Digital BW, The Print

It seems there are a number of ways to get a BW image from color. I'm
aware of most of them, and am not asking HOW to do it.

In Photoshop you can create a true grayscale image which drops all RGB
channels and has only a 'gray' (luminance?) channel. In Lightroom, you
can create a grayscale image, but it appears to retain the RGB
channels. Other techniques also use the RGB channels as filters to
create a BW image (Lots of controls in the color channels).

The question is: For =good= BW printwork, should the final image sent
to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
info? I like working in Lightroom, but I would need to take the image
to PS to make it a singe-channel true (by my def) grayscale image. Is
this worth doing? Or will the printer/QTR figure it out?

I'm setting up a Epson 1400/QTR/Piezo printer, and they indicate you
should only print grayscale. So I'm looking for clear definition of
grayscale. 

Clear (gray?) as mud??

=Alan R.

In a message dated 9/3/08 1:38:27 PM, avr@... writes:
> 
> >In Photoshop you can create a true grayscale image which drops all RGB
> channels and has only a 'gray' (luminance?) channel.
> 
Right, or you can use various other methods to create either a neutral or a 
tinted/crosstinted image in Photoshop which still has RGB channels. Depends on 
your goals and your preferences...

> > In Lightroom, you
> can create a grayscale image, but it appears to retain the RGB
> channels.
> 
Keep in mind that Lightroom is keeping your RGB Raw file intact, so leaving 
your file in RGB is a given... its just a matter of how you "filter" that RAW 
file.

> > Other techniques also use the RGB channels as filters to
> create a BW image (Lots of controls in the color channels).
> 
Again, various techniques may generate a one channel, a three channel 
neutral, or a three channel non-neutral result. A three channel neutral file can be 
changed to a one channel neutral file will no loss (as the three channels are 
redundant, if truely neutral) and a one channel neutral file (it can't be 
anything BUT neutral if its one channel) can be converted to a three channel 
neutral file to get you back to the exact same file you started with. The three 
channel file has the advantages of printing more easily through some methods 
(Canon high bit export modules only took RGB files last time I checked, for 
instance) and can be tinted if desired. Or it can be "counter-tinted" to attempt to 
be get a neutral print if a true neutral doesn't print gray on a given 
printer... though thats a tricky situation.
> 
> The question is: For =good= BW printwork,
> 
There are lots of methods for good B&W prints...

>  should the final image sent
> to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
> info?
> 
This only matters in terms of the file types your chosen print system can 
handle, as long as you are talking literal grayscale images. As soon as I get 
perfectly neutral gray, I start looking at how I can make it a bit more rich 
(which also means not exactly neutral), and that requires either a change of ink 
formulations, a change of ink laydown methods (say via a profile), or a change 
of file channels...

>  I like working in Lightroom, but I would need to take the image
> to PS to make it a singe-channel true (by my def) grayscale image. Is
> this worth doing? Or will the printer/QTR figure it out?
> 
Lightroom RAW images are "unrendered" files. The general tendency of the day 
is to do more and more to these "preconversion" files, even, in some cases, 
printing from them. I suppose, for a rough print maybe. To me thats still a bit 
like washing the dinner dishes before I eat dinner. There are still MANY 
things I want to do to a good image in Photoshop before I'd ever consider printing 
it. It would be skipping dinner AND desert to me to go directly from 
Lightroom, to print. And even if I eventually decide to use Lightroom as my printing 
application (and its not ready yet, there are, for instance, only two rendering 
intents available, and that DOES NOT include my preferred intent) it will be 
the rendered TIFFs or Photoshop files I would be printing from Lightroom for my 
serious work, not the RAW files. I've spent a many years of my life learning 
how to improve images in Photoshop, and a few quick fix tools in Lightroom is 
not going to replace that overnight... not even for B&W files, which are 
simpler to process than color ones.
> 
> I'm setting up a Epson 1400/QTR/Piezo printer, and they indicate you
> should only print grayscale. So I'm looking for clear definition of
> grayscale.
> 
For me this would not be an issue, as I would be processing the images in 
Photoshop, and saving out as needed anyways. But its not an issue for me for 
other reasons: I print my color, my tinted B&W, and my neutral B&W all through 
Spyder3Print profiles to the same printers and inksets, and don't keep specialty 
B&W inksets running any longer. Not true of many on this list, however.

C. David Tobie
WW Product Technology Manager
Digital Imaging & Home Theater
Datacolor
CDTobie@...
www.datacolor.com/Spyder3
> 


**************
It's only a deal if it's where you want to go. Find your 
travel deal here.
      
(http://information.travel.aol.com/deals?ncid=aoltrv00050000000047)


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

Hello Alan,

>The question is: For =good= BW printwork, should the final image sent
>to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
>info? 

I have experimented numerous times over the years comparing BW prints
from RGB vs Grayscale files, using both color ink processes and
dedicated BW ink sets.  There were always slight differences but
nothing that would indicate that a "better" print (in any sense that I
could think of) came from either one.  It really boils down to
differences in workflow.

Some people like to apply split toning and tinting effects, which are
color-based and require RGB files.  In addition, there are software
products that apply special effects, such as grain, BW film emulation
and edge effects, which require RGB files.  I don't use any of those
techniques in my workflow, so for me there are no reasons or
advantages for RGB.

On the other hand, there are attributes of grayscale files which I
consider to be significant advantages.  First, they are 1/3 the size
of RGB.  Besides the smaller enlarged file size during workup, with
multiple layers, selections, masks, etc., it makes a huge difference
in storage space for the final master files permanently saved for
printing.  Second, the various image manipulations done in PS go a lot
quicker on a single channel file.  This can make a significant
difference in the total amount of time one spends working up an image.
Over time, both of these are important issues.

For me it's no contest.  After RAW conversion and color-to-BW
conversion, the next step is 16-bit grayscale where it remains. My
primary workflow now is a 2400 in ABW mode.  Any warm/cool toning is
done with the inks, and it produces beautiful results from grayscale
files.

One other issue worth considering has nothing to do with the prints -
display on a web site.  If your prints are warm tone, for example, and
you want the web image to look like the print, then the web image will
have to be RGB.  But, as David mentioned, it's easy enough to take the
small web site file back to RGB for that purpose.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at    
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm

Hi handyman856,

If you print an image using QTR (regardless of the program it is printed from), the image 
is always converted to 8-bit grayscale. If it was already in grayscale (from grayscale mode 
in photoshop) it leaves it as-is. If you use the grayscale conversion tool in the develop 
module of lightroom, it does (as you said earlier) remain as RGB. But it doesn't matter 
since QTR will just convert it to 8-bit grayscale anyhow.

P

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "handyman856" <avr@...> wrote:

>
> It seems there are a number of ways to get a BW image from color. I'm
> aware of most of them, and am not asking HOW to do it.
> 
> In Photoshop you can create a true grayscale image which drops all RGB
> channels and has only a 'gray' (luminance?) channel. In Lightroom, you
> can create a grayscale image, but it appears to retain the RGB
> channels. Other techniques also use the RGB channels as filters to
> create a BW image (Lots of controls in the color channels).
> 
> The question is: For =good= BW printwork, should the final image sent
> to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
> info? I like working in Lightroom, but I would need to take the image
> to PS to make it a singe-channel true (by my def) grayscale image. Is
> this worth doing? Or will the printer/QTR figure it out?
> 
> I'm setting up a Epson 1400/QTR/Piezo printer, and they indicate you
> should only print grayscale. So I'm looking for clear definition of
> grayscale. 
> 
> Clear (gray?) as mud??
> 
> =Alan R.
>

Clayton -

Thanks for the info - it all makes very good sense and for my BW work
I will follow your lead.

=Alan R.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Clayton Jones"
<cj@...> wrote:
>
> Hello Alan,
> 
> >The question is: For =good= BW printwork, should the final image sent
> >to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
> >info? 
> 
> I have experimented numerous times over the years comparing BW prints
> from RGB vs Grayscale files, using both color ink processes and
> dedicated BW ink sets.  There were always slight differences but
> nothing that would indicate that a "better" print (in any sense that I
> could think of) came from either one.  It really boils down to
> differences in workflow.

[big snip]

> Info on black and white digital printing at    
> http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm
> I-Trak 2.1   http://www.cjcom.net/itrak.htm
>

Using Lightroom for B&W, instead of QTR (has its own virtues, but
offers less control) or expensive/clogging B&W inksets, and using eyes
insted of electronic measuring devices, deserves more  exploration...

...by those whose game is photography rather than pixel-peeping.

Using an R800 I got specifically for exploration (before I buy a 3800
or HP or whatever): 

I've learned that 1.5 picolitre dots don't result in higher detail
resolution on matte paper than does my elderly 2200. Maybe there's an
advantage with fine semi-gloss, such as Moab Satine? 

Printing B&W images (neutral, split-toned, or toned) from Lightroom on
highest-gloss paper, OEM pigments do completely eliminate B&W
bronzing, metamerism, and gloss differential ...seemingly perfectly. 

Lightroom with OEM color inkset offers tremendous tonal control,
split-tone B&W control, and color-filtration-for-B&W (even more than
the R/G/Y filters of yesteryear, and you get an instant proof on your
monitor :-)  

Split toning is incredibly easy with Lightroom, and it does need color
pigments no matter what driver if you "want what you want".

Neither Piezo nor MIS inks can give you "want what you want" toning or
split-toning unless you also use color pigments...in other words, you
can't work entirely in carbon...and of course, you can't work on
glossy stock without a lot of hassle.

Lightroom appears to offer far MORE CONTROL in most respects for
straight photos (as opposed to graphic manipulations) than does
Photoshop, and it's infinitely more intuitive (sliders and immediate
on-screen evaluation). 

The only downside I've found so far is that dodging/burning (and
probably masking), and my Intuos 3 graphic pad in particular, want 
Photoshop...don't work directly in my version of Lightroom (don't know
about Lightroom 2)...so I still have to switch from Lightroom to PS,
then back to Lightroom to print from Lightroom.

Hard to believe, but Lightroom also offers superb documentation:
Martin Evening's "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book." 

Since most of us have or will inevitably have Lightroom or equivalent,
it's important to learn its potential. 

My claims here are personal experience, early in personal
testing...I'm not sure I can beat all my QTR prints with Lightroom,
but I think I can equal most of them in most cases. 
 



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "handyman856"
<avr@...> wrote:

>
> It seems there are a number of ways to get a BW image from color. I'm
> aware of most of them, and am not asking HOW to do it.
> 
> In Photoshop you can create a true grayscale image which drops all RGB
> channels and has only a 'gray' (luminance?) channel. In Lightroom, you
> can create a grayscale image, but it appears to retain the RGB
> channels. Other techniques also use the RGB channels as filters to
> create a BW image (Lots of controls in the color channels).
> 
> The question is: For =good= BW printwork, should the final image sent
> to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
> info? I like working in Lightroom, but I would need to take the image
> to PS to make it a singe-channel true (by my def) grayscale image. Is
> this worth doing? Or will the printer/QTR figure it out?
> 
> I'm setting up a Epson 1400/QTR/Piezo printer, and they indicate you
> should only print grayscale. So I'm looking for clear definition of
> grayscale. 
> 
> Clear (gray?) as mud??
> 
> =Alan R.
>

A very interesting commentary, but I'm a tad confused. I don't see LR
as an ALTERNATIVE to QTR - it is just another output device. I've seen
other comments about not being able to use QTR from InDesign or LR and
I'm wondering if that is a Windows issue. I'm using QTR from Tiger OS
X and QTR can be used as the output device for nearly any app. 

I have the Epson 1400 with the Cone Pizeography inksets and have
printed to it from both PS and LR, so I don't quite understand your
reference to "Using LR... instead of QTR"

=Alan R.

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "djon43"
<djon43@...> wrote:

>
> Using Lightroom for B&W, instead of QTR (has its own virtues, but
> offers less control) or expensive/clogging B&W inksets, and using eyes
> insted of electronic measuring devices, deserves more  exploration...
> 
> ...by those whose game is photography rather than pixel-peeping.
> 
> Using an R800 I got specifically for exploration (before I buy a 3800
> or HP or whatever): 
> 
> I've learned that 1.5 picolitre dots don't result in higher detail
> resolution on matte paper than does my elderly 2200. Maybe there's an
> advantage with fine semi-gloss, such as Moab Satine? 
> 
> Printing B&W images (neutral, split-toned, or toned) from Lightroom on
> highest-gloss paper, OEM pigments do completely eliminate B&W
> bronzing, metamerism, and gloss differential ...seemingly perfectly. 
> 
> Lightroom with OEM color inkset offers tremendous tonal control,
> split-tone B&W control, and color-filtration-for-B&W (even more than
> the R/G/Y filters of yesteryear, and you get an instant proof on your
> monitor :-)  
> 
> Split toning is incredibly easy with Lightroom, and it does need color
> pigments no matter what driver if you "want what you want".
> 
> Neither Piezo nor MIS inks can give you "want what you want" toning or
> split-toning unless you also use color pigments...in other words, you
> can't work entirely in carbon...and of course, you can't work on
> glossy stock without a lot of hassle.
> 
> Lightroom appears to offer far MORE CONTROL in most respects for
> straight photos (as opposed to graphic manipulations) than does
> Photoshop, and it's infinitely more intuitive (sliders and immediate
> on-screen evaluation). 
> 
> The only downside I've found so far is that dodging/burning (and
> probably masking), and my Intuos 3 graphic pad in particular, want 
> Photoshop...don't work directly in my version of Lightroom (don't know
> about Lightroom 2)...so I still have to switch from Lightroom to PS,
> then back to Lightroom to print from Lightroom.
> 
> Hard to believe, but Lightroom also offers superb documentation:
> Martin Evening's "The Adobe Photoshop Lightroom Book." 
> 
> Since most of us have or will inevitably have Lightroom or equivalent,
> it's important to learn its potential. 
> 
> My claims here are personal experience, early in personal
> testing...I'm not sure I can beat all my QTR prints with Lightroom,
> but I think I can equal most of them in most cases. 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "handyman856"
> <avr@> wrote:
> >
> > It seems there are a number of ways to get a BW image from color. I'm
> > aware of most of them, and am not asking HOW to do it.
> > 
> > In Photoshop you can create a true grayscale image which drops all RGB
> > channels and has only a 'gray' (luminance?) channel. In Lightroom, you
> > can create a grayscale image, but it appears to retain the RGB
> > channels. Other techniques also use the RGB channels as filters to
> > create a BW image (Lots of controls in the color channels).
> > 
> > The question is: For =good= BW printwork, should the final image sent
> > to the printer be a TRUE, single-channel grayscale image, with no RGB
> > info? I like working in Lightroom, but I would need to take the image
> > to PS to make it a singe-channel true (by my def) grayscale image. Is
> > this worth doing? Or will the printer/QTR figure it out?
> > 
> > I'm setting up a Epson 1400/QTR/Piezo printer, and they indicate you
> > should only print grayscale. So I'm looking for clear definition of
> > grayscale. 
> > 
> > Clear (gray?) as mud??
> > 
> > =Alan R.
> >
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "handyman856" 
<avr@...> wrote:
>
> A very interesting commentary, but I'm a tad confused. I don't see LR
> as an ALTERNATIVE to QTR - it is just another output device. 

I agree, I'm happily using Lightroom, Photoshop and QTR together. 
Lightroom as a great photo-management and RAW conversion tool with 
indeed some great intuitive editing facilities (usually sufficient for 
run-of-the-mill stuff), Photoshop for the sophisticated editing and QTR 
as print driver.
 
> I've seen
> other comments about not being able to use QTR from InDesign or LR and
> I'm wondering if that is a Windows issue. I'm using QTR from Tiger OS
> X and QTR can be used as the output device for nearly any app. 

That could have been me. Indeed that's a Window issue. I'm aware it is 
not problem for Mac.

Joost