Digital BW, The Print

The other day I tested the K3 x8xx printers by comparing an A4-size  
B&W print that I had made on my 7600 using ImagePrint 6 with a print  
made at a dealer on the 4800 using the Epson Driver in Advanced B&W  
mode. By way of background: I have been printing on Epson Premium  
Semi-Matte paper using PK inks because I want to get deeper blacks  
than is possible with MK on matte papers; but these prints have so  
much bronzing and gloss differential that they are acceptable only  
after being laminated with a glossy laminate, which eliminates these  
problems and also provides the additional benefit of making the  
blacks deep and rich, and gives increased saturation on color prints  
-- the prints are stunning after lamination.

The purpose of the test was to see how the K3 inks compare with the  
Ultrachrome inks: the result is that, for the picture I used -- which  
had a good mount of black and almost-black areas and also some very  
strong bronzing and gloss differential problems on the Ultrachrome  
ink print -- the latter two problems were completely absent on the K3  
print. Moreover, the blacks on the K3 print were slightly darker than  
on the Ultrachrome print, but this was not so obvious, as I had to  
look carefully at the prints next to each other to see this.

The dealer made another print for me on the 4800 using the Advanced  
B&W mode, this time on a glossy paper (Tecco MediaWare): this print,  
again, had no bronzing or gloss differential and it looked stunning:  
just like the 7600 prints on Semi-Matte after they have been laminated.

Now, from these two test prints on Semi-Matte, I  could also see some  
differences between using the Epson Driver versus ImagePrint 6, but I  
hasten to state that this was not a proper test, which should be done  
by printing on  the same printer. Nevertheless, the result was:

1. The print with the Epson Driver Advanced B&W mode had no color  
cast, and was similar to my Ultrachrome ImagePrint 6 print in terms  
of being neutral.

2. The Epson Driver for the K3 printers in Advanced B&W mode puts  
down a light-gray rectangle going out to the full paper size (A4 in  
this case), which was very visible in the the print  the dealer made  
because the sheet of paper I used had been cut from a roll and was a  
little larger than A4 size, so that the light gray "border" around  
the image (which was a little less than A4 size) showed clearly  
against the white of the paper. Apparently the Epson puts down this  
light gray rectangle "under" the image as part of the way that it  
prints without a color cast. However, it means that the "paper white"  
is not a bright as the original paper, which is also true for the  
highlights in general: looking at the prints side-by-side, I could  
see that highlights in the ImagePrint were lighter (brighter) -- I'd  
say this is true all the way to the quarter tones -- meaning the the  
ImagePrint print has a larger dynamic range. To me this is an  
important consideration, and gives a strong advantage to ImagePrint.

3. The ImagePrint print has more shadow detail than the one made with  
the Epson Driver Advanced B&W mode. This is quite obvious and is true  
at least from the three-quarter tones to black, and and there is  
better differentiation in the blackest tones in the ImagePrint print.

4. Looking at the two prints with a 10x loupe I can see that the  
dither of ImagePrint is very obviously much  better than that of the  
Epson Driver Advanced B&W mode, the latter looking like it lays down  
a "screen". However, looking at the prints with the naked eye the  
superiority of the ImagePrint dither was not obvious because the  
picture I used for the test is fairly high contrast and has only a  
few small areas of subtle tone transition, mainly in the quarter and  
mid-tones. Going by my general printing experience, I would think  
that in a picture that has a much larger proportion of its area with  
gradual and subtle tone transitions, the advantage of the better  
ImagePrint dither would be much more obvious and compelling.

--Mitch/Bangkok

Hello Mitch,

Thanks for the good report.  I'm using a 2400 with MK on matte papers
in ABW mode, and there are some things in your report that are
different from my experience.


>The Epson Driver for the K3 printers in Advanced B&W mode puts  
>down a light-gray rectangle...it means that the "paper white" is 
>not as bright as the original paper, which is also true for the 
>highlights in general

I have never noticed anything like this rectangle in my prints.  In
fact, I have been pleasantly surprised that the 2400/K3 prints have
more luminance than I was used to seeing in full ink prints.  I've
been printing mostly with BO until this, and one of the things I love
about that approach is its wonderful luminance caused by the paper
white that shows between the dots, so this is one area where I have
been particularly attentive.  

In analyzing my K3 prints with a loupe, I saw first that the ink dots,
while tiny, are distinct, and further that there is what appears to be
uncoated paper between them in the highlights.  One of my complaints
about full ink systems in the past has been the opaque look caused by
what seemed to be a thin coating of nearly clear ink over the paper
between the dots in the highlights, which has a dulling effect.  So my
impression is that 2400/K3 is more luminous than many other full ink
systems.  They have a good glow to them and I've been very pleased. 
One of my samples has bright sky and cloud reflections on water, which
is very delicate and high key.  It is right on the edge of density,
close to paper white.  It can make or break the print and the 2400
handles it beautifully.  So my over all impression is that K3 is
extremely good at luminance and holding subtle tonal gradations.

I'm wondering if what you're seeing is the result of some kind of
driver setting.  There is something in ABW mode called "Highlight
Point Shift" which is defined in the Docs as"

 "Select this check box to add a little more ink to white 
 areas to give it a glossy look."

...I think this is for avoiding gloss differential on glossy papers,
and I'm wondering if this might be what's causing the rectangle (I've
never used it, so I'm just guessing). 


>The ImagePrint print has more shadow detail than the one made with  
>the Epson Driver Advanced B&W mode. 

ABW settings are also important here.  There is a "Tone" picklist with
5 choices from "Light" through "Darkest", and it turns out that this
does more than an even change of the over all density.  It turns out
that the actual contrast curve is modified so that the shadow zones
are increasingly compressed as the setting gets darker.  This was
demonstrated clearly in a set of 5 prints someone sent me recently. 
They were of the identical image printed at each Tone setting, and
included a step wedge on each one.  The low end compression is clearly
seen to increase as the settings get darker, to the point where the
last few steps on the "Darkest" one are nearly indistinguishable.  So
my default setting is always "Light", and I'm getting excellent shadow
separation.  For some reason Epson's default setting is "Darker", so
we must be careful to put this where we want it.


>Moreover, the blacks on the K3 print were slightly darker than  
>on the Ultrachrome print

K3 is definitely a different technology.  One thing that seems to be
emerging from reports is that it's dmax varies significantly than
other inks on certain papers.  A recent thread here discussed these
differences on Epson's VFA paper.  K3 dmax on VFA is superior to some
other papers, but with UC and MIS inks the reverse was true.  So it
seems we're dealing with a very different technology with K3 and some
of the old rules are being broken.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton:

 > I'm wondering if what you're seeing is the result of some kind of
 > driver setting.  There is something in ABW mode called "Highlight
 > Point Shift"

Yes, it seems that the  dealer had applied Highlight Point Shift,  
which I would never use; but that makes wonder whether there would be  
gloss differential when not  applying HPS? In that case, I might not  
switch to a K3 printer because I would still have to laminate the  
prints, and I'm getting stunninf prints by laminating the 9600 UC ink  
prints.


 > >The ImagePrint print has more shadow detail than the one made with
 > >the Epson Driver Advanced B&W mode.
 >
 > ABW settings are also important here.  There is a "Tone" picklist  
with
 > 5 choices from "Light" through "Darkest", and it turns out that this
 > does more than an even change of the over all density.  It turns out
 > that the actual contrast curve is modified so that the shadow zones
 > are increasingly compressed as the setting gets darker. ..
 > For some reason Epson's default setting is "Darker", so
 > we must be careful to put this where we want it.

Interesting: so it turns out the shadow detail could be good.

--Mitch/Bangkok

mitcha@m... wrote:
> 2. The Epson Driver for the K3 printers in Advanced B&W mode puts  
> down a light-gray rectangle going out to the full paper size (A4 in  
> this case), which was very visible in the the print  the dealer made  
> because the sheet of paper I used had been cut from a roll and was a  
> little larger than A4 size, so that the light gray "border" around  
> the image (which was a little less than A4 size) showed clearly  
> against the white of the paper. 

Thanks Mitch for you time and observations...you too Clayton.

I just wanted to confirm what Clayton mentioned about the "light-gray rectangle" on the 
print you observed. It is from a setting in ABW driver called "Highlight Point Shift" when 
checked lays down a very, very light tone to cover bare paper. This is to stop gloss 
differential, but as you saw it covers the whole printable area and that is so strange. 

I tried it once on Luster, which does very well with gloss differential and noticed the "light-
gray rectangle" around the image. I really couldn't tell any difference from the highlights 
when compard to a print without "Hightlight Point Shift"...but really didn't spend too much 
time critiquing the print as the gray rectangle area turned me off to "Highlight Point Shift" 
real quick!

Clayton hit on all the other points.

Clayton,
You mentioned that you are using the LIGHT setting in the ABW driver.  Me too.  I can't understand how come Epson have selected their DARKER setting as the default.  For me and my setup (on a 4800) it blocks up the shadows far too much with little separation.  I had been wondering if there is something in my own setup forcing me to go have to go with the LIGHT setting, but I now think perhaps it's simply that I want more separation in the shadows than Epson's Mr or Mrs Average.  I've played around with the SHADOW TONALITY and HIGHLIGHT TONALITY settings too.  They are great for fine tuning as are the tint wheel settings.  I noticed from a previous post that you (was it you?) would like decimal setting for even greater control.  I don't think I'm that discriminating!
Steve
http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk

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

>
> Hello Mitch,
> 
> Thanks for the good report.  I'm using a 2400 with MK on matte papers
> in ABW mode, and there are some things in your report that are
> different from my experience.
> 
> 
> >The Epson Driver for the K3 printers in Advanced B&W mode puts  
> >down a light-gray rectangle...it means that the "paper white" is 
> >not as bright as the original paper, which is also true for the 
> >highlights in general
> 
> I have never noticed anything like this rectangle in my prints.  In
> fact, I have been pleasantly surprised that the 2400/K3 prints have
> more luminance than I was used to seeing in full ink prints.  I've
> been printing mostly with BO until this, and one of the things I love
> about that approach is its wonderful luminance caused by the paper
> white that shows between the dots, so this is one area where I have
> been particularly attentive.  
> 
> In analyzing my K3 prints with a loupe, I saw first that the ink dots,
> while tiny, are distinct, and further that there is what appears to be
> uncoated paper between them in the highlights.  One of my complaints
> about full ink systems in the past has been the opaque look caused by
> what seemed to be a thin coating of nearly clear ink over the paper
> between the dots in the highlights, which has a dulling effect.  So my
> impression is that 2400/K3 is more luminous than many other full ink
> systems.  They have a good glow to them and I've been very pleased. 
> One of my samples has bright sky and cloud reflections on water, which
> is very delicate and high key.  It is right on the edge of density,
> close to paper white.  It can make or break the print and the 2400
> handles it beautifully.  So my over all impression is that K3 is
> extremely good at luminance and holding subtle tonal gradations.
> 
> I'm wondering if what you're seeing is the result of some kind of
> driver setting.  There is something in ABW mode called "Highlight
> Point Shift" which is defined in the Docs as"
> 
>  "Select this check box to add a little more ink to white 
>  areas to give it a glossy look."
> 
> ...I think this is for avoiding gloss differential on glossy papers,
> and I'm wondering if this might be what's causing the rectangle (I've
> never used it, so I'm just guessing). 
> 
> 
> >The ImagePrint print has more shadow detail than the one made with  
> >the Epson Driver Advanced B&W mode. 
> 
> ABW settings are also important here.  There is a "Tone" picklist with
> 5 choices from "Light" through "Darkest", and it turns out that this
> does more than an even change of the over all density.  It turns out
> that the actual contrast curve is modified so that the shadow zones
> are increasingly compressed as the setting gets darker.  This was
> demonstrated clearly in a set of 5 prints someone sent me recently. 
> They were of the identical image printed at each Tone setting, and
> included a step wedge on each one.  The low end compression is clearly
> seen to increase as the settings get darker, to the point where the
> last few steps on the "Darkest" one are nearly indistinguishable.  So
> my default setting is always "Light", and I'm getting excellent shadow
> separation.  For some reason Epson's default setting is "Darker", so
> we must be careful to put this where we want it.
> 
> 
> >Moreover, the blacks on the K3 print were slightly darker than  
> >on the Ultrachrome print
> 
> K3 is definitely a different technology.  One thing that seems to be
> emerging from reports is that it's dmax varies significantly than
> other inks on certain papers.  A recent thread here discussed these
> differences on Epson's VFA paper.  K3 dmax on VFA is superior to some
> other papers, but with UC and MIS inks the reverse was true.  So it
> seems we're dealing with a very different technology with K3 and some
> of the old rules are being broken.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

With regard to the "Highlight Point Shift," Epson is apparently 
responding to the one area where something similar to bronzing occurs 
with K3 inks on semimatte (and presumably glossy) papers:  if you 
have a totally blown highlight of any size (tsk, tsk), no ink is laid 
down and there is an unavoidable gloss differential from the rest of 
the print. Adding a little gray over the entire print should solve 
that, but the cure is worse than the disease (or at least there are 
better cures).

As for the ABW settings and shadow detail, the Epson 
recommended "Darker" plainly compresses the shadows too much; Dark is 
better, and Neutral appears best on Premium Semimatte on a 4800, in 
terms of maximum shadow detail.  Printing an image with an adjoining 
21-step wedge, indeed, suggests that Neutral is better than 
Imageprint 6.1 (50-50, black point 50) in that respect between 
90/95/100.  But on the image, Imagemprint appears to have better 
shadow separation on all but the very deepest shadows (and the 
difference there, if any, is difficult to detect), perhaps because of 
superior linearity.  Interesting the different conclusions that seem 
to be suggested by test strips and actual images.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, mitcha@m... 
wrote:
>
> Clayton:
> 
>  > I'm wondering if what you're seeing is the result of some kind of
>  > driver setting.  There is something in ABW mode called "Highlight
>  > Point Shift"
> 
> Yes, it seems that the  dealer had applied Highlight Point Shift,  
> which I would never use; but that makes wonder whether there would 
be  
> gloss differential when not  applying HPS? In that case, I might 
not  
> switch to a K3 printer because I would still have to laminate the  
> prints, and I'm getting stunninf prints by laminating the 9600 UC 
ink  
> prints.
> 
> 
>  > >The ImagePrint print has more shadow detail than the one made 
with
>  > >the Epson Driver Advanced B&W mode.
>  >
>  > ABW settings are also important here.  There is a "Tone" 
picklist  
> with
>  > 5 choices from "Light" through "Darkest", and it turns out that 
this
>  > does more than an even change of the over all density.  It turns 
out
>  > that the actual contrast curve is modified so that the shadow 
zones

>  > are increasingly compressed as the setting gets darker. ..
>  > For some reason Epson's default setting is "Darker", so
>  > we must be careful to put this where we want it.
> 
> Interesting: so it turns out the shadow detail could be good.
> 
> --Mitch/Bangkok
>

Hello Steve,

>You mentioned that you are using the LIGHT setting in the ABW 
>driver.  Me too.  I can't understand how come Epson have 
>selected their DARKER setting as the default.  

Well, I guess it isn't the first mysterious thing Epson has done <g>.
How about why did they put BO in the 2200 and not in the 2100?



>For me and my setup (on a 4800) it blocks up the shadows far too 
>much with little separation.  I had been wondering if there is 
>something in my own setup forcing me to go have to go with the 
>LIGHT setting, but I now think perhaps it's simply that I want 
>more separation in the shadows...

It's easy to see it at work, just print a step wedge at each of the 5
settings.  The dark end steps get more compressed as the setting gets
darker.  It's pretty severe at "Darker" and "Darkest".  Who knows what
Epson was thinking...



>I noticed from a previous post that you (was it you?) would like 
>decimal setting for even greater control.  I don't think I'm that
>discriminating!

Yes, I confess.  What happened was I was trying to avoid some
coloration at a particular setting.  At one setting it was too
magenta-ish, and when I moved it 1 point it was too greenish.  I
danced all around the spot, trying various h/v combinations, and never
did get what I wanted, and found myself wanting fractional values. 
This kind of thing has happened several times.  I know I'm being
overly picky on this.  Over all I'm very happy with the 2400.


Regards,
Clayton


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

I suspect what they were doing was matching as best as possible a 2.2 gamma
space (eg Adobe RGB and Gray Gamma 2.2).  Note in 2.2 gamma, 95% K is L=1
and 90% is L=6.  So if you have a print range from say L* 15 to 97 you'd
expect 95% K to be printed very close to where 100% K is printed, say around
16, and 90% K not too much lighter.  It's reasonable for Epson to choose the
very commonly-used Adobe RGB space as their baseline for the default
settings.  (Remember the initial buzz around Adv B&W when people were saying
you could just bang an Adobe RGB file straight to Adv B&W...)  It's quite
likely that by choosing a setting other than Darker you are opening the
shadows up more than they are on your display.

At any rate, if you are able to, a better approach is to profile the AB&W
output with QTR Create ICC and manage your lightness axis in PS rather than
with the print driver.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:59:21 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on Semi-Matte
> + ImagePrint
> 
> Hello Steve,
> 
>> You mentioned that you are using the LIGHT setting in the ABW
>> driver.  Me too.  I can't understand how come Epson have
>> selected their DARKER setting as the default.
> 
> Well, I guess it isn't the first mysterious thing Epson has done <g>.
> How about why did they put BO in the 2200 and not in the 2100?
> 
> 
> 
>> For me and my setup (on a 4800) it blocks up the shadows far too
>> much with little separation.  I had been wondering if there is
>> something in my own setup forcing me to go have to go with the
>> LIGHT setting, but I now think perhaps it's simply that I want
>> more separation in the shadows...
> 
> It's easy to see it at work, just print a step wedge at each of the 5
> settings.  The dark end steps get more compressed as the setting gets
> darker.  It's pretty severe at "Darker" and "Darkest".  Who knows what
> Epson was thinking...

> >... I can't understand how come Epson have
> >selected their DARKER setting as the default.
> > ... it blocks up the shadows far too
> >much with little separation...

I'm not sure if this relates, but I've been thinking about what working
space ought to be the default space for EZ systems.  I've always preferred
the long scale with well separated shadow tones.  It's close to the Dot Gain
20% space, but I've always just used a custom dot gain curve for the monitor
and left the Gray Gamma 2.2 as the gray working space due to its being the
old PS 5 (and most common) default space.

Now, however, I'm leaning more toward Gray Gamma 2.2 with no custom dot gain
curve.  Gray Gamma 2.2 continues to be the default spaces in most systems,
including Elements (which has an elegant and simplified Color
Management/Color Settings menu) and for the Web.  I think there may be
advantages to it, even with the compressed shadow tones.  Moreover, with
most of us now working in 16 bit, the need to have the most efficient use of
256 steps is not so critical.


Do you suppose Epson was simply setting up a default print in its ABW mode
printing that more closely matches the default Gray Gamma 2.2 view on the
monitor?

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Thankyou for the evaluation Mitch,

I am using IP with a 4800.  I  am finding the same things in the images 
as you. I wondered if the epson advanced bw mode was overspraying! I 
think you are correct though. It probably is an underlayment.
I have installed a reprogrammed Matte cart in the light light black 
slot and so I am now using the DK "phatt" profiles. I have only used 
this setup a day or two so I am still evaluating. So far it looks very 
promising. Having come from a 2400 where I had to change ink sets 
(MIS)  to do bw this new setup with IP and DualK carts is like a dream 
come true. Excellent color or b&w on luster,or matte with no musical 
ink cartridge games!!
 The mattes I will be trying it with are ultra smooth and Hahnemuhle 
satin.

I am also getting familiar with the image factory convert pro plugin. 
So far it looks better than channel mixer for conversion.

charlie

Charlie:

 > I am using IP with a 4800.  I  am finding the same things in the  
images
 > as you. I wondered if the epson advanced bw mode was overspraying! I
 > think you are correct though. It probably is an underlayment.

Since my original posting I have learned that there are two settings  
in the  Epson Advanced B&W mode that caused problems that affected  
the results:

1. It's best to leave Highlight Point  Shift unchecked.This setting,  
which the dealer applied to my test print, reduces gloss differential  
by shifting the whitepoint in the file with the result being enough  
information in the whites to lay down ink -- and which produces
duller highlights, as all the highlights are darkened a bit.

2. The default tone setting in the Epson driver is "Darker":  
apparently is better to use Normal or Dark.

--Mitch/Bangkok

Mitch 

I would disagree with your last statement here.  I suspect Epson's Darker
has been "calibrated" to "align" with a GG2.2 workspace, that most commonly
used.  By using one of the other settings you are likely introducing
adjustment beyond a more natural transform from file to print.  People get
hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K and 95K vs 100K patches
- and completely forget to ascribe a colour space to their comparison.  If
you like the look of your image in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big
difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a small difference between
90K and 100K.  In contrast, people often print a step wedge and complain
that the shadows are "blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch is
not significantly separated from the 100K patch. A good exercise is to print
a GG2.2 tagged step wedge with colour management ON, through the colour
driver and measure the patches.  GG2.2 says they are meant to be bunched at
the ends.

Personally I would rather make lightness adjustments in PS rather than in
the driver.  I would also recommend profiling your favourite Epson Adv B&W
setting with QTR Create ICC.  You'll likely get improved tone mapping and
also a very good soft proof.

Steve

> From: <mitcha@...>

> 2. The default tone setting in the Epson driver is "Darker":
> apparently is better to use Normal or Dark.
>

Hello Steve,

>People get hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K and 
>95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big 
>difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a small difference 
>between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that the shadows are 
>"blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch is not 
>significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2 says they are 
>meant to be bunched at the ends.

So according to what you are saying, photographers who now do digital
printing aren't supposed to bring their personal aesthetic judgments
to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to plug in the numbers
and accept what comes out because someone somwhere decided that GG2.2
is what we're supposed to use and that dark values are supposed to be
bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the shadows are
blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up (and not because
they see it in a wedge - they see it in their prints).  It just so
happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues and printer
clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the primary problem that
people have been struggling with for the last several years.  It's
been a universal complaint.

I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I (and countless
others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge is the best way
to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it does.  I don't care
what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided should be the ideal
ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is based on over 20
years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in the most
efficient manner I can.

It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting produces the most
well separated dark zones and the darker settings compress them.  When
the darker settings are used, it forces us to compensate for the
compression with our image adjustment curves or profiles or whatever
method is used, which often means greater manipulation of the original
image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do the greater chance
of negatively affecting the final result (combed histogram, etc).  In
my experience the "Light" setting produces the best prints while
requiring less work and manipulation.  

If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends" then no thanks, you
can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to have blocked up
shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone as "hung up" who
doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.


Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton, et al: Here Here!  

This is not "Rocket Scientology".  What almost all of
us care about is how the picture LOOKS.  If numbers
and instruments can help us get it to look right
and/or reduce the time it takes for us to get it right
again - great - if not, who cares.  If,as in this
case, numbers and instruments are a detriment - throw
them overboard as so much flotsam and jetsam.

Clayton, thanks again for all your useful teaching as
you share your knowledge gained empirically about what
works for you to make pictures that look good to you. 
And since you have also shared your images, and offer
inexpensive samples - we have a profound sense for
what your "looks good" means.

Respectively yours,

Michael J. vendrell, MD

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

> Hello Steve,
> 
> >People get hung up printing step wedges and looking
> at the 90K and 
> >95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant
> to be a big 
> >difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a
> small difference 
> >between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that
> the shadows are 
> >"blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch
> is not 
> >significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2
> says they are 
> >meant to be bunched at the ends.
> 
> So according to what you are saying, photographers
> who now do digital
> printing aren't supposed to bring their personal
> aesthetic judgments
> to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to
> plug in the numbers
> and accept what comes out because someone somwhere
> decided that GG2.2
> is what we're supposed to use and that dark values
> are supposed to be
> bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the
> shadows are
> blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up
> (and not because
> they see it in a wedge - they see it in their
> prints).  It just so
> happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues
> and printer
> clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the
> primary problem that
> people have been struggling with for the last
> several years.  It's
> been a universal complaint.
> 
> I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I
> (and countless
> others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge
> is the best way
> to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it
> does.  I don't care
> what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided
> should be the ideal
> ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is
> based on over 20
> years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in
> the most
> efficient manner I can.
> 
> It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting
> produces the most
> well separated dark zones and the darker settings
> compress them.  When
> the darker settings are used, it forces us to
> compensate for the
> compression with our image adjustment curves or
> profiles or whatever
> method is used, which often means greater
> manipulation of the original
> image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do
> the greater chance
> of negatively affecting the final result (combed
> histogram, etc).  In
> my experience the "Light" setting produces the best
> prints while
> requiring less work and manipulation.  
> 
> If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends"
> then no thanks, you
> can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to
> have blocked up
> shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone
> as "hung up" who
> doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 



		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.
http://farechase.yahoo.com

Hi Clayton.

Let me not answer for Steve but for myself.

I, like you, saw better out-of-the-box results (in terms of tonal 
scale and shadow compression) with the light setting.  I've continued 
to use it even though I am now using the QTR Create ICC and I get the 
same print regardless of the driver settings (i.e. the correct 
profile converts for any given driver setting).

On the other hand, the ICC profiles necessary for the file to screen 
and file to printer conversions *are* more radical on the light 
setting.  The darker setting requires a much milder profile and I 
think there is some theoretical value in that. 

What I think Steve meant is that you want the least radical 
conversion possible, the simplest driver settings and that the 
shadows should be opened up in the file adjustment in PS.  I agree 
with all that.  But the ease of this process is pretty much dependent 
on a calibrated monitor and PS managing color (the two conversions).  
You are not using such a workflow and I think it would be very 
difficult to use the screen to open up the shadows in PS (without 
your additional curves, etc.).  In your case, I think the light 
setting is the right way to go.  I don't think Steve at all meant 
that the shadows should be left compressed because "that's what 2.2 
looks like."  He meant that one should make the image displayed in 
2.2 look like what one wants it to look like on paper.

All that said, I have the intuition (it hardly qualifies as an idea) 
that the ICC profiling is more accurate using an unmanaged target 
with better shadow separation and that the ICC file to printer 
conversion works more accurately in compressing shadows than in 
opening them up.  While the "light" profile is more radical in the 
midrange, it is actually smoother (simpler) in the shadow range.  So, 
I am continuing to use the light driver setting with the ICC 
workflow.  I am probably getting exactly what Steve is getting in the 
end.

I would like to make the offer of sending you a 2400/VFA ICC profile 
for use in a color managed workflow and just see what you think of 
it.  I'd be happy to myself pay Roy the fee on this just because 
you've made such useful contributions to the forum.  I think you'd at 
least be interested in the concept and the results.  (You should have 
some kind of monitor profile to make this work, although the screen 
image is so close *without* a soft proof with this workflow that I'm 
not sure this is too important.)

Good wishes,
Walt



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones" 
<cj@c...> wrote:
>
> Hello Steve,
> 
> >People get hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K and 
> >95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big 
> >difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a small difference 
> >between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that the shadows 
are 
> >"blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch is not 
> >significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2 says they are 
> >meant to be bunched at the ends.
> 
> So according to what you are saying, photographers who now do 
digital
> printing aren't supposed to bring their personal aesthetic judgments
> to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to plug in the numbers
> and accept what comes out because someone somwhere decided that 
GG2.2
> is what we're supposed to use and that dark values are supposed to 
be
> bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the shadows are
> blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up (and not 
because
> they see it in a wedge - they see it in their prints).  It just so
> happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues and printer
> clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the primary problem 
that
> people have been struggling with for the last several years.  It's
> been a universal complaint.
> 
> I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I (and countless
> others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge is the best way
> to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it does.  I don't 
care
> what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided should be the ideal
> ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is based on over 20
> years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in the most
> efficient manner I can.
> 
> It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting produces the most
> well separated dark zones and the darker settings compress them.  
When
> the darker settings are used, it forces us to compensate for the
> compression with our image adjustment curves or profiles or whatever
> method is used, which often means greater manipulation of the 
original
> image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do the greater 
chance
> of negatively affecting the final result (combed histogram, etc).  
In
> my experience the "Light" setting produces the best prints while
> requiring less work and manipulation.  
> 
> If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends" then no thanks, 
you

> can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to have blocked up
> shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone as "hung up" who
> doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

When I hear some of these discussions I'm reminded of a quote
attributed to Henry Kloss who designed speakers.  "If it sounds great
and it measures bad, you're measuring the wrong thing"

Jim


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

>
> Hello Steve,
> 
> >People get hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K and 
> >95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big 
> >difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a small difference 
> >between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that the shadows are 
> >"blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch is not 
> >significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2 says they are 
> >meant to be bunched at the ends.
> 
> So according to what you are saying, photographers who now do digital
> printing aren't supposed to bring their personal aesthetic judgments
> to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to plug in the numbers
> and accept what comes out because someone somwhere decided that GG2.2
> is what we're supposed to use and that dark values are supposed to be
> bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the shadows are
> blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up (and not because
> they see it in a wedge - they see it in their prints).  It just so
> happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues and printer
> clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the primary problem that
> people have been struggling with for the last several years.  It's
> been a universal complaint.
> 
> I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I (and countless
> others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge is the best way
> to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it does.  I don't care
> what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided should be the ideal
> ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is based on over 20
> years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in the most
> efficient manner I can.
> 
> It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting produces the most
> well separated dark zones and the darker settings compress them.  When
> the darker settings are used, it forces us to compensate for the
> compression with our image adjustment curves or profiles or whatever
> method is used, which often means greater manipulation of the original
> image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do the greater chance
> of negatively affecting the final result (combed histogram, etc).  In
> my experience the "Light" setting produces the best prints while
> requiring less work and manipulation.  
> 
> If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends" then no thanks, you
> can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to have blocked up
> shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone as "hung up" who
> doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>

Jim-

It's a shame to perpetuate the idea that there is some conflict 
between visual evaluation and a measured workflow.  There are 
certainly different ways to get to the same result or equally good, 
but different, results.  The "color managed" workflow, which is 
pretty much universal among professional printers, is designed not to 
determine the results, but to provide a more reliable and consistent 
method of achieving visually satisfactory results with a minimal 
waste of time, paper and ink.  It actually does that.

So, we could be measuring the wrong thing, but likewise we could also 
be looking at the wrong thing.  Think of the comparative visual 
illusions we are subject to.  No one is ultimately interested in how 
a print measures, but the measurements help us interpret what we 
believe we are seeing.  

Best,
Walt


   




--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@...m, "jamesdsteele2001" 
<photographybysteele@p...> wrote:
>
> When I hear some of these discussions I'm reminded of a quote
> attributed to Henry Kloss who designed speakers.  "If it sounds 
great
> and it measures bad, you're measuring the wrong thing"
> 
> Jim
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
> <cj@c...> wrote:
> >
> > Hello Steve,
> > 
> > >People get hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K 
and 
> > >95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big 
> > >difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a small 
difference 
> > >between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that the shadows 
are 
> > >"blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch is not 
> > >significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2 says they 
are 
> > >meant to be bunched at the ends.
> > 
> > So according to what you are saying, photographers who now do 
digital
> > printing aren't supposed to bring their personal aesthetic 
judgments
> > to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to plug in the 
numbers
> > and accept what comes out because someone somwhere decided that 
GG2.2
> > is what we're supposed to use and that dark values are supposed 
to be
> > bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the shadows are
> > blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up (and not 
because
> > they see it in a wedge - they see it in their prints).  It just so
> > happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues and printer
> > clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the primary problem 
that
> > people have been struggling with for the last several years.  It's
> > been a universal complaint.
> > 
> > I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I (and countless
> > others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge is the best 
way
> > to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it does.  I don't 
care
> > what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided should be the ideal
> > ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is based on over 20
> > years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in the most
> > efficient manner I can.
> > 
> > It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting produces the 
most
> > well separated dark zones and the darker settings compress them.  
When
> > the darker settings are used, it forces us to compensate for the
> > compression with our image adjustment curves or profiles or 
whatever
> > method is used, which often means greater manipulation of the 
original
> > image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do the greater 
chance
> > of negatively affecting the final result (combed histogram, 
etc).  In
> > my experience the "Light" setting produces the best prints while
> > requiring less work and manipulation.  
> > 
> > If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends" then no thanks, 
you
> > can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to have blocked up
> > shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone as "hung up" 
who

> > doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
> > 
> > 
> > Info on black and white digital printing at    
> > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> >
>

No Clayton you completely missed my point and a lack of technical knowledge
is clearly getting in the way of your comprehension.  Focus and perhaps
learn something - if only about what I did and did not say.

I merely said that often people make judgements about print settings by
printing a step wedge, measuring the numbers (or just looking at the
printout) and seeing that "there is not good separation" between 95 patch
and the 100 patch.  What I was saying was "don't forget that there isn't
intended to be good separation between 95K and 100K in the GG 2.2 space."
They are meant to be very close.  This is simply fact and defined by the
nature of the space.  So if Epson has modelled their default "darker"
setting such that it gave an optimal transform of a GG2.2 workspace to their
printer then a step wedge printed through Adv B&W would show those patches
as being very close together (and the 90K patch not far behind).  That's a
good thing.  

If your image looks good in GG2.2 you have there ensured the shadow detail
you desire, visually - you have made it such that the pixel values are not
too close together in the shadows (so-to-speak).  You might have set one
area to be 85% K because 90% K is too dark in GG 2.2.  It is here that you
should be ensuring that your "shadows aren't blocked up".  From there you
simply care about the best possible rendition of that in the narrower print
space.  You would want that printer to put 95K very close to 100K with 90K
not far behind because that is what you have in your image file.  If the
printer did something different then it's doing you a disservice by
over-opening the shadows more than you intended.  We have had some
interesting conversations very recently on this forum that have been
complete misled by a lack of understanding of this point.

Once again, a GG2.2-tagged step wedge printed in a colour managed workflow
will show a 95 patch that is very close to 100 and a 90 patch that isn't far
behind 95.  Adv B&W is not a colour managed workflow but as we have recently
discussed, there is reason to believe that Epson has modelled Adv B&W's
default response on a GG2.2 space.  This is speculation but the bunching of
the K steps at the darker end of the scale is consistent with a 2.2 gamma
space.  Epson could have just had the Adv B&W response be extremely linear.
Or they could have said to themselves "well most people use Adobe RGB and so
why don't we model Adv B&W's default behaviour such that it produces a 2.2
gamma-like response because after-all it's not a colour-managed workflow and
we don't do it then the user will have to do some arbitrary print s-curve
for decent output."  In the latter case, if we printed a step wedge through
Adv B&W's default setting then we would see the 95% K patch being printed
very close to the 100% K etc etc.

The other point I made was another SIMPLE one.  You're better off making
tonal adjustments in a sophisticated image editor like Photoshop rather than
with a simple printer driver.

Couple these two things together and of course you can do whatever you want
and I don't care.  But I would suggest and did say that IF Epson has
modelled the default Adv B&W response on a GG 2.2/Adobe RGB space then it
makes sense to edit in that space (if you are not already doing so), print
with the default settings and use a sophisticated image editor to ensure you
have visually pleasing tonal separation.  This can be improved further by
profiling the Adv B&W settings with an ICC profile such as that generated by
QTR Create ICC so that you have a good soft proof to work with.  I do the
latter and it works extremely well.  And yes, if I print a step wedge
through this workflow the 95 patch is printed very close to the 100 patch -
RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:12:16 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on Semi-Matte
> + ImagePri
> 
> Hello Steve,
> 
>> People get hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K and
>> 95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big
>> difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a small difference
>> between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that the shadows are
>> "blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch is not
>> significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2 says they are
>> meant to be bunched at the ends.
> 
> So according to what you are saying, photographers who now do digital
> printing aren't supposed to bring their personal aesthetic judgments
> to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to plug in the numbers
> and accept what comes out because someone somwhere decided that GG2.2
> is what we're supposed to use and that dark values are supposed to be
> bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the shadows are
> blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up (and not because
> they see it in a wedge - they see it in their prints).  It just so
> happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues and printer
> clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the primary problem that
> people have been struggling with for the last several years.  It's
> been a universal complaint.
> 
> I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I (and countless
> others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge is the best way
> to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it does.  I don't care
> what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided should be the ideal
> ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is based on over 20
> years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in the most
> efficient manner I can.
> 
> It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting produces the most
> well separated dark zones and the darker settings compress them.  When
> the darker settings are used, it forces us to compensate for the
> compression with our image adjustment curves or profiles or whatever
> method is used, which often means greater manipulation of the original
> image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do the greater chance
> of negatively affecting the final result (combed histogram, etc).  In
> my experience the "Light" setting produces the best prints while
> requiring less work and manipulation.
> 
> If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends" then no thanks, you
> can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to have blocked up
> shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone as "hung up" who
> doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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 ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² 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 ³OWNER² AND
> ³MODERATORS² 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  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS² 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

For others following this topic take a look at an untagged or GG2.2-tagged
step wedge opened in PS when your workspace is GG2.2.  Look at the 90, 95
and 100 steps.  The 95 and 100 patches are very, very close together on a
well-profiled monitor.  They're meant to be.  Set the second colour space in
your Info palette to LAB.  Now take the eyedropper and run it over the step
wedge's patches.  The 95 patch is L*=1 and 100 is 0.  The 90 patch is 6.  If
absolute black on paper is L* 15 then you'd want 95K to be close to 15 and
you'd want the 90 patch to be not too far behind in order for there to be a
visually sensible rendition of GG2.2 on paper.  The fact that 95K prints
close to 100K is a good thing and doesn't at all represent "blocked-up
shadows".  In an image the pixel values reflect the workspace.  You'd
visually and artistically ensure that you didn't bunch things up too much.
In GG 2.2 this means that you are giving them numbers which aren't too close
to 95K or 100K - further away than you might expect and further away than if
you were working in GG1.8.  If the 95 patch printed, say, 5 L* lighter than
the 100K patch that would be a bad thing.

> From: Steve Kale <stevekale@btinternet.com>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 22:31:08 +0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Conversation: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
> Semi-Matte + ImagePri
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
> Semi-Matte + ImagePri
> 
> No Clayton you completely missed my point and a lack of technical knowledge
> is clearly getting in the way of your comprehension.  Focus and perhaps
> learn something - if only about what I did and did not say.
> 
> I merely said that often people make judgements about print settings by
> printing a step wedge, measuring the numbers (or just looking at the
> printout) and seeing that "there is not good separation" between 95 patch
> and the 100 patch.  What I was saying was "don't forget that there isn't
> intended to be good separation between 95K and 100K in the GG 2.2 space."
> They are meant to be very close.  This is simply fact and defined by the
> nature of the space.  So if Epson has modelled their default "darker"
> setting such that it gave an optimal transform of a GG2.2 workspace to their
> printer then a step wedge printed through Adv B&W would show those patches
> as being very close together (and the 90K patch not far behind).  That's a
> good thing.  
> 
> If your image looks good in GG2.2 you have there ensured the shadow detail
> you desire, visually - you have made it such that the pixel values are not
> too close together in the shadows (so-to-speak).  You might have set one
> area to be 85% K because 90% K is too dark in GG 2.2.  It is here that you
> should be ensuring that your "shadows aren't blocked up".  From there you
> simply care about the best possible rendition of that in the narrower print
> space.  You would want that printer to put 95K very close to 100K with 90K
> not far behind because that is what you have in your image file.  If the
> printer did something different then it's doing you a disservice by
> over-opening the shadows more than you intended.  We have had some
> interesting conversations very recently on this forum that have been
> complete misled by a lack of understanding of this point.
> 
> Once again, a GG2.2-tagged step wedge printed in a colour managed workflow
> will show a 95 patch that is very close to 100 and a 90 patch that isn't far
> behind 95.  Adv B&W is not a colour managed workflow but as we have recently
> discussed, there is reason to believe that Epson has modelled Adv B&W's
> default response on a GG2.2 space.  This is speculation but the bunching of
> the K steps at the darker end of the scale is consistent with a 2.2 gamma
> space.  Epson could have just had the Adv B&W response be extremely linear.
> Or they could have said to themselves "well most people use Adobe RGB and so
> why don't we model Adv B&W's default behaviour such that it produces a 2.2
> gamma-like response because after-all it's not a colour-managed workflow and
> we don't do it then the user will have to do some arbitrary print s-curve
> for decent output."  In the latter case, if we printed a step wedge through
> Adv B&W's default setting then we would see the 95% K patch being printed
> very close to the 100% K etc etc.
> 
> The other point I made was another SIMPLE one.  You're better off making
> tonal adjustments in a sophisticated image editor like Photoshop rather than
> with a simple printer driver.
> 
> Couple these two things together and of course you can do whatever you want
> and I don't care.  But I would suggest and did say that IF Epson has
> modelled the default Adv B&W response on a GG 2.2/Adobe RGB space then it
> makes sense to edit in that space (if you are not already doing so), print
> with the default settings and use a sophisticated image editor to ensure you
> have visually pleasing tonal separation.  This can be improved further by
> profiling the Adv B&W settings with an ICC profile such as that generated by
> QTR Create ICC so that you have a good soft proof to work with.  I do the
> latter and it works extremely well.  And yes, if I print a step wedge
> through this workflow the 95 patch is printed very close to the 100 patch -
> RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.
> 
> 
>> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
>> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:12:16 -0000
>> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
>> Semi-Matte
>> + ImagePri
>> 
>> Hello Steve,
>> 
>>> People get hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K and
>>> 95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big
>>> difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a small difference
>>> between 90K and 100K...people often...complain that the shadows are
>>> "blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch is not
>>> significantly separated from the 100K patch...GG2.2 says they are
>>> meant to be bunched at the ends.
>> 
>> So according to what you are saying, photographers who now do digital
>> printing aren't supposed to bring their personal aesthetic judgments
>> to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to plug in the numbers
>> and accept what comes out because someone somwhere decided that GG2.2
>> is what we're supposed to use and that dark values are supposed to be
>> bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that the shadows are
>> blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked up (and not because
>> they see it in a wedge - they see it in their prints).  It just so
>> happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance issues and printer
>> clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the primary problem that
>> people have been struggling with for the last several years.  It's
>> been a universal complaint.
>> 
>> I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I (and countless
>> others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step wedge is the best way
>> to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it does.  I don't care
>> what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided should be the ideal
>> ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is based on over 20
>> years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it in the most
>> efficient manner I can.
>> 
>> It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting produces the most
>> well separated dark zones and the darker settings compress them.  When
>> the darker settings are used, it forces us to compensate for the
>> compression with our image adjustment curves or profiles or whatever
>> method is used, which often means greater manipulation of the original
>> image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do the greater chance
>> of negatively affecting the final result (combed histogram, etc).  In
>> my experience the "Light" setting produces the best prints while
>> requiring less work and manipulation.
>> 
>> If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends" then no thanks, you
>> can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to have blocked up
>> shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling someone as "hung up" who
>> doesn't subscribe to all your theories and numbers.
>> 
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Clayton
>> 
>> 
>> Info on black and white digital printing at
>> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 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 ³Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines² 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 ³OWNER² AND
>> ³MODERATORS² 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  ³OWNER² AND ³MODERATORS²
>> 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
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  
>> 
>> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

Steve Kale:  I can read Aristotle, Nuclear Physics,
Isiac Newton and understand them - I even can do a bit
of Calculus and use a densitometer and a step wedge -
and a slide rule - if that betrays my age.  But I must
admit I find your posts mostly unintelligible and
completely unhelpful. Mostly your posts leave me at a
loss and if misunderstood , you deserve most of the
blame for that.

Clayton's, on the other hand, are enormously helpful
toward achieving what I'm after- namely beautiful
prints. 

If you want to be helpful - as opposed to
demonstrating how "smart" you are - you would need to
stop being insulting to others and tune up your
communication skills.  There are quite a few
scientists who can not only think clearly but
communicate to other intelligent people in a way that
is not insulting, makes sense, and is usable and
helpful.  Maybe, you could take a few lessons from
others such as Clayton, Paul, and Tyler...I can always
hope...

Michael J. Vendrell

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

> No Clayton you completely missed my point and a lack
> of technical knowledge
> is clearly getting in the way of your comprehension.
>  Focus and perhaps
> learn something - if only about what I did and did
> not say.
> 
> I merely said that often people make judgements
> about print settings by
> printing a step wedge, measuring the numbers (or
> just looking at the
> printout) and seeing that "there is not good
> separation" between 95 patch
> and the 100 patch.  What I was saying was "don't
> forget that there isn't
> intended to be good separation between 95K and 100K
> in the GG 2.2 space."
> They are meant to be very close.  This is simply
> fact and defined by the
> nature of the space.  So if Epson has modelled their
> default "darker"
> setting such that it gave an optimal transform of a
> GG2.2 workspace to their
> printer then a step wedge printed through Adv B&W
> would show those patches
> as being very close together (and the 90K patch not
> far behind).  That's a
> good thing.  
> 
> If your image looks good in GG2.2 you have there
> ensured the shadow detail
> you desire, visually - you have made it such that
> the pixel values are not
> too close together in the shadows (so-to-speak). 
> You might have set one
> area to be 85% K because 90% K is too dark in GG
> 2.2.  It is here that you
> should be ensuring that your "shadows aren't blocked
> up".  From there you
> simply care about the best possible rendition of
> that in the narrower print
> space.  You would want that printer to put 95K very
> close to 100K with 90K
> not far behind because that is what you have in your
> image file.  If the
> printer did something different then it's doing you
> a disservice by
> over-opening the shadows more than you intended.  We
> have had some
> interesting conversations very recently on this
> forum that have been
> complete misled by a lack of understanding of this
> point.
> 
> Once again, a GG2.2-tagged step wedge printed in a
> colour managed workflow
> will show a 95 patch that is very close to 100 and a
> 90 patch that isn't far
> behind 95.  Adv B&W is not a colour managed workflow
> but as we have recently
> discussed, there is reason to believe that Epson has
> modelled Adv B&W's
> default response on a GG2.2 space.  This is
> speculation but the bunching of
> the K steps at the darker end of the scale is
> consistent with a 2.2 gamma
> space.  Epson could have just had the Adv B&W
> response be extremely linear.
> Or they could have said to themselves "well most
> people use Adobe RGB and so
> why don't we model Adv B&W's default behaviour such
> that it produces a 2.2
> gamma-like response because after-all it's not a
> colour-managed workflow and
> we don't do it then the user will have to do some
> arbitrary print s-curve
> for decent output."  In the latter case, if we
> printed a step wedge through
> Adv B&W's default setting then we would see the 95%
> K patch being printed
> very close to the 100% K etc etc.
> 
> The other point I made was another SIMPLE one. 
> You're better off making
> tonal adjustments in a sophisticated image editor
> like Photoshop rather than
> with a simple printer driver.
> 
> Couple these two things together and of course you
> can do whatever you want
> and I don't care.  But I would suggest and did say
> that IF Epson has
> modelled the default Adv B&W response on a GG
> 2.2/Adobe RGB space then it
> makes sense to edit in that space (if you are not
> already doing so), print
> with the default settings and use a sophisticated
> image editor to ensure you
> have visually pleasing tonal separation.  This can
> be improved further by
> profiling the Adv B&W settings with an ICC profile
> such as that generated by
> QTR Create ICC so that you have a good soft proof to
> work with.  I do the
> latter and it works extremely well.  And yes, if I
> print a step wedge
> through this workflow the 95 patch is printed very
> close to the 100 patch -
> RIGHT WHERE IT SHOULD BE.
> 
> 
> > From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> > Reply-To:
> <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 19:12:16 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus
> Ultrachrome inks on Semi-Matte
> > + ImagePri
> > 
> > Hello Steve,
> > 
> >> People get hung up printing step wedges and
> looking at the 90K and
> >> 95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant
> to be a big
> >> difference at all between 95K and 100K and only a
> small difference
> >> between 90K and 100K...people often...complain
> that the shadows are
> >> "blocked up" because they note that the 95K patch
> is not
> >> significantly separated from the 100K
> patch...GG2.2 says they are
> >> meant to be bunched at the ends.
> > 
> > So according to what you are saying, photographers
> who now do digital
> > printing aren't supposed to bring their personal
> aesthetic judgments
> > to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to
> plug in the numbers
> > and accept what comes out because someone somwhere
> decided that GG2.2
> > is what we're supposed to use and that dark values
> are supposed to be
> > bunched up.  Hogwash!  If people "complain that
> the shadows are
> > blocked up" it's probably because the ARE blocked
> up (and not because
> > they see it in a wedge - they see it in their
> prints).  It just so
> > happens that, aside from ink/paper permanance
> issues and printer
> > clogs, blocked up shadows in prints has been the
> primary problem that
> > people have been struggling with for the last
> several years.  It's
> > been a universal complaint.
> > 
> > I do not consider myself to be "hung up" because I
> (and countless
> > others) prefer good shadow separation.  A step
> wedge is the best way
> > to see _why_ something in a print looks the way it
> does.  I don't care
> > what someone in a laboratory somewhere decided
> should be the ideal
> > ramp.  I know what I like in my prints, which is
> based on over 20
> > years darkroom experience, and I strive to get it
> in the most
> > efficient manner I can.
> > 
> > It is an observable fact that the "Light" setting
> produces the most
> > well separated dark zones and the darker settings
> compress them.  When
> > the darker settings are used, it forces us to
> compensate for the
> > compression with our image adjustment curves or
> profiles or whatever
> > method is used, which often means greater
> manipulation of the original
> > image.  I've found that the more manipulation I do
> the greater chance
> > of negatively affecting the final result (combed
> histogram, etc).  In
> > my experience the "Light" setting produces the
> best prints while
> > requiring less work and manipulation.
> > 
> > If something is "meant to be bunched at the ends"
> then no thanks, you
> > can have it.  I've been working for years NOT to
> have blocked up
> > shadow zones.  Please refrain from labeling
> someone as "hung up" who
> > doesn't subscribe to all your theories and
> numbers.
> > 
> > 
> > Regards,
> > Clayton
> > 
> > 
> > Info on black and white digital printing at
> > http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >  
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Hi Michael,

I'm not quite up there with your knowledge, experience or 
expertise. ;-)  However I understand what Steve is trying to say and 
did not take his efforts to be an attack on any member of this 
forum.  He was explaining how GG2.2 distributes gray values.  Nothing 
more and nothing less.  I enjoyed his response and felt it was 
understandable, and I wait for Clayton to respond.  I am not my 
brother's keeper as you seem won't to be.  Sorry, I just wanted 
others to know that I did not see Steve's efforts as grandstanding or 
showing off as you seem to think it is.

Cheers,

Paul

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Vendrell 
<mjvendrell2@y...> wrote:

>
> Steve Kale:  I can read Aristotle, Nuclear Physics,
> Isiac Newton and understand them - I even can do a bit
> of Calculus and use a densitometer and a step wedge -
> and a slide rule - if that betrays my age.  But I must
> admit I find your posts mostly unintelligible and
> completely unhelpful. Mostly your posts leave me at a
> loss and if misunderstood , you deserve most of the
> blame for that.
> 
> Clayton's, on the other hand, are enormously helpful
> toward achieving what I'm after- namely beautiful
> prints. 
> 
> If you want to be helpful - as opposed to
> demonstrating how "smart" you are - you would need to
> stop being insulting to others and tune up your
> communication skills.  There are quite a few
> scientists who can not only think clearly but
> communicate to other intelligent people in a way that
> is not insulting, makes sense, and is usable and
> helpful.  Maybe, you could take a few lessons from
> others such as Clayton, Paul, and Tyler...I can always
> hope...
> 
> Michael J. Vendrell
> 
> --- Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> 
> > No Clayton you completely missed my point and a lack

Paul, Perhaps I was a bit pretentious myself and a bit too quick 
with the send trigger. 

But, I do read Steve's response to Clayton in its  first few 
sentences to be condescending - and I happen to know via private 
posts that I'm not the only one who reads them as such.  And this 
has been far from the first such thing from him. 

If you find his posts helpful to you - that's great - as long as he 
deletes the insulting bits. I am not wont to be my brother's keeper, 
but do experience these as personally insulting.  If he is arguing a 
point with which you already know and agree - whatever... that does 
not fit my definition of "helpful"...

I must again admit that I do not find his posts helpful to me and, 
of course, I can just hit the delete key.  It's not that I can't 
understand what he's trying to get across (especially when others 
step in to explain what he was trying to say) - its just unhelpful - 
I already know the information, doesn't fit in with my workflow, or 
both.  If I saw an incredible photograph he had produced, I would 
become re-interested - but if such are avaiailable I am not aware of 
where to find them though I am willing to be enlightened. 

Your experience is different -  I guess such things are what makes 
the world go round... I remain

Respectfully yours,

Michael Vendrell


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "bwinkjet" 
<bwinkjet@y...> wrote:
>
> Hi Michael,
> 
> I'm not quite up there with your knowledge, experience or 
> expertise. ;-)  However I understand what Steve is trying to say 
and 
> did not take his efforts to be an attack on any member of this 
> forum.  He was explaining how GG2.2 distributes gray values.  
Nothing 
> more and nothing less.  I enjoyed his response and felt it was 
> understandable, and I wait for Clayton to respond.  I am not my 
> brother's keeper as you seem won't to be.  Sorry, I just wanted 
> others to know that I did not see Steve's efforts as grandstanding 
or 
> showing off as you seem to think it is.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Paul
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael 
Vendrell 

> <mjvendrell2@y...> wrote:
> >
> > Steve Kale:  I can read Aristotle, Nuclear Physics,
> > Isiac Newton and understand them - I even can do a bit
> > of Calculus and use a densitometer and a step wedge -
> > and a slide rule - if that betrays my age.  But I must
> > admit I find your posts mostly unintelligible and
> > completely unhelpful. Mostly your posts leave me at a
> > loss and if misunderstood , you deserve most of the
> > blame for that.
> > 
> > Clayton's, on the other hand, are enormously helpful
> > toward achieving what I'm after- namely beautiful
> > prints. 
> > 
> > If you want to be helpful - as opposed to
> > demonstrating how "smart" you are - you would need to
> > stop being insulting to others and tune up your
> > communication skills.  There are quite a few
> > scientists who can not only think clearly but
> > communicate to other intelligent people in a way that
> > is not insulting, makes sense, and is usable and
> > helpful.  Maybe, you could take a few lessons from
> > others such as Clayton, Paul, and Tyler...I can always
> > hope...
> > 
> > Michael J. Vendrell
> > 
> > --- Steve Kale <stevekale@b...> wrote:
> > 
> > > No Clayton you completely missed my point and a lack
>

Hi Everybody,

I'm new to the list and i'm not experienced, and what i'll say are
just my thoughts not confirmed factually. So far i've mostly printed
toned versions using the color driver and color.
I think that the "correct" setting in ABW will depend on the working
space so it doesn't surprise me that people get different results.
The easiest way to demonstrate (when one works in GG 1.8 or similar)is
to assign say GG2.2 to the open file - monitor should tell you how the
printer will "see" the values (in comparison to GG2.2).
So if one converts a file  from GG 1.8 or similar to GG 2.2 and tries
to print one might find out that the darker setting is not off so much
any more. Hope it makes sense.

Best regards,

Pawel


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

>
> Hello Steve,
> 
> >People get hung up printing step wedges and looking at the 90K and 
> >95K vs 100K patches...in GG2.2 there is NOT meant to be a big 
> >

Hello Walt,

>I don't think Steve at all meant that the shadows should be left
>compressed because "that's what 2.2 looks like."  

Thanks for your reply.  You do make it more understandable.


>On the other hand, the ICC profiles necessary for the file to 
>screen and file to printer conversions *are* more radical on the 
>light setting.  

If you are using GG2.2, but not with DG20.  But I can see it both
ways.  I've tried both and have preferred DG20 because it always
seemed to be closer to the finish line right out of the starting gate.
But the 2400 does gives us finer control than we've had before with
it's choice of five output gamma settings (which may give more
"breathing room" for opening up the shadows - it's hard to go lighter
than "Light"), so maybe it would be better to use GG2.2 with this
printer (it does eliminate an extra step if you want to make a copy
for web page display - until now that's been the only real
disadvantage I've found in working in DG20, although a relatively
minor one).  

With earlier printers the output gamma choices were 1.5, 1.8 and 2.2,
which were pretty big jumps.  Using GG2.2 + GG2.2 output was always
too dark and compressed and GG2.2 + GG1.8 was too light. DG20 + GG1.8
was right on the money.  With the 2400 however, if "Darker" is
equivalent to GG2.2 then maybe GG2.2 + "Dark" (or "Normal") may be the
ticket.  Anyway, the 2400 really is a whole new ball game so I will go
back and do some more experiments.  


>While the "light" profile is more radical in the midrange, it is 
>actually smoother (simpler) in the shadow range.  

Yes, where most of our difficulties have historically been.  Lots of
people seem to like it. 


>So, I am continuing to use the light driver setting with the ICC 
>workflow.  I am probably getting exactly what Steve is getting in 
>the end.

Well, we all probably end up with prints we like even though we take
different routes to get there.  I don't care what people use as long
as they are happy and satisfied.  My interest in writing the articles
is in helping beginners get started with what I've found to be the
easiest, least complex and most practical approach.  In my case I've
found that to be working with DG20 and GG1.8 gamma setting (in the
older printers).  When I got the 2400 I found that that translated
into DG20 + "Light" and I was off and running with hardly a hiccup. 
But as Paul Roark mentioned the other day, there is a lot more
emphasis today being placed on adhering to a standard, so I'm going to
do some further experiments with GG2.2 on the 2400 (as mentioned
above).  If I find that as good a result can be had with the same ease
and simplicity while adhering to the standard then I will change the
recommendations in the article.  I'm not welded to those settings. 


 
>I would like to make the offer of sending you a 2400/VFA ICC profile 
>for use in a color managed workflow and just see what you think of 
>it.  

Ok, I'm willing to try it and I am interested in seeing the results. 
Please contact me by email to discuss the details.  Thanks very much.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Steve,

>What I was saying was "don't forget that there isn't intended to be 
>good separation between 95K and 100K in the GG 2.2 space."...So if 
>Epson has modelled their default "darker" setting such that it gave 
>an optimal transform of a GG2.2 workspace to their printer then a
>step wedge printed through Adv B&W would show those patches as 
>being very close together...

Thanks for the clarification.  


Regards,
Clayton


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

Hello Michael,

>This is not "Rocket Scientology"...
>Clayton, thanks again for all your useful teaching as
>you share your knowledge gained empirically about what
>works for you to make pictures that look good to you. 
>And since you have also shared your images, and offer
>inexpensive samples - we have a profound sense for
>what your "looks good" means.

Thanks for your support and kind remarks.  Sometimes this list is very
frustrating.  As for GG2.2, please see my reply to Walt for the
details, but my approach has been to find the settings that initially
rendered an image as close to the final results as possible, so as to
require the least amount of manipulation.  I'm not against using GG2.2
settings with the 2400 if it can produce the same good results and
ease of workflow that the DG20 settings did with the older printers. 
The 2400's finer gamma choices may allow that so I'll be doing some
experiments with it.   

Regards,
Clayton


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

Clayton, You're entirely welcome. I regret I resorted
to a bit of "mud-slinging" in defense of my position -
I suppose I just let the frustration of the
condescension get to me.  I'm sorry.

I too appreciated Walt's clarification and read your
response with interest and anticipation of your
testing results.

I have used DG-20 with BO printing on a 2200 and found
like you that I had good control and WYSIWYG using
such.

With EZ on the C86 I used Paul Roark's recommendation
of Gg2.2 and have been able to manage using such with
that system.

I don't as yet have a 2400, so can't add much to that
discussion, although I await your testing to give me a
starting point and save me a bit(of time,ink, and
paper) before I begin my own testing. Ultimately we
must all find what works best for ourselves - thank
God we don't all make the same pictures or exhibit
step-wedges!

My next venture will be using the Piezo K7's in the
2200 with QTR - I'm anxious to begin as  I have the
inks - but my monitor has become erratic (a simple
electrical connection problem I'm hoping) and must be
repaired first - so I hope soon...

Michael Vendrell

--- Clayton Jones <cj@...> wrote:

> Hello Michael,
> 
> >This is not "Rocket Scientology"...
> >Clayton, thanks again for all your useful teaching
> as
> >you share your knowledge gained empirically about
> what
> >works for you to make pictures that look good to
> you. 
> >And since you have also shared your images, and
> offer
> >inexpensive samples - we have a profound sense for
> >what your "looks good" means.
> 
> Thanks for your support and kind remarks.  Sometimes
> this list is very
> frustrating.  As for GG2.2, please see my reply to
> Walt for the
> details, but my approach has been to find the
> settings that initially
> rendered an image as close to the final results as
> possible, so as to
> require the least amount of manipulation.  I'm not
> against using GG2.2
> settings with the 2400 if it can produce the same
> good results and
> ease of workflow that the DG20 settings did with the
> older printers. 
> The 2400's finer gamma choices may allow that so
> I'll be doing some
> experiments with it.   
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
> 
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com

This may be a bit of a tangent, but from my wet darkroom days I've come to
see the darker, more compressed shadows of the Gray Gamma 2.2 space as
analogous to a "long toe" film or paper characteristic curve.  The most
widely used alternative, Dot Gain 20%, is like a "short toe" characteristic
curve.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Paul

This rings a bell ... Please give us an example (or two) of what typical 
"short toe" or "long toe" films films were in the (not so) good old
wet-darkroom days.

Or perhaps put otherwise: Where could I see what the "Grey Gamma 2.2
space" does as opposed to the "Dot Gain 20" space regarding the
overall compression parameters (curve or actual pictures, please).
Which of the two working spaces is more appropriate for "low key"
rendering?

Thanks

Chatzebussi

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
<paul.roark@v...> wrote:
>
> This may be a bit of a tangent, but from my wet darkroom days I've
come to
> see the darker, more compressed shadows of the Gray Gamma 2.2 space as
> analogous to a "long toe" film or paper characteristic curve.  The most
> widely used alternative, Dot Gain 20%, is like a "short toe"
characteristic

> curve.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

To all those that think I jumped down Clayton's throat too aggressively and
that it was a personal attack I apologise.  But I was reacting in particular
to his leading statements (repeated below).  As I noted, this was not at all
what I was saying. Any thoughtful, measured reading of what I wrote would
not lead one to that conclusion.  Nonetheless I should not have been quite
so aggressive.

(If you can't be bothered reading this long post but print from DG20 or any
workspace that isn't GG2.2 and are trying Epson Adv B&W then at least jump
to the last two paragraphs.)

For those who seem to use any such post as a chance to jump on the aesthetic
vs technical bandwagon you are gravely mistaken.  Technical knowledge does
not in any way displace aesthetics in making art (although not everyone
printing B&W need be an "artist").  Technical skill does, however, help one
to express their creative mind.  With greater technical skill you are much
more likely to achieve your artistic expression to your satisfaction.
Measurements also allow us to communicate with each other without ambiguity.
They say nothing about "art" or "artistic ability" and do not hinder them
either.  This isn't about who is smarter.  (I'm sure Michael is far smarter
than me - he can _read_ Aristotle.)  The concepts here aren't even very
difficult.  It's about taking the time to understand them and to then
benefit from that understanding.

It is helpful to know what it means to work in one workspace vs another.
The colour associated with, say, 90% K changes according to the workspace
that gives it meaning.  Look at a step wedge on your display - at the 90%
patch.  Assign GG2.2 to it.  Then assign GG1.8 or DG20.  The colours change
because those same numbers are being given a new meaning, a new colour space
for interpretation.  In all cases 90% K stays 90% K. (If you "convert"
rather than assign then the number changes so that the colour remains the
same.) Printers only react to numbers - they have no knowledge of human
vision and perception.  We work visually (at least most of us do most of the
time - an eye on the info palette is very helpful and people working in
areas where exact colour matching is more important, eg advertising, are
going to be more inclined to work with the numbers on more occasions).  But
we send numbers to the printer. Understanding, even at the most basic level,
that we need to send the right number to the printer to get the right colour
is helpful.

The reaction of Epson's Adv B&W to, say, 90% K for any given workspace is
not up to you. Epson programmed the printer to print a shade of grey for
each possible 8 bit input value.  It has a response to each possible input
number and that is it.  It's useful to understand what that response is.
Epson did provide some controls for tweaking the response of the printer to
each number but those controls are relatively crude compared with the
controls we have in an image editor like PS.  In general you are likely
better off editing the image in the editor and gaining more precise control.

Which parts of your image you decide to place at 90% K or any other % K in
your chosen workspace is entirely up to your artistic desire (or where
you're told to put it if you are working in an environment which doesn't
provide that freedom - a corporate logo may prescribe the shade of grey
used, for example).

Colour management helps us a lot by providing a translation mechanism so
that we need not worry about the numbers as much.  Whatever parts of our
GG2.2 image that we have subjectively placed at 90% K (as defined by GG2.2)
can be converted to the right colour when we change colour space.  Colour
management also has protocols for dealing with the many situations when a
colour or shade of grey can't be rendered in space to which we would like to
convert so that results are still pleasing.  Colour management is a general
case transformation tool - it's intended to be able to handle any and all
colour spaces.  Epson's Adv B&W doesn't use colour management but there is
nothing to say that Epson didn't think about (the narrow case and) the
reaction of their printer to each possible input for ONE given workspace.
In fact it is the far more intelligent thing to do than making it linear to
L* (for example).  They could have, as I suggested, decided that the most
common colour space in use out there today is Adobe RGB and then by default
the most common grey space is likely GG2.2.  The logical thing to do then is
to tailor the response of the printer (which they can do with a remarkable
degree of accuracy for their inks and papers) to produce visually pleasing
results (say, by using the same greyscale axis transforms they use in their
perceptual colour profiles) for all those many people working in the most
popular workspace today.  If they did so, one would expect 95% K to be
printed very close to 100% K (or if you don't like the absolute black then
think 94 and 99) because it's meant to be that way for someone working in
Adobe RGB/GG2.2.

The point of this conversation was to say don't judge whether the printer is
bunching shadows by printing a step wedge and looking at the results.  If
Epson Adv B&W's default settings have been "calibrated" for Adobe RGB/GG 2.2
then you'd expect the 90, 95 and 100 patches to be a lot closer together
than if it had been calibrated for DG20.

As I said above, Epson Adv B&W does not use colour management and its
response is quite likely calibrated for one workspace.  (It may be or may
not be but I'll bet that the thought of DG20 was never entertained for a
nanosecond if at all.)  QTR Create ICC does, though, allow us to plug this
missing gap in Epson's B&W solution.  It allows us to profile the Adv B&W
response (or any other workflow) and to put a general case translation
device between our workspace and the response of the printer (the print
space).  When we use an ICC profile the numbers are converted or changed so
that the printer gets the right number to produce the right colours.  This
is very helpful because it allows separation between us and the numbers.  We
need focus less on what colour is generated by Adv B&W for the 8 bit
equivalent of 90% K because colour management will translate the GG2.2 or
DG20 number to the right number in the print space.  If you can use QTR
Create ICC I highly recommend it.  Roy has made it very flexible with
respect to data input and you need only have a densitometer. (A
spectrophotometer will give you the added ability to soft proof hue.)  If
you can't use QTR Create ICC then it's likely good advice to ensure that you
work in Adobe RGB/GG 2.2 when using Epson Adv B&W.

Of course you can still decide that you don't like the default "Darker"
setting - that's entirely up to you.  But make that judgement not by looking
at a printed step wedge (in which case one would likely expect the black
patches to be bunched at the end) but rather from the results of prints
printed from the GG2.2 workspace - the workspace for which Adv B&W was most
likely calibrated.  (Remember if you are not using colour management your
choice of workspace is very very important.)

If you use a workspace like DG20 (without colour management) then it is not
at all surprising that you wouldn't like the response of Epson's Adv B&W
default settings.  The reason is obvious with a little technical knowledge.
Look at a step wedge on your display.  Assign DG20 to it.  Then assign
GG2.2.  Those same numbers produce much darker 80-95 patches, for example,
in GG2.2 than in DG20.  The numbers are what go to the printer not the
colours you see. (Without colour management there is no translator to
convert the numbers so that the colours don't change.)  Of course the prints
will come out a lot darker than on your display and your shadows will look
blocked up.  But the reason is your lack of use of colour management (now
available via QTR Create ICC) and, given that, your poor choice of a
workspace which doesn't align well with how Epson likely calibrated the
response of the printer!  The table below is useful in making this point
clearer.  It is the lightness (as measured by CIE Lab's L*) ascribed to 80,
85, 90, 95 and 100 K for each of DG20, GG1.8 and GG 2.2:

Workspace   80    85    90    95    100
DG20        30    23    15    5     0
GG1.8       28    21    13    4     0
GG2.2       20    13     6    1     0

So if you look at a patch (or part of your image) that's 85 K in DG20 but
print it with something "calibrated" to Adobe RGB/GG2.2 you can see it's
going to print a lot darker than it looks on screen and furthermore the gap
between it and a 95K patch will be a lot closer than you expect.  There's
nothing wrong with the printer - it's just reacting to the same number.  You
just need to take the time to understand why there's a difference between
what you see on screen and what you see in print and amend your practice to
suit.  Anyone with an image tagged with DG20 (or any other non GG 2.2 space)
now looking to use Epson Adv B&W would likely be well advised to convert
that image file to GG 2.2 prior to printing it (firstly with the default
settings).  That's a far more sensible first step than trying to tweak the
driver settings.

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

> 
> So according to what you are saying, photographers who now do digital
> printing aren't supposed to bring their personal aesthetic judgments
> to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to plug in the numbers
> and accept what comes out because someone somwhere decided that GG2.2
> is what we're supposed to use and that dark values are supposed to be
> bunched up.  Hogwash!

Steve, I too apologize for my snotty over-reaction.
And I agree with you: neither do I wish to reignite
the "Aesthetic vs Technical" fire - mostly as
Shakespeare said and Faulkner echoed: "full of the
sound and the fury and signifying nothing..."

Once I got past our sticking points, I found your
explanation interesting and helpful.  Again, I'm sorry
and Thank you...

Michael

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

> To all those that think I jumped down Clayton's
> throat too aggressively and
> that it was a personal attack I apologise.  But I
> was reacting in particular
> to his leading statements (repeated below).  As I
> noted, this was not at all
> what I was saying. Any thoughtful, measured reading
> of what I wrote would
> not lead one to that conclusion.  Nonetheless I
> should not have been quite
> so aggressive.
> 
> (If you can't be bothered reading this long post but
> print from DG20 or any
> workspace that isn't GG2.2 and are trying Epson Adv
> B&W then at least jump
> to the last two paragraphs.)
> 
> For those who seem to use any such post as a chance
> to jump on the aesthetic
> vs technical bandwagon you are gravely mistaken. 
> Technical knowledge does
> not in any way displace aesthetics in making art
> (although not everyone
> printing B&W need be an "artist").  Technical skill
> does, however, help one
> to express their creative mind.  With greater
> technical skill you are much
> more likely to achieve your artistic expression to
> your satisfaction.
> Measurements also allow us to communicate with each
> other without ambiguity.
> They say nothing about "art" or "artistic ability"
> and do not hinder them
> either.  This isn't about who is smarter.  (I'm sure
> Michael is far smarter
> than me - he can _read_ Aristotle.)  The concepts
> here aren't even very
> difficult.  It's about taking the time to understand
> them and to then
> benefit from that understanding.
> 
> It is helpful to know what it means to work in one
> workspace vs another.
> The colour associated with, say, 90% K changes
> according to the workspace
> that gives it meaning.  Look at a step wedge on your
> display - at the 90%
> patch.  Assign GG2.2 to it.  Then assign GG1.8 or
> DG20.  The colours change
> because those same numbers are being given a new
> meaning, a new colour space
> for interpretation.  In all cases 90% K stays 90% K.
> (If you "convert"
> rather than assign then the number changes so that
> the colour remains the
> same.) Printers only react to numbers - they have no
> knowledge of human
> vision and perception.  We work visually (at least
> most of us do most of the
> time - an eye on the info palette is very helpful
> and people working in
> areas where exact colour matching is more important,
> eg advertising, are
> going to be more inclined to work with the numbers
> on more occasions).  But
> we send numbers to the printer. Understanding, even
> at the most basic level,
> that we need to send the right number to the printer
> to get the right colour
> is helpful.
> 
> The reaction of Epson's Adv B&W to, say, 90% K for
> any given workspace is
> not up to you. Epson programmed the printer to print
> a shade of grey for
> each possible 8 bit input value.  It has a response
> to each possible input
> number and that is it.  It's useful to understand
> what that response is.
> Epson did provide some controls for tweaking the
> response of the printer to
> each number but those controls are relatively crude
> compared with the
> controls we have in an image editor like PS.  In
> general you are likely
> better off editing the image in the editor and
> gaining more precise control.
> 
> Which parts of your image you decide to place at 90%
> K or any other % K in
> your chosen workspace is entirely up to your
> artistic desire (or where
> you're told to put it if you are working in an
> environment which doesn't
> provide that freedom - a corporate logo may
> prescribe the shade of grey
> used, for example).
> 
> Colour management helps us a lot by providing a
> translation mechanism so
> that we need not worry about the numbers as much. 
> Whatever parts of our
> GG2.2 image that we have subjectively placed at 90%
> K (as defined by GG2.2)
> can be converted to the right colour when we change
> colour space.  Colour
> management also has protocols for dealing with the
> many situations when a
> colour or shade of grey can't be rendered in space
> to which we would like to
> convert so that results are still pleasing.  Colour
> management is a general
> case transformation tool - it's intended to be able
> to handle any and all
> colour spaces.  Epson's Adv B&W doesn't use colour
> management but there is
> nothing to say that Epson didn't think about (the
> narrow case and) the
> reaction of their printer to each possible input for
> ONE given workspace.
> In fact it is the far more intelligent thing to do
> than making it linear to
> L* (for example).  They could have, as I suggested,
> decided that the most
> common colour space in use out there today is Adobe
> RGB and then by default
> the most common grey space is likely GG2.2.  The
> logical thing to do then is
> to tailor the response of the printer (which they
> can do with a remarkable
> degree of accuracy for their inks and papers) to
> produce visually pleasing
> results (say, by using the same greyscale axis
> transforms they use in their
> perceptual colour profiles) for all those many
> people working in the most
> popular workspace today.  If they did so, one would
> expect 95% K to be
> printed very close to 100% K (or if you don't like
> the absolute black then
> think 94 and 99) because it's meant to be that way
> for someone working in
> Adobe RGB/GG2.2.
> 
> The point of this conversation was to say don't
> judge whether the printer is
> bunching shadows by printing a step wedge and
> looking at the results.  If
> Epson Adv B&W's default settings have been
> "calibrated" for Adobe RGB/GG 2.2
> then you'd expect the 90, 95 and 100 patches to be a
> lot closer together
> than if it had been calibrated for DG20.
> 
> As I said above, Epson Adv B&W does not use colour
> management and its
> response is quite likely calibrated for one
> workspace.  (It may be or may
> not be but I'll bet that the thought of DG20 was
> never entertained for a
> nanosecond if at all.)  QTR Create ICC does, though,
> allow us to plug this
> missing gap in Epson's B&W solution.  It allows us
> to profile the Adv B&W
> response (or any other workflow) and to put a
> general case translation
> device between our workspace and the response of the
> printer (the print
> space).  When we use an ICC profile the numbers are
> converted or changed so
> that the printer gets the right number to produce
> the right colours.  This
> is very helpful because it allows separation between
> us and the numbers.  We
> need focus less on what colour is generated by Adv
> B&W for the 8 bit
> equivalent of 90% K because colour management will
> translate the GG2.2 or
> DG20 number to the right number in the print space. 
> If you can use QTR
> Create ICC I highly recommend it.  Roy has made it
> very flexible with
> respect to data input and you need only have a
> densitometer. (A
> spectrophotometer will give you the added ability to
> soft proof hue.)  If
> you can't use QTR Create ICC then it's likely good
> advice to ensure that you
> work in Adobe RGB/GG 2.2 when using Epson Adv B&W.
> 
> Of course you can still decide that you don't like
> the default "Darker"
> setting - that's entirely up to you.  But make that
> judgement not by looking
> at a printed step wedge (in which case one would
> likely expect the black
> patches to be bunched at the end) but rather from
> the results of prints
> printed from the GG2.2 workspace - the workspace for
> which Adv B&W was most
> likely calibrated.  (Remember if you are not using
> colour management your
> choice of workspace is very very important.)
> 
> If you use a workspace like DG20 (without colour
> management) then it is not
> at all surprising that you wouldn't like the
> response of Epson's Adv B&W
> default settings.  The reason is obvious with a
> little technical knowledge.
> Look at a step wedge on your display.  Assign DG20
> to it.  Then assign
> GG2.2.  Those same numbers produce much darker 80-95
> patches, for example,
> in GG2.2 than in DG20.  The numbers are what go to
> the printer not the
> colours you see. (Without colour management there is
> no translator to
> convert the numbers so that the colours don't
> change.)  Of course the prints
> will come out a lot darker than on your display and
> your shadows will look
> blocked up.  But the reason is your lack of use of
> colour management (now
> available via QTR Create ICC) and, given that, your
> poor choice of a
> workspace which doesn't align well with how Epson
> likely calibrated the
> response of the printer!  The table below is useful
> in making this point
> clearer.  It is the lightness (as measured by CIE
> Lab's L*) ascribed to 80,
> 85, 90, 95 and 100 K for each of DG20, GG1.8 and GG
> 2.2:
> 
> Workspace   80    85    90    95    100
> DG20        30    23    15    5     0
> GG1.8       28    21    13    4     0
> GG2.2       20    13     6    1     0
> 
> So if you look at a patch (or part of your image)
> that's 85 K in DG20 but
> print it with something "calibrated" to Adobe
> RGB/GG2.2 you can see it's
> going to print a lot darker than it looks on screen
> and furthermore the gap
> between it and a 95K patch will be a lot closer than
> you expect.  There's
> nothing wrong with the printer - it's just reacting
> to the same number.  You
> just need to take the time to understand why there's
> a difference between
> what you see on screen and what you see in print and
> amend your practice to
> suit.  Anyone with an image tagged with DG20 (or any
> other non GG 2.2 space)
> now looking to use Epson Adv B&W would likely be
> well advised to convert
> that image file to GG 2.2 prior to printing it
> (firstly with the default
> settings).  That's a far more sensible first step
> than trying to tweak the
> driver settings.
> 
> 
> > From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> 
> > 
> > So according to what you are saying, photographers
> who now do digital
> > printing aren't supposed to bring their personal
> aesthetic judgments
> > to the work any more.  Instead we're supposed to
> plug in the numbers
> > and accept what comes out because someone somwhere
> decided that GG2.2
> > is what we're supposed to use and that dark values
> are supposed to be
> > bunched up.  Hogwash!  
> 
> 
> 



	
		
__________________________________ 
Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 
http://mail.yahoo.com

Steve-

I read your last post and found it both intellligible and correct in 
my understanding and believe it is an understanding that would be 
useful to any kind of workflow.  I wanted to clarify a few points 
that I think got lost in the shuffle.

1.  The first is that Epson actually does recommend a DG20 gray 
space.  In a document from their U.S. website called "Epson Color-
Managed Workflow: Getting the Color you Expect in Your Prints," the 
first page recommends (and shows a screen shot) of the color settings 
dialogue.  The setting is U.S. Prepress Defaults, which is an RGB 
space of Adobe RGB (1998) and a gray space of Dot Gain 20%.  The 
document implies that it is for "color" workflow and based on "The 
Epson Stylus Photo 2200 printer . . . but the workflow is similar for 
other printers."  When I questioned this with an Epson tech rep (back 
in April), he confirmed that the expected working gray space on thwe 
2400 was indeed DG 20.

2.  In a post to Clayton earlier on in the fray, I mentioned that I 
used the Gamma 2.2 workspace but the "light" setting in the driver 
because I got better ICC profiles.  (By using the light setting one 
is doing nothing more than changing the color space of the printer in 
an easy, reliable, repeatable, consistent way).  The reason for my 
doing this is that the *unmanaged* targets printed for ICC profiles 
reflect exactly the compression we'd expect of GG 2.2.  In the 
shadows, the closeness of the patches is more difficult for the 
spectro to discriminate.  In some recent tests with Paul (in which we 
measured our own targets five times and then each others, each with a 
different instrument and in my case in both patch and strip mode) 
variations on the order of L* 0.5 were quite common, and I showed one 
as high as L* 0.88.  Thus the target from the light setting makes 
these errors much less significant and provides more reliable data as 
a basis for the ICC profile generation.  Having better resolution of 
the data at this level and then recompressing the 85-100 K for visual 
correctness is, I think, more reliable.  So, the issue is not that 
the target doesn't "look right," it is that the "darker" target is 
more difficult to reliably read.  Incidentally, we both found that 
the variations from the printer (target to target, printed 
consecutively) were greater on my 4800 and Paul's 180 (?) than were 
the variations in spectro reads.

All of that said, the magic of the QTR Create ICC has recently made 
itself known to me again.  I have several photographs I am having to 
reprint.  These were originally printed with a DG20 workspace to the 
2400 using a workflow similar to Clayton's current one.  In 
reprinting them now to the 4800, I am simply converting to the GG 2.2 
profile and printing through the ICC printer profile.  The new prints 
(on a different paper than the originals) are essentially identical 
to the old ones; different file, different printer, different paper, 
but the same output.  One can't beat that for a reliable, flexible 
workflow.  

Best,
Walt

Chatzebussi,

>  ... Please give us an example (or two) of what typical
> "short toe" or "long toe" films ...

The comparison that comes to mind is the difference between (at least the
old) Tri-X Pan Professional (long toe), Tri-X Pan (medium toe), and standard
Plus-X (short toe) films.  The long toe films were said to by Kodak, in its
F-5 publications, to be characterized by, "excellent gradation and brilliant
highlights ... especially suited to low-flare interior tungsten or flash
conditions."   On the other hand, short toed Plus-X was said to be,
"especially suitable for daylight use." (F-5 circa 1976)

I find when I'm working up an image in Photoshop that I often go area by
area and convert the small areas to long toe characteristics.  On the other
hand, pulling shadow detail out of a long toe films was more of a problem
due to the low contrast down there.  So, I avoided them for my typical
outdoor shooting.  Note that in the digital era, however, the information is
still there, it's just not being displayed with as much shadow contrast in
GG 2.2.


> ... Where could I see what the "Grey Gamma 2.2
> space" does as opposed to the "Dot Gain 20" space regarding the
> overall compression parameters (curve or actual pictures, please).

I find Photoshop Elements 4 to be the best program to see the differences.
Starting with the R220 Readme, I'm converting to Elements 4 as the standard
program.  Its simplified treatment of color spaces alone makes it worth the
$50 on eBay.  To see the differences, in Elements 4, one just opens a
21-step test file in the "No Color Management" mode (set in Edit>Color
Settings).  This strips off any embedded profile, so it's "untagged" (but
treated like GG 2.2 -- the most common default gray space from what I can
tell).  Once open, one can then go to Color Settings and alternatively check
GG 2.2 and Dot Gain 20%, and see the monitor display change.  These changes
are reflected in the color managed printing that ICCs provide.  (They are
not carried forward in non-color managed workflows, which include my older
approaches and "Advanced B&W.")

While it's not on my index yet, my draft R220 Readme has a section on this.
See http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/R220_EZ_Readme.htm   With the R220, I'm
converting to 2 alternative workflows:  (1) driver Color Controls by
themselves and (2) Roy's Create ICC program inserted in Print Preview before
the driver Color Controls.


> Which of the two working spaces is more appropriate for "low key"
> rendering?

I'd say Gray Gamma 2.2.  As I indicated above, I find myself, as a practical
matter, making each area of the photo a low key one, but I like to combine
this with shadow separation.  With GG2.2, the information is still in that
file, it just needs to be pulled out.  On the other hand, what we do in
Photoshop is far more radical than the differences in these gray working
spaces.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Walt,

> ... Epson actually does recommend a DG20 gray
> space.  ... U.S. Prepress Defaults, which is an RGB
> space of Adobe RGB (1998) and a gray space of Dot Gain 20%...

Similarly, in Elements the color space that uses DG 20% is said to be
optimized for printing.  However, the GG 2.2 is the default that most are
going to be seeing from their digital cameras and on the web.  I think the 2
spaces make good alternative approaches.


> ...I used the Gamma 2.2 workspace but the "light" setting in the driver
> because I got better ICC profiles.  ... The reason for my
> doing this is that the *unmanaged* targets printed for ICC profiles
> reflect exactly the compression we'd expect of GG 2.2.  In the
> shadows, the closeness of the patches is more difficult for the
> spectro to discriminate.

I've come to basically the same conclusion.  On the R220 setup I am tuning
for, among other things, ICC printing, I make sure there is enough shadow
separation for a reliable, relatively consistent print.

>  In some recent tests with Paul (in which we
> measured our own targets five times and then each others, each with a
> different instrument and in my case in both patch and strip mode)
> variations on the order of L* 0.5 were quite common, and I showed one
> as high as L* 0.88.

It's important to note that most of this variance is in the print, not the
instruments.  


>  Thus the target from the light setting makes
> these errors much less significant and provides more reliable data as
> a basis for the ICC profile generation.  Having better resolution of
> the data at this level and then recompressing the 85-100 K for visual
> correctness is, I think, more reliable.

The flip side of this is that with more compression, more information is
lost.  So, I want enough shadow separation for reliable reading, but not
much more.  

>  So, the issue is not that
> the target doesn't "look right," it is that the "darker" target is
> more difficult to reliably read.  Incidentally, we both found that
> the variations from the printer (target to target, printed
> consecutively) were greater on my 4800 and Paul's 180 (?) than were
> the variations in spectro reads.

I used the R220 with the still-not-released MIS inkset for it.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

> From: wwodets <odets@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 17:10:38 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] GG 2.2 vs. DG 20 (Was Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome)
> 
> Steve-
> 
> I read your last post and found it both intellligible and correct in
> my understanding and believe it is an understanding that would be
> useful to any kind of workflow.  I wanted to clarify a few points
> that I think got lost in the shuffle.

Thanks

> 
> 1.  The first is that Epson actually does recommend a DG20 gray
> space.  In a document from their U.S. website called "Epson Color-
> Managed Workflow: Getting the Color you Expect in Your Prints," the
> first page recommends (and shows a screen shot) of the color settings
> dialogue.  The setting is U.S. Prepress Defaults, which is an RGB
> space of Adobe RGB (1998) and a gray space of Dot Gain 20%.  The
> document implies that it is for "color" workflow and based on "The
> Epson Stylus Photo 2200 printer . . . but the workflow is similar for
> other printers." 

>When I questioned this with an Epson tech rep (back
> in April), he confirmed that the expected working gray space on thwe
> 2400 was indeed DG 20.

This last part would surprise me greatly.  With the first part above the
focus is on the colour workspace, Adobe RGB.  Adv B&W's default settings
produce very good results on Epson papers when combined with a GG2.2
workspace - out-of-the-box and without the assistance of a QTR ICC profile.
All the beta tester discussion was, I believe, related to Adobe RGB/GG2.2.
Remember the Jeff Schewe article and his interview with Greg Gorman.  They
were all talking about printing from Adobe RGB (and thus by reference GG 2.2
the greyscale subset of Adobe RGB).   The fact that the default settings do
not produce reasonable results with DG20, as opposed to GG2.2, would alone
suggest that one is better off using GG2.2.

http://photoshopnews.com/2005/05/16/epson-r2400-and-ultrachrome-k3-ink-repor
t/

Maybe they didn't attempt to hardwire the printer response to a particular
workspace which would be a pity given they did not provide the colour
management missing link.  As noted before, the suggestion that they did was
just speculation.  At any rate, I prefer not to guess and would rather
separate my workspace choice from the equation by deploying colour
management to act as a translator.  I can profile the output of the printer
with QTR Create ICC and then use colour management to do the translation.

As soon as you don't have colour management to help, the choice of workspace
will greatly influence the results.  BO was never intended to print
photographs but Clayton found by experimentation that the DG20 space gave
the best first-cut output (for reasons I demonstrated quite some time ago).
You should not be surprised that an editing space that worked well for one
workflow/driver does not work well for a new workflow when you don't have a
translator sitting in the middle. You can either dig around to find a
workspace that works better than others or use colour management and divorce
yourself from this issue.

> 
> 2.  In a post to Clayton earlier on in the fray, I mentioned that I
> used the Gamma 2.2 workspace but the "light" setting in the driver
> because I got better ICC profiles.  (By using the light setting one
> is doing nothing more than changing the color space of the printer in
> an easy, reliable, repeatable, consistent way).  The reason for my
> doing this is that the *unmanaged* targets printed for ICC profiles
> reflect exactly the compression we'd expect of GG 2.2.  In the
> shadows, the closeness of the patches is more difficult for the
> spectro to discriminate.  In some recent tests with Paul (in which we
> measured our own targets five times and then each others, each with a
> different instrument and in my case in both patch and strip mode)
> variations on the order of L* 0.5 were quite common, and I showed one
> as high as L* 0.88.  Thus the target from the light setting makes
> these errors much less significant and provides more reliable data as
> a basis for the ICC profile generation.  Having better resolution of
> the data at this level and then recompressing the 85-100 K for visual
> correctness is, I think, more reliable.  So, the issue is not that
> the target doesn't "look right," it is that the "darker" target is
> more difficult to reliably read.  Incidentally, we both found that
> the variations from the printer (target to target, printed
> consecutively) were greater on my 4800 and Paul's 180 (?) than were
> the variations in spectro reads.

An important difference here is you are using colour management.  You are
using a setting that makes profiling the printer easier.  You are not using
that different setting to change the look of the output in any way.  The
profile just profiles the revised stimulus-response behaviour.  I have no
problems generating profiles from 101 patches with the 4800 at default
settings.  Also, if I recall correctly, your problems were with third party
papers.  We can't expect Epson to calibrate their printers to work well with
every paper under the sun.

> 
> All of that said, the magic of the QTR Create ICC has recently made
> itself known to me again.  I have several photographs I am having to
> reprint.  These were originally printed with a DG20 workspace to the
> 2400 using a workflow similar to Clayton's current one.  In
> reprinting them now to the 4800, I am simply converting to the GG 2.2
> profile and printing through the ICC printer profile.

You could have just printed from DG20 (or whatever the files are tagged as)
with conversion to the output ICC profile (ie omitted the conversion to
GG2.2).  Because you are using colour management the interim step was
unnecessary.  If you weren't using the output profile then the space the
files were in would matter.


None of this stuff is perfect.  The tonal management embedded in a QTR
Create ICC profile may not do things the way you want it to for every file.
After all you are buying into the one algorithm Roy embedded in the program.
But you can soft proof it and it's a damn good start.

A key point to understand along the way is that printers and computers only
know numbers and the colour attached to a number changes with the colour
space that gives it meaning.  The corollary to this is that the viewed
difference between two greyscale numbers - their separation - also depends
on the colour space in which those numbers are being interpreted.  The
separation between 90% K and 95% K is greater in DG20 than it is in GG2.2.
It's meant to be. And convert a document from one space to another and,
without colour management in the printing leg, you send the printer an
entirely different set of numbers.

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

> 
> 
>> ... Where could I see what the "Grey Gamma 2.2
>> space" does as opposed to the "Dot Gain 20" space regarding the
>> overall compression parameters (curve or actual pictures, please).
> 
> I find Photoshop Elements 4 to be the best program to see the differences.
> Starting with the R220 Readme, I'm converting to Elements 4 as the standard
> program.  Its simplified treatment of color spaces alone makes it worth the
> $50 on eBay.  To see the differences, in Elements 4, one just opens a
> 21-step test file in the "No Color Management" mode (set in Edit>Color
> Settings).  This strips off any embedded profile, so it's "untagged" (but
> treated like GG 2.2 -- the most common default gray space from what I can
> tell).  Once open, one can then go to Color Settings and alternatively check
> GG 2.2 and Dot Gain 20%, and see the monitor display change.  These changes
> are reflected in the color managed printing that ICCs provide.  (They are
> not carried forward in non-color managed workflows, which include my older
> approaches and "Advanced B&W.")
> 


A word of caution here.  I don't think you can ever look at a step wedge on
your display without colour management.  Even with "colour management off"
in PS a step wedge is still colour managed to the display.  Open a
non-tagged step wedge and choose not to colour manage it.  The image on your
display still reflects your workspace. As Roy highlighted not too long ago,
you can't have one profile colour management.  You need a source profile and
a destination profile.  If a document does not have a profile, ie there is
no source profile, PS ascribes your workspace for the conversion to your
display profile.  A good way of looking at this is to open the untagged step
wedge and watch it change in appearance when you change your workspace
setting.

Hi Paul,

I just viewed your webpage you posted today concerning the R220.

I noticed you use "Edge Smoothing" in the Epson Driver.

I'm wondering what "Edge Smoothing" is and if I should use it on my C86 
and/or 4800.

Thanks,

Scott

This is off topic

I got motivated by this discussion and printed the Targets using the
Epson color profiles (Adobe RGB, perceptual, BPC checked) to compare
with the output from ABW (GG2.2, darker) � PK .

Going the color route - Black end is blocked but the highlights look
much better. Might be a good choice for the toned images without
critical detail in deep shadows.

Regards,

Pawel

Steve wrote:

> Remember the Jeff Schewe article and his interview with Greg Gorman.  They
> were all talking about printing from Adobe RGB 
> (and thus by reference GG 2.2 the greyscale subset of Adobe RGB).


In its Color Settings layout, Adobe PS Elements groups sRGB with GG 2.2;
AdobeRGB is associated with Dot Gain 20%.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Steve,

>...  I don't think you can ever look at a step wedge on
> your display without colour management. 
> Even with "colour management off"
> in PS a step wedge is still colour managed to the display. 

Yes, that is what I've heard also -- the monitor is always "color managed."

But, where is it coming from or set?

> Open a
> non-tagged step wedge and choose not to colour manage it.  
>The image on your display still reflects your workspace. 

Where is that workspace set if not in Photoshop's "color settings?"

When I go to print an Untagged grayscale in Elements with "No Color
Management" checked, the Source space is "Untagged Gray."  It displays and
prints just like GG 2.2.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Scott,

> 
> Hi Paul,
> 
> I just viewed your webpage you posted today concerning the R220.
> 
> I noticed you use "Edge Smoothing" in the Epson Driver.
> 
> I'm wondering what "Edge Smoothing" is and if I should use it on my C86
> and/or 4800.

I've never seen any affects one way or the other with "edge smoothing."  I
think it is designed to smooth the edges of low resolution images.  I've
heard some say that it also incorporates some sharpening, which I'd really
rather take care of myself in Photoshop.  So, I probably ought to turn it
off. 

It's one of the settings that, if I see no affect, I tend to leave in their
default positions, assuming that Epson has found that for its average user
it is worthwhile. 

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Turning colour management off doesn't turn off a default workspace.  It is
whatever you left it at or at its "factory original" default. You are just
turning off the document management policies.  Sorry I don't have Elements
but in PS note that you can turn Colour Management Off but the display of an
untagged document still reflects whatever you have in your settings (in the
case of a greyscale image like a step wedge, on your "gray" space).  Change
them and see the look of the untagged document change.  Of this I am not
completely sure, but I think the settings under "conversion options" dictate
the intent used for the monitor portrayal.  This I would need to check.


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:02:07 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
> Semi-Matte + ImagePri
> 
> Steve,
> 
>> ...  I don't think you can ever look at a step wedge on
>> your display without colour management.
>> Even with "colour management off"
>> in PS a step wedge is still colour managed to the display.
> 
> Yes, that is what I've heard also -- the monitor is always "color managed."
> 
> But, where is it coming from or set?
> 
>> Open a
>> non-tagged step wedge and choose not to colour manage it.
>> The image on your display still reflects your workspace.
> 
> Where is that workspace set if not in Photoshop's "color settings?"
> 
> When I go to print an Untagged grayscale in Elements with "No Color
> Management" checked, the Source space is "Untagged Gray."  It displays and
> prints just like GG 2.2.

"It displays"  Yes because that's your workspace - I assume.  The document
is untagged but to display it PS picks up the workspace setting and uses
that.  

"and prints" I think this is sending the printer raw numbers.  You get the
response of the printer to the 8 bit equivalent of each K%.  At least this
is the case for PS 7/CS/CS2.  This is how one measures the response of the
printer for given stimulus - sender the printer a given set of known numbers
and measure the response.  You don't want colour management to alter the
numbers sent to the printer.  Unless your printer is very well-calibrated to
GG2.2 you would not expect it to "print just like GG 2.2".  How are you
printing it?  (driver etc)

Hello Steve,

>To all those that think I jumped down Clayton's throat too
>aggressively and that it was a personal attack I apologise.  

Likewise, in reading over my words it is stronger than my usual
manner.  In truth I was tired and hungry when I read your post. 
In the future if I am tempted to reply to you I shall make sure I've
had a good night's sleep and a good meal beforehand.   

That said, Walt's explanation of what your post meant did trigger an
idea which I mentioned last night, and today's tests have confirmed
it, so I thank you for that.  I'm going to post the results in a new
thread with a more relevant title.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Steve,

> Turning colour management off doesn't turn off a default workspace.

That may be a matter of definition.  Where is this default space set and
what is it?  Those with more computer expertise than I can probably answer
this.  It could be in the system and not Photoshop.  As a practical matte,
on my Windows XP, GG 2.2 seems to be the default.  With the growing
importance of the Web, and it's apparent use of this standard, I'd guess
most system designers would follow this standard also.


> Sorry I don't have Elements

I suspect it will outsell the full PS by orders of magnitude.  I downloaded
a free trial version and decided it was worth the $50 on eBay (which also
got me a cheapo digital camera to give my kid).


> but in PS note that you can turn Colour Management Off but the 
>display of an untagged document still reflects whatever you have 
> in your settings 

In talking to a forum member off list, I think I agree with him that the
system has loaded a profile into the Color folder that is controlling the
monitor out of the box.  If one uses a profiling program for the monitor,
that software is probably in control of the default monitor settings.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Hello Paul,

>That may be a matter of definition.  Where is this default space 
>set and what is it?  Those with more computer expertise than I 
>can probably answer this.  It could be in the system and not
>Photoshop.  

This is a confusing subject and anyone who tries to explain it will
likely have his own way of doing it.  I took a stab at it in article
#4 on my web site and have have good feedback from it.  It's more than
I can repeat here, so if you don't mind being referred to a web page
it's in the 2nd and 3rd sections in article #4, subtitled "Profiles
And Work Spaces, Tagging And Embedding" and "Assigning Front End Profiles"

   http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn4.htm

It explains the terminology and the various controls in the Assign
Profile dialog and how they interact.  As is usual for me, it's based
on my own experience in figuring out how it works, and not on theory,
so perhaps it will be helpful.

Regards,
Clayton


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

Paul, That is my understanding of things as well. There seems to be a
system default monitor profile (I too have heard mention of windows
being 2.2). If you have installed drivers etc along with your monitor,
that may have also set up an oem screen profile. Then ,of course, you
have the deliberate profiling via software such as Pshop or through
pucks and i1's etc.

Regards
Duane

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

> 
> In talking to a forum member off list, I think I agree with him that the
> system has loaded a profile into the Color folder that is
controlling the
> monitor out of the box.  If one uses a profiling program for the
monitor,

> that software is probably in control of the default monitor settings.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Michael Vendrell
<mjvendrell2@y...> wrote:
>
> Clayton, et al: Here Here!  
> 
> This is not "Rocket Scientology".

[snip]

Not trying to fan any flames here, Doc, but the paraphrase I heard
somewhere the other day--on another subject, by the way--was "This
isn't rocket surgery."

Of course, that speaker was openly glib.

(And, to be at least slightly on-topic, I read the messages posted
across the spectrum, from the highly-technical-instrumentation-based
to the eyeball-it-and-like-it kind.  This forum seems to accommodate a
variety of approaches and to remain on a higher plane than many other
forums that nosedive frequently.  I suspect that this good track
record is not because of luck but rather because the forum effectively
self-corrects itself.  I trust that will continue to be the case.  I
hope so.  Reading here beats some other parts of the day.)

I wanted to clarify something I posted earlier:
 
> In its Color Settings layout, Adobe PS Elements groups sRGB with GG 2.2;
> AdobeRGB is associated with Dot Gain 20%.

The grouping of Adobe RGB with Dot Gain 20% is apparently done because those
are the settings used commonly by the prepress industry, not because Adobe
RGB uses Dot Gain 20%.  

Both Adobe RGB and sRGB use a gamma of 2.2 because it is felt to more
closely approximate the human visual response.  
See http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagement/cm_101/01intro.htm ,
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/color/sRGB.mspx ,
http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/AdobeRGB1998.pdf 


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

When using a hardware profiling device such as GM Eye 1 the resulting color
profile is saved in the windows/system32/spool/drivers/color folder and set
as the default system monitor profile. You can see it in place via the
Display System settings/color management tab. It will be invoked when you
boot the computer. 

Adobe Gamma creates a file in the startup folder called adobegammaloader.exe
which similarly invokes the profile on startup.
(incidentally...if you use Adobe Gamma please DON'T save the resulting
profile as adobeRGB(1998) and overwrite the working space profile!!!)

If you use a device, it is important that you remove adobegammaloader.exe
before profiling.

TonyR

On 22/11/2005 01:04:32, dlruckus wrote:
> Paul, That is my understanding of things as well. There seems to be a
> system default monitor profile (I too have heard mention of windows
> being 2.2). If you have installed drivers etc along with your monitor,
> that may have also set up an oem screen profile. Then ,of course, you
> have the deliberate profiling via software such as Pshop or through
> pucks and i1's etc.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
> >
> > In talking to a forum member off list, I think I agree with him that the
> > system has loaded a profile into the Color folder that is
> controlling the
> > monitor out of the box.  If one uses a profiling program for the
> monitor,
> > that software is probably in control of the default monitor settings.

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 20:14:59 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] GG 2.2 vs. DG 20 (Was Comparison: K3 versus
> Ultrachrome)
> 
> I wanted to clarify something I posted earlier:
>  
>> In its Color Settings layout, Adobe PS Elements groups sRGB with GG 2.2;
>> AdobeRGB is associated with Dot Gain 20%.
> 
> The grouping of Adobe RGB with Dot Gain 20% is apparently done because those
> are the settings used commonly by the prepress industry, not because Adobe
> RGB uses Dot Gain 20%.


Yes.  GG2.2 is a direct subset of Adobe RGB.

Paul Roark wrote:
> I wanted to clarify something I posted earlier:
>  
>> In its Color Settings layout, Adobe PS Elements groups sRGB with GG 2.2;
>> AdobeRGB is associated with Dot Gain 20%.
> 
> The grouping of Adobe RGB with Dot Gain 20% is apparently done because those
> are the settings used commonly by the prepress industry, not because Adobe
> RGB uses Dot Gain 20%.  
> 
> Both Adobe RGB and sRGB use a gamma of 2.2 because it is felt to more
> closely approximate the human visual response.  
> See http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagement/cm_101/01intro.htm ,
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/color/sRGB.mspx ,
> http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/AdobeRGB1998.pdf 
> 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com 

If there's one mailing list and group of people that could
promote a perceptual greyscale curve for use in B&W
photography it should be this list. Roy gave us that space and
it is closer to human visual response than any of the gamma
(old photography attempt to perceptual) and dotgain
(completely different concept) choices.

I know that Gamma 2.2 works and isn't in contradiction with
the rest of the workflow but why not promote a conversion to
the QTR space as it is available ?

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Your system will have a default monitor profile and PS Elements has a
default workspace setup.  Turning colour management off does not disable
these, it only disables the colour management policies.  So PS (I suspect)
will still use the default workspace for an untagged document and then
colour manage the document between this profile and your default monitor
profile to display it.  When you profile your monitor you merely tell your
system to use this new display profile rather than the default.


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 15:14:40 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
> Semi-Matte + ImagePri
> 
> Steve,
> 
>> Turning colour management off doesn't turn off a default workspace.
> 
> That may be a matter of definition.  Where is this default space set and
> what is it?  

When you install PS for the first time it installs a bunch of profiles and
sets a default workspace.

>Those with more computer expertise than I can probably answer
> this.  It could be in the system and not Photoshop.

I use a Mac and I guess have the advantage that colour management has been a
normal part of the Mac OS for quite some time now.  As noted above the
system will deploy a default monitor profile.  If it detects a display for
which it has a more accurate profile (eg an Apple Cinema Display) it will
use that profile.  If a custom profile is prepared the profiling software
normally sets that as the default for you at the end of the profiling
process when you save it.

>As a practical matter,
> on my Windows XP, GG 2.2 seems to be the default.  With the growing
> importance of the Web, and it's apparent use of this standard, I'd guess
> most system designers would follow this standard also.

Many web browsers are still not colour management aware.  Those that are
will either pick up the profile stored with an image or if there is no
profile attached then default to sRGB.  When uplinking stuff to the web it
is good practice to append a profile (it doesn't add much to the file size).
As monitors get better and better, you will likely not want to confine your
images to the narrow sRGB space.  This is of course not an issue for now but
I would expect the quality of the average monitor in use to increase
substantially over the next 10 years.
> 
> 
>> Sorry I don't have Elements
> 
> I suspect it will outsell the full PS by orders of magnitude.  I downloaded
> a free trial version and decided it was worth the $50 on eBay (which also
> got me a cheapo digital camera to give my kid).

I'm sure.  It's great value for money.  My girlfriend has it on her Mac.  I
should take a peak...

> 
> 
>> but in PS note that you can turn Colour Management Off but the
>> display of an untagged document still reflects whatever you have
>> in your settings
> 
> In talking to a forum member off list, I think I agree with him that the
> system has loaded a profile into the Color folder that is controlling the
> monitor out of the box.  If one uses a profiling program for the monitor,
> that software is probably in control of the default monitor settings.
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
>

Remember there are two sides here.  Any colour management capable system
will have at least one default monitor profile (which likely changes
depending on the sort of monitor detected, eg Powerbook Display vs Apple
Cinema Display).  When PS (or PS Elements) receives an untagged document it
needs to give it a profile for display and will default to the default
workspace.  The CMM then uses this default workspace and colour manages the
transform to the default display profile.  You always need two profiles, a
source and a destination.

> From: dlruckus <dlruckus@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 01:04:32 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on Semi-Matte
> + ImagePri
> 
> Paul, That is my understanding of things as well. There seems to be a
> system default monitor profile (I too have heard mention of windows
> being 2.2). If you have installed drivers etc along with your monitor,
> that may have also set up an oem screen profile. Then ,of course, you
> have the deliberate profiling via software such as Pshop or through
> pucks and i1's etc.
> 
> Regards
> Duane
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Roark"
> <paul.roark@v...> wrote:
> 
>> 
>> In talking to a forum member off list, I think I agree with him that the
>> system has loaded a profile into the Color folder that is
> controlling the
>> monitor out of the box.  If one uses a profiling program for the
> monitor,
>> that software is probably in control of the default monitor settings.
>> 
>> Paul
>> www.PaulRoark.com
>> 
> 
>

The thing is it doesn't matter which space you work in if you use colour
management to manage the translation. (I'm talking the greyscale case here.
There are many other issues when we move to a colour world.)  In this case
it doesn't matter if you work in GG2.2, Gray Lab or DG20.  We, generally,
tend to work visually and not by the numbers (and any by-the-number work,
say by graphic artists, is always governed by a prescribed colour space).
(A good display profile is hence critical.  There's no sense working
visually if what you're seeing isn't at least somewhat accurate.)

The choice of workspace only becomes an issue when you aren't using colour
management.  Then, in a "Same as Source" work environment, you send
unconverted numbers to the printer.  If the printer has been tweaked for a
particular workspace, not using that workspace is then therefore
detrimental.  QTR Create ICC made QTR Gray Lab obsolete because it allows us
to use colour management to translate between our chosen workspace and the
print space.  So it's best to set "general practice" around widely in-use
workspaces, such as Adobe RGB/GG2.2.  This is given even more weight if
Epson has tweaked Adv B&W to be more in-tune with Adobe RGB/GG2.2.

The other thing which I am the first to admit I need to understand a little
more is the following.  People talk about Lab being closer to human visual
response.  (This language used to come up repeatedly when people talked
about how best to linearize a RIP and it always used to baffle me.)  CIELab
is a perceptually uniform space meaning the distance between two points also
reflects the relative perceived change in colour between the two points.  In
this way it was designed as an improvement on CIE XYZ.  (People are
generally familiar with the xy chromaticity chart which maps out the range
of human vision.  The issue with the xy chromaticity chart is that it
doesn't factor in the non-linearity of the eye and so from a chart or plot
perspective the distances between two points are distorted.) But CIE Lab
doesn't model human vision any better than XYZ.  It just uses co-ordinates
that make it more perceptually uniform in plot.

Various workspaces cover greater or lesser parts of the xy chromaticity
chart.  (Prophoto RGB, for example, is far broader than Adobe RGB.)  But
that doesn't make one workspace any less "closer to human visual response"
except in so far that it covers less of the human visual response's field of
view.  (Prophoto is still an RGB space.)  When we come to greyscale, all of
this collapses to no difference because the greyscale is common to all the
workspaces.  (I am sure there are some really technical anomalies here but
in general terms I think this is correct.)  QTR Gray Lab does not model
"human visual response" any better than CIE XYZ (it's just a perceptually
uniform representation of the same thing) and Adobe RGB or even GG2.2
contain all the greyscale information that is in the human visual response
system.  The notion that Lab (and in our case the focus is on L*) more
closely models the human visual response is, I think, a bit of a misnomer.
It's advantage is that the steps in the numbers coincide with steps in
perceived change - that's all.  From a practical point of view, this is
really only useful when we look at a step wedge.  Then the L* numbers align,
inversely, with the % K numbers.  That's fine but if using it throws other
things out of whack (such as any tuning in a non-colour managed printer
driver such as Adv B&W) then gaining that uniformity is actually
detrimental.

[For colour work I use ProPhoto RGB because there are many printable colours
that we can see which are outside the Adobe RGB space.  The monitor is
actually the big bottleneck at the moment. We need more capable monitors and
higher bit depth graphics cards.  As monitors and printers become more
capable, watch the steady movement away from Adobe RGB to a broader space.]

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

> If there's one mailing list and group of people that could
> promote a perceptual greyscale curve for use in B&W
> photography it should be this list. Roy gave us that space and
> it is closer to human visual response than any of the gamma
> (old photography attempt to perceptual) and dotgain
> (completely different concept) choices.
> 
> I know that Gamma 2.2 works and isn't in contradiction with
> the rest of the workflow but why not promote a conversion to
> the QTR space as it is available ?
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla

Steve et al.,

But with Windows, ICM2 defaults to assuming sRGB if there is no specific 
device profile, whether input or output,  scanner, monitor, or printer. So 
you don't actually NEED a profile, ICM2 will assume sRGB if none is 
available.

Bob Frost.


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>


> You always need two profiles, a source and a destination.

I just took a look at PS Elements 3 for Mac.  Adobe RGB (and by implication
GG2.2) is the colour space used when you select full colour management which
is "optimized for printing".  Limited Color Management is "optimized for the
web" and so, obviously, sRGB is used as the workspace.  It does not say what
workspace is used for No Color Management but it must set one, most likely
either sRGB or Adobe RGB :-).  It has to set a default workspace else it can
not colour manage the display leg for untagged documents.  I very doubt that
Adobe would rely on the OS for this default workspace and instead choose one
of sRGB or Adobe RGB.

Note that in all the screen grabs on Jeff Schewe's review of the R2400's Adv
B&W he is printing documents tagged as Adobe RGB.  Makes a lot of sense.
There is no doubt in my mind that if Epson thought their driver was
expecting DG20 documents that Jeff (a beta tester) would know about it.
This thing expects Adobe RGB/GG2.2.

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 12:02:07 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
> Semi-Matte + ImagePri
> 
> Steve,
> 
>> ...  I don't think you can ever look at a step wedge on
>> your display without colour management.
>> Even with "colour management off"
>> in PS a step wedge is still colour managed to the display.
> 
> Yes, that is what I've heard also -- the monitor is always "color managed."
> 
> But, where is it coming from or set?
> 
>> Open a
>> non-tagged step wedge and choose not to colour manage it.
>> The image on your display still reflects your workspace.
> 
> Where is that workspace set if not in Photoshop's "color settings?"
> 
> When I go to print an Untagged grayscale in Elements with "No Color
> Management" checked, the Source space is "Untagged Gray."  It displays and
> prints just like GG 2.2.
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

Well yeah.. You need two and so when one is missing one is assumed.  There's
still two needed.  The question is whether PS Elements provides the missing
profile before it gets to ICM2...by providing its default.  I'll bet it does
and ICM2 doesn't even see a situation of a missing profile from PS.

> From: Bob Frost <bob@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:44:40 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
> Semi-Matte + ImagePri
> 
> Steve et al.,
> 
> But with Windows, ICM2 defaults to assuming sRGB if there is no specific
> device profile, whether input or output,  scanner, monitor, or printer. So
> you don't actually NEED a profile, ICM2 will assume sRGB if none is
> available.
> 
> Bob Frost.
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Steve Kale" <stevekale@...>
> 
> 
>> You always need two profiles, a source and a destination.

I would make just one (badly expressed) comment:  you are attempting to
explain profiles from a narrow field of view (as adjustment curves) that is
only applicable by default in the greyscale case rather than starting with
the more correct broader colour world and explaining how profiles affect B&W
work.  This sentence is probably poorly worded! People get introduced to
profiles in a colour world and they are best explained in the broader colour
world to which they relate.  Then extend that explanation to their use in
the B&W world.  (Okay I know I am not explaining myself well here.)
Profiles are not "adjustment curves". In the B&W case a single channel
profile can be replicated with an adjustment curve but that doesn't make the
profile an adjustment curve. If someone read any article on colour
management (eg stuff from Ian Lyons site or Real World Color Management) and
then turned to your page they would likely be very confused.  Understanding
colour management is already an every day thing for colour photographers and
is, as can be witnessed by these discussions, becoming more important again
to B&W photographers who were let down by colour management initially (if it
worked well we'd simply be using a colour managed workflow exactly the same
as our colour printing!).  People need the broader picture to make sense of
the narrower B&W case.  Remember your experience is biased by the fact that
you DON'T employ colour management in the printing leg which ripples
backwards through your workflow.  A better explanation would begin with the
digital camera (JPEG), RAW converter (Raw to colour space conversion) or
scanner (profiled) through the colour management chain to printing.
Followed by a discussion of why colour management doesn't work so well for
B&W and then a discussion of the implications of not using colour management
for printing B&W (ie the document space then matters).

> From: Clayton Jones <cj@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 00:33:55 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on Semi-Matte
> + ImagePri
> 
> Hello Paul,
> 
>> That may be a matter of definition.  Where is this default space
>> set and what is it?  Those with more computer expertise than I
>> can probably answer this.  It could be in the system and not
>> Photoshop.  
> 
> This is a confusing subject and anyone who tries to explain it will
> likely have his own way of doing it.  I took a stab at it in article
> #4 on my web site and have have good feedback from it.  It's more than
> I can repeat here, so if you don't mind being referred to a web page
> it's in the 2nd and 3rd sections in article #4, subtitled "Profiles
> And Work Spaces, Tagging And Embedding" and "Assigning Front End Profiles"
> 
>    http://www.cjcom.net/articles/digiprn4.htm
> 
> It explains the terminology and the various controls in the Assign
> Profile dialog and how they interact.  As is usual for me, it's based
> on my own experience in figuring out how it works, and not on theory,
> so perhaps it will be helpful.
> 
> Regards,
> Clayton
> 
> 
> Info on black and white digital printing at
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> 
>

Yes, if profiles were based on floating-point numbers rather than integers,
colorspace would not matter, but they are, so one needs to be careful of
what happens in the conversion process.  You point out we need higher
bit-depth graphics cards and monitors to take advantage of the wider gamuts
the current printers have; I believe this will be part of the next
significant advance in digital imaging and printing.

With a good printer, inks, "driver", etc., all 256 grayscale steps are
resolvable.  I use the quoted term "driver" to encompass any RIP, or print
driver on any OS.  From my own observations, side-by-side patches are
resolvable by eye as well as instrument.  Since that is the case, shouldn't
the master file be in the space that most closely represents human
perception, i.e. QTR space?  For someone with software and computing
resources that allow entire file treatment at 16-bit, it becomes less of an
issue, but the fundamental issue is still there.

One way to explore such issues is to create a 16-bit gray gradient at least
3600 pixels wide, and print it at least 10 inches long by about 0.5 inch
tall, using different "drivers", profiles etc.   Such an image will be large
enough to reduce the effect of "driver" dither, and allow you to see how
smooth a particular combination of hardware and software render the levels,
which is limited to 256 for at least some, if not all of the "drivers".
What I have seen in my own trials has been enlightening, and allowed tuning
the process to produce smoother results, that result in better printed
images.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:30 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] GG 2.2 vs. DG 20 (Was Comparison: K3 versus
Ultrachrome)

The thing is it doesn't matter which space you work in if you use colour
management to manage the translation. (I'm talking the greyscale case here.
There are many other issues when we move to a colour world.)  In this case
it doesn't matter if you work in GG2.2, Gray Lab or DG20.

<snip>


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

Steve,
The understanding of color management may be emerging as more of a
requirement than something that is currently an every-day thing for many
people.  Look at any of the sites that have separate forums for color
management, and it's clear that many people continue to struggle with the
subject.  I would be surprised if anyone interested in this subject has not
learned something new in the last 6 months.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:15 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
Semi-Matte + ImagePri

"Understanding colour management is already an every day thing for colour
photographers"


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

My points were more in relation to the printer having its own "space" and
unless a conversion is done from the workspace to the printer space then
issues will arise because the two are different and you have not invoked a
policy for the transformation.

> From: John Moody <moodymz3@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:42:15 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] GG 2.2 vs. DG 20 (Was Comparison: K3 versus
> Ultrachrome)
> 
> Yes, if profiles were based on floating-point numbers rather than integers,
> colorspace would not matter, but they are, so one needs to be careful of
> what happens in the conversion process.  You point out we need higher
> bit-depth graphics cards and monitors to take advantage of the wider gamuts
> the current printers have; I believe this will be part of the next
> significant advance in digital imaging and printing.
> 
> With a good printer, inks, "driver", etc., all 256 grayscale steps are
> resolvable.  I use the quoted term "driver" to encompass any RIP, or print
> driver on any OS.  From my own observations, side-by-side patches are
> resolvable by eye as well as instrument.  Since that is the case, shouldn't
> the master file be in the space that most closely represents human
> perception, i.e. QTR space?  For someone with software and computing
> resources that allow entire file treatment at 16-bit, it becomes less of an
> issue, but the fundamental issue is still there.
> 
> One way to explore such issues is to create a 16-bit gray gradient at least
> 3600 pixels wide, and print it at least 10 inches long by about 0.5 inch
> tall, using different "drivers", profiles etc.   Such an image will be large
> enough to reduce the effect of "driver" dither, and allow you to see how
> smooth a particular combination of hardware and software render the levels,
> which is limited to 256 for at least some, if not all of the "drivers".
> What I have seen in my own trials has been enlightening, and allowed tuning
> the process to produce smoother results, that result in better printed
> images.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 5:30 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] GG 2.2 vs. DG 20 (Was Comparison: K3 versus
> Ultrachrome)
> 
> The thing is it doesn't matter which space you work in if you use colour
> management to manage the translation. (I'm talking the greyscale case here.
> There are many other issues when we move to a colour world.)  In this case
> it doesn't matter if you work in GG2.2, Gray Lab or DG20.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
>

Agreed but anyone serious about colour photography must at least understand
how to use their systems (and PS') colour settings and how to have a
properly colour managed workflow.  The poor results that occur without this
knowledge are evident on day one.  Of course the general subject continues
to evolve and some of the discussions on the colorsync list make my head
spin.  But the basic setup and concept (without all its intricacies) has to
be understood very quickly by a serious colour photographer looking for
decent results. It also has to be understood by the B&W photographer.
Everything is colour managed until the last printing step where we found
that maintaining a colour managed workflow actually detracted from the
results.  It has always been important to understand the ramifications of
this break in the chain.  Fortunately thanks to inventions such as Roy's
(and ultimately things like more B&W capable colour drivers) there is no
need to break this chain anymore.  (Well actually Roy just reconnected one
of the links - the lightness channel.)

> From: John Moody <moodymz3@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 06:53:42 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
> Semi-Matte + ImagePri
> 
> Steve,
> The understanding of color management may be emerging as more of a
> requirement than something that is currently an every-day thing for many
> people.  Look at any of the sites that have separate forums for color
> management, and it's clear that many people continue to struggle with the
> subject.  I would be surprised if anyone interested in this subject has not
> learned something new in the last 6 months.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 6:15 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Comparison: K3 versus Ultrachrome inks on
> Semi-Matte + ImagePri
> 
> "Understanding colour management is already an every day thing for colour
> photographers"
> 
>

Just as an aside from this general conversation, I recall the discussion
that comes up periodically about whether people can "see separation on their
display between x and y % K" (typically 90, 95 and 100) often in the context
of whether one display is better than another (or whether someone's eyes are
better than another's ;-) ).  Some people would call out that they could,
while others said they couldn't.  Remember that when you look at even an
untagged step wedge on your screen you are looking at a colour managed
object and what you see is dependent on, among other things, the profile
with which the step wedge is tagged and if it is not tagged then your
default (greyscale) workspace.  The separation or lack of separation is
conditional on these settings.  If the document/workspace is tagged Adobe
RGB/GG2.2 then the 95 and 100 patches are very close together in terms of
lightness (much more so than in the case of DG20) - only about 1 L* apart. I
don't think anyone, even those with very good eyes, can practically see a
difference of 1 L* regardless of where it sits on the scale from black to
white, especially if the patches are shuffled and they're asked to choose
the darker or lighter of the two.   If the workspace/document space were
DG20 then absolutely you'd expect to see a visible difference between 95K
and 100K.  They're 5 L* apart and that's enough to be clearly differentiated
on a reasonable display.

If you can't see 1 L* in adjacent patches, something is very wrong
somewhere.  I understand about the shuffled bit, but it does not diminish
the requirement of a smooth monitor calibration (before profiling) to allow
accurate tonality assessment while editing BW images.

Best regards,
John Moody

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:35 AM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] GG 2.2 vs. DG 20 (Was Comparison: K3 versus
Ultrachrome)

"I don't think anyone, even those with very good eyes, can practically see a
difference of 1 L* regardless of where it sits on the scale from black to
white, especially if the patches are shuffled and they're asked to choose
the darker or lighter of the two."


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

Yes.
If you are using an older version of Pshop and/or windows, you might
even find it necessary to not only remove the Adobegammaloader.exe
from the startup folder but to physically move the executable out of
the Adobe folder to another place for storage. I found several years
back that somehow the program was being reinstituted without my
knowledge and causing profiling problems. 

Regards
Duane


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Tony Riley"
<listsubs@a...> wrote:

> If you use a device, it is important that you remove
adobegammaloader.exe

> before profiling.
> 
> TonyR
>

Bob Frost wrote:
 
> But with Windows, ICM2 defaults to assuming sRGB if there is no specific
> device profile, whether input or output,  scanner, monitor, or printer. So
> you don't actually NEED a profile, ICM2 will assume sRGB if none is
> available.

That's, no doubt, why when "No Color Management" is selected in Color
Settings (in Elements, which I am assuming beginners have or should have)
the view and the print are the same as if Gray Gamma 2.2 is selected.  Since
those -- No Color Management and GG 2.2 -- are the 2 defaults I've seen in
copies of Elements, novice users can just ignore the issue and use the
defaults.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

OK I agree if the patches are overlapping.  But if I took two identically
sized patches, shuffled them and then placed them next to each other but not
touching, telling the difference of 1 K* is "quite" difficult.  At any rate
my point was more to the fact that the gap between 95 and 100 depends on the
workspace/document space.  Someone with a workspace of DG20 would say the
gap is obvious, someone with GG2.2 would not be so sure.

;-)

> From: John Moody <moodymz3@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 08:16:26 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] GG 2.2 vs. DG 20 (Was Comparison: K3 versus
> Ultrachrome)
> 
> If you can't see 1 L* in adjacent patches, something is very wrong
> somewhere.  I understand about the shuffled bit, but it does not diminish
> the requirement of a smooth monitor calibration (before profiling) to allow
> accurate tonality assessment while editing BW images.
> 
> Best regards,
> John Moody
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> [mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Steve Kale
> Sent: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 7:35 AM
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] GG 2.2 vs. DG 20 (Was Comparison: K3 versus
> Ultrachrome)
> 
> "I don't think anyone, even those with very good eyes, can practically see a
> difference of 1 L* regardless of where it sits on the scale from black to
> white, especially if the patches are shuffled and they're asked to choose
> the darker or lighter of the two."

It is interesting that you should bring that up Ernst. Most recently I
learned that using the QTR profiles for soft proofing and simply
editing to that, gave the simplest and easiest workflow of all for
B&W. Even the canned profiles for gray, matt and photo work reasonably
well. Roy's latest icc programs would be better yet.

I also learned, by accident, that the GG1.8 gray workspace was closer
to the QTR space than was GG2.2. At least that seemed to be the case
as doing initial editing in 1.8 before using QTR to softproof showed
the least need for changes. I had been following the advice to convert
to labgray for editing, prior to the discovery.

In any case, if you are using QTR softproofing for final editing or if
you are converting to it, it doesn't seem to matter much which
workspace you prefer outside of that.(I suppose I'm advocating heresy
for saying that :} )

What is truly amusing to me is that, here I go again, "altering the
display to suit the printer output" and editing to that. Not only that
but using strict color management to do so.

Regards
Duane
 

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Ernst Dinkla 
<E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:

> 
> If there's one mailing list and group of people that could
> promote a perceptual greyscale curve for use in B&W
> photography it should be this list. Roy gave us that space and
> it is closer to human visual response than any of the gamma
> (old photography attempt to perceptual) and dotgain
> (completely different concept) choices.
> 
> I know that Gamma 2.2 works and isn't in contradiction with
> the rest of the workflow but why not promote a conversion to
> the QTR space as it is available ?
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
>

It's my understanding that gamma 2.2 and 1.8 are vestiges of the CRT.

See this URL for an interesting commentary on the history and  
mathematics...
http://www.poynton.com/GammaFAQ.html

Regarding the non-linearity of human vision, key places this is  
accounted for are the image capture/development processes.  S curve  
of film or the TRC (tone response curve) of raw conversion.

Scott King
Austin, Texas

On Nov 21, 2005, at 10:14 PM, Paul Roark wrote:

> I wanted to clarify something I posted earlier:
>
>> In its Color Settings layout, Adobe PS Elements groups sRGB with  
>> GG 2.2;
>> AdobeRGB is associated with Dot Gain 20%.
>
> The grouping of Adobe RGB with Dot Gain 20% is apparently done  
> because those
> are the settings used commonly by the prepress industry, not  
> because Adobe
> RGB uses Dot Gain 20%.
>
> Both Adobe RGB and sRGB use a gamma of 2.2 because it is felt to more
> closely approximate the human visual response.
> See http://visual-vacations.com/ColorManagement/cm_101/01intro.htm ,
> http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/device/display/color/sRGB.mspx ,
> http://www.adobe.com/digitalimag/pdfs/AdobeRGB1998.pdf
>
>
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------------- 
> ~-->
> Get fast access to your favorite Yahoo! Groups. Make Yahoo! your  
> home page
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/dpRU5A/wUILAA/yQLSAA/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.
> - 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Ernst,

> Paul Roark wrote:
> > ...
> > Both Adobe RGB and sRGB use a gamma of 2.2 because it is felt to more
> > closely approximate the human visual response.


> 
> If there's one mailing list and group of people that could
> promote a perceptual greyscale curve for use in B&W
> photography it should be this list. Roy gave us that space and
> it is closer to human visual response than any of the gamma
> (old photography attempt to perceptual) and dotgain
> (completely different concept) choices.
> 
> I know that Gamma 2.2 works and isn't in contradiction with
> the rest of the workflow but why not promote a conversion to
> the QTR space as it is available?
> 

The main reason I tend to recommend Gray Gamma 2.2 is that it is such a
widely used standard.  For people starting out, they can basically ignore
the issue and have the right settings. 

I would not overestimate what this group can do.  I think we all stand on
the shoulders of giants.  Once standards are set that are close, even if not
technically the best, they are almost impossible to change -- consider the
keyboards we're using.  On the other hand, we're no powerless.  But it's
like influencing the trajectory of objects in space.  A very slight lateral
force can have a dramatic influence on the long term trajectory of an
object.  

By the way, the R220 UT-R2 setup is on my index now.  See
http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/index.htm


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com