Digital BW, The Print

Hi all,

I've been printing on mostly matte papers but it's time to place an
order and the images in the queue are better suited for glossy. Last
time I tried switching between EK and PK it was a complete mess, so I
want to get one ink and stick with it.

Since I last checked there are some new glossy papers out, like Ilford
Galerie Smooth Gloss. Do any of these new papers work well with UT2 on
a 1280? With EK or PK? I had good luck with Ilford Pearl using EK
(very high perceived dmax) but would really like to see a smoother
surface.

Regards,
-Pieris

So with all of the good info presented by Paul and others, I made my 
first grayscale ICC today.  I printed Paul's 21 step stepwedge (with 
2.20 max density, as that's what I get with my R2400 and EPSM).  I 
noticed that the profile embedded with the file is grayscale 2.2.  I 
have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads to more 'open' 
lower print values.  I didn't color manage the stepwedge. (That was the 
right thing to do, right?) Should I change my working space to 2.2 when 
I use the ICC?

BTW I used my MacBeth 914 reflection densitometer and coverted the 
visual density to L* via a formula.

The target should not have had an embedded profile - which target are you
using?  You were right to print it without colour management.  Using the ICC
profile allows independence from your choice of workspace but personally I
would use GG2.2.  DG20 does not lead to "more open lower print values"
except by coincidence in a non colour managed workflow.

> From: Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Mon, 13 Mar 2006 15:05:40 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> 
> So with all of the good info presented by Paul and others, I made my
> first grayscale ICC today.  I printed Paul's 21 step stepwedge (with
> 2.20 max density, as that's what I get with my R2400 and EPSM).  I
> noticed that the profile embedded with the file is grayscale 2.2.  I
> have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads to more 'open'
> lower print values.  I didn't color manage the stepwedge. (That was the
> right thing to do, right?) Should I change my working space to 2.2 when
> I use the ICC?
> 
> BTW I used my MacBeth 914 reflection densitometer and coverted the
> visual density to L* via a formula.

>  ... I made my
> first grayscale ICC today.  I printed Paul's 21 step stepwedge (with
> 2.20 max density, as that's what I get with my R2400 and EPSM).  I
> noticed that the profile embedded with the file is grayscale 2.2.

I just removed the profiles from those files.  So, most are now untagged.
There is one that is marked with typical Gray Gamma 2.2 Lab L readings for
EEM when printed with an ICC and in GG2.2 space.  That one does have Gray
Gamma 2.2 embedded.

> I have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads 
> to more 'open' lower print values.

Only in a color managed workflow does the working space matter.  In such a
workflow, the Dot Gain 20% does result in more separation of the deep shadow
values.  You can see this on the monitor by changing the gray working space.

>  I didn't color manage the stepwedge. (That was the
> right thing to do, right?)

Yes, the test print that is used to input values to Create ICC must tell
that program how the system prints with no color management.

> Should I change my working space to 2.2 when I use the ICC?

The same ICC can be used with either space.  When I was working in a
non-color managed workflow I used a custom dot gain curve for the monitor
view and final printing density distribution that is closer to Dot Gain 20%.
I did this because it was what my files had originally been geared to with
the Piezo system. I think that distribution may have more efficiently used
the limited 8 bit file information.  However, since Gray Gamma 2.2 is a much
more common standard, and we mostly use high bit depth files, I now
recommend using the GG 2.2 standard.

Whichever space you use, the point of the color managed workflow is to have
the (calibrated) monitor better match the print, without the need to make a
custom dot gain curve.  That and the linearization feature of Create ICC
makes for a very nice workflow.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Actually the below is around the wrong way.  Only with a NON-colour managed
workflow does the workspace matter.  This is because there is no translation
service (colour management) operative - file values are sent directly to the
printer without adjustment.  WITH colour management, file values are
adjusted to reflect the properties of the print space.  This is why some
people fussed around trying different workspaces with their Same as Source
workflows.  With a colour (or in our case, a luminance) managed workflow
this is not necessary because regardless of what workspace we use, the file
values are amended on the fly to more suitable numbers prior to being sent
to the printer.

The thing to remember about your display is that it is ALWAYS colour
managed.  Even if a file does not have an embedded profile (or you selected
Don't Color Manage this document), PS will assign your workspace to it for
the purposes of the colour translation from there to your display profile.
This is why, when we look at step wedges without embedded profiles, their
look changes when we change our workspace setting.  Their file values remain
the same but the way those numbers are interpreted is changed according to
the workspace setting.  If the step wedge (or any other image) has an
embedded profile then of course that profile is used and not the workspace
(often when we say workspace we should really say the document's embedded
ICC profile - think of the workspace as a default only) and so changing the
workspace setting doesn't change the look of the image (because it is
irrelevant).

As for shadow separation, it really is worthwhile understanding the above.
A GG1.8 profiled step wedge shows a greater difference in luminance between
95 and 100% grey than a GG2.2 step wedge.  That is gamma.  But send those
two step wedges to your printer without colour management and you'll get the
same output because the same numbers are being sent (without dictionaries to
suggest they mean different things).  With colour management, file values
are adjusted to maintain the appearance of the greys you see on your display
(subject to the dynamic range of your printer and the handling of any tonal
range compression).  In a colour managed world, GG 1.8 is not any better
than 2.2 (except for the possible circumstance I mentioned above).  (And
remember it is the document profile that is important and not the workspace
per se.)  What matters most is that you've as accurately as possible
depicted the output of your printer in response to its range of possible
input values (8 bit, 0-255) and have a suitable methodology for dealing with
inevitably necessary tonal range compression.

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

> 
>> I have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads
>> to more 'open' lower print values.
> 
> Only in a color managed workflow does the working space matter.  In such a
> workflow, the Dot Gain 20% does result in more separation of the deep shadow
> values.  You can see this on the monitor by changing the gray working space.
>

> 
> The thing to remember about your display is that it is ALWAYS colour
> managed.  Even if a file does not have an embedded profile (or you 
selected
> Don't Color Manage this document), PS will assign your workspace to 
it for
> the purposes of the colour translation from there to your display 
profile.


Steve, can you confirm when you have a custom display profile available 
that the PS CMS will to a profile-to-profile conversion to show the 
image (embedded profile is assigned to the file then converted to the 
display profile).

Thanks.

Olivier

I'm not sure I understand the question but if you have profiled your display
and tell your computer to set this profile as your display profile (on Mac
via System Prefs) then PS uses this profile for image rendition.  The
selected CMS will manage image conversion from its embedded profile to your
display profile.  You can always check what profile PS is using for your
display by going into Edit Color Settings and simply clicking on Working
Spaces RGB and checking what is next to Monitor RGB.

> From: Olivier <odesmais@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 09:42:42 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> 
>> 
>> The thing to remember about your display is that it is ALWAYS colour
>> managed.  Even if a file does not have an embedded profile (or you
> selected
>> Don't Color Manage this document), PS will assign your workspace to
> it for
>> the purposes of the colour translation from there to your display
> profile.
> 
> 
> Steve, can you confirm when you have a custom display profile available
> that the PS CMS will to a profile-to-profile conversion to show the
> image (embedded profile is assigned to the file then converted to the
> display profile).
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Olivier
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure I understand the question but if you have profiled 
your display
> and tell your computer to set this profile as your display profile 
(on Mac
> via System Prefs) then PS uses this profile for image rendition.  
The
> selected CMS will manage image conversion from its embedded profile 
to your
> display profile.  You can always check what profile PS is using for 
your
> display by going into Edit Color Settings and simply clicking on 
Working
> Spaces RGB and checking what is next to Monitor RGB.
>  

Steve, I'm on XP. 
Sorry the "assigned" thing was confusing. So you say yes there's a 
conversion from file embedded profile to display one. 

For info and off topic, this was not a BW related question but a 
scanner one : I can't define whether I should use G2.2 as a gamma for 
a Coolscan CMS off or any. I have color shifts in both cases, but 
less with 2.2 and was wondering if this has to do with display gamma 
and the conversion. Nikon Scan CMS is not too clear...

By assigning I mean that when none is present then the document is
given/assigned the workspace.  Your scanner should have it's own profile...

> From: Olivier <odesmais@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 11:18:05 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@...> wrote:
>> 
>> I'm not sure I understand the question but if you have profiled
> your display
>> and tell your computer to set this profile as your display profile
> (on Mac
>> via System Prefs) then PS uses this profile for image rendition.
> The
>> selected CMS will manage image conversion from its embedded profile
> to your
>> display profile.  You can always check what profile PS is using for
> your
>> display by going into Edit Color Settings and simply clicking on
> Working
>> Spaces RGB and checking what is next to Monitor RGB.
>>  
> 
> Steve, I'm on XP.
> Sorry the "assigned" thing was confusing. So you say yes there's a
> conversion from file embedded profile to display one.
> 
> For info and off topic, this was not a BW related question but a
> scanner one : I can't define whether I should use G2.2 as a gamma for
> a Coolscan CMS off or any. I have color shifts in both cases, but
> less with 2.2 and was wondering if this has to do with display gamma
> and the conversion. Nikon Scan CMS is not too clear...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> By assigning I mean that when none is present then the document is
> given/assigned the workspace.  Your scanner should have it's own 
profile...
> 

Steve, I don't want to embark you on a scanner discussion. 
Yes the scanner has a custom profile that needs to be assigned, the 
thing is 1) the scanner needs to be provided with a gamma for raw 
scanning, 2) when converting to working space the profile-assigned 
file, I get not too close colors and the file opens in PS with a 
AdobeRVB tag. I can't figure out whether this is what the scanner has 
actually registered (it's different from the slide but it's hardware 
limitations) or whether I'm wrong acting at the gamma level and 
should live 2.2 (e.g. display and working space value). And 
corrections in PS on a Tif file are not satisfactory. The thing is 
gamma should have no effect in terms of color shift to my 
understanding : this is where I'm unsure. But again this is not a BW 
topic at all and doesn't call for a reply. It's just to justify my 
question.

Olivier

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
<pdesmidt@...> wrote:
>
> So with all of the good info presented by Paul and others, I made my 
> first grayscale ICC today.  I printed Paul's 21 step stepwedge (with 
> 2.20 max density, as that's what I get with my R2400 and EPSM).  I 
> noticed that the profile embedded with the file is grayscale 2.2.  I 
> have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads to more
'open' 
> lower print values.  I didn't color manage the stepwedge. (That was the 
> right thing to do, right?) Should I change my working space to 2.2 when 
> I use the ICC?
> 
> BTW I used my MacBeth 914 reflection densitometer and coverted the 
> visual density to L* via a formula.
>
Hello,
I want to purchase an eye one spectrophotometer to make profiles for
my printer but I wondered whether I can also read a density value fron
that device (I need it to read target for alternative process like
platinum printing). I find on www that there was not correlation
between density and the L* chanel. You' d understand my interest for
your formula! 
Thanks for reply
Christophe

> From: Olivier <odesmais@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:22:04 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
> <stevekale@...> wrote:
>> 
>> By assigning I mean that when none is present then the document is
>> given/assigned the workspace.  Your scanner should have it's own
> profile...
>> 
> 
> Steve, I don't want to embark you on a scanner discussion.
> Yes the scanner has a custom profile that needs to be assigned, the
> thing is 1) the scanner needs to be provided with a gamma for raw
> scanning, 

Either I am not familiar with this or I don't understand you.  Perhaps
someone else can help.


>2) when converting to working space the profile-assigned
> file, I get not too close colors and the file opens in PS with a
> AdobeRVB tag. 

When your image is imported to PS it should be tagged with your custom
profile.  If you have PS set to Preserve Embedded Profiles and Ask When
Opening under Mismatches then the fact that the document is tagged with your
scanner profile, presumably not the same as your workspace (colour or
greyscale) then you asked whether you want to use the embedded profile,
convert the file to the workspace or not colour manage the document.

I think what you are saying is that you are not asked this question which
means that either you should amend your colour settings in PS (to preserve
embedded and ask when opening) or the scanner is delivering an Adobe RGB
tagged file (I suspect your RGB workspace is Adobe RGB and hence there is no
mismatch).  In that case, one of two things can be wrong.  Your scanner
settings are incorrect and it is incorrectly tagging the file as Adobe RGB
when it should be tagging files with your custom device-specific scanner
profile or there is poor mapping in scanner software from the device
specific space to Adobe RGB.

I have not used a scanner in a long while and I don't have a Coolscan but
others here should be able to help you ensure that the scanned image is
tagged with the device profile.  Then in PS you would at opening convert the
image from the scanner space to your chosen workspace (Adobe RGB or, as I
would use for colour work, ProPhoto RGB).

>I can't figure out whether this is what the scanner has
> actually registered (it's different from the slide but it's hardware
> limitations) or whether I'm wrong acting at the gamma level and
> should live 2.2 (e.g. display and working space value). And
> corrections in PS on a Tif file are not satisfactory. The thing is
> gamma should have no effect in terms of color shift to my
> understanding : this is where I'm unsure. But again this is not a BW
> topic at all and doesn't call for a reply. It's just to justify my
> question.
> 

I would focus on the above first.  Scanned files should be tagged with your
custom scanner profile by the scanner - the device has its own unique
profile.  If you want, and as would likely be advisable, PS can then convert
these files to a space that is not device specific (Adobe RGB, ProPhoto etc)
for editing and storage (a "workspace") prior to conversion to a (device
specific) print space on the fly at printing.

Hope this helps

Steve

The ICC I made yesterday does not come very close to the QTRs ideal 
densities.  Here are the densities, starting with the lightest:

Step      no-ICC        ICC
255      .05               .06
242      .10               .11
229      .16               .16
216      .22               .21
204      .29               .26
191      .35               .33
178      .43               .40
165      .50               .47
153      .57               .55
140      .66               .63
127      .76               .72
114      .86               .81
102      .97               .93
89         1.09            1.04
76         1.22            1.18
63         1.38            1.32
51         1.52            1.51
38         1.67            1.71
25         1.81            1.97
12         1.99            2.16
0           2.19            2.23

In the Eye-One folder, there's a applet QTR-Linearize-Data. Could this 
be used to make a more ideal ramp? If one inputs the appropriate text 
file, you get a text file with the LAB data plus a line on the bottom, 
such as:

LINEARIZE="96.4 92.2 86.6 82 76.9 73.1 67.6 63.6 59.3 54.4 48.6 44.6 40 
34.4 29.8 24.1 20.5 15.9 13 9.4 5.4"

Roy says to "copy/paste this whole line into the profile file" .  Does 
this mean to paste into the ICC file?  I'm not sure how to do that, as 
Windows tells me that it can't open the ICC file.

Any help or suggestions appreciated!

> When your image is imported to PS it should be tagged with your 
custom
> profile.  

Unfortunately no : 1) because Twain interface does not allow, 2)
because you can't tag at the scan soft level.


> 
> I think what you are saying is that you are not asked this question 
which
> means that either you should amend your colour settings in PS (to 
preserve
> embedded and ask when opening) or the scanner is delivering an 
Adobe RGB
> tagged file (I suspect your RGB workspace is Adobe RGB and hence 
there is no
> mismatch).  

Yes but the warning should be "no profile embedded". Just the gamma 
is to be "transferred" to PS. 


In that case, one of two things can be wrong.  Your scanner
> settings are incorrect and it is incorrectly tagging the file as 
Adobe RGB
> when it should be tagging files with your custom device-specific 
scanner
> profile or there is poor mapping in scanner software from the device
> specific space to Adobe RGB.

Yes : this is exactly where I can't find out. I understand my 
question is very specific and not to be put on the DBWTP group.
> 
> 
Thanks for the care and help Steve. This LS50 scanner model is great 
but I find the driver really flimzy or at least very obscure...

While you're on-line, I have a question of another type for you : I 
believe you have a 4800. I have an air buble in the yellow line 
(which apparently is common). Should I (really) worry about this or 
not. If so power cleaning is the only option ?

Thanks again 
Olivier

I'm sorry but I have not experienced this problem.  It's interesting that
the yellow line is probably the only one where you could see a bubble. Who
knows whether other bubbles have come down the other lines?  I doubt it's
really a huge issue and would not be in any hurry to do a power clean until
you start missing nozzle checks.  But that's not based on any real technical
knowledge.

> From: Olivier <odesmais@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:18:05 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> 
> While you're on-line, I have a question of another type for you : I
> believe you have a 4800. I have an air buble in the yellow line
> (which apparently is common). Should I (really) worry about this or
> not. If so power cleaning is the only option ?
> 
> Thanks again 
> Olivier

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but I have not experienced this problem.  It's interesting 
that
> the yellow line is probably the only one where you could see a 
bubble. Who
> knows whether other bubbles have come down the other lines?  I doubt 
it's
> really a huge issue and would not be in any hurry to do a power clean 
until
> you start missing nozzle checks.  But that's not based on any real 
technical
> knowledge.
> 

Epson doc got me unnecessarily nervous : it shows how air bubbles can 
damage the head, but this is in an article related to third part ink 
(how strange...). My 1290 lines with Piezotone CIS look like Pepsi 
bottles and I don't care, but the 4800 is at another price point...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but I have not experienced this problem.  It's interesting 
that
> the yellow line is probably the only one where you could see a 
bubble. Who
> knows whether other bubbles have come down the other lines?  I doubt 
it's
> really a huge issue and would not be in any hurry to do a power clean 
until
> you start missing nozzle checks.  But that's not based on any real 
technical
> knowledge.
> 

Epson doc got me unnecessarily nervous : it shows how air bubbles can 
damage the head, but this is in an article related to third part ink 
(how strange...). My 1290 lines with Piezotone CIS look like Pepsi 
bottles and I don't care, but the 4800 is at another price point...

> ...
> > I have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads
> > to more 'open' lower print values.


My previous comment:
 
> Only in a color managed workflow does the working space matter.  In such a
> workflow, the Dot Gain 20% does result in more separation of the deep
> shadow values.  


This thread seems to have become much more complex.  Here is an example of
what I was trying to point out.  This compares the Lab L* separation of the
100% and 90% print values with Gray Gamma 2.2 and Dot Gain 20% working
spaces and an un-tagged original file, in what I call non-color managed v.
color managed workflows:


A.  Non-color managed workflow:  CS2 Print with Preview "Color Handling" set
to "No Color Management", printer driver set to Color Controls.

1.  Gray Gamma 2.2 working space -- 90-100 separation = 8.4;

2.  Dot Gain 20% working space -- 90-100% separation = 8.3.

These are essentially the same.  I think the difference is within normal
print-to-print variation.


B.  Color managed workflow:  Print with Preview set to "Let Photoshop
Determine Colors" and an ICC make with Create ICC inserted, driver set to No
Color Adjustment.

1.  Gray Gamma 2.2 working space -- 90-100 separation = 3.4;

2.  Dot Gain 20% working space -- 90-100% separation = 8.2. 

Here the 90 - 100% separation of the Gray Gamma 2.2 print is clearly
compressed relative to the Dot Gain 20% print.  (Note that the Dot Gain 20%
separation similarity to the non-color managed print is mostly coincidence
and an artifact of how I formulate the inksets.)



> 
> ... since Gray Gamma 2.2 is a ... common standard,... I now
> recommend using the GG 2.2 standard.



> Whichever space you use, the point of the color managed workflow is to
> have the (calibrated) monitor better match the print, without 
> the need to make a custom dot gain curve.

Note that the same ICC was used in the above sample step wedge prints.  With
color management you should get a good monitor to print match with either
working space.  

However, a file that was adjusted to look and print well with one workspace
will not print well in another workspace without adjustment.  As such, I've
started to note in my file names whether the file was edited in Gray Gamma
2.2 (as opposed to my old standard where a custom dot gain curve was used).


Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Peter

You are jumbling two different things here.  It is unfortunate that QTR ink
descriptor files seem to have been relabelled "profiles" rather than
"curves" (as has been the case with the Mac version for some time) as I
think this is cause for confusion.

The LINEARIZE function is peculiar to using Quadtone RIP.  Yes a step wedge
is printed and measured and that data is fed to QTR-Linearize-Data in order
to provide you with the function to be pasted into the ink descriptor file.
This function linearizes the L* output of the QTR greyscale.

QTR-Create-ICC PROFILES are different.  They can be used to profile the
output of a QTR curve (now poorly labelled "profiles") such as the one
completed above with the Linearize function or to profile the output of any
other greyscale workflow.  You do NOT paste anything into the ICC profile.

The ideal densities mentioned are with reference to QTR curves/profiles (not
ICC profiles).  The only thing you need remember here is that after
linearization (ie the output from an ink descriptor file including the
linearize function) a QTR curve/profile should be reasonably linear from
L*min to L*max.

If you then go ahead and QTR-Create-ICC profile that output and then print a
step wedge using that ICC profile, the pattern of density output depends on
the step wedge's document profile - and if, as is likely, it doesn't have an
embedded profile then on your workspace.  (Because two profiles are always
needed for colour management and since your printing with conversion to the
QTR ICC profile, PS needs a starting profile.  If there is none then PS
assigns, for the purposes of the conversion, your workspace.)  If your
workspace is GG2.2 you'd expect the 95 step to be printed very close to the
100 step.

Cheers

Steve

> From: Peter De Smidt <pdesmidt@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 05:26:46 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] ICCs and linearization
> 
> The ICC I made yesterday does not come very close to the QTRs ideal
> densities.  Here are the densities, starting with the lightest:
> 
> Step      no-ICC        ICC
> 255      .05               .06
> 242      .10               .11
> 229      .16               .16
> 216      .22               .21
> 204      .29               .26
> 191      .35               .33
> 178      .43               .40
> 165      .50               .47
> 153      .57               .55
> 140      .66               .63
> 127      .76               .72
> 114      .86               .81
> 102      .97               .93
> 89         1.09            1.04
> 76         1.22            1.18
> 63         1.38            1.32
> 51         1.52            1.51
> 38         1.67            1.71
> 25         1.81            1.97
> 12         1.99            2.16
> 0           2.19            2.23
> 
> In the Eye-One folder, there's a applet QTR-Linearize-Data. Could this
> be used to make a more ideal ramp? If one inputs the appropriate text
> file, you get a text file with the LAB data plus a line on the bottom,
> such as:
> 
> LINEARIZE="96.4 92.2 86.6 82 76.9 73.1 67.6 63.6 59.3 54.4 48.6 44.6 40
> 34.4 29.8 24.1 20.5 15.9 13 9.4 5.4"
> 
> Roy says to "copy/paste this whole line into the profile file" .  Does
> this mean to paste into the ICC file?  I'm not sure how to do that, as
> Windows tells me that it can't open the ICC file.
> 
> Any help or suggestions appreciated!

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

> 
> B.  Color managed workflow:  Print with Preview set to "Let Photoshop
> Determine Colors" and an ICC make with Create ICC inserted, driver set to No
> Color Adjustment.
> 
> 1.  Gray Gamma 2.2 working space -- 90-100 separation = 3.4;
> 
> 2.  Dot Gain 20% working space -- 90-100% separation = 8.2.
> 
> Here the 90 - 100% separation of the Gray Gamma 2.2 print is clearly
> compressed relative to the Dot Gain 20% print.

It's not "compressed".  It was closer to begin with.  By saying it is
compressed you suggest that something in the printing narrowed the gap.
What really happened is that when you assigned GG2.2 to the step wedge you
gave new definition to the 90 step.  You in effect assigned GG 2.2 because
when there wasn't a profile attached to the step wedge PS used your
workspace as the profile instead (ie it assigned the workspace for you -
temporarily or on-the-fly).  90K in GG 2.2 is much darker than 90K in DG20.
So when you print them you'd expect the 90 patch from GG2.2 to be darker
than the 90 patch from DG20 and hence you'd expect the respective spread to
be narrower.  This is also depicted on screen.  So colour management is
doing the right thing printing the 90 patch darker for a GG2.2 step wedge
than for a DG20 step wedge.  (Same arguments for GG2.2 vs GG1.8.)

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

> >
> > B.  Color managed workflow:  Print with Preview set to "Let Photoshop
> > Determine Colors" and an ICC make with Create ICC inserted, 
> > driver set to No Color Adjustment.
> >
> > 1.  Gray Gamma 2.2 working space -- 90-100 separation = 3.4;
> >
> > 2.  Dot Gain 20% working space -- 90-100% separation = 8.2.
> >
> > Here the 90 - 100% separation of the Gray Gamma 2.2 print is clearly
> > compressed relative to the Dot Gain 20% print.


From Steve:

> It's not "compressed". 

A Lab L* separation of 3.4 is clearly "compressed" relative to 8.2 in the
way I use the language.

> It was closer to begin with. 

No, the original file values were the same.  It was the same file.

> By saying it is
> compressed you suggest that something in the printing narrowed the gap.

When I was comparing the difference between a color-managed and non-color
managed workflow, that is true.

> What really happened is that when you assigned GG2.2 to the step wedge you
> gave new definition to the 90 step.

I don't think we are disagreeing here.  It's just language.  When I used the
ICC in the "Print with Preview," it utilized the GG2.2 definition of the
file value.  When I used "No Color Management" it did not utilize the GG2.2
definition.  The decision to use or not use the ICC/color managed approach
was in the printing workflow.  

On the other hand, what workspace is used is made before the file is
printed, and this will affect how the image is printed in a color managed
workflow.

 
Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

Christophe 

L* can easily be converted to density.  I have a simple spreadsheet with
these formulae:

If L* > 8 then XYZ_Y = ((L* + 16)/116)^3 else XYZ_Y = (L* x 27)/24389

Density = -log10(XYZ_Y)

Steve

> From: bwdigiprint <bwdigiprint@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:23 -0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
> <pdesmidt@...> wrote:
>> 
>> So with all of the good info presented by Paul and others, I made my
>> first grayscale ICC today.  I printed Paul's 21 step stepwedge (with
>> 2.20 max density, as that's what I get with my R2400 and EPSM).  I
>> noticed that the profile embedded with the file is grayscale 2.2.  I
>> have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads to more
> 'open' 
>> lower print values.  I didn't color manage the stepwedge. (That was the
>> right thing to do, right?) Should I change my working space to 2.2 when
>> I use the ICC?
>> 
>> BTW I used my MacBeth 914 reflection densitometer and coverted the
>> visual density to L* via a formula.
>> 
> Hello,
> I want to purchase an eye one spectrophotometer to make profiles for
> my printer but I wondered whether I can also read a density value fron
> that device (I need it to read target for alternative process like
> platinum printing). I find on www that there was not correlation
> between density and the L* chanel. You' d understand my interest for
> your formula! 
> Thanks for reply
> Christophe
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
>

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

> 
> From Steve:
> 
>> It's not "compressed".
> 
> A Lab L* separation of 3.4 is clearly "compressed" relative to 8.2 in the
> way I use the language.
> 
>> It was closer to begin with.
> 
> No, the original file values were the same.  It was the same file.
> 
>> By saying it is
>> compressed you suggest that something in the printing narrowed the gap.
> 
> When I was comparing the difference between a color-managed and non-color
> managed workflow, that is true.
> 
>> What really happened is that when you assigned GG2.2 to the step wedge you
>> gave new definition to the 90 step.
> 
> I don't think we are disagreeing here.  It's just language.  When I used the
> ICC in the "Print with Preview," it utilized the GG2.2 definition of the
> file value.  When I used "No Color Management" it did not utilize the GG2.2
> definition.  The decision to use or not use the ICC/color managed approach
> was in the printing workflow.

Well yes but it's a bit misleading. Note that when you changed your
workspace the look of the (same) image changed on screen.  It's not really
the same image when you have colour management because the file is
interpreted together with its profile.  (Colour management is always
operating in what you see on display.)  The scale is not compressed.  You
simply jump to different observation points.  The confusion generated by
this is one argument for using QTR-Grey Lab as a workspace.  90K is 10 L*,
95K is 5 L* and 100K is 0 L*  -  and so the L* "fits" the steps and it's
easy to relate the step to the L*.  For an image tagged with GG2.2 the
colour associated with 90K is a much darker shade of grey - it has an L* of
6 (rather than 10).  So it will not only look darker on screen but will and
should print darker than 90K/GG1.8 (L*13) and 90K/GL (L*10).  The sense of
"compression" merely results from a choice of an observation point/number
without regard for its meaning.

In other words there is no magic in 90K or any other %K. 90K means no colour
in and of itself.  It is not relative to any colour space.  It's a pixel
value (8 bit 'inverted' and rebased to a scale of 0-100).  Only when we
ascribe a colour space to it does it have a colour.
> 
> On the other hand, what workspace is used is made before the file is
> printed, and this will affect how the image is printed in a color managed
> workflow.

Again this last statement is wrong.  With a colour managed workflow, it does
not matter in which workspace you edited the image to its final stage  -
whether you began in GG1.8, DG20 or GG2.2.  When you print it, a conversion
takes place such that the file values are altered for appropriate rendition
in the print - the print WON'T be affected by your choice of workspace.
This is a major benefit of the CM approach.  If, however, you did not use
colour management when printing then the workspace you used WILL affect the
print.  This is because the file values are sent as is and in each case for
each shade of grey those file values will be different in each file and
therefore print differently.

Some thoughts on your comments Steve.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale
<stevekale@...> wrote:
> 
> As for shadow separation, it really is worthwhile understanding the
above.
> A GG1.8 profiled step wedge shows a greater difference in luminance
between
> 95 and 100% grey than a GG2.2 step wedge. 

An all important difference if one is primarily interested in deep
shadow distinctions during editing an image. Assuming a profiled
monitor, not everyone is able to clearly distinguish the compressed
deep tones of GG2.2. Aside from color gammut (not an issue here),
presumeably that's why there are different workspaces. Color
management per se works with any choice you might wish.


>  With colour management, file values
> are adjusted to maintain the appearance of the greys you see on your
display
> (subject to the dynamic range of your printer and the handling of
any tonal
> range compression).  In a colour managed world, GG 1.8 is not any better
> than 2.2 (except for the possible circumstance I mentioned above).  

Nor worse either.

>(And
> remember it is the document profile that is important and not the
workspace
> per se.) 

If you are editing anything visualy you are pretty much matching the
workspace in any event since that is what you see. The issue is what
it is that you see and, as you said, documenting it for the next
managed conversion.

 What matters most is that you've as accurately as possible
> depicted the output of your printer in response to its range of possible
> input values (8 bit, 0-255) and have a suitable methodology for
dealing with
> inevitably necessary tonal range compression.
> 

And that Is the point of profiling the system in some way.

Regards.
Duane

> > On the other hand, what workspace is used is made before the file is
> > printed, and this will affect how the image is printed in a color
> > managed workflow.
 
> Again this last statement is wrong.

No, it is correct in the context in which it was made.  The workspace was
set in "Color Settings", and I clearly stated the file was un-tagged.  As
such, the workspace determines how the image is displayed, and the ICC
follows this to be sure the print matches.

I think you are assuming a file that has an embedded profile, but that was
not the situation I was talking about.

I understand that in many instances, particularly color printing with a
specific printer and inkset, embedding the ICC might be a good idea.
However, my current thinking is that for the "Create ICC" profiles used in a
the B&W "Print with Preview" workflows that I have in mind, I'm probably
going to recommend un-tagged files.  My reasons for this are that, first,
those who use Photoshop Elements cannot easily embed the ICCs.  Second,
since the ICCs will include printer and tone specific information, and what
tone is wanted and what printer is used may change, it might be best to just
leave the file un-tagged until printing.  This shifts the view and print
"look" to the underlying workspace that is selected in "Color Settings."
You will note that I also am starting to include in the name of the file
what space it was edited in, because the underlying file will be affected by
the editing that is done in a specific space.

At any rate, the context of my discussion, as I noted initially, was with
un-tagged files.  

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

I use this link for my conversion of L* to Density. And other 
conversions too. BUT, I've never actually checked it out - rather I've 
taken it on trust. Does anyone else use it and is it ok - please? I 
could check Steve K's calc against Bruce Lindbloom's - but it's bedtime 
(very early start tomorrow), so good night all.
http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?CompandCalculator.html
Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

Steve Kale wrote:

> Christophe
>
> L* can easily be converted to density. I have a simple spreadsheet with
> these formulae:
>
> If L* > 8 then XYZ_Y = ((L* + 16)/116)^3 else XYZ_Y = (L* x 27)/24389
>
> Density = -log10(XYZ_Y)
>
> Steve
>
>
> > From: bwdigiprint <bwdigiprint@...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:23 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
> > <pdesmidt@...> wrote:
> >>
> >> So with all of the good info presented by Paul and others, I made my
> >> first grayscale ICC today. I printed Paul's 21 step stepwedge (with
> >> 2.20 max density, as that's what I get with my R2400 and EPSM). I
> >> noticed that the profile embedded with the file is grayscale 2.2. I
> >> have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads to more
> > 'open'
> >> lower print values. I didn't color manage the stepwedge. (That was the
> >> right thing to do, right?) Should I change my working space to 2.2 when
> >> I use the ICC?
> >>
> >> BTW I used my MacBeth 914 reflection densitometer and coverted the
> >> visual density to L* via a formula.
> >>
> > Hello,
> > I want to purchase an eye one spectrophotometer to make profiles for
> > my printer but I wondered whether I can also read a density value fron
> > that device (I need it to read target for alternative process like
> > platinum printing). I find on www that there was not correlation
> > between density and the L* chanel. You' d understand my interest for
> > your formula!
> > Thanks for reply
> > Christophe
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
>
> SPONSORED LINKS
> Digital wedding photography 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+wedding+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=Umur-3rsLOic7dZMwVL94w> 
> 	Learn digital photography 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Learn+digital+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=emApqtvj0kHQhppIzRrNgw> 
> 	Digital photography college 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+college&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=aIiABJLTZsUnmWBs4mZwuA> 
>
> Digital photography 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=pJmwqgVzec3JGBtWYlPbOg> 
> 	Digital photography web site 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+web+site&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=BMII8rtDZlAtVdZsPhaZqw> 
> 	Digital photography course 
> <http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+course&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=OrnrutXVhHZu-7E7ccLtuw> 
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
>
>     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
>       the web.
>     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
>       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>       <mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
>       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

	
	
		
___________________________________________________________ 
Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

I have tried your formula and the calculator on the link with two
values (one under 8 and another above). The results are the same.
Thank you very much to both Steve for those informations .
Christophe






--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Gledhill
<stephengledhill@...> wrote:
>
> I use this link for my conversion of L* to Density. And other 
> conversions too. BUT, I've never actually checked it out - rather I've 
> taken it on trust. Does anyone else use it and is it ok - please? I 
> could check Steve K's calc against Bruce Lindbloom's - but it's bedtime 
> (very early start tomorrow), so good night all.
> http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?CompandCalculator.html
> Steve Gledhill ----- http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/
> 
> Steve Kale wrote:
> 
> > Christophe
> >
> > L* can easily be converted to density. I have a simple spreadsheet
with
> > these formulae:
> >
> > If L* > 8 then XYZ_Y = ((L* + 16)/116)^3 else XYZ_Y = (L* x 27)/24389
> >
> > Density = -log10(XYZ_Y)
> >
> > Steve
> >
> >
> > > From: bwdigiprint <bwdigiprint@...>
> > > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:42:23 -0000
> > > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > > Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> > >
> > > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Peter De Smidt
> > > <pdesmidt@> wrote:
> > >>
> > >> So with all of the good info presented by Paul and others, I
made my
> > >> first grayscale ICC today. I printed Paul's 21 step stepwedge (with
> > >> 2.20 max density, as that's what I get with my R2400 and EPSM). I
> > >> noticed that the profile embedded with the file is grayscale 2.2. I
> > >> have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads to more
> > > 'open'
> > >> lower print values. I didn't color manage the stepwedge. (That
was the
> > >> right thing to do, right?) Should I change my working space to
2.2 when
> > >> I use the ICC?
> > >>
> > >> BTW I used my MacBeth 914 reflection densitometer and coverted the
> > >> visual density to L* via a formula.
> > >>
> > > Hello,
> > > I want to purchase an eye one spectrophotometer to make profiles for
> > > my printer but I wondered whether I can also read a density
value fron
> > > that device (I need it to read target for alternative process like
> > > platinum printing). I find on www that there was not correlation
> > > between density and the L* chanel. You' d understand my interest for
> > > your formula!
> > > Thanks for reply
> > > Christophe
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > SPONSORED LINKS
> > Digital wedding photography 
> >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+wedding+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=Umur-3rsLOic7dZMwVL94w>

> > 	Learn digital photography 
> >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Learn+digital+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=emApqtvj0kHQhppIzRrNgw>

> > 	Digital photography college 
> >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+college&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=aIiABJLTZsUnmWBs4mZwuA>

> >
> > Digital photography 
> >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=pJmwqgVzec3JGBtWYlPbOg>

> > 	Digital photography web site 
> >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+web+site&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=BMII8rtDZlAtVdZsPhaZqw>

> > 	Digital photography course 
> >
<http://groups.yahoo.com/gads?t=ms&k=Digital+photography+course&w1=Digital+wedding+photography&w2=Learn+digital+photography&w3=Digital+photography+college&w4=Digital+photography&w5=Digital+photography+web+site&w6=Digital+photography+course&c=6&s=188&.sig=OrnrutXVhHZu-7E7ccLtuw>

> >
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
> >
> >     * Visit your group "DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> >       <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint>" on
> >       the web.
> >     * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> >       DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> >      
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> >     * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> >       Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
> >
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> 
> 	
> 	
> 		
> ___________________________________________________________ 
> Yahoo! Messenger - NEW crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with
voicemail http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
>

Bruce provides the math for you here:

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?Eqn_Lab_to_XYZ.html

> From: Steve Gledhill <stephengledhill@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 20:52:34 +0000
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> 
> I use this link for my conversion of L* to Density. And other
> conversions too. BUT, I've never actually checked it out - rather I've
> taken it on trust. Does anyone else use it and is it ok - please? I
> could check Steve K's calc against Bruce Lindbloom's - but it's bedtime
> (very early start tomorrow), so good night all.
> http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?CompandCalculator.html

Paul

I must have missed something at the beginning of all this.  But tagged or
untagged a file will have been worked up in a particular workspace.  It will
only look right in that space.  If it is untagged or assigned another
workspace either manually or by default because it is not tagged then it
will not look right, as you are aware.  I am not familiar with Elements but
can't imagine it isn't colour managed.  One may not be able to change freely
the tagged profile (do profile conversions etc) but if one is starting and
finishing in Elements then there will be no issues, even if files are
untagged.  

Recommending that people do NOT tag files when they have the capability to
do so is a very bad idea, in my opinion.  You introduce the risk that for
some reason that file gets opened in a workspace other than the one it was
prepared in and people wonder why the look of the file has changed.  This is
precisely the reason files can be tagged and policies set for identifying
and dealing with untagged files and profile mismatches.  No harm will ever
come of a person who leaves their image tagged with a non device specific
workspace.  The important thing is not to store working documents that have
been converted to a device specific environment.  Most anyone with the
smallest amount of colour management knowledge is aware of this and knows
that profile conversions to output spaces such as for printers should
ordinarily be done 'on the fly' only.

Fostering similar understanding with people starting out with Elements would
be good practice.  Basic colour management use is not hard or complicated,
certainly no harder than using a camera.  The types of profiles that one may
encounter are not hard to categorize and understand - ie device specific
(input and output, eg scanner and printer profiles) and non device specific
workspaces (GG2.2, Adobe RGB, ProphotoRGB, GG1.8 etc).  A good basic
understanding of the principles of a colour managed workflow can easily be
grasped with a little thought and focus and will leave someone far better
suited for moving forward.  There are some commentators here who rather than
providing the right sort of education have sort, no doubt with good
intention, to try to simplify their descriptions and tutorials on the
subject of using colour settings and profiles.   Rather than using the right
terminology and explaining concepts accurately and simply, they have
introduced confusing new terms and populated their articles with gross
inaccuracies which simply sow the seeds of future confusion.  I'd rather
people were provided with a good grounding and practice which will serve
them well as they learn more.

Cheers

Steve

> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>
> Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:21:43 -0800
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: RE: [Digital BW] Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> 
>>> On the other hand, what workspace is used is made before the file is
>>> printed, and this will affect how the image is printed in a color
>>> managed workflow.
>  
>> Again this last statement is wrong.
> 
> No, it is correct in the context in which it was made.  The workspace was
> set in "Color Settings", and I clearly stated the file was un-tagged.  As
> such, the workspace determines how the image is displayed, and the ICC
> follows this to be sure the print matches.
> 
> I think you are assuming a file that has an embedded profile, but that was
> not the situation I was talking about.
> 
> I understand that in many instances, particularly color printing with a
> specific printer and inkset, embedding the ICC might be a good idea.
> However, my current thinking is that for the "Create ICC" profiles used in a
> the B&W "Print with Preview" workflows that I have in mind, I'm probably
> going to recommend un-tagged files.  My reasons for this are that, first,
> those who use Photoshop Elements cannot easily embed the ICCs.  Second,
> since the ICCs will include printer and tone specific information, and what
> tone is wanted and what printer is used may change, it might be best to just
> leave the file un-tagged until printing.  This shifts the view and print
> "look" to the underlying workspace that is selected in "Color Settings."
> You will note that I also am starting to include in the name of the file
> what space it was edited in, because the underlying file will be affected by
> the editing that is done in a specific space.
> 
> At any rate, the context of my discussion, as I noted initially, was with
> un-tagged files. 
> 
> Paul
> www.PaulRoark.com

I have almost always had a bubble in the yellow line of my 4800.  It 
appears to be of no significance.

Walt


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Steve Kale 
<stevekale@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry but I have not experienced this problem.  It's 
interesting that
> the yellow line is probably the only one where you could see a 
bubble. Who
> knows whether other bubbles have come down the other lines?  I 
doubt it's
> really a huge issue and would not be in any hurry to do a power 
clean until
> you start missing nozzle checks.  But that's not based on any real 
technical
> knowledge.
> 
> 
> > From: Olivier <odesmais@...>
> > Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Date: Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:18:05 -0000
> > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Paul's Recommended BW Workspace
> > 
> > While you're on-line, I have a question of another type for you : 
I
> > believe you have a 4800. I have an air buble in the yellow line
> > (which apparently is common). Should I (really) worry about this 
or

> > not. If so power cleaning is the only option ?
> > 
> > Thanks again 
> > Olivier
>

Steve,

> ... tagged or
> untagged a file will have been worked up in a particular workspace.  It
> will only look right in that space. 

We agree there.  I wasn't sure we were earlier.  

I recommend Gray Gamma 2.2 for the most part, and embedding GG 2.2 in a file
that is worked up in that space might be a good idea.  Photoshop Elements
users can do that if they have the settings right and check the right boxes
when saving.  Those are more "ifs" than one can count on, however.  Also,
those users are probably not aware of what space they are in unless they
look at the print preview information.  The Elements "Option 1," however,
defaults to the working spaces I recommend, thought it does not tag the
files.

For my own work, I'm starting to include in the name of the file what space
was used.  For example, my new files, worked up in Gray Gamma 2.2 include
GG22 in the name.

On the other hand, most of my files were worked up in GG 2.2, but with a
custom dot gain curve.  I suspect this is true for many people on this list,
as I started with the Piezo linearization standard and carried that over to
my curves for consistency.  This standard is closer to Dot Gain 20% than GG
2.2.  If a file is an 8 bit file and is closer to DG 20 than GG 2.2, then it
might be wise for that file to be tweaked in the space where it looks best.
This, however, may be a level of complexity that I don't want to recommend
for novices.  Just sticking to GG 2.2 might be best as a starting
recommendation. 


> ...  I am not familiar with Elements but
> can't imagine it isn't colour managed. 

While simplified and more limited, in some respects its color management is
better than CS2 for the novice -- in part because it is simplified.  For
example, with an untagged file it's very easy to switch between GG 2.2 and
Dot Gain 20% to see what the differences are and which one is going to look
best.  (Those names are not used in the Color Settings, however.) The
differences between "convert to" and "assigning" a profile don't exist.  In
Elements it's very easy to eliminate profiles -- for better or for worse --
just by opening when Color Settings are set to its Option 1 -- No Color
Management.  On half the Elements 4 programs I've seen, this is the default
setting in Color Settings.  

I understand that most of the frequent posters here use CS2, but in the
overall market, Elements is a much larger factor.  As a matter of principal,
I want to lower the barriers (costs and complexity) to high quality B&W.  As
such, I am tending to be sure my workflows make sense for Elements users.

> Recommending that people do NOT tag files when they have the capability to
> do so is a very bad idea, in my opinion.  You introduce the risk that for
> some reason that file gets opened in a workspace other than the one it was
> prepared in and people wonder why the look of the file has changed. 

I think we would agree that consistency is a goal.  The best way to get
there may be where we differ.  

GG 2.2 seems to be the most widely used standard.  However, unknown profiles
have been a major source of problems with my other workflows.  I'm not
certain where these profiles are coming from and whether they are generic or
device specific.  If the Elements users select their Option 1 -- No Color
Management -- it eliminates these profiles and the uncertainty they have
introduced in the past.  The system then defaults to GG 2.2.  The other
options are less predictable because they'll preserve the embedded profiles.

The issue for me is, in part, "What will cause the least amount of
problems?"  I'm currently thinking that eliminating variability by relying
on underlying defaults may be the better way to go.  I think there is a
reason Adobe has "Option 1" its "No Color Management" option -- which, in
fact, defaults to the working spaces that I think are best.


> No harm will ever come of a person who leaves their image tagged 
> with a non device specific workspace. 

That may be correct.  If they open that file in Elements with Option 1 in
Color Settings checked, that profile will be eliminated without any warning.


We do, also, need to be clear about whether we're talking about generic gray
working spaces or custom ICCs.  The custom profiles (I assume) are the ones
that cause the most trouble.  Often, however, people are unaware of what
their files are tagged with or what any of this means.  I have no idea what
these profiles are.  Thus I'm leaning toward just eliminating the whole
issue and relying on defaults for a starting position.


> The important thing is not to store working documents that
> have been converted to a device specific environment.  ...
> profile conversions to output spaces such as for printers should
> ordinarily be done 'on the fly' only.

We agree there also.  Again, I wasn't sure earlier.

Of course, the ICCs we're making with Create ICC are device specific.  Many
users here will want to use these to soft proof their files.  Here again, I
think for the novice, soft proofing with these ICCs should be ignored for
B&W, and in Elements it's virtually impossible to do so anyway.

> Basic colour management use is not hard or complicated, ...

The threads here would seem to argue against this position.

I'm more inclined to think the issue should be transparent, and systems
should work well when the user has no idea what color management is.  I
think the Adobe Option 1, "No Color Management" may be best understood as
saying, "If you don't understand color management, check this box."  Then
the defaults take over and, in the context of what I'm trying to do, seem to
work well.

> The types of profiles that one may
> encounter are not hard to categorize and understand - ie device specific
> (input and output, eg scanner and printer profiles) and 
> non device specific
> workspaces (GG2.2, Adobe RGB, ProphotoRGB, GG1.8 etc. ...

>... I'd rather people were provided with a good grounding and 
> practice which will serve them well as they learn more. 

In an ideal world that would be great.  However, I'm not sure anyone has
come up with a short and concise tutorial that people will read and
understand.  I tend to think that for novices letting the system go to a
default position and eliminating the variability might be best.

At least for this thread, I think we've narrowed and clarified our
differences, which is good.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com

All I can say is think carefully about recommending the no colour management
option.  My understanding is the embedded profile is not stripped away it is
just ignored.  Also, how many people start with Elements and then migrate to
the full CS2 product?  I've no idea but I'll bet you that colour management
is going to become a lot more pervasive very shortly with Microsoft finally
getting its act together on the subject and bringing it to regular users.
When Internet Explorer and Word, Powerpoint and Excel documents are finally
colour managed (oh what a great sigh of relief) people will come into
contact with the subject much more often.  I agree GG2.2 (by virtue of Adobe
RGB ) is likely the most broadly used greyspace.  As for "unknown profiles"
I'm not sure what you are encountering.  But even "newbie" users will need
to come to grips with the colour management chain from input device
(profile) to their working space (good to cut these down) to their output
space (a printer profile for each printer and media combination).  For
anyone reasonably serious about printing in colour these are "week 1"
lessons.  In reality, all we are doing now with B&W is catching up to the
well-established workflow of a colour printer.  I would argue that "good
practice" is one where these - colour vs B&W - are well aligned such that
they appear relatively seamless to the newbie.  There is no need to repeat
the wealth of tutorials on basic colour management that already exist on the
net.  Really all that is required is to explain its application in a B&W
world and highlight any differences.  Anyway, food for thought...

PS: if anyone wants a beginners tutorial to colour management in CS (perhaps
what IS missing is a similar tutorial for Elements users....) I recommend
the material on Ian Lyons' site:

http://www.computer-darkroom.com/ps8_colour/ps8_1.htm