Digital BW, The Print

Dear all,
  I'd like to get some more rigor in my printing process, and I just
don't know where to start.

Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
printer?  Or are both necessary?

Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
or monitor calibrating device?

Thanks!

-- 
 Ben Rosengart                                          ben@...
       "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
        good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
        but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ben Rosengart
<yahoo.com@n...> wrote:
> Dear all,
>   I'd like to get some more rigor in my printing process, and I just
> don't know where to start.
> 
> Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
> printer?  Or are both necessary?
> 
> Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
> luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
> or monitor calibrating device?

Yes, it is possible, and for some of us, preferable.

This is only my opinion, and that of Dan Margulis, author of
Professional Photoshop, but I don't think much of monitor calibration,
etc.  It's more important to rely on the numbers in the Info Palette
in PS.  In fact, he's a proponent of being able to color correct using
a grayscale monitor, though I'm not sure where you'd find one of those
these days.

Personally, no matter how much time and money I spent on monitor
calibration, etc., I'd still trust the numbers more.

I highly recommend his book(s).

My .02..........

Mark

That's interesting.  A number has no meaning without a colour space.  128
grey is different in GG2.2 and GG1.8.  You certainly have no idea what
colour is produced by your printer if you send it 128 grey unless you can
measure it or have an unbelievable memory for colour. Looking at the numbers
alone doesn't get you anywhere.

Unfortunately colour management is only as good as your weakest link.  It
also isn't perfect.  But with a good measurement device such as the Gretag
Macbeth Eye One you can most anything you'll likely need (display, colour
printer, greyscale ICCs, RIP linearization etc).  They still aren't cheap
(even though they are dramatically cheaper than they used to be) but they
are incredibly useful.

> From: Mark McCombs <lockwood_mccombs@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 13:52:00 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: "color" management without instruments
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ben Rosengart
> <yahoo.com@n...> wrote:
>> Dear all,
>>   I'd like to get some more rigor in my printing process, and I just
>> don't know where to start.
>> 
>> Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
>> printer?  Or are both necessary?
>> 
>> Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
>> luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
>> or monitor calibrating device?
> 
> Yes, it is possible, and for some of us, preferable.
> 
> This is only my opinion, and that of Dan Margulis, author of
> Professional Photoshop, but I don't think much of monitor calibration,
> etc.  It's more important to rely on the numbers in the Info Palette
> in PS.  In fact, he's a proponent of being able to color correct using
> a grayscale monitor, though I'm not sure where you'd find one of those
> these days.
> 
> Personally, no matter how much time and money I spent on monitor
> calibration, etc., I'd still trust the numbers more.
> 
> I highly recommend his book(s).
> 
> My .02..........
> 
> Mark

Ben-

There are many ways to approach the digital darkroom. I don't think 
there is anything more important, or fundamental, than being able to 
trust your display. The cost of a quality display calibration/profiling 
kit is extremely reasonable. In fact, I'd consider the video card, 
display and kit as a single purchase/decision.

I also believe that being able to profile an inkjet printer is 
desirable but that decision depends on a number of things: budget, 
willingness to climb the learning curve, what printer and media you 
want to use, and what quality of print you're aiming for. The Epson 
C-86/88, for example, is an office inkjet printer that can produce very 
good prints but you'll need accurate print profiles. Purchase a 2400 or 
4800 and the generic profiles that come with the printer will allow you 
to produce excellent color and grayscale prints out of the box (as long 
as you use Epson media).

If budget allows, and you want to dramatically extend your control over 
printing workflows, purchase either an EyeOne or Pulse kit; you can 
then calibrate/profile the display and build good print profiles for 
any inkjet you own now or will purchase in the future. This will allow 
you to use non-OEM media, too. The spectrophotometer in these kits can 
be used for any densitometric work you might wish to tackle.

Bill Kennedy
Austin, Texas

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Rosengart <yahoo.com@...>
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wed, 28 Sep 2005 09:36:07 -0400
Subject: [Digital BW] "color" management without instruments

  Dear all,
  I'd like to get some more rigor in my printing process, and I just
don't know where to start.

Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
printer?  Or are both necessary?

Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
or monitor calibrating device?

Thanks!

--
  Ben Rosengart                                          
ben@...
       "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
        good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
        but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement



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

> > ...

> > Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
> > printer?  Or are both necessary?
> >
> > Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
> > luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
> > or monitor calibrating device?

> 
> Yes, it is possible, and for some of us, preferable.
> 
> This is only my opinion, and that of Dan Margulis, author of
> Professional Photoshop, ...

I have Spyder2PRO and carefully calibrated my monitor.  It made no
difference in the luminance values from the (free) Adobe Gamma visual
calibration I'd previously done.  Moreover, the color temperature the Spyder
recommended was way too cool.  So, for B&W I definitely don't think
sophisticated monitor calibration is needed.

What is important is to get the best luminance match between the monitor and
the print.  This can be done visually.  In fact, that may be the best way it
can be done.  I use the Photoshop preview/soft proof method, which relies on
a custom dot gain curve you make manually.  The process is described here:
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Monitor-Profiling.htm 

One major reason I need to use this is that the standards I've used for my
curves are based on a standard 50% value that is half way between the Lab
luminance spectrophotometer/densitometer readings of matte black (relatively
weak) and paper white.  This puts the midpoint a bit lighter than Lab L = 50
(which is what the Kodak gray card is), and also lighter than where the
mid-point was with Adobe Gamma & the Spyder.  Additionally, the amount of
shadow detail that shows with my system was less than what the standard Lab
curves show.  This shadow detail appears to vary with the hardware you have,
but the custom dot gain curve can overcome the hardware variances.

There are several ways to approach this issue, but if one has Photoshop, it
can be done just fine for B&W without the use of a sophisticated monitor
profiling system.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> That's interesting.  A number has no meaning without a colour space.
 128
> grey is different in GG2.2 and GG1.8.  You certainly have no idea what
> colour is produced by your printer if you send it 128 grey unless
you can
> measure it or have an unbelievable memory for colour. Looking at the
numbers
> alone doesn't get you anywhere.
> 
> Unfortunately colour management is only as good as your weakest
link.  It
> also isn't perfect.  But with a good measurement device such as the
Gretag
> Macbeth Eye One you can most anything you'll likely need (display,
colour
> printer, greyscale ICCs, RIP linearization etc).  They still aren't
cheap
> (even though they are dramatically cheaper than they used to be) but
they
> are incredibly useful.

well, could be, but I've stated my opinion, which comes from
experience.  But I'd trust Dan Margulis more.  He is a true color guru.

Mark

Hello Ben,

As others have said, IMO you can use the photoshop utility and get 
perfectly useable monitor calibration. Could you do better? 
Probably, but only incrementaly and, also in my opinion, not so much 
so that it is worth large expenditures.

As for printer calibration, I think a densitometer can be helpful 
but is more usefull with color than black&white. A scanner can 
substitute in most instances even though not as precise. You can 
also simply use photoshop curves to linearise black&white output.
I do believe calibration/profiling for color is needed for non oem 
papers and inks.

In terms of numbers, I believe they are indeed relevant. If you send 
a 128,128,128 dot to the printer, it will be printed the same every 
time.( or else you need to change printers ) It is the consistancy 
that truly matters. You can compensate balance and/or tones so long 
as a given #set prints the same each time. This is particularly true 
if you are not trying to match up to someone else's gear but merely 
printing your own stuff. Color spaces and color management merely 
distort the 0-255 or % no's onscreen in different ways for different 
purposes and are themselves an artificial construct. Yes they are 
usefull albeit with much mumbo jumbo attached. IMO the primary 
benefits are #1--convenience (worth as much as you choose) and #2--
standardisation (pretty much a necessity if you are expecting to 
ship files off to be printed economically elsewhere).

After all, it is you that is likely going to manipulate the 
tonal/color relationships to suit whatever you envisioned to begin 
with regardless of where they might have started out.

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ben Rosengart 
<yahoo.com@n...> wrote:
> Dear all,
>   I'd like to get some more rigor in my printing process, and I 
just

> don't know where to start.
> 
> Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
> printer?  Or are both necessary?
> 
> Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
> luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
> or monitor calibrating device?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> -- 
>  Ben Rosengart                                          ben@n...
>        "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
>         good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
>         but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement

While I don't doubt the experience and qualifications of the various experts 
that have been cited, I think it is important to have a calibration device 
for a simple reason that none has mentioned. As time goes on . . . years, or 
even months if you are working your system to death, the monitor grows 
tired, your phosphors are not what they used to be (if you don't believe me, 
ask your wife of many, many years), and the eye/brain combo is notorious for 
lying to us . . . so your "objectivity" could well end up being blind-sided 
subjectivity.

I am sure that those with infinitely more inkjet experience than I could 
make a far superior print, but I would like to see one made on "set" 
equipment today, and then the same repeated (by eye only) on the same "set" 
equipment three or four years hence . . . it won't match.

It is one of the reasons for the zone system in chemical photography . . . 
standardize, standardize, standardize, then you can go out and do what you 
wish (and know what will happen). The calibration available in the digital 
world brings us some similar aspects.

Paul Aparycki

then again, with everything digital being out-dated by next week, maybe it 
doesn't matter? (beginning to feel like sisyphus here ;-))))


> That's interesting.  A number has no meaning without a colour space.
>128
> grey is different in GG2.2 and GG1.8.  You certainly have no idea what
> colour is produced by your printer if you send it 128 grey unless
you can

> measure it or have an unbelievable memory for colour. Looking at the
>numbers
> alone doesn't get you anywhere.
>
> Unfortunately colour management is only as good as your weakest
>link.

>Mark

> From: dlruckus <dlruckus@...>
> [snip]
> A scanner can 
> substitute in most instances even though not as precise.

> [snip] Color spaces and color management merely
> distort the 0-255 or % no's onscreen in different ways for different
> purposes and are themselves an artificial construct. Yes they are
> usefull albeit with much mumbo jumbo attached.

When you scan something it records a file value which in turn depends on the
scanner colour profile. 128/128/128 from a scanner has little meaning unless
you know its colour space.  So using a scanner assumes you have a good
profile for that scanner.  Circular.

>You can 
> also simply use photoshop curves to linearise black&white output.

How do you tell if the result is linear?  Eyeballing is not particularly
accurate.  You can use a scanner but as noted above you are dependent on the
assumption your scanner profile is good.  But is it?


> 
> In terms of numbers, I believe they are indeed relevant. If you send
> a 128,128,128 dot to the printer, it will be printed the same every
> time.( or else you need to change printers )

Yes but what colour is it?  Does it match what you see on screen?  Again you
can eyeball or desire, as you seem to do, something better.

>It is the consistancy
> that truly matters. You can compensate balance and/or tones so long
> as a given #set prints the same each time. This is particularly true
> if you are not trying to match up to someone else's gear but merely
> printing your own stuff.

>Color spaces and color management merely
> distort the 0-255 or % no's onscreen in different ways for different
> purposes and are themselves an artificial construct. Yes they are
> usefull albeit with much mumbo jumbo attached.

Sorry but this is garbage.  They don't distort anything - they give a pixel
value meaning and help you manage pixel values from one device to another in
a way that keeps the colour (greyscale or not) consistent.  There isn't any
mumbo jumbo to that but it does involve understanding a little.  A simple
book Real World Color Management by Bruce Fraser will tell you all you need.

IMO, calibrating the monitor makes life much easier.  You can always 
try Adobe Gamma, included free with Photoshop. It's a "eyeball" type 
monitor calibration, but in my experience can get you pretty close 
without the added expense of a puck system.

HTH,

Doug

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ben Rosengart
<yahoo.com@n...> wrote:
> Dear all,
>   I'd like to get some more rigor in my printing process, and I just
> don't know where to start.
>
> Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
> printer?  Or are both necessary?
>
> Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
> luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
> or monitor calibrating device?

Yes, it is possible, and for some of us, preferable.

This is only my opinion, and that of Dan Margulis, author of
Professional Photoshop, but I don't think much of monitor calibration,
etc.  It's more important to rely on the numbers in the Info Palette
in PS.  In fact, he's a proponent of being able to color correct using
a grayscale monitor, though I'm not sure where you'd find one of those
these days.

Personally, no matter how much time and money I spent on monitor
calibration, etc., I'd still trust the numbers more.

I highly recommend his book(s).

My .02..........

Mark

Your comments continue to reflect those made 150 years ago...amusing.

Mark

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki" 
<tawow@s...> wrote:
> While I don't doubt the experience and qualifications of the 
various experts 
> that have been cited, I think it is important to have a calibration 
device 
> for a simple reason that none has mentioned. As time goes on . . . 
years, or 
> even months if you are working your system to death, the monitor 
grows 
> tired, your phosphors are not what they used to be (if you don't 
believe me, 
> ask your wife of many, many years), and the eye/brain combo is 
notorious for 
> lying to us . . . so your "objectivity" could well end up being 
blind-sided 
> subjectivity.
> 
> I am sure that those with infinitely more inkjet experience than I 
could 
> make a far superior print, but I would like to see one made 
on "set" 
> equipment today, and then the same repeated (by eye only) on the 
same "set" 
> equipment three or four years hence . . . it won't match.
> 
> It is one of the reasons for the zone system in chemical 
photography . . . 
> standardize, standardize, standardize, then you can go out and do 
what you 
> wish (and know what will happen). The calibration available in the 
digital 
> world brings us some similar aspects.
> 
> Paul Aparycki
> 
> then again, with everything digital being out-dated by next week, 
maybe it 
> doesn't matter? (beginning to feel like sisyphus here ;-))))
> 
> 
> > That's interesting.  A number has no meaning without a colour 
space.
> >128
> > grey is different in GG2.2 and GG1.8.  You certainly have no idea 
what
> > colour is produced by your printer if you send it 128 grey unless
> you can
> > measure it or have an unbelievable memory for colour. Looking at 
the

> >numbers
> > alone doesn't get you anywhere.
> >
> > Unfortunately colour management is only as good as your weakest
> >link.
> 
> >Mark

Didn't know they had the zone system back then, or computers for that 
matter.

have to dig out the history books. . .

Paul Aparycki


>Your comments continue to reflect those made 150 years ago...amusing.

>Mark

Oh how right you are. The only excuse for not using instrumentation would be
lack of money.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Paul
Aparycki
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 10:01 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: "color" management without instruments

While I don't doubt the experience and qualifications of the various experts

that have been cited, I think it is important to have a calibration device 
for a simple reason that none has mentioned. As time goes on . . . years, or

even months if you are working your system to death, the monitor grows 
tired, your phosphors are not what they used to be (if you don't believe me,

ask your wife of many, many years), and the eye/brain combo is notorious for

lying to us . . . so your "objectivity" could well end up being blind-sided 
subjectivity.

I am sure that those with infinitely more inkjet experience than I could 
make a far superior print, but I would like to see one made on "set" 
equipment today, and then the same repeated (by eye only) on the same "set" 
equipment three or four years hence . . . it won't match.

It is one of the reasons for the zone system in chemical photography . . . 
standardize, standardize, standardize, then you can go out and do what you 
wish (and know what will happen). The calibration available in the digital 
world brings us some similar aspects.

Paul Aparycki


---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 08:02:26PM -0500, Intrinsic Pictures wrote:
> IMO, calibrating the monitor makes life much easier.  You can always 
> try Adobe Gamma, included free with Photoshop. It's a "eyeball" type 
> monitor calibration, but in my experience can get you pretty close 
> without the added expense of a puck system.

I wonder how it stacks up to the Apple "Display Calibrator Assistant",
which is included with the operating system.  That's what I've used so
far.

My full-ink prints are not too far off between screen and print
(closer would be better), but BO prints are pure guesswork.

-- 
 Ben Rosengart                                          ben@...
       "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
        good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
        but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> When you scan something it records a file value which in turn 
depends on the
> scanner colour profile. 128/128/128 from a scanner has little 
meaning unless
> you know its colour space.  So using a scanner assumes you have a 
good
> profile for that scanner.  Circular.

Sorry. Presumably the individual taking the photograph to begin with 
is well aware of what to expect of a neutral gray ie: it's neutral. 
If it comes out of the camera or off the scanner as something 
different that too doesn't require an Einstein to recognise it needs 
alteration. Neutrals have been the basis for color correction for 
far longer than digital has been around. It isn't brain surgery.
As you accept that a representation given by say, GG2.2, in reality 
alters tonal relationships versus GG1.8, you ought to realise that 
the color spaces are, in fact, what I said "artificial constructs" 
that may be usefull. Then again under a different circustance they 
might not. You seem to be saying that the RGB numbers recorded (in 
whatever fashion) are not relevant. That is nonsense. Those numbers 
are what you have to work with. They are, of course, folded,spindled 
and mutilated along the way by film,sensor,scanner,monitor,printer 
and not least, yourself.

> >You can 
> > also simply use photoshop curves to linearise black&white output.
> 
> How do you tell if the result is linear?  Eyeballing is not 
particularly
> accurate.  You can use a scanner but as noted above you are 
dependent on the
> assumption your scanner profile is good.  But is it?

Eyeballing,in the end, is the 'only' measure of success. I'm 
astounded that you would be unaware of that. The sole and only 
purpose of a print in the context of this forum is to be looked at 
by (goodness) that totally inaccurate and unworthy human eye. 
> 
> > 
> > In terms of numbers, I believe they are indeed relevant. If you 
send
> > a 128,128,128 dot to the printer, it will be printed the same 
every
> > time.( or else you need to change printers )
> 
>  Does it match what you see on screen?  Again you
> can eyeball or desire, as you seem to do, something better.

What you don't seem to understand and what I have said before is 
that whether or not it matches is largely irrelevant so long as it 
is reasonably close. Reasonably close can be accomplished without 
every bell and whistle known to man. The threads initiation was a 
question of whether or not one could manage without expensive 
instrumentation. The truth is: yes, one can. The desireability of 
doing that may be questioned (and is an individual preference) but 
Not the possibility.
As for my personal desires, I don't believe I made mention of any.

> >It is the consistancy
> > that truly matters. You can compensate balance and/or tones so 
long
> > as a given #set prints the same each time. This is particularly 
true
> > if you are not trying to match up to someone else's gear but 
merely
> > printing your own stuff.
> 
> >Color spaces and color management merely
> > distort the 0-255 or % no's onscreen in different ways for 
different
> > purposes and are themselves an artificial construct. Yes they are
> > usefull albeit with much mumbo jumbo attached.
> 
> Sorry but this is garbage.  They don't distort anything - they 
give a pixel
> value meaning and help you manage pixel values from one device to 
another in
> a way that keeps the colour (greyscale or not) consistent.  There 
isn't any
> mumbo jumbo to that but it does involve understanding a little.  A 
simple
> book Real World Color Management by Bruce Fraser will tell you all 
you need.

You need to look again yourself. Distortion is exactly what is done. 
Color space changes alter the preceding pixel values or at least 
some of them. That is pretty much what distortion means. It is 
literal truth, hardly garbage. The necessity of doing this in order 
to get imperfect devices to input or output colors somewhere close 
to those expected, does not change that fact. In both black and 
white and color the ability to make those alterations by hand as it 
were is there. Otherwise there would be little use for Pshop. As for 
mumbo jumbo, the comment reflected what I have seen online of 
halftruths and misunderstandings regarding what you term as simple. 
You are correct in that assessment. It is simple though it is seldom 
treated as such.

I have no quarrel with your concept of things in the consumer sense 
of Plug and Play. If possible no knowledge needed at all is 
preferable there.

Regards
Duane

Well I guess we have a difference of opinion.  I quote the original post:

"I'd like to get some more rigor in my printing process, and I just
don't know where to start.

Which is more important -- to calibrate the monitor, or profile the
printer? Or are both necessary?

Is it possible/useful to go to a "color-managed" (really
luminance-managed, I suppose) workflow without a densitometer
or monitor calibrating device?"

You can guess and eye-ball screen to print matches and try to eyeball
linearisation all you want but I don't consider this rigorous or colour
management.  In the end it is the print that counts, yes.  But the greater
the rigour in the application and management of technique, including
colour/luminance, the greater the ease and consistency of results you will
obtain.  In my opinion, there are few half measures that can be had here.
You either decide you are going to use the tools available or you don't.  If
you want rigour, do it right.  It is not hard and now doesn't cost the
earth.  It also works well and easily.  Why deprive yourself?  Ben, it's
your call.  Personally, I would advise you to purchase an EyeOne Photo.
You'll be able to do all that you want to above and more.  Half measures
will likely entail excessive iteration, fiddling, frustration and
dissatisfaction.  As you guys like to say:  just my 2 cents....


> From: dlruckus <dlruckus@...>

Ever hear of "Google"?
Lots of history.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Aparycki" 
<tawow@s...> wrote:

> Didn't know they had the zone system back then, or computers for that 
> matter.
> 
> have to dig out the history books. . .
> 
> Paul Aparycki
> 
> 
> >Your comments continue to reflect those made 150 years ago...amusing.
> 
> >Mark

On Thu, Sep 29, 2005 at 10:58:42PM +0100, Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> In my opinion, there are few half measures that can be had here.

I was afraid of that.  :-)

> You either decide you are going to use the tools available or you don't.  If
> you want rigour, do it right.  It is not hard and now doesn't cost the
> earth.  It also works well and easily.  Why deprive yourself?

Fewer gadgets is always better, and so is more money in my bank account.

-- 
 Ben Rosengart                                          ben@...
       "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
        good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
        but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement

On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 03:07:46PM +0100, Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> Unfortunately colour management is only as good as your weakest link.  It
> also isn't perfect.  But with a good measurement device such as the Gretag
> Macbeth Eye One you can most anything you'll likely need (display, colour
> printer, greyscale ICCs, RIP linearization etc).  They still aren't cheap
> (even though they are dramatically cheaper than they used to be) but they
> are incredibly useful.

Looks like there are a bunch of products and bundles sold under the
"Eye One" name.  Which one in particular do you recommend?

Wow, "Eye-One Photo" is US$1400.  And you wonder why I might "deprive
myself"?  :-)

-- 
 Ben Rosengart                                          ben@...
       "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
        good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
        but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement

Ben

Well that's the decision at hand.  If you want colour management then do it
right.  That includes getting a device that can accommodate your needs as
they grow.  An Eye-One Photo is one device that does it right and does it
all - there are others that are cheaper and considerably more that are more
expensive.  But trying to strike a middle ground will, IMHO, only lead to
your "busman's holiday", frustration and potentially stranded
infrastructure.  If you're not up for the equipment necessary, I can only
suggest getting your monitor calibration as good as you can (perhaps by
outsourcing the calibration) and leveraging the work generously shared here
by people who have put down the hard cash (eg print and RIP curves, soft
proofs and ICC profiles).  But understand the limits of that approach.  For
one, you will be dependent on the work of others and unable to explore your
own horizons.  That's not to say that isn't fine - it's simply one of the
possible outcomes from the question you originally posed.

BTW Adorama sells them for $1140 and I am sure you might find a used model a
lot cheaper.  Personally I would recommend against buying just a monitor
calibrator that is unable to do reflective readings and printer calibration
- if you can.  They are however much cheaper (c. $200). I'd rather look for
a spectrophotometer that can, perhaps one second-hand.  With the latter you
can do so much more:  custom colour profiles (eg for a paper for which a
custom profile is not readily available), RIP linearization, soft proofs and
greyscale ICC profiles.  The danger with the former is that you later find
yourself trying to flog a product that no longer meets your needs for 30c in
the dollar on eBay.

Good luck

Steve

> From: Ben Rosengart <yahoo.com@...>

> 
> On Wed, Sep 28, 2005 at 03:07:46PM +0100, Steve Kale wrote:
>> 
>> Unfortunately colour management is only as good as your weakest link.  It
>> also isn't perfect.  But with a good measurement device such as the Gretag
>> Macbeth Eye One you can most anything you'll likely need (display, colour
>> printer, greyscale ICCs, RIP linearization etc).  They still aren't cheap
>> (even though they are dramatically cheaper than they used to be) but they
>> are incredibly useful.
> 
> Looks like there are a bunch of products and bundles sold under the
> "Eye One" name.  Which one in particular do you recommend?
> 
> Wow, "Eye-One Photo" is US$1400.  And you wonder why I might "deprive
> myself"?  :-)
>

-----Original Message-----

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Rosengart
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:59 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: "color" management without instruments

       "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
        good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
        but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement

Would that be "the" Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplane?

Richard



---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

-----Original Message-----

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Rosengart
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 10:43 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: "color" management without instruments


Wow, "Eye-One Photo" is US$1400.  And you wonder why I might "deprive
myself"?  :-)

How much did you pay for your camera and printer?

Richard

---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]

If you have to ask.....
 
Tom Baker

Richard Corbett <richard@...-bulldog.com> wrote:

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Ben
Rosengart
Sent: Monday, October 03, 2005 9:59 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: "color" management without instruments

"Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
good-looking but not too bright. We're pretty bright now,
but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement

Would that be "the" Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplane?

Richard



---
[This E-mail has been scanned for viruses but it is your responsibility 
to maintain up to date anti virus software on the device that you are
currently using to read this email. ]




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]

On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 12:32:56AM +0100, Richard Corbett wrote:
> 
> > Wow, "Eye-One Photo" is US$1400.  And you wonder why I might "deprive
> > myself"?  :-)
> 
> How much did you pay for your camera and printer?

Barter and $400, respectively.

Also -- those things are absolutely necessary to get any results at
all.  Eye-One Photo might improve my results, but I have a stack of
prints that says it's not indispensable.

I'm not saying it's not worth it, and I'm not rejecting the thoughtful
advice that the list denizens have offered.  I'm just vocalizing my
sticker shock.  :-)

-- 
 Ben Rosengart                                          ben@...
       "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
        good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
        but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement

On Tue, Oct 04, 2005 at 12:24:19AM +0100, Richard Corbett wrote:
>
>        "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
>         good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
>         but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement
> 
> Would that be "the" Grace Slick of Jefferson Airplane?

Yes.

(I am 27 years old, so this sig-quote is in the way of poking fun
 at myself and my peers.)

-- 
 Ben Rosengart                                          ben@...
       "Young people should be seen and not heard, because they're
        good-looking but not too bright.  We're pretty bright now,
        but we're ugly." -- Grace Slick on the '60s youth movement