Despite this, Roy's post suggested that you could mix these two different approaches, and use the ICC approach to linearise the Cone curves. As I demonstrated, you can't, or at least not in the way that he suggested and still work within the Cone approach. It's not that simple. I confess that I thought it was, but it tried it and see that it's not.
So two questions remain. 1. is there a way to linearise the Cone curves, in a way that Jon Cone would think is linear? Michael seems to have an approach. If you look at the second image I posted, you see that after conversion to the ICC, the luminosity values lie on a smooth curve. In theory it should be possible to apply a Photoshop curve which is roughly the inverse of the curve you see in that image. That's what I'm trying. Partial success so far.
2. I'd really like to get a better understanding of how two such eminent people in the monochrome world use the word "linear" to mean something so different. I understand what Jon Cone means - you see it in the linearisation plots. What does Roy mean?
Brian
---In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, <t.ritz@...> wrote :
Jon's curves assume Gray Gamma 2.2 input files. Roy's curves assume linear input files. Two fundamentally different approaches using the same tool (Quad Tone RIP).
Terry.