Digital BW, The Print

> Yes, that option exist in a Windows form too in "advanced". I was
> trying to say that perhaps not too clearly. There are a series of
> radio buttons which essentially let you choose "no color management"
> or "color controls". Then there is a pull down menu under the radio
> buttons. At least when "color controls" is active, "automatic is a
> selection here.

Yes, thank you, that's the same then.

>>>> In PS7 when you choose color management > source/print spaces and
>>>> intent,
>>>> then go back to the print driver dialogue it doesn't allow you to
>>>> choose "no
>>>> color adjustment"  like in PS6..  So is PS7 assuming "no color
>>>> adjustment"
>>>> when a source/print space is selected?
> 
> This may be a moot point, since "no color adjustment" is never used as
> an option in Paul's workflow for PC. I think Tyler's workflow may. So
> in both PS7 and 6, "color controls" is selected.

It wasn't moot when I thought PS7 was "ignoring" the "auto" selection while
using a print/source space input. But that wasn't right.

Yes, all of Tyler's and my workflows use "no color adjustment". Otherwise
your image is dependant rather than cross platform/cross application among
other things.  We use profiles for source and output rather than allowing
the printer driver to change the data.




>> 
>> I'd have to go see his settings then. I assume this workflow was
> created
>> before switching to the "no color adjustment" one.
> 
> Yes. Did Paul change it? As I just said, I think Tylers workflow is
> "no adjustment".

I read that he changed his technique lately yes, not that he changed the
existing ones.



> Puzzling. It seems like no-one can reproduce the print change with a
> real print. Maybe I have something set wrong, but I honestly don't
> know what it would be. And the PS7 print is darker in shadows, more
> contrasty by a tad, and posterized. Could my eyes lie like that?
> Perhaps the only way to check this out is for someone to run a step
> wedge in both PS6 and PS7 and measure it with a spectrophotometer.

someone doing that with the workflow you are using
and without it.  That should tell you simply enough if it is your quad
workflow manipulations causing this, due to the small change in conversion
data between versions, adding on to that the curves that the quad
partitioning is doing to said data.. or not.

> One other difference to note (I mentioned it in other posts but should
> have highlighted it)is that Paul has a number of curves, some not
> published as official curves on the MIS site. Paul was good enough to
> send me a set of curves for the 1280 at 2880 dpi. He hadn't quite
> finished these before he realized most people didn't need to go above
> 1440. But they work very well on Eclipse Satine paper I found, and on
> many prints I discovered the details came out sharper. All the curves
> are based on the same idea however, they just lay down a little more
> or less ink for a given %k. Of course, instead of choosing 1440 dpi, I
> chose 2880 in the advanced dialouge.
> Could that be it?
> 

I don't know. I've never seen any real posterization issues arrise in my
workflows other than those that are file related. Some profiles can cause a
step to be missing, the transition between tones to be less smooth which I
tweak out... but posterization, not really.


>> Did the same thru pressready, to cmyk profile, identical prints.
>> 
>> I can't print with quads tonight, one printer is down, another set
>> up for
>> press at the moment... and others just are what they are... but was
> >curious
>> about the conversion differences with relation to the prints.  any
> >prints.
> 
> Maybe the step wedge thing is the way to go if you have something to
> measure it with.

I don't. I send my stuff to a friend for that. Someone else using the
workflow you are using would be the way to go.

>> When you try printing with the epson inks I'll be curious to hear of
> your
>> results.
> 
> No, I was just running them to try to clear what I thought was a
> gummed up printer causing the discrepancy. An old trick I learned to
> partially clear the problems with the old Piezo inkset. But it didn't
> improve the PS7 print obviously. Nice to know it's not the printer
> though.

ah, thanks... reading and printing late into the morning, missed that. Yes,
I know that routine.  Yes, nice to know it's not the printer.  As I say, I
get the same variation upon conversion but don't see it with my prints, so
the only thing left in my mind is the curves/workflow you are using.  I'm
still going to find out about that difference in conversion though, I'm
curious.

Good luck,
Carolyn