Digital BW, The Print

I've been going back and forth between using the ABW mode and a
color-managed workflow for B&W prints.  The advantage to using a
color-managed workflow is that I find it much easier to tone images
using software, namely Lightroom and Photoshop.  

In OS X 10.4 (Tiger), I didn't notice a huge difference between the
ABW and color-managed version of the same print, if the paper profile
I was using is a good one.  However, since I upgraded to OS X 10.5
(Leopard), I notice a very big difference.  Unfortunately, they both
are imperfect.  

The ABW prints perfectly match what I see onscreen in terms of color
tonality, but they are significantly darker.  This was not an issue in
10.4.

The color-managed prints are a great match in terms of luminosity, but
they are noticeably cooler than what I see onscreen and have a
distinct blue/green cast.  Again, I didn't notice this in OS X 10.4.

I have calibrated my monitor twice since I upgraded to Leopard to two
different sets of targets: once to a color temp of 6500 & gamma of
2.2, and another time to the Apple LCD's "native color temp" and
"native gamma".  In both cases the problem persists.

I'm wondering if anyone has any thoughts or advice about how I might
troubleshoot this.  I'm afraid I'm at a bit of a loss here.

Forgot to ask my main question:

Is a green/blue cast in any way characteristic of using a
color-managed workflow for B&W prints?  I wouldn't think so, and it
hasn't been my experience before, but I thought I'd ask.

Do your green/blue prints also look magenta under incandescent  
lighting?  An RGB workflow (custom profile or not) that uses the  
Epson driver will probably result in quite a bit of yellow ink in the  
mix to generate near neutral prints.  This can lead to metamerism and  
if the profile isn't perfect also color crossovers and casts.

On Dec 17, 2007, at 9:31 PM, chriskjezp wrote:

> Forgot to ask my main question:
>
> Is a green/blue cast in any way characteristic of using a
> color-managed workflow for B&W prints?  I wouldn't think so, and it
> hasn't been my experience before, but I thought I'd ask.
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<list@...> wrote:
Are you using the latest driver? Once again Apple broke thigs when
they put out the new OS. I have a feeling that Epson is getting tired
of writing new drivers for Mac every year to 18 months. You may need
to get new profiles for Leopard to get things back to close.

> On Dec 17, 2007, at 9:31 PM, chriskjezp wrote:
> 
> > Forgot to ask my main question:
> >
> > Is a green/blue cast in any way characteristic of using a
> > color-managed workflow for B&W prints?  I wouldn't think so, and it
> > hasn't been my experience before, but I thought I'd ask.
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
<list@...> wrote:
>
> Do your green/blue prints also look magenta under incandescent  
> lighting?  An RGB workflow (custom profile or not) that uses the  
> Epson driver will probably result in quite a bit of yellow ink in the  
> mix to generate near neutral prints.  This can lead to metamerism and  
> if the profile isn't perfect also color crossovers and casts.
> 
> On Dec 17, 2007, at 9:31 PM, chriskjezp wrote:
> 
> > Forgot to ask my main question:
> >
> > Is a green/blue cast in any way characteristic of using a
> > color-managed workflow for B&W prints?  I wouldn't think so, and it
> > hasn't been my experience before, but I thought I'd ask.
> >
>

Carl,

I'm looking at the print now in incandescent light, and I don't see
the magenta cast you mention.  But that doesn't mean it's not there. 
I'm still training my eye to catch such things.

I suspect, however, that the issue is with the driver.  I never
noticed this when I was running OS X 10.4.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Greg"
<dfaprinting@...> wrote:
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, Carl Schofield
> <list@> wrote:
> Are you using the latest driver? Once again Apple broke thigs when
> they put out the new OS. I have a feeling that Epson is getting tired
> of writing new drivers for Mac every year to 18 months. You may need
> to get new profiles for Leopard to get things back to close.
> 

Well, this is where the plot thickens and Epson is kind of screwed up.
 They have released a driver for the R2400 & Leopard, but only for
Intel machines (I have a G5).  Some people say that this driver
actually does work with G5 machines, and that Epson has mis-labeled it
as Intel only.

Epson Europe has released a driver for Leopard & the R2400 recently. 
They say their driver works for both Intel and G5 machines, which
seems to corroborate the reports that the Epson USA driver which only
lists Intel machines in the compatibility section may also work with G5s.

All in all, it's very confusing.  I don't know whether the fault lies
with Apple or Epson, but from a consumer's point of view - it stinks.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "chriskjezp"
<chriskresser@...> wrote:

> 
> All in all, it's very confusing.  I don't know whether the fault lies
> with Apple or Epson, but from a consumer's point of view - it stinks.
>


I say it is with both, but you have to cut epson a little slack. As I
said it is hard to hit the moving target that Apple keeps giving them.
Every different version of OSX has needed a totally new driver, and
then throw in the intel processor differences into the mix and you
have to start to wonder what the hell Apple is doing.

People got all mad when the Windows XPsp2 update messed up the
drivers, but that was only a one time deal after many years. Then that
crumby Vista comes out, but again it has been a couple of years to adjust.
Not trying to turn this into a Mac vs Windows battle, but just saying
that you need to cut Epson a little slack.

Well, this is interesting.  I'm now looking at the color-managed
prints under incandescent light, and they now look much closer to what
I see on my screen.  

Earlier, when I was looking at the prints, it was in a mixture of
incandescent light and sunlight (bright, overcast day) coming through
the window.  I wonder if the cooler temperature of the bright overcast
was giving the prints a green/blue/cooler appearance?  Because now in
100% tungsten light they look pretty good.

The ABW prints are still significantly darker than what I see
onscreen, so that problem remains.

This color management stuff is tricky business!  Someone in another
forum mentioned a special lamp that is color balanced (how does that
work) that is good for viewing prints under.  Anyone know what I mean?

chriskjezp wrote:
> Well, this is interesting.  I'm now looking at the color-managed
> prints under incandescent light, and they now look much closer to what
> I see on my screen.  
> 
> Earlier, when I was looking at the prints, it was in a mixture of
> incandescent light and sunlight (bright, overcast day) coming through
> the window.  I wonder if the cooler temperature of the bright overcast
> was giving the prints a green/blue/cooler appearance?  Because now in
> 100% tungsten light they look pretty good.
> 
> The ABW prints are still significantly darker than what I see
> onscreen, so that problem remains.
> 
> This color management stuff is tricky business!  Someone in another
> forum mentioned a special lamp that is color balanced (how does that
> work) that is good for viewing prints under.  Anyone know what I mean?

Solux lamps and I think the consensus is that the 4100K one 
is a better compromise for exhibition lighting 
compatibility. There's still a lot of composite grey in the 
prints with the color managed workflow that will give 
metamerism between daylight and tungsten. Can you compare 
the prints to earlier versions and see whether they behave 
differently ?

I there a shift in ICC profile version compatibility between 
the OS X's ?


ABW should give a better Dmax than through the color 
workflow, at least I see that with the similar B&W mode of 
the HP driver. However in the Epson ABW there's color ink 
left in the B&W print too, partly to compensate the warmer K 
inks. You could use ABW with a QTR created profile to get 
shadow detail back.

-- 
Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

> Solux lamps and I think the consensus is that the 4100K one 
> is a better compromise for exhibition lighting 
> compatibility. There's still a lot of composite grey in the 
> prints with the color managed workflow that will give 
> metamerism between daylight and tungsten. Can you compare 
> the prints to earlier versions and see whether they behave 
> differently ?
> 
> I there a shift in ICC profile version compatibility between 
> the OS X's ?
> 
> 
> ABW should give a better Dmax than through the color 
> workflow, at least I see that with the similar B&W mode of 
> the HP driver. However in the Epson ABW there's color ink 
> left in the B&W print too, partly to compensate the warmer K 
> inks. You could use ABW with a QTR created profile to get 
> shadow detail back.
> 

That's a good question about ICC profile version compatibility - I
never thought of that.

I guess the metamerism would explain the blue/green cast when viewed
in a room predominantly illuminated by daylight.  Seems I should
invest in a Solux lamp.

However, this still leaves the problem of ABW prints being much darker
than what I see onscreen.  Hmmm...

Hello Chris,

>However, this still leaves the problem of ABW prints being much darker
>than what I see onscreen.  

This is just a matter of your workflow settings.  Please have a look
at article #9 at the link below, it describes a simple ABW workflow. 
It may not be how you want to approach it, but there are some comments
about the various settings and how they interact that may provide some
clues to getting your setup corrected.

Once you get that nailed down I think you'll find ABW a great way to go.


Regards,
Clayton


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