advice to someone so much farther up on
the printing curve than I but I can give you my own experience for
whatever it is worth.

I do whatever it takes to be certain that the monitor gives me clearly
discernable steps on the 21step scale (thank you-it's yours). I don't
currently have an eye-one or spyder but I use a program similar to
Adobe gamma. I also use an inexpensive solution to paper profiling
(wiziwyg) which I use for color printing. I have learned that the soft
proofing method using the icc profiles works extremely well for screen
to print matching. ( Effectively I edit a copy of the file under
softproof until it is what I want and then print it.) This is done
after all normal editing on a master is finished and before printing.
What surprised me <and I'm still thinking about why it is that way> is
that toggeling the soft proof off and on when it had been final edited
for printing resulted in no major difference between the onscreen
image with and without softproof applied whereas there had been a big
change initialy.

I learned while printing color based greyscales and duo/quads that the
same profiles I used for color prints did, in fact, show up subtle
differences and gradations within monotones.I can actually make some
very nice toned B&W prints that way. It does not, of course, answer
the main problems with color Quads ie: metamerism, differential
fading, and actual maximum longevity, among others. Presumably those
same questions/problems are why very low gamut (all carbon?) B&W inks
have been your aim in so far as it is possible.

All this said, what does it have to do with B&W Quads and your
questions? Well, I guess I'm advocating some of both.

It is unaceptable to me to have my monitor not display the major tonal
changes along the 21step scale and my(hoped for) use of tones in the
finished print. That is true regardless of color or B&W end points.
I would fix that before anything and would not care how it had to be
accomplished. I do get a sense that something might be off somehow in
your monitors setup as mine was not at all difficult to do.

Once that is done you should have less trouble getting a good
screen/print match. Your curves are already designed to that end.
If you are trying something like QTR the softproof/print profiles he
has come up with would also work nicely.

Hope all this blather is of some use.
Regards.
Duane






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most
appreciated.
> 
> In my experience, monitors typically compress the deep shadow values
of an
> image.  That is, the typical monitor, profiled either manually with
Adobe
> Gamma or more accurately with, for example, Spyder2Pro, will show
almost no
> difference between 100% black and 90% black.  The monitor and print
may also
> show the midtones with different brightness and contrast
characteristics.  
> 
> If the monitor and print look different, there would seem to be two
basic
> approaches that could get them to match better:  
> 
> First, the view on the monitor can be altered to match the print.  
> 
> Second, the image file can be printed so that the print matches the
> monitor's view.
> 
> Would it be easier to accept what the Spyder2Pro does and simply
match the

> print to that?  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
>
> I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most
> appreciated.
>
> In my experience, monitors typically compress the deep shadow values of an
> image.  That is, the typical monitor, profiled either manually with Adobe
> Gamma or more accurately with, for example, Spyder2Pro, will show
> almost no
> difference between 100% black and 90% black.  The monitor and
> print may also
> show the midtones with different brightness and contrast
> characteristics.

It sounds to me like your monitor isn't as well-profiled as you think it is.
I can put up a step wedge, and clearly see the differences in the dark end.
Indeed, I can see the difference between Lab L=0 and L=2 in a brightly lit
room, on both my CRT and laptop LCD. Both were profiled with an Eye-One Pro
spectro.

I expect that if you were to get your monitor to distinguish the shadows,
you'd get better matching. Maybe it would be worth trying a different
colorimeter.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Hi Paul,

I was similarly bothered by the compressed shadow values that are
typically seen.  I thought it was strange that I could have a high-end
display and a high-end profiling device and software and not get decent
separation.  What I finally realized was that this has nothing do to with
my system being off -- it was entirely the definition of Gamma 2.2.
The gamma curve is just a simple exponential: output = input ^ gamma,
and the slope at 0 (i.e. black) is 0 (i.e no contrast) and you have to get 
a ways out before you get decent contrast.

Each of the possible gray spaces has it's own shape -- i.e what the internal
numbers "mean" in gray value is different for each space.  In other words
K=95 means something different in each space.  It's instructive to take
a 21step and Assign different gray spaces to it and see the changes.  You'll
see it different on the display and on the PS info pallette (setup with K and Lab).
For instance, K=95 in GG2.2 is only Lab=1.

This is all the reason for my making a Gray Lab space, it makes for evenly
spaced steps.  With this gray space I have no problem seeing nice even
steps with a 51 step wedge (2% increments).

Photoshop together will color management have the capability of either
approach in getting the monitor and print to match.  Your "first" is basically
softproofing where you check "Preserve Color Numbers" and you see on 
the screen what the print will come out like.   It's done by measuring actual
output and the softproof simulates that on the screen.  The "second" is
by making a print profile to be used as the Print Space (rather than 
Same As Source).  Here the profile is used as a correction for the output.

I think the second is easier to use since don't have to setup softproofing
each time and you don't need to target your data file to a specific output.
But the first is probably more accurate since it can simulate ink and paper
color as well as gray value.

Roy

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:

> I'm trying to re-think this issue.  Some feedback would be most appreciated.
> 
> In my experience, monitors typically compress the deep shadow values of an
> image.  That is, the typical monitor, profiled either manually with Adobe
> Gamma or more accurately with, for example, Spyder2Pro, will show almost no
> difference between 100% black and 90% black.  The monitor and print may also
> show the midtones with different brightness and contrast characteristics.  
> 
> If the monitor and print look different, there would seem to be two basic
> approaches that could get them to match better:  
> 
> First, the view on the monitor can be altered to match the print.  
> 
> Second, the image file can be printed so that the print matches the
> monitor's view.
> 
> Would it be easier to accept what the Spyder2Pro does and simply match the
> print to that?  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

OMG !!

> From: Djon <westsidemaurice@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 20:55:04 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, the profound error that digital technology seductively
> encourages is that there are absolutes in sensory material, such as
> photographs. Data only refer to phenomena, they are not equivalent to
> the phenomena.
> 
> If you have worked as I have with hundreds of photographers and art
> directors, you know that they all have ephemeral notions of what's in
> their imaged, whether printed, lurking in transparencies or negatives,
> or not there at all except in their skulls.
> 
> Those notions, often a little narcissistic, are noise in this system.
> Limited practical, visual experience with photographic color and
> fundamental Zone System amplifies that noise.
> 
> Additionally, many digital photographers are f64 anal, they want
> unattainable and impossible-to-define perfection based on invariably
> flawed film or files (nothing is as perfect as they imagine, and if
> they imagine something very specific they cannot achieve it with the
> precision they demand).
> 
> Profiling is a short-term workaround, just like wax cylinders in
> record players: I applaud your willingness to rethink basics.
> 
> I also applaud your writing...you are one of the only people who posts
> coherently on these topics.
> 
> John / Albuquerque
> 
> 
> 
>

Well said

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 21:08:01 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
> <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> snip...
>> Profiling is a short-term workaround, just like wax cylinders in
>> record players...
> 
> Though color management will surely evolve, and where we are now will
> become the dark ages, it works pretty well the vast majority of the time.
> Digital files are just numbers, for display or reproduction, it makes
> sense that those numbers must be related to the actual characteristics
> of the devices. Without that, the numbers are just interim storage.
> Even as storage, they must be assigned some indication of the
> creator's intention.
> Tyler
>

Precisely, I was just about to post something similar. It could have
more to do with color settings and how files are tagged than a monitor
issue.
Open a step wedge, go to image/mode/assign profile- select don't color
manage...
Now go to color settings and flip through the various grays space
options. You will clearly see how these spaces effect the
representation of shadow values, quite dramatically.
There is a great test in one of the Fraser books to see if monitor
calibration/profiling has achieved it's intention. It will let you
test eacn level. Very interesting, sorry I don't have the title in
front of me- either RW Photoshop or RW Color management...
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington"
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I was similarly bothered by the compressed shadow values that are
> typically seen.  I thought it was strange that I could have a high-end
> display and a high-end profiling device and software and not get decent
> separation.  What I finally realized was that this has nothing do to
with
> my system being off -- it was entirely the definition of Gamma 2.2....

It looks like the answer to my question is that the monitor views are not
standardized.  As such, each file or view has to be adjusted for each
system.  There seem to be a number of ways to do that. 

Thanks, all, for the feedback.  With just one (relatively cheap) monitor in
front of me, I can't tell how much of what I'm seeing is just my system's
characteristics.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Tyler Boley [mailto:tyler@...]
> Sent: Monday, April 04, 2005 12:49 PM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> 
> Paul, my results with Spyder2Pro differ from yours. I can clearly see
> tonal differences all the way down. Also, I have EyeOne Photo, and the
> Spyder2Pro does a much better job here.
> One problem is that none of this stuff seems as absolute is it should
> be. With all these acurate devices and sophisticated software you'd
> think results would be the same from them all. They are not. I have
> used 5 different apps and 3 different devces, all different results.
> You should be getting better results, I'd contact David Tobie at
> ColorVision and see what he has to say. Perhaps things can be improved.
> Tyler
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Roy/Paul

This is very well put.  Anyone who argues abandoning the "well profiled
monitor" route is talking through a whole in their head.  There will always
be measurement error in such profiling but systematic measurement and the
application of that measured data (where possible) and an understanding of
what it means has to be the starting point.  The use of profiling is
pervasive through  the colour world (and I don't just mean photography) for
a reason - within measurement limits, it works.

Roy highlighted the difference between Gray Gamma 2.2 and Lab which was why
in my earlier response I noted my workspace values.  But whether you choose
to work in Lab, Lab Grey or GG2.2 is not the key question - in all these
spaces a particular shade of grey, visually, still looks the same.  The key
question is how you map those values to the print space and the shape of the
print space.  

Previously, in the RIP world, while we had a linear L print space there was
still no sensible mechanism for mapping (in a Same as Source workflow) from
a workspace of A with a gamma of x to a print space of B with a gamma of y.
We linearised the print space but it wasn't profiled and so we could not
draw on the wealth of knowledge and technique available to the colour world
for the transition.  (In a long discussion a while ago I was arguing that
the default mapping was inappropriate and causing "flat" prints and people
who didn't understand why it occurred.)  While I won't say it is perfect (I
would like to see some sort of perceptual rendering that was image
dependent) Roy's advent of (ICC) profiling the print space has been a major
step forward.

This advent was useful for two principal reasons.  Firstly, it allowed us to
use a much more sophisticated technique for the mapping of image values to
the print space (rendering rather than a point to point mapping).  But
secondly, by using an ICC profile it allows us to use PS' built in soft
proofing features to edit an image as it will be printed.  We got the use of
the tools the colour world has at its daily disposal.

Changing the monitor to meet the output is a fudge (and screws any colour
managed colour work). Better to measure the output - BOTH as it is displayed
and as it is printed - and have a translation mechanism for the two.  (BTW
this is why I asked my question re the PS setting used by people for their
generic rendering which includes the translation from file value to display
value.  Many use Perceptual for file-to-print but have relcol in their PS
preferences for file-to-display.)  At least this way if you don't like the
results of the translation mechanism (ie the effects of Perceptual
rendering) you can see them and adjust them  -  and see the affects of the
adjustments as they would be printed.

Arguably one should measure the print space for each printer, ink, and paper
situation (as we do for colour), ie go through the process Roy did when
creating his "generic" profiles for each combo.  This should, I believe (I
am a little puzzled by Roy's last sentence), entail a measurement of actual
ink black and paper white - as well as deal with any printer specific blips
in linearity between.

Steve

> From: Roy Harrington <roy@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 04 Apr 2005 22:24:04 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I was similarly bothered by the compressed shadow values that are
> typically seen.  I thought it was strange that I could have a high-end
> display and a high-end profiling device and software and not get decent
> separation.  What I finally realized was that this has nothing do to with
> my system being off -- it was entirely the definition of Gamma 2.2.
> The gamma curve is just a simple exponential: output = input ^ gamma,
> and the slope at 0 (i.e. black) is 0 (i.e no contrast) and you have to get
> a ways out before you get decent contrast.
> 
> Each of the possible gray spaces has it's own shape -- i.e what the internal
> numbers "mean" in gray value is different for each space.  In other words
> K=95 means something different in each space.  It's instructive to take
> a 21step and Assign different gray spaces to it and see the changes.  You'll
> see it different on the display and on the PS info pallette (setup with K and
> Lab).
> For instance, K=95 in GG2.2 is only Lab=1.
> 
> This is all the reason for my making a Gray Lab space, it makes for evenly
> spaced steps.  With this gray space I have no problem seeing nice even
> steps with a 51 step wedge (2% increments).
> 
> Photoshop together will color management have the capability of either
> approach in getting the monitor and print to match.  Your "first" is basically
> softproofing where you check "Preserve Color Numbers" and you see on
> the screen what the print will come out like.   It's done by measuring actual
> output and the softproof simulates that on the screen.  The "second" is
> by making a print profile to be used as the Print Space (rather than
> Same As Source).  Here the profile is used as a correction for the output.
> 
> I think the second is easier to use since don't have to setup softproofing
> each time and you don't need to target your data file to a specific output.
> But the first is probably more accurate since it can simulate ink and paper
> color as well as gray value.
> 
> Roy
>

Without fully thinking this through, I think the "standardised view" you
should work to is a well-profiled monitor with a defined rendering intent
for mapping image file values to display.  The bit that is open-ended in
your current workflow at the moment, I believe, is that you send (curve
adjusted) raw image values to the printer and so must define for the other
uses the workspace they use.  If I start with a different workspace from you
yet we work the same image up in identically the same way, we will each see
the same thing on our monitors - colour management will handle the different
image file values and our displays (gamut differences aside).  But each will
print very differently.  If, on the other hand, we each colour manage the
print step we should (using the same equipment) get the "same" printed
image.  The large colour market doesn't care as much about defining the
workspace because there is management of the workspace to printspace step
(again, out of gamut colours to one side for the moment).

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> 
> I undersand that we can modify the view.  What I'm  questioning is whether
> it makes more sense to match the print to a standardized view.  So, the
> first question might be whether there is a standardized view that is
> relatively well accepted by the mainstream industry -- meaning large color
> market.
>

The monitor views SHOULD be "standardized" or rather "well managed".  File
values though will differ dependent on the workspace.  Step 90 for me is not
the same as 90 for you but L=10 (or its gray gamme 2.2 equivalent) should
display the "same" everywhere (where it is "in-gamut").  Your breakdown is
not with the monitor but with sending, without colour management, file
values to the printer.

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> 
> 
> It looks like the answer to my question is that the monitor views are not
> standardized.  As such, each file or view has to be adjusted for each
> system.  There seem to be a number of ways to do that.
>

The use of profiling is
> pervasive through  the colour world (and I don't just mean
photography) for
> a reason - within measurement limits, it works. 

It isn't "pervasive" throughout photography, though the usual suspects
(Macbeth et al) would like it to be, and no, it doesn't "work" so much
as distract: clear on most digital photolab forums. 

Profiling is mostly a workaround that pretends numbers replace highly
developed visual skills ...  aspiring digital photographers are taught
that the truely miraculous ez-as-pie technology with which they've
been gifted needs to be made complex by mostly-incoherent-priests
(present company excluded, of course :-)

Profiling is irrelevant to *most* who do digital printing. 

Evem more to the point, Epson's newest printers are mere place-holders
that will very soon be replaced by *self-profiling printers* following
HP's Designjet 130.   

Look at the Designjet 130 to see Epson in 2006.

> From: Djon [mailto:westsidemaurice@...]
>
> It isn't "pervasive" throughout photography, though the usual suspects
> (Macbeth et al) would like it to be, and no, it doesn't "work" so much
> as distract: clear on most digital photolab forums.
>
> Profiling is mostly a workaround that pretends numbers replace highly
> developed visual skills ...  aspiring digital photographers are taught
> that the truely miraculous ez-as-pie technology with which they've
> been gifted needs to be made complex by mostly-incoherent-priests
> (present company excluded, of course :-)
>
> Profiling is irrelevant to *most* who do digital printing.

You may be a wonderful photographer who produces beautiful prints, but this
is a load of nonsense. You may have failed to get good results from
profiling, but many of us have succeeded. When I hold my prints up next to
my screen, they look about as close as I can imagine getting between
something that emits light and something that reflects light. And they look
that way because I have a good monitor, a high-quality spectro for
profiling, calibrated room lighting, and a knowledge of how to use it all.

As to digital photolabs, from everything I read, it sounds like many if not
most of them are former chemical photolabs who have been forced by the
marketplace to go digital, but know no more about color management than the
people who give them JPEGs out of their point-and-shoots.

I will agree with one point, though, and that's that highly developed visual
skills will always be necessary. For one thing, if your profiling isn't
working, your visual skills will be needed to discover that fact. But when
that happens, it isn't magic--there's always a reason, and it can be fixed.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
<westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
...
> It isn't "pervasive" throughout photography, though the usual suspects
> (Macbeth et al) would like it to be, and no, it doesn't "work" so much
> as distract: clear on most digital photolab forums. 

Ever try to work with a digital photolab that isn't up to speed on
color management?

> Profiling is mostly a workaround that pretends numbers replace highly
> developed visual skills ...

Visual as in what you see on your monitor? So what are you seeing on
your monitor, is it profiled?

...
> Profiling is irrelevant to *most* who do digital printing. 

...then...
> 
> Evem more to the point, Epson's newest printers are mere place-holders
> that will very soon be replaced by *self-profiling printers* following
> HP's Designjet 130.   
> 
> Look at the Designjet 130 to see Epson in 2006.

So I guess that means that the printers DO need to be profiled, self
or not.

Ahh, for those glory days before color management, everything worked
so well...
...oh, uh, memories return...

There may be reasons to avoid some aspects of color management, but
without understanding it you won't know which or why, or realize what
may be going on in the background without your knowledge. It's on,
it's here, and you can't turn it off.
You are free to let it help or hinder.
Tyler

Did you soup your film for a couple of days or so, or a minite or 10
and let your "highly developed visual skills" make marvelous prints?
Or did you occasionaly use something like numbers and standards?

All "workspaces" , "profiling" etc aside we still are bound by the
currently immutable numbers 0 to 255 or 100% to 0% if you prefer that
as your reference. The discussions on this thread are about methods of
getting that 95% or 15% both visible on your screen and in the same
point in the spectrum on a piece of paper. In the context of
monochrome and printing the only good workspace is one in which you
can use "visual skills" in editing and be relatively assured that your
"vision" will make it to a print reasonably close to what you saw
onscreen. There are a variety of ways to get there espoused by a
variety of people-- or not.

D.





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
<westsidemaurice@y...> 

> 
> Profiling is mostly a workaround that pretends numbers replace highly
> developed visual skills ...  aspiring digital photographers are taught
> that the truely miraculous ez-as-pie technology with which they've
> been gifted needs to be made complex by mostly-incoherent-priests
> (present company excluded, of course :-)
>

Just to add some more into the mix, I run a PC system with a iiyama 454
monitor. I use Eye-one Pro with 'Basiccolor' profiling software. I recently
changed from a Radeon 9000 AGP card to a Radeon 9200SE card, it made a huge
difference to the profile. The basiccolor software displays the 'delta E'
value (max deviation), this should approach zero for a perfect profile; with
the old AGP card I found it hard to get the value to less than 5 (you can
probably visually match to around this value), to less than 2 with the new
card. I normally run my monitor with a gamma of D65.

 

I can clearly see the step wedge at both ends.

 

BTW, The basiccolor software is available from their web site on a 14day
trial; it works with most spectro's.

 

Hope this helps

 

Jim Farrell

 

 

  _____  

I've stopped 1,736 spam and fraud messages. You can too!
One month FREE spam and fraud protection at www.cloudmark.com
<http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnet?v1&rc=> 
 <http://www.cloudmark.com/spamnet?v1&rc=> Cloudmark SafetyBar - Join the
fight against spam!



  _____  

From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...] 
Sent: 05 April 2005 00:34
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print

 

The monitor views SHOULD be "standardized" or rather "well managed".  File
values though will differ dependent on the workspace.  Step 90 for me is not
the same as 90 for you but L=10 (or its gray gamme 2.2 equivalent) should
display the "same" everywhere (where it is "in-gamut").  Your breakdown is
not with the monitor but with sending, without colour management, file
values to the printer.


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> 
> 
> It looks like the answer to my question is that the monitor views are not
> standardized.  As such, each file or view has to be adjusted for each
> system.  There seem to be a number of ways to do that.
> 




Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  OWNER AND
MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.





  _____  

Yahoo! Groups Links

*	To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
  
*	To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Uns
ubscribe> 
  
*	Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!
<http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>  Terms of Service. 



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

Yep there's a lot of bits that need to do their job well - a good graphics
card, stable monitor, good spectrophotometer, good profiling software and a
good, regular user.  There is also a lot of debate about the quality of the
various spectrophotometers out there, especially those at the cheaper end.
I was reading yesterday about home theatre plasma calibration and came
across the results of a shoot out for equipment and software which runs into
the thousands of dollars.  Alas we can't all afford a PhotoResearch PR-650.

> From: Jim Farrell <jim@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 08:03:54 +0100
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> Just to add some more into the mix, I run a PC system with a iiyama 454
> monitor. I use Eye-one Pro with 'Basiccolor' profiling software. I recently
> changed from a Radeon 9000 AGP card to a Radeon 9200SE card, it made a huge
> difference to the profile. The basiccolor software displays the 'delta E'
> value (max deviation), this should approach zero for a perfect profile; with
> the old AGP card I found it hard to get the value to less than 5 (you can
> probably visually match to around this value), to less than 2 with the new
> card. I normally run my monitor with a gamma of D65.
> 
>  
> 
> I can clearly see the step wedge at both ends.
> 
>  
> 
> BTW, The basiccolor software is available from their web site on a 14day
> trial; it works with most spectro's.
> 
>  
> 
> Hope this helps
> 
>  
> 
> Jim Farrell
>

Here is a simple (if crude) method to match the monitor to the print that
seems to work. (Obviously I'm talking only of B&W.)

I left the monitor view as is.  Mine happens to be "profiled" with
Spyder2Pro, but it seems clear from the previous feedback that my cheap
monitor and card are just not going to give the same results as a good
graphics setup.  (On the other hand, mine may be typical of what we
monetarily challenged types use.)

I printed a 21-step test print on EEM using my standard 2200-UT7-Neutral
curve.

I then compared the print to my standard monitor view.  They did not match.

So, I made a simple Photoshop curve that adjusted my monitor so that it
matched the print.

I then made a second curve that I will call a "negative" of the first curve.
I noted the amount I had to move the Output of the individual points on the
first curve to get the monitor match the print.  I then moved the output on
the second curve points that amount in the opposite direction.  So, for
example, at 50% (AdobeRGB curve input 127), I had to move the default (127,
127) point up to (127, 132), a change of 5, on the first curve to get the
view on the monitor to match my print.  So, on the second, "negative" curve
I moved the point down to (127, 122), 5 units down instead of 5 units up.
(At the 95% point this didn't work because the change was too much, so I
just set it at half way to the 90% point.) 

This second, "negative" curve I saved as my "Monitor" curve.

A made a small, new RGB file as a holder for curves layers.  On this file I
made a curves layer set that had, as the first, bottom layer, my Monitor
curve.  The second, top layer was my standard 2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral curve. I
called the layer set Neutral + Monitor.

Then to print a test strip, I converted the standard 21-step test to RGB as
usual, then I simply dragged the "Neutral + Monitor" layer set to the file
and printed. 

The resulting print matched my monitor almost perfectly -- as well as any
other system I've tried.

For those with full Photoshop, this seems like an easy way to not only
adjust for the monitors, but also to "linearize" curves for different but
similar papers and correct or other glitches that may affect the print ramp.
This, in effect, adds a "linearization" layer to the standard curves that
adjusts for both the monitor and other differences.  It was an entirely
visual process that takes nothing except visual comparison of the monitor to
a test strip.

If the monitor and print match, is anything else really needed?  Do we
really care if the ramp matches Lab or any other space?

For PS Elements users, I wonder if a number of building block curves on a
small file would allow those users to build up a monitor adjustment curve
that would similarly work.  I think separate gamma (50% density) curves and
end point curves might be able to be mixed and matched to take care of many
of the typical problems that I've seen.  I don't have Elements 3, but I'll
see if it works in Elements 2 later.

Any thoughts on the feasibility of this approach?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> 
> I printed a 21-step test print on EEM using my standard 2200-UT7-Neutral
> curve.
> 
> I then compared the print to my standard monitor view.  They did not match.

Yep - they couldn't for no other reason than EEM's black point is way less
than your monitor (presumably!)
> 
> So, I made a simple Photoshop curve that adjusted my monitor so that it
> matched the print.

> 
> I then made a second curve that I will call a "negative" of the first curve.
> I noted the amount I had to move the Output of the individual points on the
> first curve to get the monitor match the print.  I then moved the output on
> the second curve points that amount in the opposite direction.  So, for
> example, at 50% (AdobeRGB curve input 127), I had to move the default (127,
> 127) point up to (127, 132), a change of 5, on the first curve to get the
> view on the monitor to match my print.  So, on the second, "negative" curve
> I moved the point down to (127, 122), 5 units down instead of 5 units up.
> (At the 95% point this didn't work because the change was too much, so I
> just set it at half way to the 90% point.)
> 
> This second, "negative" curve I saved as my "Monitor" curve.
> 
> A made a small, new RGB file as a holder for curves layers.  On this file I
> made a curves layer set that had, as the first, bottom layer, my Monitor
> curve.  The second, top layer was my standard 2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral curve. I
> called the layer set Neutral + Monitor.
> 
> Then to print a test strip, I converted the standard 21-step test to RGB as
> usual, then I simply dragged the "Neutral + Monitor" layer set to the file
> and printed. 
> 
> The resulting print matched my monitor almost perfectly -- as well as any
> other system I've tried.

If I understand what you did correctly there ought to be an easier way.  You
created a neg curve and when printing sent this negative curve to the
printer.  Perhaps an easier way is to simply print a step wedge of your
workspace (no it doesn't matter which one you use so long as you understand
why it looks the way it does) with your normal print curve (eg
2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral) and measure the densities.  If you create a curve of
this mapping (or, as you did, do it by eye) you have a "preview curve" which
when applied to an image will show on screen how it will print.  Edit the
image to satisfaction.  When it comes to printing delete the "preview
curve".

> 
> If the monitor and print match, is anything else really needed?  Do we
> really care if the ramp matches Lab or any other space?

Depends.  You effectively define how your image workspace maps to your print
space by hand when you create your print curves.  I assume you look at the
output progression and alter 2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral until the step wedge
prints to your satisfaction.  Much as though you were manually doing
perceptual rendering and defining the ramp of your print space.

With something like QTR, the ramp of the print space is a linear progression
of Lab's luminosity from paper white to ink black by design.  Left alone
this print space is "flat" because we kept linearity but lost a lot of dMax
at one end.  So we could remap it by hand with a curve to get a more
satisfactory gamma from dMin to dMax (the old QTR s curve). (I used an Excel
spreadsheet for a while - I knew my QTR print space would be linear L from
dMin to dMax but wanted to remap the mid back to match the display and alter
the curvature about the mid.)  This remapping can be likened to your curve
construction process.  But because we know it has certain properties we can
use those properties to characterize it with an ICC profile, which Roy
magically did, and then use the other tools that come to hand via colour
management - an ICC managed workflow and PS' soft proof function.

The question I have for Roy is in doing the matte and photo ICC profiles
were they completely generic (ie just used a general L figure for dMin and
dMax and assume linearity between) or were they constructed by measuring an
actual step wedge - in the latter instance any residual non linearity would
be taken into account.

Steve

Steve,

> > I then compared the print to my standard monitor view.  
>>They did not match.
> 
> Yep - they couldn't for no other reason than EEM's black point is way less
> than your monitor (presumably!)

Yes, but it's all relative.  There will never be an absolute match.



> 
> ... Perhaps an easier way is to simply print a step wedge of your
> workspace (no it doesn't matter which one you use so long as you
> understand
> why it looks the way it does) with your normal print curve (eg
> 2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral) and measure the densities.  If you create a curve of
> this mapping (or, as you did, do it by eye) you have a "preview curve"
> which
> when applied to an image will show on screen how it will print.  Edit the
> image to satisfaction.  When it comes to printing delete the "preview
> curve".

I'm not sure that is easier.  Among other things, what I've seen with layers
on the working image is people forget to activate or de-activate the layers
on the file.  I think having everything in the printing workflow may reduce
such errors and be easier.

I will continue to make my original curves to, in effect, the Lab
"linearization" standard.  I think there are some advantages to that.
However, I don't think the average B&W printer could care less about Lab or
any of the theories that are discussed at depth here.  If the print matches
the monitor (all visual and relative), I doubt most want or want to hear
about anything more.

For the rips, what might be interesting is to have a "visual adjustment"
option that has a series of sliders at the steps of a 21-step test print
such that the user adjusts the sliders until the monitor matches the initial
test print.  Then a linearization curve is made from this in a way similar
to what I've done.

For most, "keep it simple" is the key as far as I'm concerned.  I'd add that
most will not buy a spectrophotometer and want to do all visually.  They
really don't want to mess with any curves, numbers, or graphs of any kind.
Sliders are much more accessible.

A visual linearization procedure should be easy to implement in QTR and IJC.
I hope those with the programming talent take a shot at it.  I'd like
nothing more than to eliminate the need for Photoshop -- which is overpriced
and overkill for the B&W photographer.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul.
That is essentialy the method I use to print BO with my 1200's,
instead of Clayton's workflow, with the exception that it is reversed
from yours as my monitor is visualy pretty linear already and I force
the papers to match scales instead of the monitor. In my case if the
print is ugly, I make the monitor equally ugly and then reverse the
curve as you did.
There may indeed be fancier($$$$$) ways but I too like to keep the
boat afloat and save those dollars for more ink,paper,frames,matts etc
etc that can't be obtained with just elbow grease:)

Regards.
 Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> Here is a simple (if crude) method to match the monitor to the print
that
> seems to work. (Obviously I'm talking only of B&W.)
> 
> I left the monitor view as is.  Mine happens to be "profiled" with
> Spyder2Pro, but it seems clear from the previous feedback that my cheap
> monitor and card are just not going to give the same results as a good
> graphics setup.  (On the other hand, mine may be typical of what we
> monetarily challenged types use.)
> 
> I printed a 21-step test print on EEM using my standard 2200-UT7-Neutral
> curve.
> 
> I then compared the print to my standard monitor view.  They did not
match.
> 
> So, I made a simple Photoshop curve that adjusted my monitor so that it
> matched the print.
> 
> I then made a second curve that I will call a "negative" of the
first curve.
> I noted the amount I had to move the Output of the individual points
on the
> first curve to get the monitor match the print.  I then moved the
output on
> the second curve points that amount in the opposite direction.  So, for
> example, at 50% (AdobeRGB curve input 127), I had to move the
default (127,
> 127) point up to (127, 132), a change of 5, on the first curve to
get the
> view on the monitor to match my print.  So, on the second,
"negative" curve
> I moved the point down to (127, 122), 5 units down instead of 5
units up.
> (At the 95% point this didn't work because the change was too much, so I
> just set it at half way to the 90% point.) 
> 
> This second, "negative" curve I saved as my "Monitor" curve.
> 
> A made a small, new RGB file as a holder for curves layers.  On this
file I
> made a curves layer set that had, as the first, bottom layer, my Monitor
> curve.  The second, top layer was my standard 2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral
curve. I
> called the layer set Neutral + Monitor.
> 
> Then to print a test strip, I converted the standard 21-step test to
RGB as
> usual, then I simply dragged the "Neutral + Monitor" layer set to
the file
> and printed. 
> 
> The resulting print matched my monitor almost perfectly -- as well
as any
> other system I've tried.
> 
> For those with full Photoshop, this seems like an easy way to not only
> adjust for the monitors, but also to "linearize" curves for
different but
> similar papers and correct or other glitches that may affect the
print ramp.
> This, in effect, adds a "linearization" layer to the standard curves
that
> adjusts for both the monitor and other differences.  It was an entirely
> visual process that takes nothing except visual comparison of the
monitor to
> a test strip.
> 
> If the monitor and print match, is anything else really needed?  Do we
> really care if the ramp matches Lab or any other space?
> 
> For PS Elements users, I wonder if a number of building block curves
on a
> small file would allow those users to build up a monitor adjustment
curve
> that would similarly work.  I think separate gamma (50% density)
curves and
> end point curves might be able to be mixed and matched to take care
of many
> of the typical problems that I've seen.  I don't have Elements 3,
but I'll

> see if it works in Elements 2 later.
> 
> Any thoughts on the feasibility of this approach?
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Paul


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> 
> A visual linearization procedure should be easy to implement in QTR and IJC.
> I hope those with the programming talent take a shot at it.

It's not needed.  Roy has, in effect, done it for us with his ICC profiles.
As long as the monitor is well profiled, he has done the profiling of the
print space and we can use colour management to do the rest.  You might say
"well you still have to have a well profiled monitor".  Yes and no.  If
"yes" then nothing more is that necessary.  If "no" then one can always do
the "correction step" either as I have described or as you have described -
and this must be done by the guy with the "bad" monitor and nobody else.
The problem with needing a correction step is that (1) it is different for
everyone and (2) it needs to be updated over time - in the same way that
monitor profiling is needed on a regular basis.  Also, a well profiled
monitor is a must for any colour work which is heavily reliant on a colour
management if done in any serious degree.

Hopefully monitor/printer profiling equipment will continue to fall in
price.  It is already very sensibly priced when compared to the other
elements of digital photography from camera to scanner to computer to
printer.  Perhaps it is just not as visible as an item of expenditure to
someone starting out.  At $220 or so for an Eye One Display there really
isn't any excuse for someone serious about digital photography -
particularly if they intend to make a business out of it - from having a
well-profiled monitor.  It's still $220 and that isn't chump change for many
but it must be an item on any serious digital photographer's "need" list.

> I'd like
> nothing more than to eliminate the need for Photoshop -- which is overpriced

That's a big call.  Personally I am staggered, and very grateful, that it is
so cheap.  Step back for a second and think of all that can be achieved with
this package which costs just $600.  An individual has before them quite a
number of very serious creative businesses with just a modest investment of
capital - that opportunity didn't exist 20 years ago.

I think it's too easy to take for granted where we've come from and what can
be achieved by the powerful and readily available software out there today.

> and overkill for the B&W photographer.


I agree that many of its functions are not needed for the B&W photographer
and it would be nice to see a trimmed down version or trimmed down
competitor for the B&W community.  But as we know, the B&W community is a
very minor portion of the overall community targeted by companies such as
Adobe - and I doubt it could pay its own way (ie cover the cost of producing
a B&W only product).  In that case, you might find that a trimmed down
version would have to be priced above the full product which of course
simply makes it uneconomic to buy and hence produce.


Cheers

Steve

I am surprised you own a computer.  You starve it from helping you in the
very manner in which it was intended.

> From: dlruckus <dlruckus@...>
 
> 
> Paul.
> That is essentialy the method I use to print BO with my 1200's,
> instead of Clayton's workflow, with the exception that it is reversed
> from yours as my monitor is visualy pretty linear already and I force
> the papers to match scales instead of the monitor. In my case if the
> print is ugly, I make the monitor equally ugly and then reverse the
> curve as you did.
> There may indeed be fancier($$$$$) ways but I too like to keep the
> boat afloat and save those dollars for more ink,paper,frames,matts etc
> etc that can't be obtained with just elbow grease:)
> 
> Regards.
>  Duane

A perfect monitor isn't necessarily central to the process, no matter
how one gets to that perfection. 

If you can previsualize B&W from a color world you can previsualize
from a funky monitor. But if you CAN previsualize, the way
photographers were trained a mere decade or two ago...

As it happens, many people get good results without any calibration.
That's exactly why Photoshop's "Help" prioritizes a Closed Loop
process over Open Loop. 





--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I am surprised you own a computer.  You starve it from helping you
in the

> very manner in which it was intended.
> 
> 
> > From: dlruckus <dlruckus@y...>
>  
> > 
> > Paul.
> > That is essentialy the method I use to print BO with my 1200's,
> > instead of Clayton's workflow, with the exception that it is reversed
> > from yours as my monitor is visualy pretty linear already and I force
> > the papers to match scales instead of the monitor. In my case if the
> > print is ugly, I make the monitor equally ugly and then reverse the
> > curve as you did.
> > There may indeed be fancier($$$$$) ways but I too like to keep the
> > boat afloat and save those dollars for more ink,paper,frames,matts etc
> > etc that can't be obtained with just elbow grease:)
> > 
> > Regards.
> >  Duane

Steve,

Considering how Photoshop increasingly focuses on the
needs of web folks and graphic designers, one wonders
if the entire photography market is big enough to
attract Adobe's attention...

A customized workspace and the pallet well do a good
job at hiding the worst of the stuff we don't use.

Guy
--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:

> > and overkill for the B&W photographer.
> 
> 
> I agree that many of its functions are not needed
> for the B&W photographer
> and it would be nice to see a trimmed down version
> or trimmed down
> competitor for the B&W community.  But as we know,
> the B&W community is a
> very minor portion of the overall community targeted
> by companies such as
> Adobe - and I doubt it could pay its own way (ie
> cover the cost of producing
> a B&W only product).  In that case, you might find
> that a trimmed down
> version would have to be priced above the full
> product which of course
> simply makes it uneconomic to buy and hence produce.
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Steve,

Don't be a jerk, my friend. The computer does help me in the ways I
wish it to. The fact that I and others sometimes choose to do things
in ways you may think stupid or foolish doesn't provide an excuse for
being snide. You haven't a clue as to the reasons for others actions.

In regard to software,icc standards and the hardware(ie:
densitometers.spectros etc), I could write software and design/build
the things myself if I wished to spend my time that way. I did just
that sort of thing during a working career. Today I do precisely as I
please, no more and no less. Part of that is doing some things the
hard way as it affords an opportunity to learn some of the hows and
whys of things new to me. I don't have to make a living at any of it.

I think it's great that you apparently have all the resources you need
for getting the computer to help you. Unfortunately many others may
not and an attitude like yours wouldn't allow those individuals to
participate. This isn't and shouldn't be an exclusive club.

Try posting helpful info. Your views would be more respected.

Duane.

 
--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I am surprised you own a computer.  You starve it from helping you
in the

> very manner in which it was intended.
> 
> 
> > From: dlruckus <dlruckus@y...>
>  
> > 
> > Paul.
> > That is essentialy the method I use to print BO with my 1200's,
> > instead of Clayton's workflow, with the exception that it is reversed
> > from yours as my monitor is visualy pretty linear already and I force
> > the papers to match scales instead of the monitor. In my case if the
> > print is ugly, I make the monitor equally ugly and then reverse the
> > curve as you did.
> > There may indeed be fancier($$$$$) ways but I too like to keep the
> > boat afloat and save those dollars for more ink,paper,frames,matts etc
> > etc that can't be obtained with just elbow grease:)
> > 
> > Regards.
> >  Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, guy washburn
<guido02474@y...> wrote:
> Steve,
> 
> Considering how Photoshop increasingly focuses on the
> needs of web folks and graphic designers, one wonders
> if the entire photography market is big enough to
> attract Adobe's attention...
> 
> A customized workspace and the pallet well do a good
> job at hiding the worst of the stuff we don't use.
> 
> Guy
> --- Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> > > and overkill for the B&W photographer.
> > 
> > 
> > I agree that many of its functions are not needed
> > for the B&W photographer
> > and it would be nice to see a trimmed down version
> > or trimmed down
> > competitor for the B&W community.  But as we know,
> > the B&W community is a
> > very minor portion of the overall community targeted
> > by companies such as
> > Adobe - and I doubt it could pay its own way (ie
> > cover the cost of producing
> > a B&W only product).  In that case, you might find
> > that a trimmed down
> > version would have to be priced above the full
> > product which of course
> > simply makes it uneconomic to buy and hence produce.
> > 
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Steve
> > 
> >Hi Steve and Guy,

Photoshop is far too bloated for the needs of most photographers. Even
the trimmed down versions like Elements share the same problems.

The only affordable alternative I have found is Picture Window Pro at

http://www.dl-c.com/

The language and jargon is different from Photoshop but everything you
can achieve in Photosho can be achieved in PWP. For those migrating
directly from a traditional darkroom the workflow and jargon is
probably more familiar.

Yours Graham

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
> http://mail.yahoo.com

I think two very different issues are getting bundled into this one topic.
The differences between them are very important to understand. The first is
whether having a good monitor profile (and proper colour management
settings) is important or not.  The second is the fact that the print space
is very different from the displayed workspace.  I regard the first as
important and would urge that what I would call "dumbing down" the monitor -
deliberately moving it away from a well-profiled state - is not a wise
course of action, particularly if it results from a lack of understanding of
the second. 

But the biggest issue in this discussion is that the print space is a lot
narrower than the displayed workspace.  We can display better black and
brighter white than we can print - on a well-profiled monitor or not so
well-profiled.  Understanding this is useful.  How the workspace and print
space map to each other are quantifiable - at least for those that are
creating the print spaces (those that write QTR curves, IJC curves or RGB
curves such as Paul's).  If that mapping is quantified and then made
available with the curves then the vast majority of the monitor vs print
issue will likely disappear.  Any residual mismatch will in very large part
only be due to poor monitor profiling.

It's worth winding back a little to how QTR - Gray Lab and QTR - Gray Matte
Paper and QTR - Gray Photo Paper came about, and even before.  Quite some
time ago there was a discussion as to what the right "linearization" in RIP
printing was and it was generally agreed than a sensible practice in RIP
development was to linearize the printer such that Lab's L(uminance)
readings were linear, ie that in stepping from paper white to ink black the
progression in L would be uniform and linear.  There was then a lengthy
discussion about how we typically worked in Gray Gamma 2.2 but the print
space was linear L from paper white to ink black and, importantly we were
using a Same as Source workflow (meaning there was no translation mechanism
in going from the image workspace to the print space).  Given we are using
Same as Source, the closer the two are aligned the better and hence the
discussion of editing in Lab (rather than Gray Gamma 2.2) and Roy's
derivation of Lab without the a and b channels:  QTR - Gray Lab.

But is is easy to see that even with an image in Lab or QTR - Gray Lab there
is still a marked difference between the workspace and the print space for,
say, matte paper.  Take a piece of paper and draw a chart with L on the
vertical axis and normalised pixel value 0-100 on the x-axis. (By normalised
I mean that whether the image is recorded in 8 bit or 16 bit the scale has
been normalised to 0-100.)  If we were to plot L values for Lab or QTR -
Gray Lab the line would go from (0,0) to (100,100), ie from pure black/L=0
to pure white/L=100.  Now write "darker than Lab" in the area below the line
and "lighter than Lab" in the area above the line.  QTR or IJC have implicit
in their curve creation a linear progression of L from paper white to ink
black, as noted above. But if paper white is L=96 rather than 100 and ink
black is L=16 rather than zero we have a very different profile than the Lab
workspace.  Plot the line from (0,16) to (100,96).  From the chart it is
easy to see that the vast majority of images would, in these circumstances,
print lighter than displayed on screen. We would also note that they would
appear flat - the slope of the line is much flatter than the Lab line:
there was reduced gamma and reduced dynamic range.  Therefore we still faced
two issues.  Firstly, the images would still not print as they were
displayed.  Secondly, the linear mapping of images to the print space would
produce "flat" images.  Dealing with previewing the image as it would print
is actually the easy part.  A simple PS curve can depict the print space
quite easily (using the % scale shift the white point to (0%,4%) and the
black point down to (100%,84%) and leave the line straight in the middle).
Carl Schofield also developed a way to use an Eye One to generate an ICC
profile-based soft proof. The more difficult issue was to remap on a more
satisfactory basis (not one-to-one mapping) from the workspace to the
narrower print space and produce a more visually pleasing print.  This was
the big step forward that Roy took in providing us all with the Matte Paper
and Photo Paper ICC profiles.  Now we can use PS's colour engine with
Perceptual Intent to map from the workspace to the print space and produce a
more visually pleasing print in the narrower space.  In fact, it does away
with the need for working in Lab or Gray Lab, we can stay in Gray Gamma 2.2
if we so please because we have an engine for moving from the workspace to
the colour space - we are no longer using a Same as Source workflow.  The
second advantage this gave was that since the mapping uses an ICC profile we
can use PS's soft proofing features for an accurate preview of the printed
image.  In other words, we dealt with the second leg of issue I noted in my
first paragraph.  Any other residual mismatch between screen and print is a
technical problem associated with either a poor monitor profile or some
mismatch between the generic profile provided by Roy and any
printer/ink/paper specific issues.  The success of the generic profile is
indicative of the fact that my second issue leg is the critical one, much
less so the first.

Now there remains the issue of those workflows that remain Same as Source.
Quite understandably Paul's workflow and the BO workflow are still grappling
with the "matching monitor to the print issue".  Not only might they have to
deal with poor monitor profiles but they still haven't provided a solution
to the second larger issue of providing a mechanism for previewing the
mapping from workspace to print space.  I would suggest that this is
actually easy to do and can be readily provided to others using those
workflows who do not have access to the equipment necessary to do it.  I
would also suggest that focus be given just to the larger, second of the two
issues I noted.  How to do this?  There are two methods that come
immediately to mind.  One requires a densimeter only while the second
requires an Eye One Photo.  Remember I am not suggesting that everyone needs
access to one of these - just those developing the curves for that workflow.
Let's use Paul's workflow as an example. If he had access to an Eye One, for
example, for each of his developed curves (eg 2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral) he could
follow Carl Schofield's soft proofing technique and provided with each curve
an ICC soft proof profile which could be used while working up an image.
(Note, Paul doesn't face the issue faced by QTR and IJC on how to map from a
linear workspace to a narrower linear print space - he maps this by hand as
part of developing his curves.  He simply faces the issue of portraying this
on screen.) Someone with access to an Eye One could also provide a BO 1.8
and BO 2.2 ICC profile for a printer/paper/ink combination. Alternatively,
if, say, Paul does not have an Eye One and so can't take advantage of Carl's
soft proof technique or can't find a similar technique that works with his
existing spectrophotometer, then he can measure the L values of the steps in
a step wedge printed with each of his curves and translate those into a
"soft proof PS curve" (by comparing the output with the input) which could
be applied by people using his workflow when working up an image.  Once the
image was finished and ready to print the soft proof curve can be discarded
and replaced with his RGB print curve.  Then the image can be printed.  A
like procedure can be done for BO.

The big point here is that, I believe, the bulk of the issue that people
grapple with here is not actually monitor profiling/calibration but rather
the lack of an automated way of presenting the image in the print space.
QTR has overcome this hurdle (anyone using QTR with Same as Source really
needs to get themselves up to speed with the new developments) and, in fact,
has largely solved the issue for IJC/OPM users as well.  For the remaining
Same as Source workflows, trying to deal with the two aspects of the issue
at once mean that each person must deal with it - even though the first leg
of the issue is likely relatively minor compared with the second which, in
turn, is largely common to all.

If one comes to grip with the second leg of the issue - the mapping from
workspace to print space - there is little need to dumb down your display.
You can keep the dealing of the second leg dynamic - capable of responding
to new inks, papers, printers etc.  Furthermore, other aspects of using your
computer and its display are not affected, for example the ability to view
other people's images online in a sensible manner.  To make this point
again, imagine dialling down your display's black point so that it equalled
your dMax on matte paper - just so that you got a better match between your
matte prints and the display.  Now ANY image you look at on your display
takes on this dull black point.  Looking at someone else's portfolio on the
web would not do those photos justice. You can't even see how your own work
would look if it were printed on photo paper because your monitor would
understate the black.

This is why I react strongly against "tweaking the monitor" to match the
print.  You really are shooting yourself in the foot and starving your
equipment of the right to serve you well.  Not everyone can afford the
equipment to profile their monitors - even at today's price points.  But to
take a good piece of hard earned equipment and chop its functionality to
pieces really doesn't make sense.  An Apple computer has the ability to
profile a display and it is my understanding that the PC version of PS
retains the ability to profile a monitor using Adobe Gamma.  Even if these
are the only tools you have available for profiling your monitor, use them
and use the colour management tools inherent in PS (or your other image
editing tool).  And then understand the other aspects of your digital
photography which explain why there are any, if any, differences between
display and print.  Those that generate the curves used in the various
workflows out there are in a position to help with the differences. They
have been awfully generous with their time thus far - if we ask them nicely
perhaps they can help further.

Steve

Well Said. Thanks!
--- Steve Kale <stevekale@...> wrote:

> I think two very different issues are getting
> bundled into this one topic.
> The differences between them are very important to
> understand. The first is
> whether having a good monitor profile (and proper
> colour management
> settings) is important or not.  The second is the
> fact that the print space
> is very different from the displayed workspace.  I
> regard the first as
> important and would urge that what I would call
> "dumbing down" the monitor -
> deliberately moving it away from a well-profiled
> state - is not a wise
> course of action, particularly if it results from a
> lack of understanding of
> the second. 
> 
> But the biggest issue in this discussion is that the
> print space is a lot
> narrower than the displayed workspace.  We can
> display better black and
> brighter white than we can print - on a
> well-profiled monitor or not so
> well-profiled.  Understanding this is useful.  How
> the workspace and print
> space map to each other are quantifiable - at least
> for those that are
> creating the print spaces (those that write QTR
> curves, IJC curves or RGB
> curves such as Paul's).  If that mapping is
> quantified and then made
> available with the curves then the vast majority of
> the monitor vs print
> issue will likely disappear.  Any residual mismatch
> will in very large part
> only be due to poor monitor profiling.
> 
> It's worth winding back a little to how QTR - Gray
> Lab and QTR - Gray Matte
> Paper and QTR - Gray Photo Paper came about, and
> even before.  Quite some
> time ago there was a discussion as to what the right
> "linearization" in RIP
> printing was and it was generally agreed than a
> sensible practice in RIP
> development was to linearize the printer such that
> Lab's L(uminance)
> readings were linear, ie that in stepping from paper
> white to ink black the
> progression in L would be uniform and linear.  There
> was then a lengthy
> discussion about how we typically worked in Gray
> Gamma 2.2 but the print
> space was linear L from paper white to ink black
> and, importantly we were
> using a Same as Source workflow (meaning there was
> no translation mechanism
> in going from the image workspace to the print
> space).  Given we are using
> Same as Source, the closer the two are aligned the
> better and hence the
> discussion of editing in Lab (rather than Gray Gamma
> 2.2) and Roy's
> derivation of Lab without the a and b channels:  QTR
> - Gray Lab.
> 
> But is is easy to see that even with an image in Lab
> or QTR - Gray Lab there
> is still a marked difference between the workspace
> and the print space for,
> say, matte paper.  Take a piece of paper and draw a
> chart with L on the
> vertical axis and normalised pixel value 0-100 on
> the x-axis. (By normalised
> I mean that whether the image is recorded in 8 bit
> or 16 bit the scale has
> been normalised to 0-100.)  If we were to plot L
> values for Lab or QTR -
> Gray Lab the line would go from (0,0) to (100,100),
> ie from pure black/L=0
> to pure white/L=100.  Now write "darker than Lab" in
> the area below the line
> and "lighter than Lab" in the area above the line. 
> QTR or IJC have implicit
> in their curve creation a linear progression of L
> from paper white to ink
> black, as noted above. But if paper white is L=96
> rather than 100 and ink
> black is L=16 rather than zero we have a very
> different profile than the Lab
> workspace.  Plot the line from (0,16) to (100,96). 
> From the chart it is
> easy to see that the vast majority of images would,
> in these circumstances,
> print lighter than displayed on screen. We would
> also note that they would
> appear flat - the slope of the line is much flatter
> than the Lab line:
> there was reduced gamma and reduced dynamic range. 
> Therefore we still faced
> two issues.  Firstly, the images would still not
> print as they were
> displayed.  Secondly, the linear mapping of images
> to the print space would
> produce "flat" images.  Dealing with previewing the
> image as it would print
> is actually the easy part.  A simple PS curve can
> depict the print space
> quite easily (using the % scale shift the white
> point to (0%,4%) and the
> black point down to (100%,84%) and leave the line
> straight in the middle).
> Carl Schofield also developed a way to use an Eye
> One to generate an ICC
> profile-based soft proof. The more difficult issue
> was to remap on a more
> satisfactory basis (not one-to-one mapping) from the
> workspace to the
> narrower print space and produce a more visually
> pleasing print.  This was
> the big step forward that Roy took in providing us
> all with the Matte Paper
> and Photo Paper ICC profiles.  Now we can use PS's
> colour engine with
> Perceptual Intent to map from the workspace to the
> print space and produce a
> more visually pleasing print in the narrower space. 
> In fact, it does away
> with the need for working in Lab or Gray Lab, we can
> stay in Gray Gamma 2.2
> if we so please because we have an engine for moving
> from the workspace to
> the colour space - we are no longer using a Same as
> Source workflow.  The
> second advantage this gave was that since the
> mapping uses an ICC profile we
> can use PS's soft proofing features for an accurate
> preview of the printed
> image.  In other words, we dealt with the second leg
> of issue I noted in my
> first paragraph.  Any other residual mismatch
> between screen and print is a
> technical problem associated with either a poor
> monitor profile or some
> mismatch between the generic profile provided by Roy
> and any
> printer/ink/paper specific issues.  The success of
> the generic profile is
> indicative of the fact that my second issue leg is
> the critical one, much
> less so the first.
> 
> Now there remains the issue of those workflows that
> remain Same as Source.
> Quite understandably Paul's workflow and the BO
> workflow are still grappling
> with the "matching monitor to the print issue".  Not
> only might they have to
> deal with poor monitor profiles but they still
> haven't provided a solution
> to the second larger issue of providing a mechanism
> for previewing the
> mapping from workspace to print space.  I would
> suggest that this is
> actually easy to do and can be readily provided to
> others using those
> workflows who do not have access to the equipment
> necessary to do it.  I
> would also suggest that focus be given just to the
> larger, second of the two
> issues I noted.  How to do this?  There are two
> methods that come
> immediately to mind.  One requires a densimeter only
> while the second
> requires an Eye One Photo.  Remember I am not
> suggesting that everyone needs
> access to one of these - just those developing the
> curves for that workflow.
> Let's use Paul's workflow as an example. If he had
> access to an Eye One, for
> example, for each of his developed curves (eg
> 2200-UT7-EEM-Neutral) he could
> follow Carl Schofield's soft proofing technique and
> provided with each curve
> an ICC soft proof profile which could be used while
> working up an image.
> (Note, Paul doesn't face the issue faced by QTR and
> IJC on how to map from a
> linear workspace to a narrower linear print space -
> he maps this by hand as
> part of developing his curves.  He simply faces the
> issue of portraying this
> on screen.) Someone with access to an Eye One could
> also provide a BO 1.8
> and BO 2.2 ICC profile for a printer/paper/ink
> combination. Alternatively,
> if, say, Paul does not have an Eye One and so can't
> take advantage of Carl's
> soft proof technique or can't find a similar
> technique that works with his
> 
=== message truncated ===



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail Mobile 
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail

> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
>
> I printed a 21-step test print on EEM using my standard 2200-UT7-Neutral
> curve.
>
> I then compared the print to my standard monitor view.  They did
> not match.
>
> So, I made a simple Photoshop curve that adjusted my monitor so that it
> matched the print.
>
> I then made a second curve that I will call a "negative" of the
> first curve.
> I noted the amount I had to move the Output of the individual
> points on the
> first curve to get the monitor match the print.  I then moved the
> output on
> the second curve points that amount in the opposite direction.  So, for
> example, at 50% (AdobeRGB curve input 127), I had to move the
> default (127,
> 127) point up to (127, 132), a change of 5, on the first curve to get the
> view on the monitor to match my print.  So, on the second,
> "negative" curve
> I moved the point down to (127, 122), 5 units down instead of 5 units up.
> (At the 95% point this didn't work because the change was too much, so I
> just set it at half way to the 90% point.)
>
> This second, "negative" curve I saved as my "Monitor" curve.
>
> The resulting print matched my monitor almost perfectly -- as well as any
> other system I've tried.
>
> For those with full Photoshop, this seems like an easy way to not only
> adjust for the monitors, but also to "linearize" curves for different but
> similar papers and correct or other glitches that may affect the
> print ramp.
> This, in effect, adds a "linearization" layer to the standard curves that
> adjusts for both the monitor and other differences.  It was an entirely
> visual process that takes nothing except visual comparison of the
> monitor to
> a test strip.
>
> If the monitor and print match, is anything else really needed?  Do we
> really care if the ramp matches Lab or any other space?

Sounds workable to me. That's one good thing about B&W: only one dimension
to mess with, and any remaining errors are far less objectionable than they
would be in color. Years ago, before I got calibrated, I used to try to do
that same sort of thing with color: create curves and color balance tweaks,
and then try to "negate" them. Never worked very well.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

> From: guy washburn [mailto:guido02474@...]
>
> Considering how Photoshop increasingly focuses on the
> needs of web folks and graphic designers, one wonders
> if the entire photography market is big enough to
> attract Adobe's attention...

I'm not sure if that's really true. There certainly is a fair amount of new
web-related stuff in PS CS, but they also went to the trouble of filling out
the 16-bit support, which primarily helps people who make large high-quality
prints.

> A customized workspace and the pallet well do a good
> job at hiding the worst of the stuff we don't use.

That's apparently one of the features in PS CS2.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Steve,

>... "dumbing down" the monitor - deliberately moving it away from a 
>well-profiled state - is not a wise course of action, ...

I think I agree.  Many of us in the past have been using workable but
complex custom dot gain curves to "soft proof" the print.  I think the
monitor and view should be left where the widely used profiling systems like
the Spyder2Pro set them.  (Note that previously used Adobe Gamma, and it put
the gamma in about the same place.)

Adobe RGB (1998) is about the most widely used standard as far as I know.
For grayscale, gray gamma 2.2 seems widely accepted and displays my GS files
the same in that mode as when they are converted to Adobe RGB for printing.


>... We can display better black and brighter white than we can print ...


I don't think I can.  How many stops does your monitor deliver?  That is,
what is the 100% black and 0% white reading range?


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Steve.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> I think two very different issues are getting bundled into this one
topic.
> The differences between them are very important to understand. The
first is
> whether having a good monitor profile (and proper colour management
> settings) is important or not. 

Nothing said diminished the importance of a good monitor match(profile
to be precise). Paul simply stated that he was having difficulty in
getting his done even with the "proper" tools. Failing that, he did
what any resourcefull person would do and looked for a workaround to
get past the problem. That doesn't denigrate or "dumb down" anything.
It also is useful to others to discuss his thinking and process.

I mentioned mine was linear and I didn't have that problem. I do
profile it. How good that is may be debated but it's good enough to
get the job done.
Proper color management settings is a vast wasteland of contentions
and you are correct that it's important for color. Good luck on
getting a consensus accross the board on the proper part.

Aside from that, for B&W work the average user only needs a
representative image onscreen to work with.One which allows them to
successfully edit their image to taste and prepare for printing.
Which end you work the process from when the only objective is to end
up with a good paper print is not one of the fixed laws of nature.
It also doesn't absolutely require one to invest in bundles of
esoteric software and hardware and embark on an unwanted digression
from ones prime intent-photographs.

None of this says that good color workspaces and profiles are
unimportant. It's like tea and coffee. You pays your money and takes
your choice. 

>The second is the fact that the print space
> is very different from the displayed workspace.  I regard the first as
> important and would urge that what I would call "dumbing down" the
monitor -
> deliberately moving it away from a well-profiled state - is not a wise
> course of action, particularly if it results from a lack of
understanding of
> the second. 

Nothing said indicated a lack of understanding of the differences
between monitor and paper representation. Paul also made that clear.

In my case, I suspect that you misunderstood my comments on BO
printing. I did not say anything about changing the monitor in any
way. I simply said that I used photoshop curves to simulate the actual
print output and used that to design printing curves. I did make the
assumption that anyone with eyes can see that a paper print can't
exactly match a monitor, so didn't feel a need to state such.
Even soft proofing with ICC profiles won't get to that state, although
not long ago some one took me to task about the claimed ability of new
LCD monitors to perfectly match. I had made a comment like yours about
the different dynamic range between paper and monitors.

The BO curves method came about simply because it was convenient and
worked nicely. It didn't require anything beyond looking at the test
scales. No densitometer needed. Not even a need to scan the test
scales and measure in pshop. No dumbing down there either just using
better tools, the human eyes, coupled with what I already had before
me on screen. I believe even QTR developes curves with a visual method
if I understand it's process correctly. The KISS principle is very
hard to beat.

I think we just have a different philosophical bent. I am perfectly
willing to use technology to accomplish the things I want to do when
it proves to be most desirable and convenient. I prefer however that
technology not do me-ie: I am a control freak when it comes to myself.
On the other hand I have zero interest in controling others.
I like to know why and how the lights come on when I flip the switch
even though I might decide to just light a candle instead.

Duane

I was at a presentation by Bruce Fraser once, one of the leading gurus
in our industry for those who may not know. He probably does this all
the time so forgive me if you've heard the story...
The first words out of his mouth were-

how many of you here just want your prints to match your monitor?

Literally everyone raised their hand. The next words out of his mouth
were-

OK, the first thing you have to do is learn is how to LOWER your
expectations.


just thought I'd throw that out, seemed a little hot in here.
Tyler

Hi Paul,

I agree 100% about 16bit support. 

Actually this other thing is in PS CS. George
DeWolfe's article in the Dec04/Jan05 CameraArts shows
how. You basicly delete all of the default pallets,
drop only the ones you want  ie. layers, channels,
history, histogram, actions , info and an edited
selections of brushes (keep only 19 and 21) on to the
workspace. Then drag all but info to the pallet well
where they will sit nicely out of the way untill you
click the tab to open the one you want. Save the
workspace by name and you can reload this config
whenever you want.

Neat, clean and so much room to work.

Guy
> 
> > A customized workspace and the pallet well do a
> good
> > job at hiding the worst of the stuff we don't use.
> 
> That's apparently one of the features in PS CS2.
> 
> --
> 
> Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
> Paul                mailto:pderocco@...
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Hi Graham

Looks like PictureWindow is starting to go down the
slippery slope too when the list this in their
features:
"Special Effects
\ufffd Posterize, tint, emboss, kaleidoscope, spiral, tile,
text, calendar and more."

I wonder if this kind of thing is programmers showing
off (I am a programmer so I can say this), meeting the
 needs of the web/design community or a complete
misunderstanding of what photographers do? 

Bloat or not, I am a happy PS user looking forward to
the release of CS2. But for someone starting from
scratch on a budget PWP looks like a reasonable way to
go.

Guy
--- Graham <gakousei53@...> wrote:

> > >Hi Steve and Guy,
> 
> Photoshop is far too bloated for the needs of most
> photographers. Even
> the trimmed down versions like Elements share the
> same problems.
> 
> The only affordable alternative I have found is
> Picture Window Pro at
> 
> http://www.dl-c.com/
> 
> The language and jargon is different from Photoshop
> but everything you
> can achieve in Photosho can be achieved in PWP. For
> those migrating
> directly from a traditional darkroom the workflow
> and jargon is
> probably more familiar.
> 
> Yours Graham
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around 
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com

PS Elements costs just $10 more than Picture Window Pro (same price if
downloaded rather than on disk).  I am not familiar with that product but
would be very surprised to learn that it had greater capability that PS
Elements 3.  At any rate, $90-$100 is not a big ask for the capability that
is delivered.  That plus a reasonable computer (likely a shared cost) and
printer (again, potentially a shared cost) and people are well on their way.
How much does it cost to set up a traditional darkroom?

PS: By shared cost I mean that they provide other services/uses and so not
all the cost should be attributed to the photography.

> From: Graham <gakousei53@...>

> 
> Photoshop is far too bloated for the needs of most photographers. Even
> the trimmed down versions like Elements share the same problems.
> 
> The only affordable alternative I have found is Picture Window Pro at
> 
> http://www.dl-c.com/
> 
> The language and jargon is different from Photoshop but everything you
> can achieve in Photosho can be achieved in PWP. For those migrating
> directly from a traditional darkroom the workflow and jargon is
> probably more familiar.
> 
> Yours Graham

Yep.  There are so many steps in the process that can be wrong: bad
settings, incorrect ambient light, bad profiles etc etc.  A lot of variables
and a lot of noise.  But I stress again that I think the big issue is not
the last 10% of the problem (issues like does your room lighting actually
have the same temperature as the monitor's white point? Or have you really
got the best monitor profile you can have?).  The first c90% is that a print
to something like matte paper will NEVER look like the display (even on a
perfectly profiled monitor) unless you have a proper/decent soft proof up.
The unfortunate reality is that the paper isn't as white and the black isn't
as black.  So the question then becomes do you think about a soft proof or
do you try to "tweak" the monitor.  I strongly suggest the former for
reasons I have outlined.

> From: Tyler Boley <tyler@...>
 
> 
> 
> I was at a presentation by Bruce Fraser once, one of the leading gurus
> in our industry for those who may not know. He probably does this all
> the time so forgive me if you've heard the story...
> The first words out of his mouth were-
> 
> how many of you here just want your prints to match your monitor?
> 
> Literally everyone raised their hand. The next words out of his mouth
> were-
> 
> OK, the first thing you have to do is learn is how to LOWER your
> expectations.
> 
> 
> just thought I'd throw that out, seemed a little hot in here.
> Tyler

Bruce certainly understands all that and has more experience working
with these issues than this entire list combined. His point was that
it will never look the same, because technology, like life, is not
perfect, and it is a bit silly of us to swallow the hype hook line and
sinker.
Nonetheless he would go on to educate, in depth, how to do it "correctly".
I was just attempting to lighten things up a bit and interject some
real world.
Tyler

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Yep.  There are so many steps in the process that can be wrong: bad
> settings, incorrect ambient light, bad profiles etc etc.  A lot of
variables
> and a lot of noise.  But I stress again that I think the big issue
is not
> the last 10% of the problem (issues like does your room lighting
actually
> have the same temperature as the monitor's white point? Or have you
really
> got the best monitor profile you can have?).  The first c90% is that
a print
> to something like matte paper will NEVER look like the display (even
on a
> perfectly profiled monitor) unless you have a proper/decent soft
proof up.
> The unfortunate reality is that the paper isn't as white and the
black isn't
> as black.  So the question then becomes do you think about a soft
proof or

> do you try to "tweak" the monitor.  I strongly suggest the former for
> reasons I have outlined.
> 
> 
> > From: Tyler Boley <tyler@t...>
>  
> > 
> > 
> > I was at a presentation by Bruce Fraser once, one of the leading gurus
> > in our industry for those who may not know. He probably does this all
> > the time so forgive me if you've heard the story...
> > The first words out of his mouth were-
> > 
> > how many of you here just want your prints to match your monitor?
> > 
> > Literally everyone raised their hand. The next words out of his mouth
> > were-
> > 
> > OK, the first thing you have to do is learn is how to LOWER your
> > expectations.
> > 
> > 
> > just thought I'd throw that out, seemed a little hot in here.
> > Tyler

Hi Paul


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

 

> I don't think I can.  How many stops does your monitor deliver?  That is,
> what is the 100% black and 0% white reading range?
> 


I am not sure that Eye One will disclose this to me (or at least I don't
know how to find the data) - it is of course measured.  What I can say is
that I calibrate my screen for a 5000 Kelvin white point.  Actually, I would
like some input on this choice.  There is a discussion of white point on x
rite's website here:

http://www.xrite.com/support_doc.aspx?Line=32&SupportID=3005

I chose D50 because I understand that this is the standard illumination when
reading a printed printer calibration chart and because of a discussion on
this forum that D50 is a better representation of daylight at sea level than
D65.  In any event, I know the ambient light in my work room is a lot lower
than even D50 and I have not stumped up for a lightbox (and so I know there
is a mismatch between the look of a print in my workroom vs display but I am
prepared to live with this if D50 is a representative average of the viewing
conditions my prints are likely to be in.  Back to your question....

What I can also tell from my Eye One is that my display luminance is set at
a target 120cd/m2 (an actual of 120.6cd/m2) and the minimum luminance of my
display is 0.4cd/m2.  So presumably from those two points one can calculate
the dynamic range, 120.2cd/m2, and convert it to stops.  I need help in
doing this however.

> For grayscale, gray gamma 2.2 seems widely accepted and displays my GS files
> the same in that mode as when they are converted to Adobe RGB for printing.

My understanding is that Gray Gamma 2.2 is a subset of Adobe RGB.  The more
important issue is that you, by the nature of your workflow, define the
mapping from the workspace to the print space - you in effect hard code this
when designing your curves.  Therefore you dictate to those using your
curves the workspace they should use.  This is of course fine but needs to
be made clear, particularly given all the press on this forum re QTR Grey
Lab.  If I work in QTR Grey Lab and then try to print with your curves I
will not get the outcome you intended (my 95% step wedge is L=5 whereas for
you it is, I believe, L=2).  (With QTR it doesn't matter because we now have
a more "dynamic" mechanism for going from the workspace to the print space:
perceptual intent rendering.  I can work in Gray Gamma 2.2 or Gray Lab it
doesn't matter.  Roy will no doubt correct me if I am wrong on this.)





As you think about all this bear in mind that you are a lot further down the
track than you may think.  Before Roy's Matte/Photo Paper ICC profiles QTR
suffered from two issues.  Firstly, as I described in an earlier post, the
print space, while "linear", was such that when combined with the one-to-one
mapping that was being done produced flat prints out of the box.  We all had
to dabble with "s curves" to get a more attractive use of the narrower print
space.  Secondly, we had to deal with the soft proofing issue that you are
dealing with now.  (Actually Carl's use of Eye one to generate an ICC
profile soft proof overcame this second issue before Roy came up with his
paper profiles and colour managed workflow.) You have hard coded by design
the mapping from Gray Gamma 2.2 to the print space for each of your
paper/ink/printer "curves" such that it generates "pleasing" results.  You
have dealt with the first issue above.  Now you just need to be able to
provide yourself (and other people not in a position to do it themselves)
with a soft proof.  If you had an Eye One this could be done very easily
with Carl's technique.  I would think it is worthwhile seeing if that
technique can be replicated with your existing measurement device.  Carl
essentially swapped out one of the selectable profile charts in Eye One to
one suited for B&W (leaving the filename the same).  Print the chart and if
you can then select it so that Eye One is expecting the right data then you
can generate an ICC profile for soft proofing from it.  It's a fair bet that
you could do the same with your existing device/software.

Black Only printing, on the other hand, is still grappling with both of
these issues.  Firstly, I believe Clayton still recommends setting gamma to
1.8 rather than 2.2 which means the print space is even further removed from
a Gray Gamma 2.2 workspace (the mismatch is made all the more worse).  In
addition, the print space is not the best it could be and Same as Source or
one-to-one mapping is still used to go from Gray Gamma 2.2 to the print
space.  Again, see the input/output relationships that I measured and have
made available here:

http://homepage.mac.com/stevekale/stevekale2/FileSharing37.html

An immediate refinement of BO printing (in addition to selecting 2.2 rather
than 1.8 as the gamma in the Epson driver) would be to profile the BO 2.2
workspace using Carl's soft proof technique and distribute this to those who
use BO but don't have access to an Eye One so that they can soft proof there
images with reasonable accuracy (emphasis on reasonable).  Then their s
curves can be done with a preview in view.  Better yet, if possible, the
technique/skill that was used by Roy to generate his matte/photo paper
profiles could be employed so that Black Only printing became a colour
managed (rather than Same as Source) workflow.  Then perceptual rendering
could be utilised to curve the image into the BO print space.  One wouldn't
have to fiddle with s curves again - just like QTR today.

Hope this makes sense/helps.

Steve

PS:  If I get a chance I will try to provide a BO1.8 and BO2.2 soft proof
profile for Eboni on EEM on a 2100 using Carl's technique.

Understood!  :-)  I just think we are so close to legging Paul's workflow
and even BO printing to the next level.  Reflect on this forum for a bit and
you might conclude (as I do) that the two biggest gripes/issues people
grapple with are ink clogs and the fact that their prints don't match the
screen.  As Bruce noted, those focused on perfection will likely always be
disappointed with the latter even with a rigorous colour managed workflow.
But I think the bulk of the disappointment out there is not because of the
technical vagaries that muck up the last 10-20% variance.  The huge issue is
proofing the mapping the big transition from one space to another.  There is
little reason why this larger part of the issue should exist for the
diligent digital photographer today.  Then we can move on to griping about
the last 10-20% that Bruce refers to....  :-)

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

> 
> 
> Bruce certainly understands all that and has more experience working
> with these issues than this entire list combined. His point was that
> it will never look the same, because technology, like life, is not
> perfect, and it is a bit silly of us to swallow the hype hook line and
> sinker.
> Nonetheless he would go on to educate, in depth, how to do it "correctly".
> I was just attempting to lighten things up a bit and interject some
> real world.
> Tyler

Steve,

>...
> The unfortunate reality is that the paper isn't as white 
>and the black isn't as black.

I'm sure there will always be less than a perfect match between monitor and
paper print.  However, I'd be curious to see what the real world differences
are.

If you have a good spot meter, put a full screen image on your monitor that
is half 100% black and half 0% white.  With the room lights set as you
usually work, and wearing the clothes that you'd usually wear, measure with
your photographic spot meter the white and black halves of the image.  I'd
be curious what values you find.

What I've found with my CRT is that just like the glass over my prints, the
reflections off the monitor significantly reduce the dynamic range that is,
in the real world, accessible to me.

LCDs have a brighter white that will make them, as a class, brighter.  What
happens to the other end of the range, however, is not clear to me.  

Additionally, try the same spot-metering experiment with real world prints
in typical viewing environments.  What I've found is that my monitor and
print ranges are not that different.  

Our spectrophotometers' and other instruments "perfect" lighting and
"viewing" conditions exaggerate the actual viewable ranges of many media.
That is, I believe, why many say matte prints with a dmax of 1.65 often look
better than a glossy print with a 2+ dmax.  In the real world the
reflections wipe out the blacks we work so hard to achieve.  (Thus my
no-glass display preference, but that is another story...)

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

>... 
> The only affordable alternative I have found is Picture Window Pro at
> 
> http://www.dl-c.com/
> 

I've been dealing with Jonathan Sachs to try and keep it that way, but I'm
not sure he's interested enough in B&W to bother.  I had thought one
advantage of a small outfit like that would be to serve small markets, and
I'll try to convince him B&W is such a market.  Ironically, the early
Picture Window versions apparently have monitor controls that were dropped
when Digital Light and Color starting selling a calibration system.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> Better yet, if possible, the
> technique/skill that was used by Roy to generate his matte/photo 
paper
> profiles could be employed so that Black Only printing became a 
colour
> managed (rather than Same as Source) workflow.  Then perceptual 
rendering
> could be utilised to curve the image into the BO print space.  One 
wouldn't
> have to fiddle with s curves again - just like QTR today.
> 
> Hope this makes sense/helps.
> 
> Steve
> 
> PS:  If I get a chance I will try to provide a BO1.8 and BO2.2 soft 
proof
> profile for Eboni on EEM on a 2100 using Carl's technique.

If you are working with a CMYK device, like an inkjet with a real 
RIP, then you can make BO profiles very easily. Simply generate a 
CMYK profile for your device, then use Xrite's Colorshop X to make a 
BO profile. This is what I do for my 9500 with Fiery RIP. If you send 
a grayscale image (grayscale workspace) to the Fiery, it 
automatically uses only black ink. If I convert the image to this BO 
profile (which is now in the grayscale space for that paper) and 
print, it falls within the limits of the BO channel. You now have 
a "color" managed workflow. There are a couple other ways to make a 
BO profile with Colorshop X, but I haven't tried them, or really read 
the "book" to see how to make them. Since I am already making a color 
profile, the simple conversion with Colorshop X is only a small step 
away. You can get Colorshop X from Xrite for $99USD, and there is 
also a 15 or 30 day (I can't remember) full function trial. It does 
work with the Eye-one, as well as several other spectrophotometers 
from Xrite.

If anyone is interested, and can't find it at the Xrite site, email 
me with your Yahoo user ID and I'll put it in a Yahoo briefcase and 
share it out to you. That said, no I won't let you use my serial 
number, Xrite has been a good company to me and I respect them too 
much to cheat them out of the money. I only offer this because it's 
hard to find the software on their site, and it runs in demo mode 
until your register online with Xrite, and then get your serial 
number back in an email from Xrite. Yes that means it needs to phone 
home at least once to get the serial number. The user manual is 181 
pages, and is only available as a PDF (I haven't printed mine yet). I 
bought mine from the Xrite store, and it showed up 3 days later with 
regular shipping (not express or overnight).

The new version of Colorshop X works with the new Pulse spectro too. 
And it is worth the money just to make BO profiles, plus all the 
other stuff like a scanning spectro patch reader similar to Quick 
Read, profile gamut mapping, full color grayscale profile creation 
from CMYK profiles (converts color images to full CMYK gray space). A 
whole lot of tools, most from the ICC tools library.

Hi

I was just trying to figure out how to do that with my Eye One.  The problem
is you don't want to take an illuminated reading just a luminance reading.
I can't figure out how to get my Eye One to take a spot luminance reading.
I was also just reading an Apple technical brief on their LCD monitors and
one of their arguments for LCD is exactly the issue you raise - CRTs reflect
light off the glass.  Another way to compare your display is to get its
(albeit marketing guff) contrast ratio.  Apple says their 23inch LCD has a
brightness (best white point) of 270cd/m2 and a contrast ratio of 400:1
meaning the black point is 0.6cd/m2 - not far from the actual measured by my
Eye One.  (By the way, my Eye One includes and ambient light test.  The
issue is not too much light but too little in my case ie the ambient light
is not enough to match my display white point of D50. Light reflection on
the face of an LCD is almost a non-issue.)

Someone out there must be able to convert 0.4cd/m2 into a density figure.
That's my black point.

I agree with your feelings re glass.  There is no glass in front of any of
my prints in my house.

Steve

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> 
> Steve,
> 
>> ...
>> The unfortunate reality is that the paper isn't as white
>> and the black isn't as black.
> 
> I'm sure there will always be less than a perfect match between monitor and
> paper print.  However, I'd be curious to see what the real world differences
> are.
> 
> If you have a good spot meter, put a full screen image on your monitor that
> is half 100% black and half 0% white.  With the room lights set as you
> usually work, and wearing the clothes that you'd usually wear, measure with
> your photographic spot meter the white and black halves of the image.  I'd
> be curious what values you find.
> 
> What I've found with my CRT is that just like the glass over my prints, the
> reflections off the monitor significantly reduce the dynamic range that is,
> in the real world, accessible to me.
> 
> LCDs have a brighter white that will make them, as a class, brighter.  What
> happens to the other end of the range, however, is not clear to me.
> 
> Additionally, try the same spot-metering experiment with real world prints
> in typical viewing environments.  What I've found is that my monitor and
> print ranges are not that different.
> 
> Our spectrophotometers' and other instruments "perfect" lighting and
> "viewing" conditions exaggerate the actual viewable ranges of many media.
> That is, I believe, why many say matte prints with a dmax of 1.65 often look
> better than a glossy print with a 2+ dmax.  In the real world the
> reflections wipe out the blacks we work so hard to achieve.  (Thus my
> no-glass display preference, but that is another story...)
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

Steve,



> > what is the 100% black and 0% white reading range?
> >
> 
> 
> I am not sure that Eye One will disclose this to me ...

No, I don't want the Eye One numbers.  I want the measuring instrument to be
where your eye usually is.  A good spot meter seems to me be an instrument
we photographers have used for years that can give us these real world
luminance ranges -- not some theoretical reading made under perfect viewing
conditions that we can't replicate with our eyes.


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Steve,

 Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
> > For grayscale, gray gamma 2.2 seems widely accepted 
>>and displays my GS files the same in that mode as when they 
>>are converted to Adobe RGB for printing.


> My understanding is that Gray Gamma 2.2 is a subset of Adobe RGB. 

> ...by the nature of your workflow, ... you dictate to those using your
> curves the workspace they should use. 

One way to look at what I'm exploring is that with a "tweaking" layer (or
whatever one calls it), control of the print space is totally in the hands
of the user.


> ... If I work in QTR Grey Lab and then try to print with your curves I
> will not get the outcome you intended 

Probably true, but what I think I've been able to glean from the discussion
and my experience is that no "canned" profiles or workspaces will ever get a
perfect monitor to print match for everyone.  In the past I've used a
"custom dot gain curve" to get a good "soft proof" in the Photoshop
"View>Proof Setup>Custom" procedure.  I think maybe this custom view control
-- that I think is critical -- should be moved to the printing side of the
equation, where it could also be combined with the functions that are now
handled by the rip "linearization" procedures.





>... With QTR it doesn't matter ...

I don't think QTR can eliminate the monitor differences (one side of the
equation), although the linearization function can deal with the inkset and
paper batch variances (the major advantage that I think might be able to be
incorporated in a similar overlay curves layer in my approach).  

The one additional step that I don't see in the rips yet is the ability to
do the linearization visually instead of with instruments.  I think it can
be done with a good interface, and I think that would make the rips even
more appealing to a large set of users.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Just a note about ColorshopX, I'm having trouble getting a complete 
disk image, so unless a Mac can burn a Nero .nrg image, I can only 
put up the Windows version.

Ok will take spot readings with my meter but a luminance reading from an Eye
One is almost the same thing - the only lighting is from the profiled LCD:
I don't have a reflected light issue of significance.  The only difference
between a spot meter reading and an Eye One is the reflection of ambient
light.  Will measure and post when I get a chance.

Steve

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
>
> 
> Steve,
> 
> 
> 
>>> what is the 100% black and 0% white reading range?
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> I am not sure that Eye One will disclose this to me ...
> 
> No, I don't want the Eye One numbers.  I want the measuring instrument to be
> where your eye usually is.  A good spot meter seems to me be an instrument
> we photographers have used for years that can give us these real world
> luminance ranges -- not some theoretical reading made under perfect viewing
> conditions that we can't replicate with our eyes.
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" 
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> The one additional step that I don't see in the rips yet is the 
ability to
> do the linearization visually instead of with instruments.  I think 
it can
> be done with a good interface, and I think that would make the rips 
even
> more appealing to a large set of users.  
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Bestcolor Proofer has a visual re-linearization ofr the color work, 
but I haven't tried it yet. You are right, there should be a way to 
accomplish this visually, just like with overall ink limits.

First of all, before I go off on another tangent, it's important to
acknowledge the work of Roy and Carl to implement these techniques and
share them. I remember some email conversations between all of us but
don't recall whether it was Roy or Carl who first discovered how to
hack custom charts into EyeOne Photo, it was just a naming convention
and not something more complicated. I hope Gretag never "fixes" this...
I also want to make clear that I'm not implying their work was not a
creative breakthrough, they may well have implemented it with no
knowledge of previous work by others, it becomes obscure. Certainly
Roy's single channel output profiles are new.

The tangent- This stuff is not new. Many of us have been soft proofing
for all kinds of odd inksets and workflows for some time. Dan
Culbertson refers to it in another context in a pdf somewhere on this
site dated 2001. I profiled and used soft proofing methods to help
generate curves for a variable tone MIS inkset for Martin, also
somewhere on this site, back in 2002. I also used these methods for my
own workflow for quad work in CMYK with a RIP. Back then we used
Profiler Pro because it would not choke on such unexpected "colors".

One problem in this fast paced digital world is that people come and
go, new products are quickly introduced, and the knowledge base seems
to come and go as well. A breakthrough occurs, and then disappears,
then you have new people coming in with no access to it. How many
times to we see the "what is QTR?" post. Thankfully it is alive and well.

The concept of softproofing any of these workflows, virtually any of
these ink sets, has been around a long time. I still stress learning
color management, no matter how you wind up using it. The above
methods become very obvious to someone with strong working CM knowledge.
These ongoing problems persist unnecessarily, in my opinion one reason
is because the reluctance to learn color management also persists.
I know it's a drag, but the zone system was too until it became second
nature.
Tyler, ranting...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "dfaprinting"
<dfaprinting@y...> wrote:
...
> If you are working with a CMYK device, like an inkjet with a real 
> RIP, then you can make BO profiles very easily. Simply generate a 
> CMYK profile for your device, then use Xrite's Colorshop X to make a 
> BO profile.

Are you refering to the "rich gray" feature? I've worked with it a few
times without the result I was after. Perahps there is a different
tool there that works better?
Tyler

Well said.

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

> 
> 
> First of all, before I go off on another tangent, it's important to
> acknowledge the work of Roy and Carl to implement these techniques and
> share them. I remember some email conversations between all of us but
> don't recall whether it was Roy or Carl who first discovered how to
> hack custom charts into EyeOne Photo, it was just a naming convention
> and not something more complicated. I hope Gretag never "fixes" this...
> I also want to make clear that I'm not implying their work was not a
> creative breakthrough, they may well have implemented it with no
> knowledge of previous work by others, it becomes obscure. Certainly
> Roy's single channel output profiles are new.
> 
> The tangent- This stuff is not new. Many of us have been soft proofing
> for all kinds of odd inksets and workflows for some time. Dan
> Culbertson refers to it in another context in a pdf somewhere on this
> site dated 2001. I profiled and used soft proofing methods to help
> generate curves for a variable tone MIS inkset for Martin, also
> somewhere on this site, back in 2002. I also used these methods for my
> own workflow for quad work in CMYK with a RIP. Back then we used
> Profiler Pro because it would not choke on such unexpected "colors".
> 
> One problem in this fast paced digital world is that people come and
> go, new products are quickly introduced, and the knowledge base seems
> to come and go as well. A breakthrough occurs, and then disappears,
> then you have new people coming in with no access to it. How many
> times to we see the "what is QTR?" post. Thankfully it is alive and well.
> 
> The concept of softproofing any of these workflows, virtually any of
> these ink sets, has been around a long time. I still stress learning
> color management, no matter how you wind up using it. The above
> methods become very obvious to someone with strong working CM knowledge.
> These ongoing problems persist unnecessarily, in my opinion one reason
> is because the reluctance to learn color management also persists.
> I know it's a drag, but the zone system was too until it became second
> nature.
> Tyler, ranting...

On 4/8/05 8:11 PM, "Steve Kale" sent the following verbage:

> This is why I react strongly against "tweaking the monitor" to match the
> print.




I have used work arounds for matching my prints for many years, initially as
adjustments tagged for the different outputs in order for the screen to
represent a particular printers capabilities. It worked fine for me in a
closed environment, and then with the original piezo workflow and Tyler's
soft proof techniques. It also worked for me when the offset print houses
continued to be closed environments not yet ready to wrap their arms nor
money around open concept profiling systems (some are still there). I had
different curves saved for different printers used in order to give me a
general visual sense of where the values may fall. It worked for me before
this wonderful new world of color management was known as it is, or more
affordable, period. Remember the good old days, going by the numbers,
running your little eye dropper around checking values. The ability to
actually see what you would get in a print was just a dream.

For those who come into this new arena without this experience of
'tweaking', I'm sure it may be frustrating 'knowing' your way is the
'better' way.. But, there is more to it in my opinion.

I have been appreciative of the various posts lately from others talking
about their own techniques... And know there are others doing the same, who
may not wish to post.

They show a good understanding of what they need, and how to achieve it.
Just because the entire spectrum of the color managed workflow is not used,
or equipment not implemented, does not mean it is not understood.

The whole scope of color management has helped us, but there are varying
degrees in which you can implement it and still be quite effective,
depending on your workflow, environment, and pocketbook. .. As effective as
is possible considering you are trying to match two different ways of
'seeing' an image.
Carolyn

On 4/9/05 11:38 AM, "Tyler Boley" sent the following verbage:

> The concept of softproofing any of these workflows, virtually any of
> these ink sets, has been around a long time. I still stress learning
> color management, no matter how you wind up using it. The above
> methods become very obvious to someone with strong working CM knowledge.
> These ongoing problems persist unnecessarily, in my opinion one reason
> is because the reluctance to learn color management also persists.
> I know it's a drag, but the zone system was too until it became second
> nature.
> Tyler, ranting...


Ya well, your rants are always more than valid... And appreciated.

C

> 
> Are you refering to the "rich gray" feature? I've worked with it a 
few
> times without the result I was after. Perahps there is a different
> tool there that works better?
> Tyler

There are two modes, one is rich black, the other I think is only 
labelled as grayscale, and I get them both confused and so generally 
make both to see which is which. The full CMYK grayscale yields a 
profile with a default name containing the word "gray", the other 
gives no default name and is the black only profile that I mentioned. 
The full CMYK grayscale profile can be used as an output profile 
within the Fiery, the BO profile is not recognised so must be applied 
by converting the image to that space. Made a big improvement over 
just sending a grayscale image to the printer. If you use Norman 
Koren's grayscale test image the 21 steps look real good. The 255 to 
240 graduation that is also on that chart goes up to about 249 for me 
when I convert to the BO space, otherwise I can only get to about 242 
when sending the "raw" grayscale image to the RIP. The steps in the 
21 step chart all look good, and the graduation at the bottom is 
smooth all the way up until the dither runs out on my 9500. Bet it 
looks real good on the 76/9600 at 2880x1440.

I suppose you could do the same thing by adjusting the output sliders 
in level control in Photoshop, but this takes the most trial and 
error away from that process, and gives nice linear steps which may 
not happen using the Photoshop adjustment way. 

Also found out my briefcase is misbehaving, so can't upload anything 
at the moment. The manual is around 12MB and the windows version of 
the software is around 16MB. I suggest just searching the Xrite 
website for "colorshopx" to find the demo (both Mac and Win).

Had to use my 1Ds as my spot meter battery died.  ISO 100 @ F2.8.  Both
readings from working distance with full room lighting.

100% white:  1/100th of a sec.  (monitor calibrated to D50 white point)

100% black:  0"8 secs

(With the lights off but with still some residual ambient light 100% black
went to 1"3)

Gotta run for this evening - hope this is useful.

Steve

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>

> 
> Ok will take spot readings with my meter but a luminance reading from an Eye
> One is almost the same thing - the only lighting is from the profiled LCD:
> I don't have a reflected light issue of significance.  The only difference
> between a spot meter reading and an Eye One is the reflection of ambient
> light.  Will measure and post when I get a chance.
> 
> Steve
>

Thanks for the info. Sounds like I'd better just buy it, get out of
demo mode, and get busy.
Tyler

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

> 
> > 
> > Are you refering to the "rich gray" feature? I've worked with it a 
> few
> > times without the result I was after. Perahps there is a different
> > tool there that works better?
> > Tyler
> 
> There are two modes, one is rich black, the other I think is only 
> labelled as grayscale, and I get them both confused and so generally 
> make both to see which is which. The full CMYK grayscale yields a 
> profile with a default name containing the word "gray", the other 
> gives no default name and is the black only profile that I mentioned. 
> The full CMYK grayscale profile can be used as an output profile 
> within the Fiery, the BO profile is not recognised so must be applied 
> by converting the image to that space. Made a big improvement over 
> just sending a grayscale image to the printer. If you use Norman 
> Koren's grayscale test image the 21 steps look real good. The 255 to 
> 240 graduation that is also on that chart goes up to about 249 for me 
> when I convert to the BO space, otherwise I can only get to about 242 
> when sending the "raw" grayscale image to the RIP. The steps in the 
> 21 step chart all look good, and the graduation at the bottom is 
> smooth all the way up until the dither runs out on my 9500. Bet it 
> looks real good on the 76/9600 at 2880x1440.
> 
> I suppose you could do the same thing by adjusting the output sliders 
> in level control in Photoshop, but this takes the most trial and 
> error away from that process, and gives nice linear steps which may 
> not happen using the Photoshop adjustment way. 
> 
> Also found out my briefcase is misbehaving, so can't upload anything 
> at the moment. The manual is around 12MB and the windows version of 
> the software is around 16MB. I suggest just searching the Xrite 
> website for "colorshopx" to find the demo (both Mac and Win).

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> 
> Thanks for the info. Sounds like I'd better just buy it, get out of
> demo mode, and get busy.
> Tyler


As I said, fully functional for 14 days (I looked in the box to find 
it). I made a couple BO and full gray profiles before buying the 
software, then decided that the BO profiles were worth the $99. Found 
the other stuff later.I don't know what other data is needed to make 
the BO profiles other than importing a CMYK profile. There is some 
way to import a measurement file, and I think 2 other ways, but I 
haven't looked into it. Keep in mind that I am also using Windows, so 
there may be some differences with the Mac version. If you have a 
CMYK profile that you want converted, email me so we can attach 
things to the message. The BO profile ends up being around 18KB, 
should zip down to about nothing.

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> I was just trying to figure out how to do that with my Eye One.
> The problem
> is you don't want to take an illuminated reading just a luminance reading.
> I can't figure out how to get my Eye One to take a spot luminance reading.

I'm assuming you have the Eye-One Pro spectro. You should be able to use the
ambient light measurement tool in the Eye-One Share program as a light
meter. Since Paul wants you to measure the combination of the light emitted
from the screen and the light reflected by the screen, I think it will be
necessary to leave the diffuser off, and point the opening at the black and
white areas of the screen from sufficient distance not to block the source
of reflections. In other words, use it as a spot meter, rather than an
incident light meter. This should work fine, because the Eye-One has a nice
narrow acceptance angle.

> Someone out there must be able to convert 0.4cd/m2 into a density figure.
> That's my black point.

Density is just a base ten logarithm of the reflectance. The only reasonable
way to convert a monitor's brightness range to a density figure is to divide
the white luminance by the black luminance and take the logarithm. If you
actually get a 400:1 range, that would correspond to a density of 2.6. If
reflections reduce that to, say, 100:1, that would be like a density of 2.0.

Of course, reflections don't just reduce the apparent density of the blacks,
they distract by reflecting actual unrelated images of things. So a
measurement that shows that the monitor with your shirt reflected off it has
a black luminance of 2.7cd/m^2 doesn't mean that it has the same subjective
effect as a monitor that actually has a 100:1 contrast range in a pitch
black room.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> Had to use my 1Ds as my spot meter battery died.  ISO 100 @ F2.8.  Both
> readings from working distance with full room lighting.
>
> 100% white:  1/100th of a sec.  (monitor calibrated to D50 white point)
>
> 100% black:  0"8 secs
>
> (With the lights off but with still some residual ambient light 100% black
> went to 1"3)

So that's a "density" of 1.90 and 2.11.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Sounds like you have something that would be of a lot of help to the Black
Only community.  Hopefully you can make these profiles available to people.
BTW what workspace and Epson driver gamma do you use?

> From: dfaprinting <dfaprinting@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 09 Apr 2005 18:34:26 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: BO profiles was Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley"
> <tyler@t...> wrote:
>> 
>> Thanks for the info. Sounds like I'd better just buy it, get out of
>> demo mode, and get busy.
>> Tyler
> 
> 
> As I said, fully functional for 14 days (I looked in the box to find
> it). I made a couple BO and full gray profiles before buying the
> software, then decided that the BO profiles were worth the $99. Found
> the other stuff later.I don't know what other data is needed to make
> the BO profiles other than importing a CMYK profile. There is some
> way to import a measurement file, and I think 2 other ways, but I
> haven't looked into it. Keep in mind that I am also using Windows, so
> there may be some differences with the Mac version. If you have a
> CMYK profile that you want converted, email me so we can attach
> things to the message. The BO profile ends up being around 18KB,
> should zip down to about nothing.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> Sounds like you have something that would be of a lot of help to 
the Black
> Only community.  Hopefully you can make these profiles available to 
people.
> BTW what workspace and Epson driver gamma do you use?
> 


I print with an Epson 9500 and the Fiery RIP at the moment, with inks 
from Image Specialists using what MIS labels as Eboni black.

It's a little different from that. From what I have done, you need to 
start with a real CMYK profile for your printer, that limits things 
to about 5% of people that use most of the printers, as you need a 
real full color RIP. There may be other ways to do it, but I haven't 
tried them yet. And making them available for other people would be 
fine if they were using the same printer, ink, paper, RIP 
configuration that I use. Chances of that are increasingly slim, 
especially since I am possibly moving to a new ink set (that's 
today's work). I'll have to check into what it needs from a 
measurement file, maybe it is something that can be offered as a 
service for a reasonable fee. If there is a way to make it work with 
the "normal" RGB workflow, then this could be of real widespread 
benefit to the BO crowd. Guess I need to read through the book to see 
what it really needs. Would be nice if you only needed a bunch of 
steps from a test pattern, but I have a feeling there is more 
involved.

> > From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
> >
> > Had to use my 1Ds as my spot meter battery died.  ISO 100 @ F2.8.  Both
> > readings from working distance with full room lighting.
> >
> > 100% white:  1/100th of a sec.  (monitor calibrated to D50 white point)
> >
> > 100% black:  0"8 secs
> >
> > (With the lights off but with still some residual ambient light 100%
> black
> > went to 1"3)

Paul D. DeRocco wrote:
> 
> So that's a "density" of 1.90 and 2.11.

The range Steve measured is, I assume, from a LCD.  He gets about 6+ stops.
Using the same techniques, I get about 4+ stops with my CRT.  I've been told
LCDs can be about 50% brighter than CRTs.  Oddly, part of this difference in
my case is due to the calibration procedure (Spyder2Pro), which resulted in
me setting the brightness at just above 80%.

If I have the lights off and wear a black shirt, the CRT range approaches
what Steve measured.  But the reflections wipe out that black point
advantage when I use the computer in my normal fashion.

As noted, the range Steve measured is more than the matte papers we use but
less than the glossy papers -- but only under ideal lighting such as used by
the densitometers/spectrophotometers.  Using the spot meter on prints in
typical office or home viewing conditions, I get closer to a 4+ stop range
for both matte and glossy (glass framing would reduce that).  So, my CRT is
really not that far off in terms of its display of the dynamic range of what
we see in practice.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thanks for your input, Tyler.

Very nicely done and completely appropos.

There are many ways to tell a good story. 

I feel relieved...

Best wishes,

Jeff
http://pbase.com/k2kv


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tyler Boley" 
<tyler@t...> wrote:
> 
> Bruce certainly understands all that and has more experience 
working
> with these issues than this entire list combined. His point was 
that
> it will never look the same, because technology, like life, is not
> perfect, and it is a bit silly of us to swallow the hype hook line 
and
> sinker.
> Nonetheless he would go on to educate, in depth, how to do 
it "correctly".
> I was just attempting to lighten things up a bit and interject some
> real world.
> Tyler

> > > 
> > > 
> > > I was at a presentation by Bruce Fraser once, one of the 
leading gurus
> > > in our industry for those who may not know. He probably does 
this all
> > > the time so forgive me if you've heard the story...
> > > The first words out of his mouth were-
> > > 
> > > how many of you here just want your prints to match your 
monitor?
> > > 
> > > Literally everyone raised their hand. The next words out of 
his mouth
> > > were-
> > > 
> > > OK, the first thing you have to do is learn is how to LOWER 
your

> > > expectations.
> > > 
> > > 
> > > just thought I'd throw that out, seemed a little hot in here.
> > > Tyler

Paul, Steve, Duane, Carolyn, Tyler, et al,

I have followed this thread with interest and have a few comments to
add.

First, Paul, your method using two curves sounds very much like my
approach, although it seems like doing it the hard way.  I just let PS
do the work for me. When using grayscale mode, when the Printer
profile is Same As Source it applies exactly the opposite of whatever
the front end profile is doing, so that no matter what is assigned to
the image it makes no difference to the print.  This allows easily
changing the monitor to closely match the print (I think everyone
agrees that there will never be a perfect match).  The actual
workspace profile used may be different, depending on monitor,
graphics card, etc. Is this essentially the same thing as you are
doing or did I miss it?  I also did get your point about wanting to
find an easy non-PS path for ordinary folks, so perhaps the twin curve
approach is for that...

I have found that a custom 18% DG curve works great for me.  I
assigned it to the Gray Working Space in the Color Settings window and
it is the default work space for every image converted to grayscale. 
I have excellent WYSIWYG and I hardly ever think about this stuff, I
just think "photography".  I work up the images and send them out to
the printer, and it works equally well with BO and UT7.

As for the broader subject, it seems that all of this lengthy
discussion boils down to you either change the screen to match the
print and get on with it, or you take the calibration approach which
requires some expense, twiddling and mind warping.  The former is fine
if you're working in a "closed system", as I think Carolyn put it, but
the latter is required for professional work where images must have
consistent output on various systems.  IMO each is equally valid,
depending on the point of view.

Duane, you put it very nicely in your intelligent and balanced "tea or
coffee" post (thanks for that).  For the record, anyone who has
actually read and given thought to my articles and forum posts will
know that I have never said that BO and/or my workflow is the best way
to do things.  All I have ever said is that it is simple, easy,
remarkably effective, and a great way to get started.  Some people are
technically inclined, others aren't.  Those who are not satisfied with
the BO and/or CJworkflow approach will move on to other things when
they are ready (with some good practical experience to take with
them).  Some (actually many) people find it a very comfortable,
effective and satisfying way to work.

Steve, I must confess that I am of the non-technical inclination, and
my eyes glaze over when I read your posts.  I respect your level of
knowledge, but also recognize that I simply have neither the time nor
inclination to go that route.  After over a year of frustration and
experiments I arrived at the understanding and methods I describe in
the articles.  They allow me to work quickly, intuitively, and
effectively, without all the fuss and bother, and I am busy living
happily ever after, making and selling lots of prints which
regularly bring comments about their beauty, etc.  I also regularly
get email from other happy users thanking me for showing them a way
that works for them.  So I hope that as much as you want others to
understand your point of view, that you will also recognize that
simply changing the monitor to match the print and getting on with the
work of photography is a perfectable suitable approach for many
people.

You also mentioned the fact that I recommend an Epson driver gamma
setting of 1.8, and you think it should be 2.2.  I cannot answer to
this in theoretical terms which might satisfy you.  All I can say is
that I'm a practical realist.  I tried both, and found that 1.8
allowed more easily attainable WYSIWYG using the method I describe.

Tyler, just wanted to say thanks for your always thoughtful comments.

A great thread folks!


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Clayton

I am not a technical guy per se.  I have only owned my own computer for two
years.  Previously I just had one at the office, never had to maintain it,
and had no idea that I could print my own photos on a range of paper.  When
I had to buy my own laptop for home I asked a friend about Laser printers
and he said "since you are into photography you should consider an inkjet".
He wasn't even a photographer!  How things change at the turn of a few
words.  I have just tried to learn what I can and almost all of it has been
from this list for which I am very grateful.

As for BO with 1.8 gamma or 2.2 gamma, it really is a very basic statement
that I was making.  If your printer had the same "space" as your "workspace"
and "display" space, ie would reproduce the same density for any particular
pixel value (8, 16 bit or otherwise), then none of this topic would be an
issue - we would see and print and store the same thing.  The closer the
spaces are, the less the mismatch and hence the lesser is the "matching
monitor and print" issue.  Since most people work in Gray Gamma 2.2 for B&W
it would make sense to have a print space gamma as close to this as
possible.  Choosing 1.8 rather than 2.2 in the Epson driver simply makes the
mismatch worse (and, by corollary, the adjustment of the image needs to be
greater to get satisfactory prints vs if you had selected 2.2).

You can see the extent of this greater mismatch by looking at the results I
posted here:

http://homepage.mac.com/stevekale/stevekale2/FileSharing37.html

Now the test I did started with a Lab space step wedge rather than Gray
Gamma 2.2 but the point would remain the same - Lab doesn't have a single
value gamma but the best approximation is 2.2.

Steve

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>


> 
> Steve, I must confess that I am of the non-technical inclination, and
> my eyes glaze over when I read your posts.  I respect your level of
> knowledge, but also recognize that I simply have neither the time nor
> inclination to go that route.  After over a year of frustration and
> experiments I arrived at the understanding and methods I describe in
> the articles.  They allow me to work quickly, intuitively, and
> effectively, without all the fuss and bother, and I am busy living
> happily ever after, making and selling lots of prints which
> regularly bring comments about their beauty, etc.  I also regularly
> get email from other happy users thanking me for showing them a way
> that works for them.  So I hope that as much as you want others to
> understand your point of view, that you will also recognize that
> simply changing the monitor to match the print and getting on with the
> work of photography is a perfectable suitable approach for many
> people.
> 
> You also mentioned the fact that I recommend an Epson driver gamma
> setting of 1.8, and you think it should be 2.2.  I cannot answer to
> this in theoretical terms which might satisfy you.  All I can say is
> that I'm a practical realist.  I tried both, and found that 1.8
> allowed more easily attainable WYSIWYG using the method I describe.
>

Hi Paul


> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> 
> I'm assuming you have the Eye-One Pro spectro.

Yes I do

>You should be able to use the
> ambient light measurement tool in the Eye-One Share program as a light
> meter. Since Paul wants you to measure the combination of the light emitted
> from the screen and the light reflected by the screen, I think it will be
> necessary to leave the diffuser off, and point the opening at the black and
> white areas of the screen from sufficient distance not to block the source
> of reflections. In other words, use it as a spot meter, rather than an
> incident light meter. This should work fine, because the Eye-One has a nice
> narrow acceptance angle.

Unless I am mistaken the only way to do an ambient light check is as part of
making a display profile and in that case it just gives the reading in terms
of colour temp K and illumance lux.
> 
>> Someone out there must be able to convert 0.4cd/m2 into a density figure.
>> That's my black point.
> 
> Density is just a base ten logarithm of the reflectance. The only reasonable
> way to convert a monitor's brightness range to a density figure is to divide
> the white luminance by the black luminance and take the logarithm. If you
> actually get a 400:1 range, that would correspond to a density of 2.6. If
> reflections reduce that to, say, 100:1, that would be like a density of 2.0.
> 
> Of course, reflections don't just reduce the apparent density of the blacks,
> they distract by reflecting actual unrelated images of things. So a
> measurement that shows that the monitor with your shirt reflected off it has
> a black luminance of 2.7cd/m^2 doesn't mean that it has the same subjective
> effect as a monitor that actually has a 100:1 contrast range in a pitch
> black room.
> 


I am puzzled by this.  It's my minimum luminance that determines black level
ie 0.4cd/m2.  This is a measure of the light emitted by the display when
trying to not emit any light at all.  It is not affected (directly) by how
bright my monitor can be ie the 270cd/m2. Haven't you just measured the
dynamic range in density terms rather than the end points?  I guess I am
interested in that but more interested in knowing the density equivalent of
the black point. My LCD can obviously be a lot whiter than it is at the
moment.  I have lowered the colour temp to D50. The key is what black can be
represented.  One test might be to somehow set the colour management between
file and display to absolute (?) and key in L figures for equivalent
densities into a swatch programme like Eye One Share and note at which point
they don't get any darker?



(BTW if you have ever watched someone tune a plasma display for a home
theatre environment it is very interesting.  Most plasma and LCD displays
are way too bright off the showroom floor.  Why?  Because they are
calibrated for the sales pitch rather than actual use.  Sales floors
typically have enormous ambient light levels and so the sets have their
brightness or more correctly their black level turned all the way up.  If
you want a plasma display which will work well in a relatively controlled
environment choose one with greater "contrast" - actually greater dynamic
range (white point divided by black point) rather than "brightness".  The
first thing you'll do when you get it home is to drive the black point
substantially lower.)

Clayton,

>...Paul, your method using two curves sounds very much like my
> approach, although it seems like doing it the hard way.  I just let PS
> do the work for me. When using grayscale mode, when the Printer
> profile is Same As Source it applies exactly the opposite of whatever
> the front end profile is doing, so that no matter what is assigned to
> the image it makes no difference to the print.  ...


Interesting.  Do you have a write-up of your approach on the web?  I'd like
to give it a try to see if we're getting to the same place with all this.

There are certainly lots of ways to skin this cat.  What I'm basically
following up on is that I think the linearization step that the rips use is
the main thing that was missing from the PS curves workflow.  But it seems a
curves set can do not only that but also the print-to-monitor matching.  So,
I'm trying to see how many birds I can get with this one stone -- a curves
set that corrects for any number of variables that have caused the "canned"
curves and solutions to fail for some users.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> Unless I am mistaken the only way to do an ambient light check is
> as part of
> making a display profile and in that case it just gives the
> reading in terms
> of colour temp K and illumance lux.

Which software do you have? If you have Eye-One Share, there's a tool that
lets you measure incident light. I think it's under Evaluate (e) in the top
left corner, then Light, but my memory could be off. It lets you click the
button on the spectro to take a reading, and then examine its data in
various ways, including, if you want, storing the whole 36-band data in a
text file. But as long as you can get some sort of brightness out of it on a
linear scale, that's all you need. (I'm not at the computer that has all
this installed at the moment.)

> I am puzzled by this.  It's my minimum luminance that determines
> black level
> ie 0.4cd/m2.  This is a measure of the light emitted by the display when
> trying to not emit any light at all.  It is not affected (directly) by how
> bright my monitor can be ie the 270cd/m2. Haven't you just measured the
> dynamic range in density terms rather than the end points?

Yes.

> I guess I am
> interested in that but more interested in knowing the density
> equivalent of
> the black point. My LCD can obviously be a lot whiter than it is at the
> moment.  I have lowered the colour temp to D50. The key is what
> black can be
> represented.

Density is a logarithm of a ratio, normally the ratio of incident light to
reflected light. The only other thing you could take the ratio of is the
ratio of your room lights reflected off white paper, to the light emitted
and reflected from your black screen. I'm not sure that's meaningful.

The way I look at it is that the eye adapts to the display, just as it
adapts to room light, so that whatever your white point is becomes the
equivalent of paper white (as long as your screen brightness is something
reasonable). Just as changing the brightness your room lilghts doesn't make
a print look fundamentally different (over a reasonable range), the same
should be true of the monitor. I think the important monitor measurement
_is_ dynamic range, and that corresponds pretty directly to print density
range.

Of course, there is a small difference between the print density range and
the black density, because the paper white density isn't exactly zero.
However, many papers with optical brighteners probably have a negative
"density", emitting more visible light than struck it. I suppose you'd have
to take that into account for the most meaningful comparison. Using optical
brighteners can increase an image's contrast just as much as using a darker
black ink. And printing on gray paper can reduce it just as much as using a
weaker black ink, because what the eye/brain responds to is contrast range.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Paul,

>Interesting.  Do you have a write-up of your approach on the web?  
>I'd like to give it a try to see if we're getting to the same 
>place with all this.

Yes, go here and look at article #4

    http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm


>seems a curves set can do not only that but also the print-to-
>monitor matching.  So, I'm trying to see how many birds I can get 
>with this one stone -- a curves set that corrects for any number of
>variables that have caused the "canned" curves and solutions to fail
>for some users.  

Only problem I see with this is it would make the curves much more
complex, and you would be forced to deal with it every time you work
on an image.  I have found that once you figure out the "sweet spot"
for your setup, the document profile that gives best WYSIWYG (in my
case a simple DG-type 18% curve), you can pretty much set it and
forget about it.  Then an adjustment curve in an image is purely a
photographic exercise.  You can think in terms of traditional
S-curves.  I never have to think about profiling and such when I work.
 The only remaining issue is adjusting for different papers after the
proof is done, and that is discussed in the article as well.  I've
found it to be a very easy thing to deal with.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Clayton,
Thanks for the kind words. I really didn't mean to take your name in
vain in the discussion. I have a copy of your treatis on BO on hand
for reference. At the time of making BO printing curves I was still a
bit fuzzy on the front side-back side issue and hadn't gotten my head
around it all yet. As it happened I wanted to test and check out about
a dozen different papers I already had on hand and it looked like I
would probably need to derive curves for paper differences anyway.
When I discovered this group 3 or 4 years ago I still had only a 1200
with Mis color pigs and couldn't dedicate it to B&W. I also was using
Pshop4 which had been obtained very dearly.(or it seemed so at the
time to a health related early retiree-remember the market
fiasco/enron/xerox etc). Consequently I determined to do the best I
could with what I had. Usually, if I determine something, I find a way.
One of the things I learned was that the curves I made not only worked
then but worked just as well when I later upgraded to Pshop5(when I
felt more affluent) and later still to Pshop7(where I actually could
Use color management). If my photo looked the same on screen in all of
the versions, it looked fine on the print. I most definitely am in
favor of transportability as change will come whether I will it or
not. To that end, controling things with Pshop curves if not elegant
should be pretty transparent at least. When and if BO printing doesn't
work for me, I'll change methods to what does work. BO is only a part
of it as I also do color and began not too long ago to do Quads, where
I'm still in the learning curve. I have found that BO is very
effective for some photos and I have always been a fan of the Tri-x
look and have lots of appropriate negatives for use.

I do use color management all along the way now for color work as I
find the soft proofing concept to be very effective too. It has not
proven necessary as yet to go the high dollar hardware route and I
don't anticipate that it will for some time. I would be a good example
of the closed loop concept I guess although I frankly believe that a
file edited on an acceptably  profiled monitor under "any" currently
available workspace should be as portable as it can get irrespective
of who outputs it. After all, that is the entire point of color
management. The profiled output is the responsibility of the
"outputer". If they don't tinker with or change the actual file values
in any way, a properly profiled output device will print it supposedly
identically to the way a properly profiled monitor will show it--
with,of course, the usual caveats.
Likewise, if one hasn't the capability to profile the output device,
for whatever reason, it is perfectly acceptable to apply a
conversion/printing curve to accomplish the same thing. Again, the
result be on the head of the "outputer":)

AS an aside, I would like to say as have others, Thank You, for your
ongoing generosity to the folks in this community. I have watched the
threads run through this list and you have left large footprints.

(I spent many hours over the course of a couple of months and read the
entire contents of the archives when I first joined the group.)

Regards
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:

> 
> Paul, Steve, Duane, Carolyn, Tyler, et al,
> 
> I have followed this thread with interest and have a few comments to
> add.

Hello Steve,

>As for BO with 1.8 gamma or 2.2 gamma, it really is a very basic
>statement that I was making.  If your printer had the same "space" 
>as your "workspace" and "display" space, ie would reproduce the 
>same density for any particular pixel value (8, 16 bit or 
>otherwise), then none of this topic would be an issue - we would 
>see and print and store the same thing.  The closer the spaces are,
>the less the mismatch and hence the lesser is the "matching
>monitor and print" issue.

A nice theory, sounds good so far.


>Since most people work in Gray Gamma 2.2 for B&W

What do you mean by this?  There are three different places to assign
things: the image profile, the printer profile, and the driver gamma
setting.  What does "work in Gray Gamma 2.2" mean in terms of these
three settings?  And how do you know that "most people" do whatever it
is you mean?


>it would make sense to have a print space gamma as close to this as
>possible.  

What do you mean by "print space gamma"?  Do you mean the printer
profile setting or the driver gamma setting?


>Choosing 1.8 rather than 2.2 in the Epson driver simply makes the
>mismatch worse (and, by corollary, the adjustment of the image 
>needs to be greater to get satisfactory prints vs if you had 
>selected 2.2).

Again, a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up in the real world.  In
actual use I find just the opposite. Selecting 2.2 ends up requiring
more work.  It has been over two years since I worked this stuff out,
so I decided to go back and test your theory to see if I was missing
something.  This morning at church I made a portrait of a woman, using
a digital camera, so I decided to use it as a test case. I opened it
in PS and did a straight grayscale mode conversion (I wanted to do as
little manipulation as possible for this test).  

The pic was well exposed and the BW image is very pleasing and will
not require much work.  The grayscale tones have values that closely
match the color image (IOW, the image doesn't look under or over
exposed in comparison to the color version, and the contrast is
likewise very close).  Keep in mind that this image was automatically
tagged with my default DG18% profile, and the printer profile is
always set to Same As Source. 

I then made a straight print (no curves, no manipulations) with my
standard driver gamma setting of 1.8.  The resulting print looks just
like the screen image (given the differences between a print and a
screen).  These are the settings that I have found give the best
WYSIWYG.

Then I tried your way.  First I set the image profile to GG 2.2 (which
immediately made the image extremely dark on screen, not at all
resembling the original).  I left the printer profile at SAS (because
it is the same as changing it to GG2.2, so in effect the printer
profile is now also GG2.2), and printed it with the driver gamma set
to 2.2.  The resulting print was similar to the first print, but was
slightly darker and had significantly lower contrast, resulting in a
duller and less pleasing print).  And of course there was terrible
WYSIWYG - the screen image was very dark and bore little resemblance
to the print (or the original).

So by doing it your way I got a duller starting print and terrible
WYSIWYG, which means the image would require more work to get a nice
print, and it would be done under more difficult conditions (poor
WYSIWYG), which would probably require more time, paper and ink.  

Now, what actually happenend here?  First, setting the image profile
to GG2.2 made absolutely no difference in the print.  This is because
whenever the printer profile is the same as the image profile (SAS) it
has the opposite affect and cancels out whatever the image profile
does (as far as what goes to the printer - the image profile does
affect what we see on screen).   So the only thing that affected the
print was the driver gamma setting.  Just to reassure myself on this
point, I made a 3rd print with image profile back at DG18 and driver
gamma at 2.2, and got an identical print to #2.  So the only thing
that made any difference in the print was the driver gamma setting.

So why do I prefer 1.8 to 2.2?  Because I tried all three available on
the 2200 (1.5, 1.8, 2.2) and found that 1.8 gives a print that most
closely resembles a screen image with profile at DG18 or 20, and I
prefer DG18 or 20 for the image profile because it produces a screen
image that most closely resembles the original image, which in most
cases is well exposed and closely resembles the original scene.  In my
experiments I found that driver gamma 1.5 prints were lighter and more
contrasty than 1.8 prints, and 2.2 prints were darker and less
contrasty.  So the main points are these:

1) With printer profile set to SAS, the image profile does not affect
the print, it only changes the screen image.  Therefore we can choose
whatever image profile that gives us the best WYSIWYG.  This may vary
depending on monitor and graphics card.  I recommend DG20 in the
article because it's in the middle of the brightness range of all the
canned profiles and is a good starting place.  For my own setup, I
found that a custom DG18 curve was an improvement over DG20.

2) The only thing that affects the print (other than changes to the
image itself) is the driver gamma setting.  I recommend 1.8 because
it's in the middle of the brightness/contrast range of the three
choices, and, from experience, produces the most well balanced print,
requiring less work.  Also, because because 1.5 and 2.2 significantly
alter the contrast as well as brightness, 1.8 is also the easiest to
find a matching image profile for good WYSIWYG.

3) Putting it all together, I have found that the combination of image
profile at DG18 or 20, printer profile at SAS, and driver gamma at
1.8, produces 
- a screen image that most closely resembles the original
- the most well balanced starting print
- the best WYSIWYG

So it's a "straight through" workflow, with all three stages looking
alike, requiring the least amount of work under the best possible
conditions. 

None of this is theory.  It is the result of countless hours of trial
and error experiments (and an ungodly amount of ink and paper - MIS
loves me <g>).  It's easy enough, anyone can try it for themselves in
a few minutes.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Duane,

>(I spent many hours over the course of a couple of months and read
>the entire contents of the archives when I first joined the group.)

Wow!  Now _that's_ impressive <g>.


Thank you, too, for your kind words.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:
...
> Keep in mind that this image was automatically
> tagged with my default DG18% profile, and the printer profile is
> always set to Same As Source. 
> 
> I then made a straight print (no curves, no manipulations) with my
> standard driver gamma setting of 1.8.  The resulting print looks just
> like the screen image

Clayton, I believe your method will hold up under the most rigorous
technical scrutiny because both your working space, and the driver
gamma, contain the digits one and eight.
...and...
it's all digital...
...and crap, it's almost Monday again.
Tyler

Tyler,

>Clayton, I believe your method will hold up under the most rigorous
>technical scrutiny because both your working space, and the driver
>gamma, contain the digits one and eight.
>...and...
>it's all digital...
>...and crap, it's almost Monday again.

LOL!  Have a nice week.


Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Clayton


> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>

> 
>> Since most people work in Gray Gamma 2.2 for B&W
> 
> What do you mean by this?  There are three different places to assign
> things: the image profile, the printer profile, and the driver gamma
> setting.  What does "work in Gray Gamma 2.2" mean in terms of these
> three settings?  And how do you know that "most people" do whatever it
> is you mean?

I was referring to people generally setting their workspace and tagging
their B&W images as Gray Gamma 2.2 (not the printer driver for now).  I note
that your website refers to your use of Dot Gain 20% but it has been
mentioned broadly here that Gray Gamma 2.2 is very very widely used and it
is also nice for those converting from colour (where the de facto standard
is Adobe RGB) because Gray Gamma 2.2 is a subset of Adobe RGB.

> 
> 
>> it would make sense to have a print space gamma as close to this as
>> possible.  
> 
> What do you mean by "print space gamma"?  Do you mean the printer
> profile setting or the driver gamma setting?

Any print space has a gamma = rate of change of density as you move from a
pixel value of 0 (pure black) to 256/65536 (white).  When using Black Only
the Epson driver allows you a choice of settings which influence the output.
> 
> 
>> Choosing 1.8 rather than 2.2 in the Epson driver simply makes the
>> mismatch worse (and, by corollary, the adjustment of the image
>> needs to be greater to get satisfactory prints vs if you had
>> selected 2.2).
> 
> Again, a nice theory, but it doesn't hold up in the real world.  In
> actual use I find just the opposite.

OK but the greater mismatch is clearly demonstrated by printing and
measuring a step wedge printed with each.  I have posted the results of
this.



> Selecting 2.2 ends up requiring
> more work.  It has been over two years since I worked this stuff out,
> so I decided to go back and test your theory to see if I was missing
> something.  This morning at church I made a portrait of a woman, using
> a digital camera, so I decided to use it as a test case. I opened it
> in PS and did a straight grayscale mode conversion (I wanted to do as
> little manipulation as possible for this test).
> 
> The pic was well exposed and the BW image is very pleasing and will
> not require much work.  The grayscale tones have values that closely
> match the color image (IOW, the image doesn't look under or over
> exposed in comparison to the color version, and the contrast is
> likewise very close).  Keep in mind that this image was automatically
> tagged with my default DG18% profile, and the printer profile is
> always set to Same As Source.
> 
> I then made a straight print (no curves, no manipulations) with my
> standard driver gamma setting of 1.8.  The resulting print looks just
> like the screen image (given the differences between a print and a
> screen).  These are the settings that I have found give the best
> WYSIWYG.
> 
> Then I tried your way.  First I set the image profile to GG 2.2 (which
> immediately made the image extremely dark on screen, not at all
> resembling the original).

Converting the image profile should not have changed the way it looked at
all so I don't know what you did here.  This would be a fundamental
breakdown in the "test".  Because the representation on screen is colour
managed the image should have been displayed exactly as before.

Again, if your monitor is halfway decent (and I am sure it is) and is
halfway profiles (even its factory default will do) you wont get immediate
WYSIWYG for no other reason than your monitor can display a much darker
black can you can print.  This is a simple fact.  If you get WYSIWYG between
a display and a print on matte paper without a form of soft proof (either
ICC or curve based) then you have at least dulled down the monitor's black
point (ie reduced the darkest black it can produce) to one that matches dMax
on matte paper (ie only a density of about 1.6-1.65).


>I left the printer profile at SAS (because
> it is the same as changing it to GG2.2, so in effect the printer
> profile is now also GG2.2), and printed it with the driver gamma set
> to 2.2.  The resulting print was similar to the first print, but was
> slightly darker and had significantly lower contrast, resulting in a
> duller and less pleasing print).  And of course there was terrible
> WYSIWYG - the screen image was very dark and bore little resemblance
> to the print (or the original).
> 
> So by doing it your way I got a duller starting print and terrible
> WYSIWYG, which means the image would require more work to get a nice
> print, and it would be done under more difficult conditions (poor
> WYSIWYG), which would probably require more time, paper and ink.
> 
> Now, what actually happenend here?  First, setting the image profile
> to GG2.2 made absolutely no difference in the print.  This is because
> whenever the printer profile is the same as the image profile (SAS) it
> has the opposite affect and cancels out whatever the image profile
> does (as far as what goes to the printer - the image profile does
> affect what we see on screen).   So the only thing that affected the
> print was the driver gamma setting.  Just to reassure myself on this
> point, I made a 3rd print with image profile back at DG18 and driver
> gamma at 2.2, and got an identical print to #2.  So the only thing
> that made any difference in the print was the driver gamma setting.
> 
> So why do I prefer 1.8 to 2.2?  Because I tried all three available on
> the 2200 (1.5, 1.8, 2.2) and found that 1.8 gives a print that most
> closely resembles a screen image with profile at DG18 or 20, and I
> prefer DG18 or 20 for the image profile because it produces a screen
> image that most closely resembles the original image, which in most
> cases is well exposed and closely resembles the original scene.  In my
> experiments I found that driver gamma 1.5 prints were lighter and more
> contrasty than 1.8 prints, and 2.2 prints were darker and less
> contrasty.  So the main points are these:
> 
> 1) With printer profile set to SAS, the image profile does not affect
> the print, it only changes the screen image.

With Same as Source, the image profile is passed through to the printer
unchanged.  Alter the image profile and that different image profile gets
passed to the print driver.  With Same as Source all you are doing is
telling Photoshop (and Photoshop only) to not do any profile conversion
prior to sending the print to the driver.  Same as Source doesn't mean "send
no profile" - it means send the same profile with which the file is tagged.
As you likely know, there are two places where one can do colour management
in a fully colour managed workflow. Either in PS on the way out by selecting
the print profile there and having no printer colour management.  Or by
using Same as Source in PS and using the driver to do the colour management.
In both cases, the profile accompanying the document as it leaves PS is
important.


>Therefore we can choose
> whatever image profile that gives us the best WYSIWYG.  This may vary
> depending on monitor and graphics card.  I recommend DG20 in the
> article because it's in the middle of the brightness range of all the
> canned profiles and is a good starting place.  For my own setup, I
> found that a custom DG18 curve was an improvement over DG20.
> 
> 2) The only thing that affects the print (other than changes to the
> image itself) is the driver gamma setting.

Sorry but I really do not think this is correct.  The profile with which the
image is tagged is a fundamental starting point.

> I recommend 1.8 because
> it's in the middle of the brightness/contrast range of the three
> choices, and, from experience, produces the most well balanced print,
> requiring less work.  Also, because because 1.5 and 2.2 significantly
> alter the contrast as well as brightness, 1.8 is also the easiest to
> find a matching image profile for good WYSIWYG.

I don't know what you mean by these terms here.  The dynamic range of the
print can't change in all circumstances: paper white is paper white and ink
black is ink black.  The contrast or gamma of the print will alter depending
on the gamma setting.  What do you mean by "brightness"?  (I think you are
using it to describe gamma/contrast)


> 
> 3) Putting it all together, I have found that the combination of image
> profile at DG18 or 20, printer profile at SAS, and driver gamma at
> 1.8, produces 
> - a screen image that most closely resembles the original
> - the most well balanced starting print
> - the best WYSIWYG
> 
> So it's a "straight through" workflow, with all three stages looking
> alike, requiring the least amount of work under the best possible
> conditions. 
> 
> None of this is theory.  It is the result of countless hours of trial
> and error experiments (and an ungodly amount of ink and paper - MIS
> loves me <g>).  It's easy enough, anyone can try it for themselves in
> a few minutes.
> 


I am glad it works for you.  But as I have simply suggested WYSIWYG is not
possible on a well profiled decent monitor without a softproof mechanism -
if only because of the black point.  That is the case regardless of how the
file is tagged and what gamma is selected.  So simply tagging a file DG20%
and selecting 1.8 in the driver won't get you there for a very large
proportion of today's monitors and particularly LCDs.  You arrived at your
workflow through countless hours of trial and error.  I'm glad it works for
you.  The question is whether it can now be refined so that less people have
the "matching monitor and print issue" - or more simply whether your
starting point is best recommended for new users.  One step is to make the
print space closer to the workspace.  The next step is to provide a soft
proof which people can use to preview their images on screen and amend them
accordingly.  Both these steps are very easy.  I will post a soft proof ICC
file for Eboni on EEM later today (I am out for most of the afternoon and
evening, UK time). 

I don't even use Black Only but, given the countless hours that people spend
on this issue, it is worth spending some time on the subject.  The issue was
posted by Paul for his workflow.  I have simply noted that the issue is
largely dead for QTR (and by default IJC/OPM) users and could very easily be
dead for many more users.  There will still be the vagaries of different
instrumentation, ambient lighting etc etc (the disappointment which Bruce
Fraser refers to), but at least the bulk of the issue can be dealt with.

[Take a look again at the results I posted for printing a step wedge with
the four different methodologies (in answer to a post quite some time ago) -
QTR, Epson driver colour managed, Epson BO 1.8 and Epson BO 2.2.  There you
can see the measured input vs output results.  Just one man's test but
objectively measured output.  Let me know if I need to post the link to the
pdf of the results again.]

Cheers

Steve

Actually I needn't bother.  Carl Schofield already has them available here:

http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default?user=scho&temp
latefn=FileSharing2.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.2.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff=cons
umer&cty=US&lang=en

Note the settings:  Workspace gray gamma 2.2 and gamma 2.2 in the Epson
driver.  Other soft proofs could be made for other settings but these are
the most "logical".

Black Only users would be well advised to try using these.

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@...>

>  I will post a soft proof ICC
> file for Eboni on EEM later today

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
big snip...
> Sorry but I really do not think this is correct.  The profile with
which the
> image is tagged is a fundamental starting point.

Steve, here's the difference (pretty sure). The gamma choice in the
Epson driver for BO is not part of the icc data path. It's not a
destination space, just a driver adjustment like the other adjustments
for color when using settings like PhotoRealistic.
Therefore, the tagged image space will not be relevant as it's not a
space conversion. Anything could probably be assigned and the print
would be the same.
Tyler

Steve,

Thanks. Readme file says this is for a 2200. Is there any reason it  
would not work for a 1280?

Drime

On Apr 11, 2005, at 6:52 AM, Steve Kale wrote:

> Actually I needn't bother.  Carl Schofield already has them available  
> here:
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/wa/default? 
> user=scho&temp
>   
> latefn=FileSharing2.html&xmlfn=TKDocument.2.xml&sitefn=RootSite.xml&aff 
> =cons
>  umer&cty=US&lang=en
>
>  Note the settings:  Workspace gray gamma 2.2 and gamma 2.2 in the  
> Epson
>  driver.  Other soft proofs could be made for other settings but these  
> are
>  the most "logical".
>
>  Black Only users would be well advised to try using these.
>
>
>


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

Hello Steve,

I have several responses to your comments, I'll try to organize them
in a way that makes some sense.  First, please understand that I am
not suggesting that you are wrong in anything you say.  I was
initially trying to make the case that many people don't have the
time, or inclination or money or whatever to get into a fully
calibrated color managed system.  In trying to explain it, and partly
because of your remarks about my suggesting 1.8 for the driver
setting, I got into the technical details.  In trying to lessen the
length of it I left out one part which I realize now has added a bit
of confusion and contributed to your missing my point.  So let me try
again and see if I can put the ball in the basket this time.  

I get the feeling that you are so into the technical part of this that
you miss the human side, so allow me to first explain my point of view
in this great endeavor.  My approach in writing the articles is to
help raw beginners and non technically minded people get started with
an easy, effective and non intimidating approach.  I write software
for a living, and I know that there are computer users out there for
whom it is a challenge just to turn it on and off correctly.

The same exists in photography.  There are many photographers trying
to get into digital BW printing for whom the level of work which you
revel in is simply beyond comprehension, at least in the beginning.  I
know there will be many users who will move on from my approach to
other workflows once they get their bearings, but there are also many,
as my email attests, who find it an effective and satisfying way to
work and stay there. I also get many emails from people who say they
struggled for months trying other approaches discussed here and were
frustrated to the point of quitting until they tried my approach, and
finally are able to make good prints without having a nervous
breakdown.  

I am trying to provide an entrance ramp for beginners.  The UT inks
with sliders are also an easy approach, but they require a
significant investment in ink and dedicating a printer to BW, so I
consider that to be beyond BO in over all terms of an entrance fee to
BW printing.  I am currently working on an article recommending a
modified UT7 inkset as the next step beyond BO.  I'm saying these
things in hopes you will understand where I'm coming from in all
this.  

As for my technical approach, I arrived at my settings by accident, it
seems, after a months long trial and error process based on complete
ignorance and desperation (I was one of those who for whatever reason
could not make anything else work well), and also by one of the quirks
in how PS works.  Also please understand that three years ago the
technology was not as developed and the level of discussion here was
not as evolved as it is now, so I could not find the solution I
needed, and by chance, reading about BO somewhere else, tried it and
was surprised by the good quality.  I then began exploring this
avenue.

I approached my search just like solving a puzzle in Myst.  I was
confronted with a "black box" mechanism that I did not understand, so
I began to systematically push buttons and turn knobs to see what
happened, and took notes.  After about nine months I arrived at the
things I now use and describe in the articles.  I found it to be very
easy and effective and helped me to make beautiful prints with a
thinking process very much like darkroom work.  When I published it on
the web site I immediately got lots of positive feedback from others
who had also been desperately struggling.  And it continues today - I
regularly get emails from people thanking me for providing an easy way
into it.

Now for the technical stuff.

>you wont get immediate WYSIWYG for no other reason than your 
>monitor can display a much darker black can you can print.  This 
>is a simple fact.

Yes, of course.  This is a given, widely understood, and beyond (I
thought) the need to be restated.



>With Same as Source, the image profile is passed through to the
>printer unchanged.  Alter the image profile and that different 
>image profile gets passed to the print driver.  With Same as Source 
>all you are doing is telling Photoshop (and Photoshop only) to not 
>do any profile conversion prior to sending the print to the driver. 
>Same as Source doesn't mean "send no profile" - it means send the 
>same profile with which the file is tagged.

Yes, you are saying, with different words, exactly what I was saying.
But I think you missed the point of it.  The effect of this is that
the image profile can be changed to something else in the Assign
Profile window, and it will change the screen image without changing
the print. This allows us to change the screen image to more closely
match the print, producing good WYSIWYG and making the work much
easier, quicker, etc. This is the main thing that gives my approach
its flexibility to be tailored to anyone's system, no matter if its a
crummy monitor and/or graphics card or a high end calibrated system. 
It is the key to the kingdom for us dummies who either can't
understand the theoretical stuff, or are too lazy, or for whatever
reason can't/won't/don't want to go there.



>I was referring to people generally setting their workspace and
>tagging their B&W images as Gray Gamma 2.2...The profile with 
>which the image is tagged is a fundamental starting point.

Ok, this is the part I left out, and I realize it left a gaping hole
in the logic, so I'll try to fill it in.  After I discovered I could
change the screen image for better WYSIWYG I began exploring that more
deeply.  I realized the need for a more finely tuned custom profile,
but found I could not create a profile that would appear in the
picklist in the Assign Profile window.  The only way to do it (AFAIK)
is to create it in the Color Settings window and assign it as the
default Gray Working Space.  Then it will appear in the Assign Profile
picklist.

This solved my immediate problem, but also confused me at first
because I couldn't understand why a color image converted to BW after
this setting was introduced, looked the same as the initial image
converted earlier with, say, GG2.2 as the Gray Space, yet when the
profile for the DG18 image was changed to GG2.2 the screen image went
haywire.  I didn't understand at first that the initial conversion was
mapping the image pixels to that gray space.  Over time I discovered
several other things which led me to my current suggested settings,
and here we get to the crux of the matter (and for which I have no
theoretical explanation - it just is).  The main point is I found that
if the original conversion was done with GG2.2 gray space there were
two disadvantages:

1) the initial print, the point from which all further work commences,
was not nearly as nice (basically darker with significantly lower
contrast) as when I began with a gray space in the middle of the range
of available choices, DG 20%.  I also found that setting the driver
gamma to 1.8 (again, the middle of the available range) produced a
better initial print than 2.2 or 1.5.  So by beginning with a DG20
gray space and using driver gamma 1.8 I got images that required less
radical work to achieve the final result (and back then it was 8-bit
for much of the work, so the better starting place made a real
difference).

2) the initial GG2.2 print was not as close a match to the screen
image as was the DG20 print.  So DG20 gave better WYSIWYG right out of
the starting gate.

So using 1.8 with DG20 as the starting place produced the best initial
print and the best WYSIWYG, which resulted in an over all quicker and
easier time of it.  That is why I recommend these settings.  It is the
best of the canned profiles offered by PS.  For my own setup, I
perceived the need for a DG18 curve for even better WYSIWYG, and was
pleasantly surprised to find that that the resulting initial prints
were a bit better than DG20.  So it seems like there is a "sweet spot"
that can be found, and I suspect it might be slightly different
depending on monitor and graphics card.

This approach does a remarkably good job.  All my work since I reached
that point has been relatively easy and intuitive.  I basically set it
and forget it (although on occasion I will change the image profile to
DG15 or 20, after initial conversion, to get better WYSIWYG, usually
on very high or low key images).  When I work I think very much like
in the darkroom, in terms of a traditional S-curve.  I don't concern
myself with all that other stuff.  Yes, the screen image isn't perfect
WYSIWYG, but I found that I quickly adapt to it and can work quickly
to get the results I want (I'm sure a good soft proof workflow for
this would be even better).

I can't explain any of this in theoretical terms.  I am simply sharing
an approach that I find works very well.  And now after 2+ years of
feedback from many others who say it works for them, I am confident it
isn't just a quirk of my particular system or something.  The ability
to fine tune the image profile for better WYSIWYG allows users to
adjust the system to get the best results on their own hardware, so it
has flexibility for anyone who is inclined to explore it.


>I am glad it works for you.  But as I have simply suggested WYSIWYG 
>is not possible on a well profiled decent monitor 

Theoretically this is true (and it is also not possible on a crummy
monitor <g>), but it doesn't mean we can't get close enough to work
quickly and effectively.  Many of us have been doing it for a long
time.  This really points up the difference between theorists and
practical realists.  It's like the story about the difference between
a mathematician and an engineer.  The mathematician walks out of the
meeting in disgust saying "It can't be done", and the engineer gets
the contract and says "That's close enough for all practical
purposes".  I think you are so deeply immersed in the theory that you
don't see the whole picture (so to speak <g>).

I'm not suggesting that calibration, color management and soft
proofing can't make things even better, but am just trying to get
through to you that photographers don't have to go down this
hyper-technical avenue in order to make beautiful BW prints quickly
and easily with a minimum of fuss and bother.  Lots of people are
intimidated and put off by the technical discussions that take place
here, and many of them find their way to my articles and are relieved
to find an easier approach.  Here is a comment that is typical of
things I receive on a regular basis - this came in last night, an
excerpt from a longer message:

"As a digital newbie I find that the technical end of digitally 
producing a photo print can be overwhelming...Much of what has been 
written...goes completely over my head...I find that your approach
resonates deeply...the most straightforward. Thanks for sharing the
result of your effort. It is greatly appreciated."

You say that your approach is easy, and I'm sure it seems that way to
you.  What I am trying to get through to you is that it is NOT easy
for many people who are not so technically inclined as you are.  Paul
understands this and has been working mightily to create easy
no-brainer approaches - his EZ and UT ink systems are a remarkable
achievement and we all owe him a big debt of gratitude.  In my own
bumbling way I have found another simple and easy approach that works
extremely well.  So all I am asking is that you don't discount other
approaches that are different from the high-tech approach.  As Paul
said, there are lots of ways to skin this cat.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hello tyler,

>>Sorry but I really do not think this is correct.  The profile with
>>which the image is tagged is a fundamental starting point.
> 
>Steve, here's the difference (pretty sure). The gamma choice in the
>Epson driver for BO is not part of the icc data path. It's not a
>destination space, just a driver adjustment like the other
adjustments
>for color when using settings like PhotoRealistic.
>Therefore, the tagged image space will not be relevant as it's not a
>space conversion. Anything could probably be assigned and the print
>would be the same.

I think you are both right.  BO only comes into play when its output
time, but an initial color to BW conversion does map the image (if
that is the correct term) to the default gray workspace.  So the
initial screen images for DG20 and GG2.2 conversions of the same color
image, for example, will look identical, but the initial prints will
be very different (assuming the printer profile is SAS).  However,
once converted and changed to grayscale, any profile may then be
assigned to an image, and only the screen image will change, not the
print (again, assuming the printer profile remains SAS).  Beyond that
I'm not sure what happens when you check the Black Only box, but your
description may explain what I've been experiencing. Changing the
driver gamma setting does change the print. Thanks.

Regards,
Clayton

Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

It would likely not be right for a 1280.  Ideally someone with a 1280 and an
Eye One could use Carl's technique to generate a PS soft proof file and
share it with you.

> From: Drime <kdrime@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 11 Apr 2005 11:11:31 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> Steve,
> 
> Thanks. Readme file says this is for a 2200. Is there any reason it
> would not work for a 1280?
> 
> Drime
>

Hi folks,

I think the issue of workspaces within photoshop and other ICC
compliant applications was/is the single most confusing concept in the
color management process. It is not too difficult to understand that
the scanner/digital camera doesn't see things in exactly the way
monitors display them and printers don't output them quite the way
either of the others "see". No big deal understanding that there must
be a "language translation" between them to make them agree on
anything (as far as it is even possible to get agreement and where we
can't we just sort of guess the closest and go with it).Everyone
understands that English,French,Russian,German etc etc are likely
saying much the same things people universaly say but require
translation to be sure specifically.

It's a different thing entirely when it comes to "work" spaces.
When I first began looking at the technical issues of printing my
photos, I searched all over the net looking for explanations of the
various terms and what they meant and how they worked as a practical
matter. The work space thing seemed to be explained as a commonality
between all the other "hardware" spaces, not to worry, it just
buffered between them but didn't enter into anything else. Not So. It
turned out that some were better than others, some had better Gamut
and offered extended greens or better something else, perhaps more
open shadow values and so on.

What was Not made really clear was the difference between a
"conversion" to a work space and an "assignment" of a work space.
Make a "conversion" and your previously carefully linearized tonal
relationships get shot all to hades. It changes the basic numbers in
your file and, for me at any rate, those numbers "are" the only
commonality. The "assignment" does not alter the base numbers.
It was quite a shock when I first realized what was occuring with
color files when I converted. I at first thought my monitor was going
belly up or needed recalibrated.

It's another challenge to get ahold of the concept of broader/narrower
gamuts. Not because of physical hardware differences. That is easily
understood. Rather it is because we have only 256 levels of each color
to work with and if a file contains the full spread of each it's very
hard to see how anything could be left out when it's sent to the
printer or why anyone would want something left out. The printer
profiles are there to do the translations and force "out of gamut"
nee: unprintable shades to the closest printable color.

I understand where one might want to know what values get "guessed at"
or moved closest to, in your photo so that the file could be edited in
a way to avoid that translation if it would goof things up visually.
That is one of the best things about soft proofing.
I suppose that the different work spaces assist in suppressing some of
this sort of problem. The main problem I see with using some of them
is that while they may be technically absolutely correct in
application, they just don't allow adequately for the human sitting at
the computer who also has a way of "seeing" that is not being truly
translated. I think Clayton expressed this well.

It is lamentable that RGB (12,12,12) and 95+% Black don't simply mean
the same tone is output anywhere, on any device, but that would make
for such a dull world and 'very' dull prints.(g)

Enough-I'll shut up.

Regards
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@c...> wrote:

> 
> Hello tyler,
> 
> >>Sorry but I really do not think this is correct.  The profile with
> >>which the image is tagged is a fundamental starting point.
> > 
> >Steve, here's the difference (pretty sure). The gamma choice in the
> >Epson driver for BO is not part of the icc data path. It's not a
> >destination space, just a driver adjustment like the other
> adjustments
> >for color when using settings like PhotoRealistic.
> >Therefore, the tagged image space will not be relevant as it's not a
> >space conversion. Anything could probably be assigned and the print
> >would be the same.
> 
> I think you are both right.  BO only comes into play when its output
> time, but an initial color to BW conversion does map the image (if
> that is the correct term) to the default gray workspace.  So the
> initial screen images for DG20 and GG2.2 conversions of the same color
> image, for example, will look identical, but the initial prints will
> be very different (assuming the printer profile is SAS).  However,
> once converted and changed to grayscale, any profile may then be
> assigned to an image, and only the screen image will change, not the
> print (again, assuming the printer profile remains SAS).  Beyond that
> I'm not sure what happens when you check the Black Only box, but your
> description may explain what I've been experiencing. Changing the
> driver gamma setting does change the print. Thanks.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Hi Clayton

First of all let me say that I don't "miss the human side".  I simply try to
understand the tools that I use.  Trial and error without understanding is
of little interest to me.  Learning is.  An artist, like anyone else, needs
to learn to understand and use the tools of their trade to the best of their
ability.  A painter must understand how to turn a brush and mix paint.  A
photographer must know how to use their camera.  A digital photographer must
learn and understand the camera, their editing programme and, in our case,
their printer.  Ansel Adams was a strong proponent of this technical
understanding.  Why?  Not because it made him better at previsualisation but
because it allowed him to better effect his previsualisation.  So it pays to
learn what you can and understand the "why" as much as possible.

This thread started by addressing one of the big issues in digital
photography:  matching monitor and print.  I am simply making a few basic
points:

1. start with a well-profiled monitor (as well profiled as you can get) and
don't be tempted to "dumb down the monitor to match the print"

2.  Understand why a print will not match the image on screen without the
aid of a soft proof

3.  Understand that if the print space (the colour generated for each and
every possible pixel value) is closer to the image's colour space (the ICC
profile with which the file is tagged) then the degree of mismatch will be
less.  The corollary to this is if I can do something to make the two spaces
closer then I am achieving something with regard to the issue.

4.  But you WILL need a soft proof if you want to come close to matching
monitor and print so start thinking about how you might get/make one.  In
other words, pursuing 3 doesn't get you very far.






> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>

> 
> I think you are both right.  BO only comes into play when its output
> time, but an initial color to BW conversion does map the image (if
> that is the correct term) to the default gray workspace.  So the
> initial screen images for DG20 and GG2.2 conversions of the same color
> image, for example, will look identical, but the initial prints will
> be very different (assuming the printer profile is SAS).  However,
> once converted and changed to grayscale, any profile may then be
> assigned to an image, and only the screen image will change, not the
> print (again, assuming the printer profile remains SAS).

Clayton, I am sorry but this is simply not true.  A simple test proves this.
Print a step wedge where you have assigned Dot Gain 20% and then print a
step wedge where you have assigned Gray Gamma 2.2 (choose whatever printer
driver gamma setting you like so long as it is consistent).  Measure the
results and (unsurprisingly to me at least) you will find they are very
different.  I just did this.


> Beyond that
> I'm not sure what happens when you check the Black Only box, but your
> description may explain what I've been experiencing. Changing the
> driver gamma setting does change the print.

And of course changing the gamma setting in the printer driver changes the
results.



But now for some good news for you....

I just ran a quick test.  I printed a step wedge tagged/assigned as Gray
Gamma 2.2 with a printer driver setting of 1.8 and then 2.2.  I did the same
with a step wedge assigned Dot Gain 20%.  I then measured the results and
compared them with the file values and added up the sum of the errors
(absolute errors).  This only cost one piece of paper and about 20mins.  <g>
<g>

Previously I had been talking in terms of Gray Gamma 2.2 as the starting
workspace - recall this conversation began with Paul's workflow and his
comments about the pervasiveness of Adobe RGB as a colour workspace and Gray
Gamma 2.2 as a greyscale workspace.  I made the comment that if working in
Gray Gamma 2.2 and sending a file to the printer Same as Source (ie Gray
Gamma 2.2) then one would be better off, if using printer colour management
which Black Only does, setting the gamma setting at 2.2 rather than 1.8
because then the print space would be closer to the workspace.  This is born
out by the test.  The total error for a Gray Gamma 2.2 step wedge printed
with the printer driver gamma set at 1.8 was 221.2 L units (total Lab L
error, measured output vs input).  With the printer gamma set at 2.2 the
error was 142.3.

Following Clayton's comments and as a test of Clayton's "hours of trial and
error" I decided to run the test with a workspace of Dot Gain 20%.  At a
printer driver gamma setting of 1.8 the total error was 89.7 and at 2.2
gamma the error was 127.6.  So yes, on the 2100 printer, the combination of
Dot Gain 20% and a 1.8 setting in the Epson driver will yield a closer match
than the other combinations tested.

(If any wants the results of the test I can post the numbers.  It is likely
informative to know which parts of an image are varied to what extent.)

As to why this is the case I don't know but perhaps the difference between
you and I, Clayton, is that I would like to understand why.  It is the case
for the 2100 but I do not know if it is the case for other printers.
Without understanding the why I can't make a projection to the application
of the results with other printers.

Be that as it may, though, it is still not WYSIWYG.  In fact, far from it.
To get a decent WYSIWYG scenario you will need, as noted above, a soft
proof.  Once you have a soft proof, quite frankly it doesn't matter what
combination you use except that you will need a greater degree of image
adjustment for some combinations than others.  In other words, if you want
to address the topic of this thread you need to think about getting your
hands on a soft proof.  Carl, has made available PS soft proof files for the
21/2200, Gray Gamma 2.2 and Epson driver gamma 2.2 combination.  If people
want I am happy to make one for the 21/2200, Dot Gain 20% and Epson driver
gamma 1.8 combination.

The very last point I made on BO printing and Matching Monitor and Print was
that it would be great if we could use the same technique that Roy used for
constructing an ICC profile of the BO print space (1.8 and/or 2.2).  Then
rather than messing with adjustment curves we could use PS' built in colour
management with perceptual intent to map images from whatever workspace we
choose to work in to the BO print space.  This point remains and is still a
valid goal.  Why?  Because if this part of the process can be automated, a
novice need not bother with image adjustment curves designed to bend the
image file to the print space - they can sit back and let perceptual
rendering do the job for them (and believe me it does it quite well).  What
could be simpler than that?  How to do this is beyond my understanding for
the moment...but I would love to understand how!  <g>

Now, I have 3 big fat trout to dress

Steve

Steve,

I give up, I can't take any more.  I have nothing else to say.  

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

Fair enough.  Ciao.

For those using "Black Only" on the 21/2200 printer who are interested in
having a better "matching of monitor and print", make use of the PS soft
proofs available to you.  Carl Schofield has already posted soft proofs for
Gray Gamma 2.2 as the image workspace and the Epson driver set to 2.2 gamma
for a few papers here:

http://homepage.mac.com/scho/.Public/QTR%20Soft-proof/Soft-proofing%20READ-M
E.rtfd.sit

Note the settings in the readmes.

He has also kindly posted a soft proof for Clayton's Dot Gain 20% and 1.8
combination for EEM and EPSG here:

http://homepage.mac.com/WebObjects/FileSharing.woa/5/wo/PhVAwy57hsk6kw0Y.1/0
.2.1.2.22.31.97.0.35.0.1.1.1?user=scho&fpath=BO%20Printing&templatefn=FileSh
aring2.html

These are likely only truly valid for the printer, paper and ink combination
specified.  However, if you do use another printer you might still want to
try the soft proofs (with the settings for which they were intended!) as the
variance may not be too much, ie they may still be very useful and likely
much better than nothing at all.  Also, a soft proof for EEM is probably not
a bad approximation for many matte papers.

With a reasonably profiled monitor and these soft proofs the bulk of the
"matching monitor and print" issue is solved for you.

And for those who are interested, I have posted a pdf of the results of the
tests I mentioned in the earlier post here:

http://homepage.mac.com/stevekale/stevekale2/FileSharing37.html


Cheers

Steve

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>

> Steve,
> 
> I give up, I can't take any more.  I have nothing else to say.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
>

Hi Paul

Finally got a chance to look at this.  I can use Eye One Share to take an
ambient light reading of my screen (using Evaluate -> Light) but again the
results are just given in terms of lux and colour temp.  Basically a 100%
black square on my monitor is 6 lux measured at the face of the display.
(The amount of light measured at eye ball distance would of course be less
according to the inverse square principle.) I have searched the web for a
way to convert this to Lab's L but most of the hits are very very technical
in nature - way over my head.  I also sent a question to Gretag support so
we'll see what they say.

Thanks

Steve  

> From: "Paul D. DeRocco" <pderocco@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 10 Apr 2005 10:37:08 -0700
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
>> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>> 
>> Unless I am mistaken the only way to do an ambient light check is
>> as part of
>> making a display profile and in that case it just gives the
>> reading in terms
>> of colour temp K and illumance lux.
> 
> Which software do you have? If you have Eye-One Share, there's a tool that
> lets you measure incident light. I think it's under Evaluate (e) in the top
> left corner, then Light, but my memory could be off. It lets you click the
> button on the spectro to take a reading, and then examine its data in
> various ways, including, if you want, storing the whole 36-band data in a
> text file. But as long as you can get some sort of brightness out of it on a
> linear scale, that's all you need. (I'm not at the computer that has all
> this installed at the moment.)
>

Paul Roark wrote:

>
>
>The range Steve measured is, I assume, from a LCD.  He gets about 6+ stops.
>Using the same techniques, I get about 4+ stops with my CRT.  I've been told
>LCDs can be about 50% brighter than CRTs.  Oddly, part of this difference in
>my case is due to the calibration procedure (Spyder2Pro), which resulted in
>me setting the brightness at just above 80%.
>
>If I have the lights off and wear a black shirt, the CRT range approaches
>what Steve measured.  But the reflections wipe out that black point
>advantage when I use the computer in my normal fashion.
>
>As noted, the range Steve measured is more than the matte papers we use but
>less than the glossy papers -- but only under ideal lighting such as used by
>the densitometers/spectrophotometers.  Using the spot meter on prints in
>typical office or home viewing conditions, I get closer to a 4+ stop range
>for both matte and glossy (glass framing would reduce that).  So, my CRT is
>really not that far off in terms of its display of the dynamic range of what
>we see in practice.
>
>Paul
>www.PaulRoark.com 
>  
>
Some of us will have nice pro monitors with shades at the sides to 
reduce the reflections. I do have two IIyama Vision Master Pros that 
come without shades. I have made shades for them with plastic sheets and 
black paper on the inside. Probably the cheapest addition that I made to 
improve the quality of the softproof but it really helps. The SpectroCam 
+ Prove It do the rest. 5000K + 2.2 gamma. For color work and QTR B&W 
now. Using the appropriate ICC profiles for monitor etc. Ambient light 
is reduced when it gets critical. I wouldn't know how to improve on that 
without making the solution less universal. I never wear white or black 
shirts but that has little to do with the work :-)

In the end the print will  be judged, an old hair dryer (helmet type) on 
a box with large holes at the sides is a good investment too. Soft 
proofing will speed up the printing process but like Bruce says do not 
expect too much of it so speeding up the real proof is a good thing too.

BTW, this must be the thread with the most text ever. Very few practical 
solutions.

Ernst
//

> From: Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@...>


>I wouldn't know how to improve on that
> without making the solution less universal.

Yep

>I never wear white or black
> shirts but that has little to do with the work :-)

LOL!  Magenta casts on your monitor?
> 
> Soft 
> proofing will speed up the printing process but like Bruce says do not
> expect too much of it so speeding up the real proof is a good thing too.

But it is a big leap from the anarchy that exists without it - may as well
use the technology on offer.

> 
> BTW, this must be the thread with the most text ever. Very few practical
> solutions.
> 

Oh I don't think so.  Within a year we have obtained the ability to produce
ICC profile based soft proofs of any workflow - QTR, Paul Roark, or BO.  QTR
has jumped even further into a fully colour managed workflow.  There are
still many vagaries to the technology and the fact that not all users have
the equipment to do their own proofs etc and so must rely on profiles
generated by other users introduces further variance.  And at the heart of
it all is a decently profiled monitor.  But the biggest issue seems to be
the lack of adoption of what's already available....

The chatter about matching monitor and print is analagous to
discussions of refinements to buggy whips or high button shoes. The
skillsets won't have significant value within two (2) years. 

Printers are becoming self-profiling (HP) and cheap monitors with
simple cardboard baffles are better today than were expensive monitors
two years ago. Inexpensive photo-oriented monitors will be precisely
self calibrating by 2006. Goodbye Macbeth. 

I'm thinking now about Ansel Adams' most famous photograph:
Dramatically underexposed, it was saved by an old time chemical
intensification workaround. The workaround, part of Ansel's closed
loop system, produced literally millions of dollars in profits to the
various galleries who peddled and re-peddled the prints. 

It's worth considering how digitial printmaking contrasts with
photography. What's similar, what's different? Which side of the brain
does which? Do artists work with closed loops or open loops?



 





 Soft 
> proofing will speed up the printing process but like Bruce says do not 
> expect too much of it so speeding up the real proof is a good thing too.
> 
> BTW, this must be the thread with the most text ever. Very few
practical 

> solutions.
> 
> Ernst
> //

Ernst,

As you noted, the Tyler's 4/8 post about the Bruce Fraser story probably
says more that most of the other posts.

I have experimented with hoods, and they doesn't make all that much
difference.  It's my clothes and the wall behind me that are too light and
the monitor picks up.  But, I don't want to work in the dark -- at least
literally.

After considering all the posts, discussions with "experts" not on the
forum, and further experiments with competing approaches, I'm going to
continue to use the Photoshop View preview/soft-proofing method that I've
used for a long time.  Having the best view -- and the old PS approach with
its custom dot gain curve does solve the problems -- is a superior solution
than having the print match a poor view on the monitor.  

But it was an interesting exercise.

I think the addition of a correction layer is probably still an important
method of profiling a new paper with, in effect, a linearization layer.
I'll probably continue to experiment with it in that roll when I have more
time.  I also think getting that linearization layer to be accessible and
adjustable visually is a worthwhile advance.  However, these layers do not
end up giving truly neutral and even tones when, for example, a correction
layer is used to linearize UltraSmooth UT7 curves to Moab paper.  I think
the linearization steps are a major advance for the rips, but they do not
end up with profiles that are adjusted correctly with respect to the tones
(hues) when using variable-tone inksets.  There is no substitute for doing
the work from what I can see.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:29 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> Paul Roark wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >The range Steve measured is, I assume, from a LCD.  He gets about 6+
> stops.
> >Using the same techniques, I get about 4+ stops with my CRT.  I've been
> told
> >LCDs can be about 50% brighter than CRTs.  Oddly, part of this difference
> in
> >my case is due to the calibration procedure (Spyder2Pro), which resulted
> in
> >me setting the brightness at just above 80%.
> >
> >If I have the lights off and wear a black shirt, the CRT range approaches
> >what Steve measured.  But the reflections wipe out that black point
> >advantage when I use the computer in my normal fashion.
> >
> >As noted, the range Steve measured is more than the matte papers we use
> but
> >less than the glossy papers -- but only under ideal lighting such as used
> by
> >the densitometers/spectrophotometers.  Using the spot meter on prints in
> >typical office or home viewing conditions, I get closer to a 4+ stop
> range
> >for both matte and glossy (glass framing would reduce that).  So, my CRT
> is
> >really not that far off in terms of its display of the dynamic range of
> what
> >we see in practice.
> >
> >Paul
> >www.PaulRoark.com
> >
> >
> Some of us will have nice pro monitors with shades at the sides to
> reduce the reflections. I do have two IIyama Vision Master Pros that
> come without shades. I have made shades for them with plastic sheets and
> black paper on the inside. Probably the cheapest addition that I made to
> improve the quality of the softproof but it really helps. The SpectroCam
> + Prove It do the rest. 5000K + 2.2 gamma. For color work and QTR B&W
> now. Using the appropriate ICC profiles for monitor etc. Ambient light
> is reduced when it gets critical. I wouldn't know how to improve on that
> without making the solution less universal. I never wear white or black
> shirts but that has little to do with the work :-)
> 
> In the end the print will  be judged, an old hair dryer (helmet type) on
> a box with large holes at the sides is a good investment too. Soft
> proofing will speed up the printing process but like Bruce says do not
> expect too much of it so speeding up the real proof is a good thing too.
> 
> BTW, this must be the thread with the most text ever. Very few practical
> solutions.
> 
> Ernst
> //
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

You'll have to hope that all that auto profiling will accommodate B&W well -
general ICC profiling doesn't today and that's why many people come to this
forum...remember those magenta casts?

> From: Drime <kdrime@...>
 
> Hope you're right. That way I can put the whole thing off and not get
> an aneurysm trying to figure it out!
> 
> Drime

> From: Steve Kale [mailto:stevekale@...]
>
> Finally got a chance to look at this.  I can use Eye One Share to take an
> ambient light reading of my screen (using Evaluate -> Light) but again the
> results are just given in terms of lux and colour temp.  Basically a 100%
> black square on my monitor is 6 lux measured at the face of the display.
> (The amount of light measured at eye ball distance would of course be less
> according to the inverse square principle.) I have searched the web for a
> way to convert this to Lab's L but most of the hits are very very
> technical
> in nature - way over my head.  I also sent a question to Gretag support so
> we'll see what they say.

Lux is still a linear quantity, so you can still take the log of the ratio
of white lux to black lux, to get the "density" of the monitor.

If you want to know how much the black level measured at the screen surface,
in candelas per meter squared or whatever, is degraded by the screen
reflections, just divide the white level, which isn't significantly affected
by screen reflections, by the lux ratio you measured above.

--

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> You'll have to hope that all that auto profiling will accommodate
B&W well -
> general ICC profiling doesn't today

We don't have to "hope." It'll be a done deal next year. With HP's
auto-profiling, ICC profiling by users is already becoming as
secondary to digital color as "color analyzers" always were to
photochemical color printing. 

 and that's why many people come to this
> forum...remember those magenta casts?

Magenta (and cyan) casts are primarily the result of inadequate
personal visual skills and jargon-ridden technical "explanations" of
relatively simple applications and processes (bad writing). 

Color skills are acquired by practice with elementary-school-level
knowledge of color theory, not by purchase and mastery of systems that
will shortly be completely obsolete.  

 That way I can put the whole thing off and not get
> > an aneurysm trying to figure it out!

That seems exactly right for many printers.

As for HP's auto profiling:  I have an HP 10PS that has some 'auto profiling' in it.  It works fine for HP media, but for other media I've tried it's useless.  If HP does something with the 'auto' profiling, it will probably go along with their basic approach of handling HP products only.  But, new management at HP, so maybe not.
 
Tom Baker

Djon <westsidemaurice@...m> wrote:


Steve Kale wrote:
> You'll have to hope that all that auto profiling will accommodate
B&W well -
> general ICC profiling doesn't today

We don't have to "hope." It'll be a done deal next year. With HP's
auto-profiling, ICC profiling by users is already becoming as
secondary to digital color as "color analyzers" always were to
photochemical color printing. 

and that's why many people come to this
> forum...remember those magenta casts?

Magenta (and cyan) casts are primarily the result of inadequate
personal visual skills and jargon-ridden technical "explanations" of
relatively simple applications and processes (bad writing). 

Color skills are acquired by practice with elementary-school-level
knowledge of color theory, not by purchase and mastery of systems that
will shortly be completely obsolete. 

That way I can put the whole thing off and not get
> > an aneurysm trying to figure it out!

That seems exactly right for many printers. 








Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See �Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines� in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE �OWNER� AND �MODERATORS� OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links









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

Yes, HP isn't perfect. 

To confirm that, visit 

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HPDesignJet_Printers/?yguid=96117688

HP Designjet users seem generally to agree that the auto-profiling
technology isn't 100% (they don't seem to worry about it) and there's
grumbling (not much) about paper options. And other problems
(vulnurability to moisture).  But they love their printers, don't seem
to be struggling, and are OBVIOUSLY not as strangled by jargon as
Epson users. Hmmm. 

Reminds me of Mac 7 Vs DOS in ancient times... Epson and HP will both
make huge advances in the near future...some folks will inevitably
stick with DOS and Macbeth.

  



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Tom Baker
<tbaker1328@s...> wrote:
> As for HP's auto profiling:  I have an HP 10PS that has some 'auto
profiling' in it.  It works fine for HP media, but for other media
I've tried it's useless.  If HP does something with the 'auto'
profiling, it will probably go along with their basic approach of
handling HP products only.  But, new management at HP, so maybe not.
>  
> Tom Baker
> 
> Djon <westsidemaurice@y...> wrote:
> 
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> > You'll have to hope that all that auto profiling will accommodate
> B&W well -
> > general ICC profiling doesn't today
> 
> We don't have to "hope." It'll be a done deal next year. With HP's
> auto-profiling, ICC profiling by users is already becoming as
> secondary to digital color as "color analyzers" always were to
> photochemical color printing. 
> 
> and that's why many people come to this
> > forum...remember those magenta casts?
> 
> Magenta (and cyan) casts are primarily the result of inadequate
> personal visual skills and jargon-ridden technical "explanations" of
> relatively simple applications and processes (bad writing). 
> 
> Color skills are acquired by practice with elementary-school-level
> knowledge of color theory, not by purchase and mastery of systems that
> will shortly be completely obsolete. 
> 
> That way I can put the whole thing off and not get
> > > an aneurysm trying to figure it out!
> 
> That seems exactly right for many printers. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish
to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from
the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital
B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the
Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER"
AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL,
CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO,
DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE
LOSSES (EVEN IF THE "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES),
RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW,
THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF
YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD
PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Modifying my last post somewhat, while I think the custom dot gain curve
approach is the best I've seen that can offset the physical differences
among the monitors, it's relative difficulty in making well and easy of
forgetting to apply are offsetting factors.

Of the "canned" profiles I've tried, the QTR-Gray Matte Paper profile is the
best on my system. It's really quite good.  I may use that as my Gray
Working Space setting in PS Edit>Color Settings.  This would replace the
Gray Gamma 2.2 setting that I've been recommending.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Opps, changing the Color Settings doesn't work, it changes the RGB values.
The profile has to be applied as a soft proof like the custom dot gain
curve.

Is there a way to automate the View>Proof Setup>Custom (etc.) so that the
view is soft-proofed when it is opened (that is, without even having to hit
a macro key)?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:53 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> Modifying my last post somewhat, while I think the custom dot gain curve
> approach is the best I've seen that can offset the physical differences
> among the monitors, it's relative difficulty in making well and easy of
> forgetting to apply are offsetting factors.
> 
> Of the "canned" profiles I've tried, the QTR-Gray Matte Paper profile is
> the
> best on my system. It's really quite good.  I may use that as my Gray
> Working Space setting in PS Edit>Color Settings.  This would replace the
> Gray Gamma 2.2 setting that I've been recommending.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
> they are often being updated.
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
> unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
> page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
> Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
> printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
> the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner
> and Moderators. See Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines in the Files
> section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> 
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE OWNER AND
> MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO
> YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> OWNER AND MODERATORS OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN
> ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE
> OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii)
> STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Not that I am aware of.

Note that the QTR-Gray Matte profile has a specific tonal response curve
which I understand assumes linearity of L from dMin to dMax.  My
understanding is that your curves do not have that "shape".  The ICC profile
is "relatively" simple in that it is really just a single k curve - you can
see the curve with the Colorsync utility on a Mac and can compare it with
say the Photo paper curve.  You might best pursue with Roy whether the kTRC
information can be tailored to how you target the densities when
constructing your curves.  That would likely give you an even better soft
proof.  As I have said before I am not sure that this is possible but given
that you ought to be able to enter any TRC then it ought to be achievable.

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> 
> 
> Opps, changing the Color Settings doesn't work, it changes the RGB values.
> The profile has to be applied as a soft proof like the custom dot gain
> curve.
> 
> Is there a way to automate the View>Proof Setup>Custom (etc.) so that the
> view is soft-proofed when it is opened (that is, without even having to hit
> a macro key)?
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
> 
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Paul Roark [mailto:paul.roark@...]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 7:53 AM
>> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
>> 
>> 
>> Modifying my last post somewhat, while I think the custom dot gain curve
>> approach is the best I've seen that can offset the physical differences
>> among the monitors, it's relative difficulty in making well and easy of
>> forgetting to apply are offsetting factors.
>> 
>> Of the "canned" profiles I've tried, the QTR-Gray Matte Paper profile is
>> the
>> best on my system. It's really quite good.  I may use that as my Gray
>> Working Space setting in PS Edit>Color Settings.  This would replace the
>> Gray Gamma 2.2 setting that I've been recommending.
>> 
>> Paul
>> www.PaulRoark.com
>>

Hope you're right. That way I can put the whole thing off and not get 
an aneurysm trying to figure it out!

Drime

On Apr 12, 2005, at 7:12 AM, Djon wrote:

>
>
>
>  The chatter about matching monitor and print is analagous to
>  discussions of refinements to buggy whips or high button shoes. The
>  skillsets won't have significant value within two (2) years.
>


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

Paul,
I think thats a good plan.

The problem you're refering to with linearization and hues is, I
think, just a subset of the same problems experienced in attempting to
linearize greyscales made with all ink colors from full color sets.
The various papers are all over the place in their responses to
different colors. I wonder if we just don't have fine enough
increments of control on the printers as yet. Maybe 16bit some day?
Or perhaps paper coatings truly neutral in impact on the ink chemistry.

In the meanwhile, limiting the inkset for B&W to only 1 or 2 colors,
as is now, perhaps may permit a practical(for most purposes) solution.
Here's hoping your undoubted brilliance will triumph and gain one:)

See what all you started with a simple request? (g)

Regards.
Duane

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark" <.
> 
> After considering all the posts, discussions with "experts" not on the
> forum, and further experiments with competing approaches, I'm going to
> continue to use the Photoshop View preview/soft-proofing method that
I've
> used for a long time.  Having the best view -- and the old PS
approach with
> its custom dot gain curve does solve the problems -- is a superior
solution
> than having the print match a poor view on the monitor.  
> 
> But it was an interesting exercise.
> 
> I think the addition of a correction layer is probably still an
important
> method of profiling a new paper with, in effect, a linearization layer.
> I'll probably continue to experiment with it in that roll when I
have more
> time.  I also think getting that linearization layer to be
accessible and
> adjustable visually is a worthwhile advance.  However, these layers
do not
> end up giving truly neutral and even tones when, for example, a
correction
> layer is used to linearize UltraSmooth UT7 curves to Moab paper.  I
think
> the linearization steps are a major advance for the rips, but they
do not
> end up with profiles that are adjusted correctly with respect to the
tones
> (hues) when using variable-tone inksets.  There is no substitute for
doing
> the work from what I can see.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ernst Dinkla [mailto:E.Dinkla@c...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 2:29 AM
> > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> > 
> > 
> > Paul Roark wrote:
> > 
> > >
> > >
> > >The range Steve measured is, I assume, from a LCD.  He gets about 6+
> > stops.
> > >Using the same techniques, I get about 4+ stops with my CRT. 
I've been
> > told
> > >LCDs can be about 50% brighter than CRTs.  Oddly, part of this
difference
> > in
> > >my case is due to the calibration procedure (Spyder2Pro), which
resulted
> > in
> > >me setting the brightness at just above 80%.
> > >
> > >If I have the lights off and wear a black shirt, the CRT range
approaches
> > >what Steve measured.  But the reflections wipe out that black point
> > >advantage when I use the computer in my normal fashion.
> > >
> > >As noted, the range Steve measured is more than the matte papers
we use
> > but
> > >less than the glossy papers -- but only under ideal lighting such
as used
> > by
> > >the densitometers/spectrophotometers.  Using the spot meter on
prints in
> > >typical office or home viewing conditions, I get closer to a 4+ stop
> > range
> > >for both matte and glossy (glass framing would reduce that).  So,
my CRT
> > is
> > >really not that far off in terms of its display of the dynamic
range of
> > what
> > >we see in practice.
> > >
> > >Paul
> > >www.PaulRoark.com
> > >
> > >
> > Some of us will have nice pro monitors with shades at the sides to
> > reduce the reflections. I do have two IIyama Vision Master Pros that
> > come without shades. I have made shades for them with plastic
sheets and
> > black paper on the inside. Probably the cheapest addition that I
made to
> > improve the quality of the softproof but it really helps. The
SpectroCam
> > + Prove It do the rest. 5000K + 2.2 gamma. For color work and QTR B&W
> > now. Using the appropriate ICC profiles for monitor etc. Ambient light
> > is reduced when it gets critical. I wouldn't know how to improve
on that
> > without making the solution less universal. I never wear white or
black
> > shirts but that has little to do with the work :-)
> > 
> > In the end the print will  be judged, an old hair dryer (helmet
type) on
> > a box with large holes at the sides is a good investment too. Soft
> > proofing will speed up the printing process but like Bruce says do not
> > expect too much of it so speeding up the real proof is a good
thing too.
> > 
> > BTW, this must be the thread with the most text ever. Very few
practical
> > solutions.
> > 
> > Ernst
> > //
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other
resources as
> > they are often being updated.
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you
wish to
> > unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting
this same
> > page.
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to keep
> > them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
flames.
> > Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
> > membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of
digital B&W
> > printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be
removed from
> > the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
> > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group
Owner
> > and Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files
> > section:
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> > 
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
PRINT
> > YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
> > "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE
LIABLE TO
> > YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR
> > EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF
> > PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE
> > "OWNER" AND "MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE
BEEN
> > ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i)
THE USE
> > OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii)
> > UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR
DATA; (iii)

> > STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
> > YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE
> > PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> > 
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

Coming into this conversation in the middle and not having read everything, I'm not sure about the 'magenta' casts in b/w, but I hear about them regularly elsewhere and they (without RIPS) are almost always due to double profiling and not understanding color management.  I also remember 'magenta casts' due to some bad Epson inks also.  Of course the double profiling has to do with ICC profiles, but mainly in not knowing how to use them.  

BTW--I do have a calibrated CRT but see that differently from PS color management (but part of getting as close to correct color from monitor to printer as possible--using soft proofing).  Maybe I'm getting the wrong idea here between 'auto profiling' and 'auto calibrating'--which new high end monitors offer.  I'm guessing that all new monitors (which I understand will be LCDs as almost all CRT monitors, according to well known color management folks, will end production by the end of this year) will soon have auto calibrating, but they don't now.  

If I'm off track on this thread, I'm sorry.  Its been a long one and I've just picked up bits and pieces as I commute back and forth from location in the middle of 4 big shoots (to process BTW with correct color management  LOL).

Diane

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Kale 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:47 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print


  You'll have to hope that all that auto profiling will accommodate B&W well -
  general ICC profiling doesn't today and that's why many people come to this
  forum...remember those magenta casts?


  > From: Drime <kdrime@...>

  > Hope you're right. That way I can put the whole thing off and not get
  > an aneurysm trying to figure it out!
  > 
  > Drime


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

By the way, I think you misunderstand the nature of this "self profiling" and its 
ramifications.  These are mechanisms for countering the instability of the device with 
respect to colour over time - ie they are designed to correct the device back to profile.  
Firstly, you still need a profile.  So you will have the OEM one embedded or need a 
measurement device to construct your own before loading that.  Secondly, and even worse 
for us, these mechanisms may prevent the use of dedicated inks, non OEM inks and no 
OEM paper if they don't allow you to load your own profile.  Even if they allow you to load 
your own profiles there aren't any B&W ICC profile generators that I am aware of.  (If 
anyone knows of one then please let me know.)  They all expect colour input and 
construct colour (RGB or CMYK) profiles.  Frankly, this would be a disaster if it couldn't be 
turned off.  Would you buy a printer that forced you to only use particular inks and 
particular papers?  I know I wouldn't.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon" <westsidemaurice@y...> 
wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> The chatter about matching monitor and print is analagous to
> discussions of refinements to buggy whips or high button shoes. The
> skillsets won't have significant value within two (2) years. 
> 
> Printers are becoming self-profiling (HP) and cheap monitors with
> simple cardboard baffles are better today than were expensive monitors
> two years ago. Inexpensive photo-oriented monitors will be precisely
> self calibrating by 2006. Goodbye Macbeth. 
> 
> I'm thinking now about Ansel Adams' most famous photograph:
> Dramatically underexposed, it was saved by an old time chemical
> intensification workaround. The workaround, part of Ansel's closed
> loop system, produced literally millions of dollars in profits to the
> various galleries who peddled and re-peddled the prints. 
> 
> It's worth considering how digitial printmaking contrasts with
> photography. What's similar, what's different? Which side of the brain
> does which? Do artists work with closed loops or open loops?
>

> From: Steve Kale
> 
> By the way, I think you misunderstand the nature of this "self 
> profiling" and its 
> ramifications.  These are mechanisms for countering the 
> instability of the device with 
> respect to colour over time - ie they are designed to correct the 
> device back to profile.  
> Firstly, you still need a profile.

They should really call it "self-calibrating".

-- 

Ciao,               Paul D. DeRocco
Paul                mailto:pderocco@...

>  Would you buy a printer that forced you to only use particular inks
and  particular papers?  I know I wouldn't.

And I won't either, though the superior blacks of the HP system should
be tempting for some users. 

Just following the HP Forum is enough to sell me against its current
technology (which really seems a Beta), but it's obviously moving
rapidly in the direction I described and it's only a matter of time
before Epson buys in. 

Notice the "just folks" low tech discussion on the HP Forum, as
compared to the Epson-oriented forums. That suggests to me that the HP
appeals more to people who need good results without too much work,
and that Epson is the way to fly for people who insist on superb
results, willing to put up with an absurdly complex array of
challenges (high button shoes, buggy whips). 

It's a lot like Mac Vs PC, in fact :-) 

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Djon"
<westsidemaurice@y...> 

> wrote:

> > The chatter about matching monitor and print is analagous to
> > discussions of refinements to buggy whips or high button shoes. The
> > skillsets won't have significant value within two (2) years. 
> > 
> > Printers are becoming self-profiling (HP) and cheap monitors with
> > simple cardboard baffles are better today than were expensive monitors
> > two years ago. Inexpensive photo-oriented monitors will be precisely
> > self calibrating by 2006. Goodbye Macbeth.

> 
> 
> Just following the HP Forum is enough to sell me against its current
> technology (which really seems a Beta), but it's obviously moving
> rapidly in the direction I described and it's only a matter of time
> before Epson buys in.
> 
> Notice the "just folks" low tech discussion on the HP Forum, as
> compared to the Epson-oriented forums. That suggests to me that the HP
> appeals more to people who need good results without too much work,
> and that Epson is the way to fly for people who insist on superb
> results, willing to put up with an absurdly complex array of
> challenges (high button shoes, buggy whips).
> 
> It's a lot like Mac Vs PC, in fact :-)
> 
You Epson guys are like a bunch of nuclear physicists compared to guys
putting together cheap plastic models with too much airplane glue in their
basements when compared to just about any other photo list of any kind I¹ve
ever been on. Including the Leica users group.
I thought I was pretty smart but reading this list reminds me of the first
time I ever picked up a popular photography in 1965 when I  was 13 and read
thought the columns by the columnists understanding about 1 percent of what
was being written.
After about ten years I understood 99 percent of it I think.
Hope it doest take 10 years with this inkjet stuff.

But this Mac = Epson think I¹m in agreement with.

I didn't know HP was even in the running.
I thought it was Epson only or maybe Canon if you were a wedding
photographer.

It¹s like I thing I once heard:
³what¹s wrong with my car?²
³it¹s a Ford!²

Of course a Ford might get you to your destination I have no idea. And a pc
will number crunch or whatever.
My HP ³Laser² jet makes great documents. Just as long as the pdf¹s are not
too big. I¹ve got to figure out how to stick some more memory into it.


Mark Rabiner
Photography
Portland Oregon
http://rabinergroup.com/





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

I'll bite. Which is using the buggy whip...
--- Djon <westsidemaurice@...> wrote:
willing to put up with an absurdly complex
> array of
> challenges (high button shoes, buggy whips). 
> 
> It's a lot like Mac Vs PC, in fact :-) 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Mark,

I agree. The level of expertise, intense scrutiny and testing among the
folks on this list makes the typical "lens test" on the LUG seem like
childs play :-)

I'm using the MIS EZ inks on a C86 with EEM mostly. Excepting one
clogging issue, it's been fairly trouble free, although I sometimes have to
tweak the sliders and make a few prints to match what I'm seeing (or
think I'm seeing) on the monitor.

I yearn to give a nice 2200 and a RIP a try, but frankly, the discussions
here on the forum intimidate me a bit and make me wonder if I have the
time available necessary for dialing in the results that the hardware/
software is capable of.

Scott

Mark Rabiner wrote:

> >
> >
> You Epson guys are like a bunch of nuclear physicists compared to guys
> putting together cheap plastic models with too much airplane glue in their
> basements when compared to just about any other photo list of any kind 
> I\ufffdve
> ever been on. Including the Leica users group.
> I thought I was pretty smart but reading this list reminds me of the first
> time I ever picked up a popular photography in 1965 when I was 13 and read
> thought the columns by the columnists understanding about 1 percent of 
> what
> was being written.
> After about ten years I understood 99 percent of it I think.
> Hope it doest take 10 years with this inkjet stuff.
>
> But this Mac = Epson think I\ufffdm in agreement with.
>
> I didn't know HP was even in the running.
> I thought it was Epson only or maybe Canon if you were a wedding
> photographer.
>
> It\ufffds like I thing I once heard:
> \ufffdwhat\ufffds wrong with my car?\ufffd
> \ufffdit\ufffds a Ford!\ufffd
>
> Of course a Ford might get you to your destination I have no idea. And 
> a pc
> will number crunch or whatever.
> My HP \ufffdLaser\ufffd jet makes great documents. Just as long as the pdf\ufffds are not
> too big. I\ufffdve got to figure out how to stick some more memory into it.
>
>
> Mark Rabiner
> Photography
> Portland Oregon
> http://rabinergroup.com/
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Scott,

Jump in. You never learn until you are unsure.

If you have calibrated monitor and a color managed
workflow using QTR and getting prints that match your
vision with a 2200 is really quite simple. Roy's lab
working space and the matte and glossy profiles for
soft proofing make it very straight forward and
intuitive. You can get very high quality prints on the
standard papers (and many non-standard ones) without
creating custom curves the only part of the process
that gets complex and requires more gear. With
provided curves you can get probably 90% or better of
what can be done. Going beyond this does get esoteric
but that was true in a wet darkroom too.

QTR is just that good. And that easy.

Guy
--- Scott McLoughlin <scott@...> wrote:

> 
> Mark,
> 
> I agree. The level of expertise, intense scrutiny
> and testing among the
> folks on this list makes the typical "lens test" on
> the LUG seem like
> childs play :-)
> 
> I'm using the MIS EZ inks on a C86 with EEM mostly.
> Excepting one
> clogging issue, it's been fairly trouble free,
> although I sometimes have to
> tweak the sliders and make a few prints to match
> what I'm seeing (or
> think I'm seeing) on the monitor.
> 
> I yearn to give a nice 2200 and a RIP a try, but
> frankly, the discussions
> here on the forum intimidate me a bit and make me
> wonder if I have the
> time available necessary for dialing in the results
> that the hardware/
> software is capable of.
> 
> Scott
> 
> Mark Rabiner wrote:
> 
> > >
> > >
> > You Epson guys are like a bunch of nuclear
> physicists compared to guys
> > putting together cheap plastic models with too
> much airplane glue in their
> > basements when compared to just about any other
> photo list of any kind 
> > I\ufffdve
> > ever been on. Including the Leica users group.
> > I thought I was pretty smart but reading this list
> reminds me of the first
> > time I ever picked up a popular photography in
> 1965 when I was 13 and read
> > thought the columns by the columnists
> understanding about 1 percent of 
> > what
> > was being written.
> > After about ten years I understood 99 percent of
> it I think.
> > Hope it doest take 10 years with this inkjet
> stuff.
> >
> > But this Mac = Epson think I\ufffdm in agreement with.
> >
> > I didn't know HP was even in the running.
> > I thought it was Epson only or maybe Canon if you
> were a wedding
> > photographer.
> >
> > It\ufffds like I thing I once heard:
> > \ufffdwhat\ufffds wrong with my car?\ufffd
> > \ufffdit\ufffds a Ford!\ufffd
> >
> > Of course a Ford might get you to your destination
> I have no idea. And 
> > a pc
> > will number crunch or whatever.
> > My HP \ufffdLaser\ufffd jet makes great documents. Just as
> long as the pdf\ufffds are not
> > too big. I\ufffdve got to figure out how to stick some
> more memory into it.
> >
> >
> > Mark Rabiner
> > Photography
> > Portland Oregon
> > http://rabinergroup.com/
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
> >
> >
> >
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the
> Files, and other 
> > resources as they are often being updated.
> >
> >
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >
> > If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
> digest, or you wish 
> > to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership
> preferences by visiting 
> > this same page.
> >
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to 
> > keep them short.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No
> personal attacks or 
> > flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users
> may be removed from 
> > the membership without notice.
> > - Keep your posts and threads related to the group
> topic of digital 
> > B&W printing. Users who persistently make
> off-topic posts may be 
> > removed from the membership.
> > - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by
> the group rules and 
> > guidelines, and to abide by the actions and
> decisions of the group 
> > Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
> Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> > Files section:
> >
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
> >
> > BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
> DIGITAL BW, THE 
> > PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND
> AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> > AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> > LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
> INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> > CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT
> NOT LIMITED TO, 
> > DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA
> OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> > LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF
> DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> > YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
> OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> > RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO
> USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> > THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO
> OR ALTERATION OF 
> > YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
> CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> > PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR
> (iv) ANY OTHER 
> > MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
> GROUP.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > *Yahoo! Groups Links*
> >
> >     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> >      
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
> >     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an
> email to:
> >      
>
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >      
>
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
> Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~--> 
> What would our lives be like without music, dance,
> and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for
> Good!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
> and other resources as they are often being updated.
> 
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
> digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
> Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
> earlier messages to keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal
> attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
> argumentative users may be removed from the
> membership without notice.
> 
=== message truncated ===


		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/

Thanks for the encouragement!

guy washburn wrote:

>Scott,
>
>Jump in. You never learn until you are unsure.
>
>If you have calibrated monitor and a color managed
>workflow using QTR and getting prints that match your
>vision with a 2200 is really quite simple. Roy's lab
>working space and the matte and glossy profiles for
>soft proofing make it very straight forward and
>intuitive. You can get very high quality prints on the
>standard papers (and many non-standard ones) without
>creating custom curves the only part of the process
>that gets complex and requires more gear. With
>provided curves you can get probably 90% or better of
>what can be done. Going beyond this does get esoteric
>but that was true in a wet darkroom too.
>
>QTR is just that good. And that easy.
>
>Guy
>--- Scott McLoughlin <scott@...> wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Mark,
>>
>>I agree. The level of expertise, intense scrutiny
>>and testing among the
>>folks on this list makes the typical "lens test" on
>>the LUG seem like
>>childs play :-)
>>
>>I'm using the MIS EZ inks on a C86 with EEM mostly.
>>Excepting one
>>clogging issue, it's been fairly trouble free,
>>although I sometimes have to
>>tweak the sliders and make a few prints to match
>>what I'm seeing (or
>>think I'm seeing) on the monitor.
>>
>>I yearn to give a nice 2200 and a RIP a try, but
>>frankly, the discussions
>>here on the forum intimidate me a bit and make me
>>wonder if I have the
>>time available necessary for dialing in the results
>>that the hardware/
>>software is capable of.
>>
>>Scott
>>
>>Mark Rabiner wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>>You Epson guys are like a bunch of nuclear
>>>      
>>>
>>physicists compared to guys
>>    
>>
>>>putting together cheap plastic models with too
>>>      
>>>
>>much airplane glue in their
>>    
>>
>>>basements when compared to just about any other
>>>      
>>>
>>photo list of any kind 
>>    
>>
>>>I\ufffdve
>>>ever been on. Including the Leica users group.
>>>I thought I was pretty smart but reading this list
>>>      
>>>
>>reminds me of the first
>>    
>>
>>>time I ever picked up a popular photography in
>>>      
>>>
>>1965 when I was 13 and read
>>    
>>
>>>thought the columns by the columnists
>>>      
>>>
>>understanding about 1 percent of 
>>    
>>
>>>what
>>>was being written.
>>>After about ten years I understood 99 percent of
>>>      
>>>
>>it I think.
>>    
>>
>>>Hope it doest take 10 years with this inkjet
>>>      
>>>
>>stuff.
>>    
>>
>>>But this Mac = Epson think I\ufffdm in agreement with.
>>>
>>>I didn't know HP was even in the running.
>>>I thought it was Epson only or maybe Canon if you
>>>      
>>>
>>were a wedding
>>    
>>
>>>photographer.
>>>
>>>It\ufffds like I thing I once heard:
>>>\ufffdwhat\ufffds wrong with my car?\ufffd
>>>\ufffdit\ufffds a Ford!\ufffd
>>>
>>>Of course a Ford might get you to your destination
>>>      
>>>
>>I have no idea. And 
>>    
>>
>>>a pc
>>>will number crunch or whatever.
>>>My HP \ufffdLaser\ufffd jet makes great documents. Just as
>>>      
>>>
>>long as the pdf\ufffds are not
>>    
>>
>>>too big. I\ufffdve got to figure out how to stick some
>>>      
>>>
>>more memory into it.
>>    
>>
>>>Mark Rabiner
>>>Photography
>>>Portland Oregon
>>>http://rabinergroup.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>[Non-text portions of this message have been
>>>      
>>>
>>removed]
>>    
>>
>>>
>>>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the
>>>      
>>>
>>Files, and other 
>>    
>>
>>>resources as they are often being updated.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>  
>
>>>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
>>>      
>>>
>>digest, or you wish 
>>    
>>
>>>to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership
>>>      
>>>
>>preferences by visiting 
>>    
>>
>>>this same page.
>>>
>>>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
>>>      
>>>
>>earlier messages to 
>>    
>>
>>>keep them short.
>>>- Good manners are required at all time. No
>>>      
>>>
>>personal attacks or 
>>    
>>
>>>flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users
>>>      
>>>
>>may be removed from 
>>    
>>
>>>the membership without notice.
>>>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group
>>>      
>>>
>>topic of digital 
>>    
>>
>>>B&W printing. Users who persistently make
>>>      
>>>
>>off-topic posts may be 
>>    
>>
>>>removed from the membership.
>>>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by
>>>      
>>>
>>the group rules and 
>>    
>>
>>>guidelines, and to abide by the actions and
>>>      
>>>
>>decisions of the group 
>>    
>>
>>>Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and
>>>      
>>>
>>Guidelines\ufffd in the 
>>    
>>
>>>Files section:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>  
>
>>>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE
>>>      
>>>
>>DIGITAL BW, THE 
>>    
>>
>>>PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND
>>>      
>>>
>>AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
>>    
>>
>>>AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
>>>      
>>>
>>GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
>>    
>>
>>>LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT,
>>>      
>>>
>>INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
>>    
>>
>>>CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT
>>>      
>>>
>>NOT LIMITED TO, 
>>    
>>
>>>DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA
>>>      
>>>
>>OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
>>    
>>
>>>LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF
>>>      
>>>
>>DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
>>    
>>
>>>YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY
>>>      
>>>
>>OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
>>    
>>
>>>RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO
>>>      
>>>
>>USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
>>    
>>
>>>THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO
>>>      
>>>
>>OR ALTERATION OF 
>>    
>>
>>>YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR
>>>      
>>>
>>CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
>>    
>>
>>>PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR
>>>      
>>>
>>(iv) ANY OTHER 
>>    
>>
>>>MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO
>>>      
>>>
>>GROUP.
>>    
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  
>
>>>*Yahoo! Groups Links*
>>>
>>>    * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>>>     
>>>      
>>>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>  
>
>>>    * To unsubscribe from this group, send an
>>>      
>>>
>>email to:
>>    
>>
>>>     
>>>      
>>>
>DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>  
>
>>>     
>>>      
>>>
><mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>  
>
>>>    * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the
>>>      
>>>
>>Yahoo! Terms of
>>    
>>
>>>      Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>>>
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>
>>
>>------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>>--------------------~--> 
>>What would our lives be like without music, dance,
>>and theater?
>>Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for
>>Good!
>>
>>    
>>
>http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/ucIolB/TM
>  
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>  
>
>>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files,
>>and other resources as they are often being updated.
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>  
>
>>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily
>>digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your
>>Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>>
>>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of
>>earlier messages to keep them short.
>>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal
>>attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or
>>argumentative users may be removed from the
>>membership without notice.
>>
>>    
>>
>=== message truncated ===
>
>
>		
>__________________________________ 
>Do you Yahoo!? 
>Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
>http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/ 
>
>
>
>Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as they are often being updated.
>
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
>If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same page.
>
>Please follow these basic guidelines:
>- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
>- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the membership without notice.
>- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from the membership.
>- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the Files section:
>http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
>BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
> 
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>  
>

>...
> I yearn to give a nice 2200 and a RIP a try, but frankly, the discussions
> here on the forum intimidate me a bit and make me wonder if I have the
> time available necessary for dialing in the results that the hardware/
> software is capable of.
>...

I fear, in general, that the technical talk here may be scaring people away
from B&W printing.  However, if you can use a C86 with the EZ inkset, you
can use the 2200.  

The UT7 inkset for the 2200 (and 7600, 9600, 4000) is designed to be an "EZ"
inkset like the C86 EZ inkset.  It prints excellent B&W with no curves, no
rip, ... virtually no thinking.  The same is true for the UT2 and 1280.

The idea was to have different levels of control available.  You could do
"EZ" B&W printing with just sliders in the Epson driver, you can convert to
RGB and use pre-made Photoshop curves to get a broader range of tones, or
you can use one of the rips (like QTR or IJC).  Because there are all these
different levels available, you can tip-toe into the more complex methods
while still being able to do the EZ printing with the same setup.

A 2200 with UT7 is as easy to use as the C86 with the EZ inkset, but it has
the potential to grow as you learn any number of the other options. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Mark, Scott,

>You Epson guys are like a bunch of nuclear 
>physicists compared to...

>...frankly, the discussions here on the forum intimidate me 
>a bit and make me wonder...

Please don't let all the techno-babble on this forum discourage you,
it doesn't have to be like that (there is a very small minority who
spew out yards of mind-numbing blather that they think makes
themselves look smart - just ignore those posts).  As others have
said, there is a complete spectrum of approaches to this, from total
easy no-brainer on up, all of which are capable of beautiful results.
General good advice is to begin with something simple and work up at
your own pace to wherever your own comfort level is.  It isn't
necessary to be a high-techie to make beautiful gallery quality
prints (just as it wasn't necessary to be a full blown Zonie in the
darkroom).  

The easiest way to begin is with a C-86 w/EZ inks or a 1280 w/UT2 or a
2200 w/UT7 or Black Only (BO) with any number of printers.  If you can
spend the money, the 2200 is probably the best all around 13" desktop
printer.  It's rugged, designed for pigment inks, has easy top fill
carts available for bulk inks, can print on just about anything
(optional rear feeder), and can be used with many different 
inks/Rips/techniques.  

Digital BW printing has come a long way the past few years.  This is a
good time to be getting involved.  Jump in, the water's fine.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

That's good to hear. Part of my trepidation is using the 2200
to also get into color printing, monitor calibration, profiling and
the like. Right now I use pretty simple tools - PWP, a laptop with
a Dell Trinitron hooked up to it and the C86.

It's good to hear that the basic stuff remains easy with the
2200. I'm still learning :-)

Scott

Paul Roark wrote:

> >...
> > I yearn to give a nice 2200 and a RIP a try, but frankly, the 
> discussions
> > here on the forum intimidate me a bit and make me wonder if I have the
> > time available necessary for dialing in the results that the hardware/
> > software is capable of.
> >...
>
> I fear, in general, that the technical talk here may be scaring people 
> away
> from B&W printing. However, if you can use a C86 with the EZ inkset, you
> can use the 2200.
>
> The UT7 inkset for the 2200 (and 7600, 9600, 4000) is designed to be 
> an "EZ"
> inkset like the C86 EZ inkset. It prints excellent B&W with no curves, no
> rip, ... virtually no thinking. The same is true for the UT2 and 1280.
>
> The idea was to have different levels of control available. You could do
> "EZ" B&W printing with just sliders in the Epson driver, you can 
> convert to
> RGB and use pre-made Photoshop curves to get a broader range of tones, or
> you can use one of the rips (like QTR or IJC). Because there are all these
> different levels available, you can tip-toe into the more complex methods
> while still being able to do the EZ printing with the same setup.
>
> A 2200 with UT7 is as easy to use as the C86 with the EZ inkset, but 
> it has
> the potential to grow as you learn any number of the other options.
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other 
> resources as they are often being updated.
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish 
> to unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting 
> this same page.
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
> keep them short.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
> flames. Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from 
> the membership without notice.
> - Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital 
> B&W printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be 
> removed from the membership.
> - By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and 
> guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group 
> Owner and Moderators. See \ufffdGroup Topic, Rules and Guidelines\ufffd in the 
> Files section:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/
>
> BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE 
> PRINT YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd 
> AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE 
> LIABLE TO YOU FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, 
> CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, 
> DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE 
> LOSSES (EVEN IF THE \ufffdOWNER\ufffd AND \ufffdMODERATORS\ufffd OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT 
> YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), 
> RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, 
> THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR ALTERATION OF 
> YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY THIRD 
> PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER 
> MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *Yahoo! Groups Links*
>
>     * To visit your group on the web, go to:
>       http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>

Scott

Keep reading and learning but also jump in and print as you go - there's
nothing like the deep end to get the legs and arms moving....ok just get in
at the middle!  It's not that hard and is getting easier. Two years ago I
didn't even realise that I could print photos at home on an inkjet!  I was
stunned when a digital guy at my local lab told me I should buy the new
Epson 2100 printer which was then about to come out (I had just bought my
first home laptop).

Oddly enough, it is easier in the end to begin with the colour stuff and to
learn the principles of colour management first.  Once you've sort of got
that in the bag you can then learn why those colour management tools today
don't work so well for B&W and go on from there to understand the various
(there really aren't that many ie 3-4) dedicated B&W workflows out there.

The reason why I think this approach is better is because the B&W world will
likely slowly rotate back to a colour managed workflow as colour management
tools begin to accommodate B&W much better (eg by being able to write an
I(nternational) C(olor) C(onsortium) profile for a B&W ink set up).  In
addition, it teaches you a lot about the fundamental terms at work including
those that seem to be a constant source of confusion for people (usually
only those who are not interested in or prepared to make a simple effort to
learn about them).

;-)

> From: Scott McLoughlin <scott@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sat, 16 Apr 2005 04:54:25 -0400
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Matching Monitor and Print
> 
> 
> That's good to hear. Part of my trepidation is using the 2200
> to also get into color printing, monitor calibration, profiling and
> the like. Right now I use pretty simple tools - PWP, a laptop with
> a Dell Trinitron hooked up to it and the C86.
> 
> It's good to hear that the basic stuff remains easy with the
> 2200. I'm still learning :-)
> 
> Scott
>

Scott,

Thus far I have not had time to learn how to create curves and am really 
pleased so far with what I've gotten from my 2200 and the supplied curves 
after doing softproofing using Roy's supplied ICC profiles, adjusting 
tonality and contrast and then doing quite a number of step wedges on a 
variety of papers.  That has gotten me very good results and was well worth 
every bit of the $50 I spent on QTR.  I love my 2200--and though I may 
eventually buy a 4000 or a successor to the 2200, for now---I'm the happiest 
I've been with mono printing in years.

Diane

>
> I yearn to give a nice 2200 and a RIP a try, but frankly, the discussions
> here on the forum intimidate me a bit and make me wonder if I have the
> time available necessary for dialing in the results that the hardware/
> software is capable of.
>
> Scott

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Diane Fields" <picnic@c...> 
wrote:
> Scott,
> 
> Thus far I have not had time to learn how to create curves and am really 
> pleased so far with what I've gotten from my 2200 and the supplied curves 
> after doing softproofing using Roy's supplied ICC profiles, adjusting 
> tonality and contrast and then doing quite a number of step wedges on a 

Which ink set are you using?
Jack

I'm using the Epson OEM inks with matte black.

Diane

  Which ink set are you using?
  Jack


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