Digital BW, The Print

A new OXYMORON at best. Should be spelled color "manglement."

But seriously, it can be done if you nail your color in your camera and 
the printers canned profiles are dead on, which should be the case with 
the latest Epsons.

I don't believe in color correction in Photoshop, it should be done in 
the camera. That way you can just hit the "print" button and let the 
printer throw it on paper.

Claude

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, claudej1@a... wrote:

> I don't believe in color correction in Photoshop, it should be done in 
> the camera. That way you can just hit the "print" button and let the 
> printer throw it on paper.
> 
> Claude

that sir, while a worthy goal, is ridiculous.  You're going to rely on
a "basically" one-color sensor (if digital) or some film emulsion,
each of which has their own palette, to guarantee the color you want,
and/or need?

I've worked in digital prepress for over 12 years; color correction in
post processing is a fact of life, and necessary.

I do hope you were joking with your comments.  Otherwise, you've
exposed your severe lack of knowledge on the subject of this thread.

Mark

You sir are a fantasist.

Richard

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
claudej1@...
Sent: Thursday, September 29, 2005 2:48 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Color Management without instruments



A new OXYMORON at best. Should be spelled color "manglement."

But seriously, it can be done if you nail your color in your camera and 
the printers canned profiles are dead on, which should be the case with 
the latest Epsons.

I don't believe in color correction in Photoshop, it should be done in 
the camera. That way you can just hit the "print" button and let the 
printer throw it on paper.

Claude

---
[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 09:47:54PM -0400, claudej1@... wrote:
> 
> But seriously, it can be done if you nail your color in your camera and 
> the printers canned profiles are dead on, which should be the case with 
> the latest Epsons.

I'm using MIS UT2 inks and Epson and Hahnem\ufffdhle papers, so no
canned profiles for me, I'm afraid.

-- 
 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

>But seriously, it can be done if you nail your color in your
camera and 
>the printers canned profiles are dead on, which should be the
case with 
>the latest Epsons.
>
>I don't believe in color correction in Photoshop, it should
be done in 
>the camera. That way you can just hit the "print" button and
let the 
>printer throw it on paper.
>

Hmmmmmm, where can I get some of that stuff your smokin?  :-)

Regards, Walt

http://www.kauaiphotos.biz

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Walt Mucha
<wkm@k...> wrote:
> 
> >But seriously, it can be done if you nail your color in your
> camera and 
> >the printers canned profiles are dead on, which should be the
> case with 
> >the latest Epsons.
> >
> >I don't believe in color correction in Photoshop, it should
> be done in 
> >the camera. That way you can just hit the "print" button and
> let the 
> >printer throw it on paper.
>
What is more important, a technically accurate rendition of a
subject or a rendition that matches your perception of the impact
your 
image will have?

Color management sets you a base line, but it isn't something to
adhere to in terms of the final image you want.

Remember, everybody's eyesight is different, and most people who look
at your images will mentally correct color imbalances because they
have nothing to compare with what they are looking at.

The computer image is a different animal from the print. The excellent
image, glowing on your screen will not directly transfer onto a print.

Use a sieve! I have found that printing, scanning, correcting color
shift, printing again and repeating this procedure gets you a nuetral
print in about 3 passes. Store the final curves.

The history of black and white photography is to not represent
things  realistically. The very act of taking the initial
photograph denies reality. After that everything is magic!   
> 
> http://www.kauaiphotos.biz

>>But seriously, it can be done if you nail your color in your
>>camera and the printers canned profiles are dead on, which
>>should be the case with the latest Epsons.
>>I don't believe in color correction in Photoshop, it should
>> be done in the camera. That way you can just hit the"print"
>>button and let the printer throw it on paper.

I didn't write the above although it was incorrectly
attributed to me. Please be more carefull in trimming your posts

>What is more important, a technically accurate rendition of a
>subject or a rendition that matches your perception of the
>impact your image will have?

BOTH

>Color management sets you a base line, but it isn't something
>to adhere to in terms of the final image you want.
>Remember, everybody's eyesight is different, and most people
>who look at your images will mentally correct color
>imbalances because they have nothing to compare with what
>they are looking at. The computer image is a different animal
>from the print.

>The excellent image, glowing on your screen 
>will not directly transfer onto a print. 

I think from that statement, you never have done any serious
color management

>Use a sieve! I have >found that printing, scanning,
>correcting color shift, printing again and repeating this
>procedure gets you a nuetral print in about 3 passes. Store
>the final curves. 

With good color management the print becomes very predictable
and far less paper and time are wasted. 

>The history of black and white photography is to not
>represent things  realistically. The very act of taking the
>initial photograph denies reality. After that everything is
>magic! 

Sorry but I don't think you know much about the history of B&W
photography. A few have altered reality when producing their
work but most were recording reality and printing that until
they were pleased with their presentation of reality. Lets
take Ansel Adams, who along with Fred Archer developed the
first version of the Zone System. In order to utilize this
system to it's fullest it is required to determine the actual
speed of the film being used. This required a densitometer
which is an "instrument". Without first establishing a
baseline for film speed in the batch currently being used you
cannot predict the outcome of the scene being photographed.
The calculations for exposure and development will not be
accurate. That was an early form of "color management" for
lack of a better term. Well done color management gives us a
degree of predictablity that cannot be achieved any other way
without difficulty and the waste of paper, ink and time. Your
methods are fine for you, but, I think you are missing out on
getting the very most out of your images.

Regards, Walt

http://www.kauaiphotos.biz

There is little point in trying to convert someone who argues against _your_
preferred workflow.  Responding to someone who objects to using a level of
control they feel is pointless and unnecessary is, in itself, pointless and
unnecessary.

John

-----Original Message-----
 Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Color Management without instruments

<big snip>


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

Hello John,

>There is little point in trying to convert someone who argues
>against _your_ preferred workflow.  Responding to someone who 
>objects to using a level of control they feel is pointless and 
>unnecessary is, in itself, pointless and unnecessary.

Thank you!  This is the first statement containing any real wisdom so
far in this thread.  

This discussion is actually just the latest guise of the age-old
debate between the Theorist and the Practical Realist, and this is
a replay of a similar one last April (see "Matching Monitor and
Print", April 10-15, 2005) which had some of the same players.  

The statements of the theorist are usually true and can't be logically
argued against.  But the Practical Reality is that it doesn't have to
be done that way.  The theorist says that the high tech approach is
more accurate and saves time, paper and ink, and he is theoretically
correct.  The practical realist knows that, while true, the difference
is usually not worth the extra effort and expense.  

If one is preparing images for a press job or to be printed by a
service bureau then of course the calibrated approach is called for. 
But for the legion of those who do their own work then it's simply not
necessary if one is not so inclined.

The simple methods I've been using have adapted beautifully to the
2400 and I'm now working very quickly and efficiently with good
WYSIWYG and minimal paper and ink use.  I can print on any paper I
want without having to first make a profile or get one from someone
else.  Last weekend I finished a detailed outline of the method and
it's now on the web site (article #9, "Fine Art Black and White with
the Epson 2400 - A sensible and easy approach..."

The fact is that not everyone is inclined to the high tech approach,
and many people, especially beginners, are intimidated by it and are
scared away or afraid to ask questions (I know because I get a lot of
email from them).  This forum should not be scaring people away, so
every now and then the ordinary mortals need to speak up and present
the other side.

Some people become engineers and some become real estate agents, but
both may love photography.  The non-technically inclined need to know
that the high tech approach is not necessary in order to get gallery
quality fine art BW prints, with accurate and repeatable results, with
efficiency and minimal fuss and bother.  It doesn't have to be
complicated (see article #8 for more thoughts about this and a
comparison to the Zone System wars of yore).  


Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton Jones wrote:
> The simple methods I've been using have adapted beautifully to the
> 2400 and I'm now working very quickly and efficiently with good
> WYSIWYG and minimal paper and ink use.  I can print on any paper I
> want without having to first make a profile or get one from someone
> else.  Last weekend I finished a detailed outline of the method and
> it's now on the web site (article #9, "Fine Art Black and White with
> the Epson 2400 - A sensible and easy approach..."

A nice article, Clayton. I'm curious to know what sort of monitor you 
are using, and how you adjust it.

Cheers
Peter Marquis-Kyle

Hello Peter,

>A nice article, Clayton. I'm curious to know what sort of monitor
>you are using, and how you adjust it.

Thank you, I'm using a Samsung 710n, a 17" LCD.  It's blindingly
bright so the brightness is down at 35%.  The contrast is set at 80. 
With these settings I can see all the grayscale squares on dpreview
and other sites that tell you to adjust your monitor so you can see
them all.  This is my 2nd LCD and I'm real happy with it.  My first
was a 15" Mictotec which was ok, but this is much better (wider angle
of view among other things).

Regards,
Clayton


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