Digital BW, The Print

All of my digital B&W work up to now has been done using images
straight from a digital camera where the starting colour space is
known.  I've been able to get WYSIWYG results by turning the image to
monochrome in PSCS2, and printing through Qimage to QTR using one of
the designated QTR gray spaces for Qimage.

Now I am working with an image that I scanned from a B&W 35mm negative
on my Epson Perfection 1650 Photo using Vuescan.  I'm not getting
WYSIWYG results at all.  The prints come out quite a lot darker across
the tonal range.

Some of the testing that I have done leads me to conclude that I have
assumed the wrong profile / grayspace.  I have tried outputting the
image from Vuescan as both a single channel grayspace image, and a
three channel monochrome sRGB image.  I was sure that the sRGB image
would give me wysiwyg results, but not so.

What space should I be assuming that the output image from Vuescan is
in?  My best guess based on testing is GG2.2 

F_P

(Yes, my screen is calibrated using a Monaco Optix XR Pro.)

ferdinand_paris wrote:
> All of my digital B&W work up to now has been done using images
> straight from a digital camera where the starting colour space is
> known.  I've been able to get WYSIWYG results by turning the image to
> monochrome in PSCS2, and printing through Qimage to QTR using one of
> the designated QTR gray spaces for Qimage.
> 
> Now I am working with an image that I scanned from a B&W 35mm negative
> on my Epson Perfection 1650 Photo using Vuescan.  I'm not getting
> WYSIWYG results at all.  The prints come out quite a lot darker across
> the tonal range.
> 
> Some of the testing that I have done leads me to conclude that I have
> assumed the wrong profile / grayspace.  I have tried outputting the
> image from Vuescan as both a single channel grayspace image, and a
> three channel monochrome sRGB image.  I was sure that the sRGB image
> would give me wysiwyg results, but not so.
> 
> What space should I be assuming that the output image from Vuescan is
> in?  My best guess based on testing is GG2.2 
> 
> F_P
> 
> (Yes, my screen is calibrated using a Monaco Optix XR Pro.)

With Vuescan I select AdobeRGB as output for color. If you 
scan a B&W film in greyscale then Vuescan assigns the 2.2 
Gamma in relation to the AdobeRGB selection. If available I 
use the suited B&W film type curve choices of Vuescan. Scanned 
in 16 bit. In Photoshop CS it is convert to the QTR gray lab 
space (not that important you can also keep the image with 2.2 
Gamma). Edit the image, save it again. Then I convert the 
image to one of the QTR paper profiles in Photoshop as well. 
That file is brought to Qimage and printed to file with its 
color management disabled. QTR does the rest with the curves 
and resolution selected that correspond to the paper profile 
used in the Photoshop conversion.

Ernst
                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Qimage to QTR using one of
> > the designated QTR gray spaces for Qimage.
> > 
> > Now I am working with an image that I scanned from a B&W 35mm negative
> > on my Epson Perfection 1650 Photo using Vuescan.  I'm not getting
> > WYSIWYG results at all.   )
> 
> in 16 bit. In Photoshop CS it is convert to the QTR gray lab 
> space (not that important you can also keep the image with 2.2 
> Gamma). Edit the image, save it again. Then I convert the 
> image to one of the QTR paper profiles in Photoshop as well. 

Is there a way to turn off Qimage's automatic sharpening?  

I've made some surprisingly good 12X18 from Epson 3200 flatbed-scanned
negs using Qimage, but I find it destructive to better scans from my
Nikon V. 

IMO Qimage is amazing for enlargements that one wouldn't think do-able
without the interpolation and sharpening, such as unsharp originals or
 from flatbeds, but with really good 35mm film and 4000ppi Nikon scans
printed to 12X18, Qimage seems a complication at best (maybe it
wouldn't be so bad if its sharpening was disabled, though I don't know
what it would contribute with good originals).

> That file is brought to Qimage and printed to file with its 
> color management disabled. QTR does the rest with the curves 
> and resolution selected that correspond to the paper profile 
> used in the Photoshop conversion.

 Qimage can be very automatic, but IMO it's not as good as CS2+QTR
alone unless one really needs the mult-printing for which it was designed.

John

> 
> Ernst
>                     --
>

Ernst - thanks for your reply.  My workflow matches yours exactly,
except that I needed to know what grayspace the scanned image from
Vuescan was in.  GG2.2 is it.

John - I am suprised that Qimage had a "destructive" effect.  What
settings are you using?

It should be easily possible to turn off Qimage's automatic
sharpening.  One of the issues with sharpening in Qimage is that there
a number of places it can be done.  The most useful IMHO is the
"sharpening equaliser", but this only works for colour images.  With
B&W, you are limited to USM and final print smart sharpening.  I am
inclined to agree that this lacks the finesse of something like
Focalblade in PSCS2.  Certainly for my negative scan I sharpened using
Focalblade and then applied a small amount of final print smart
sharpening.  For images from a digital camera, final print smart
sharpening seems adequate.

For me the big advantage of Qimage is not having to save resized
copies of images for printing.  I can print directly from master
images.  However this benefit is offset by the fact that the colour
managment engine in Qimage does not deal at all well with the QTR
profiles.  Thus for B&W images I save a master, plus a copy of the
master in QTR-gray-matte.

F_P

> 
> John - I am suprised that Qimage had a "destructive" effect.  What
> settings are you using?

I don't find Qimage destructive with color, just unnecessary and
awkward unless high production is the goal...but B&W (per this Group)
seems to require more care than can be delivered through Qimage... 

For proofing or mass production (eg cards) or for production prints to
which I return frequently, Qimage is handy. 

Do I read you correctly: is convenience is the only reason you'd
advocate Qimage ?

...except for the fractals alternatives, it seems to me to add nothing
positive beyond convenience...

I agree that smart sharpening can be convenient, but I don't find it
sufficiently refined to be relied upon routinely with B&W (this is a
B&W Group after all :-)  ...I'm more comfortable with USM. 

USM is a wonderful and revolutionary tool, more important IMO than Ice
(for example) but it does require more care/skill/restraint/patience,
and maybe test printing, than does smart sharpen.

I've not tried Focalblade but I have seen commentary to the effect
that it ads nothing Vs CS2's tools...

...what's your take on that? 

How about a small plug for Focalblade? :-)

> 
> It should be easily possible to turn off Qimage's automatic
> sharpening.  One of the issues with sharpening in Qimage is that there
> a number of places it can be done.  The most useful IMHO is the
> "sharpening equaliser", but this only works for colour images.  With
> B&W, you are limited to USM and final print smart sharpening.  I am
> inclined to agree that this lacks the finesse of something like
> Focalblade in PSCS2.  Certainly for my negative scan I sharpened using
> Focalblade and then applied a small amount of final print smart
> sharpening.  For images from a digital camera, final print smart
> sharpening seems adequate.
> 
> For me the big advantage of Qimage is not having to save resized
> copies of images for printing.  I can print directly from master
> images.  However this benefit is offset by the fact that the colour
> managment engine in Qimage does not deal at all well with the QTR
> profiles.  Thus for B&W images I save a master, plus a copy of the
> master in QTR-gray-matte.
> 
> F_P
>

djon43 wrote:

> ...except for the fractals alternatives, it seems to me to add nothing
> positive beyond convenience...

There's no fractal extrapolation in Qimage.

Ernst


                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@y...> wrote:
> I don't find Qimage destructive with color, just unnecessary and
> awkward unless high production is the goal...but B&W (per this Group)
> seems to require more care than can be delivered through Qimage... 

I have found some B&W images where halos can be a problem.  FocalBlade
has options for dealing with this.

As I understand it, smart sharpening in Qimage is supposed to give you
the same sharpness in a print that you see on the screen.  It is
supposed to avoid the problem whereby you oversharpen on the screen to
get the print sharpness.  But this means that by its very nature it
can't be previewed.  You need to get the right level for each paper
and ink combination through trial and error.  In theory this means
that you can't use it as a substitute for USM or similar tools, but I
get the sense that people do anyway.  

I don't find the USM feature of Qimage very helpful (hard to preview),
and so if I need additional sharpening other than smart sharpening, I
tend to use USM in PSCS2 or a sharpening plugin like FocalBlade.

I have been very happy with Qimage colour sharpening, but as you say,
this is a B&W group.
 
> Do I read you correctly: is convenience is the only reason you'd
> advocate Qimage ?

For me this is a big advantage.  I do a lot of A3 mini-posters, where
I have a template that inserts title and date information from IPTC
data, and my signature.  However the big selling point for most people
is indeed supposed to be its ability to resize up dramatically (but
not using fractals), although personally I don't do much of that. 
Others find that smart sharpening takes the worry and hassle out of
sharpening.

If you don't want fancy layouts, don't resize much, only print in the
one size and need more sophisticated sharpening, then you may not need it.
 
YMMV

F_P

Ernst, I do think all or some of the interpolations available from
Qimage are fractal interpolations (not the Genuine Fractals product,
of course, just different spins on the shared fractals math).

Correct me if I'm wrong. 

Two of Qimage's interpolation choices seem superior to my vintage
Genuine Fractals. But Qimage's interps don't seem as effective as
CS2's interp, also a fractals math exercise(IMO etc etc). 

I don't see a reason for Qimage, except for its convenient production
efficiencies, and I do think there's a price to be paid
sometimes...it's not the universal solution that its enthusiasts often
assert.

Fractal interpolation has been around for a long time, is pervasive,
not unique to one software brand.

John

 Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:

>
> djon43 wrote:
> 
> > ...except for the fractals alternatives, it seems to me to add nothing
> > positive beyond convenience...
> 
> There's no fractal extrapolation in Qimage.
> 
> Ernst
> 
> 
>                     --
>            Ernst Dinkla
> 
> 
> www.pigment-print.com
> (         unvollendet         )
>

djon43 wrote:
> Ernst, I do think all or some of the interpolations available from
> Qimage are fractal interpolations (not the Genuine Fractals product,
> of course, just different spins on the shared fractals math).
> 
> Correct me if I'm wrong. 
> 
> Two of Qimage's interpolation choices seem superior to my vintage
> Genuine Fractals. But Qimage's interps don't seem as effective as
> CS2's interp, also a fractals math exercise(IMO etc etc). 

Vector sharpening is available in Qimage. Spline etc. I have 
not seen any reference to fractals in relation to Qimage's 
interpolation.

> 
> I don't see a reason for Qimage, except for its convenient production
> efficiencies, and I do think there's a price to be paid
> sometimes...it's not the universal solution that its enthusiasts often
> assert.

Except for scans from the Epson 3200 I hardly use sharpening 
in PS CS. I use the smart print sharpening in Qimage, most of 
the time at a low setting and no other sharpening in Qimage. 
The up and down sampling routines are however very useful. I 
use the border function, the cut marks, the active log file, 
the page edit, the print to file function, the templates, the 
fast color management on/off setting / choices. Some functions 
I do not use and there will be functions I have never been 
aware of. I do not trust its CM on the QTR profiles enough but 
I will not start a request on that as I stretched the 
attention of Mike a bit too much over the last month. Still 
the best program I ever bought for less than 60$ and with a 
support you will find nowhere else. For that reason I plug 
this program. It is something I have a lot of confidence in.

                    --
           Ernst Dinkla


www.pigment-print.com
(         unvollendet         )

Said much better than I.  I agree whole-heartedly.  But you forgot to
say that it still has a life-time upgrade policy, so the value just
keeps on coming.  I guess that marks me as an enthusiast.

There are a lot of small programs around that do things that PSCS2
already does - Qimage, Imatch, PTGui, Downloader Pro, Rawshooter. 
These succeed because the Swiss army knife that is PSCS2 doesn't do
everything well.  I would have argued that using an all-in-one program
is a choice for convenience over functionality.

F_P


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

> Except for scans from the Epson 3200 I hardly use sharpening 
> in PS CS. I use the smart print sharpening in Qimage, most of 
> the time at a low setting and no other sharpening in Qimage. 
> The up and down sampling routines are however very useful. I 
> use the border function, the cut marks, the active log file, 
> the page edit, the print to file function, the templates, the 
> fast color management on/off setting / choices. Some functions 
> I do not use and there will be functions I have never been 
> aware of. I do not trust its CM on the QTR profiles enough but 
> I will not start a request on that as I stretched the 
> attention of Mike a bit too much over the last month. Still 
> the best program I ever bought for less than 60$ and with a 
> support you will find nowhere else. For that reason I plug 
> this program. It is something I have a lot of confidence in.

The fractal interpolation was patented by GF, which has meant that other 
people haven't been able to use it.

There are some other proprietary adaptive methods used by software such 
as QImage, but these don't involve fractals (unless there are companies 
that have licensed GF's work, which I don't think there are. Most other 
software uses a variety of non-proprietary non-adaptive methods.

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/image-interpolation.htm is 
worth reading on this.

Regards,

Peter Marshall
petermarshall@...     
_________________________________________________________________
My London Diary	              http://mylondondiary.co.uk/
London's Industrial Heritage: http://petermarshallphotos.co.uk/
The Buildings of London etc:  http://londonphotographs.co.uk/
and elsewhere......



djon43 wrote:

>Ernst, I do think all or some of the interpolations available from
>Qimage are fractal interpolations (not the Genuine Fractals product,
>of course, just different spins on the shared fractals math).
>
>Correct me if I'm wrong. 
>
>Two of Qimage's interpolation choices seem superior to my vintage
>Genuine Fractals. But Qimage's interps don't seem as effective as
>CS2's interp, also a fractals math exercise(IMO etc etc). 
>
>I don't see a reason for Qimage, except for its convenient production
>efficiencies, and I do think there's a price to be paid
>sometimes...it's not the universal solution that its enthusiasts often
>assert.
>
>Fractal interpolation has been around for a long time, is pervasive,
>not unique to one software brand.
>
>John
>
> Ernst Dinkla <E.Dinkla@c...> wrote:
>  
>
>>djon43 wrote:
>>
>>    
>>
>>>...except for the fractals alternatives, it seems to me to add nothing
>>>positive beyond convenience...
>>>      
>>>
>>There's no fractal extrapolation in Qimage.
>>
>>Ernst
>>
>>
>>                    --
>>           Ernst Dinkla
>>
>>
>>www.pigment-print.com
>>(         unvollendet         )
>>
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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
>
>
>
> 
>
>
>
>  
>