Digital BW, The Print

Thanks, Roy. I look forward to hearing about your experiments and 
conclusions.  

Perhaps 3 different spaces would suffice, one for a high Dmax glossy 
paper, one for a low Dmax matte paper, and one in the middle.  Sure 
would make like easier and more predictable.  

Regards, Lou

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Roy Harrington" 
<roy@h...> wrote:
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "ldina" 
<lbdina@c...> wrote:
> > 
> > Roy, I was curious if you found the LAB Grayscale profile 
effective 
> > and if you updated your original profile?
> > 
> > I'm probably missing something, but it seems this would have to 
be a 
> > generic profile by its nature.  If used for viewing the tonal 
range 
> > on a monitor, how would it be able to differentiate between a 
high 
> > gamut glossy paper (like Kirkland Glossy which can hit an L* of 
about 
> > 6) to lower gamut matte paper that can only display an L* or 
about 
> > 20?  
> > 
> > Seems to me they would both display the same, but the output 
would be 
> > very different.
> > 
> > If you have found it effective, I'd love to know how you use it 
and 
> > how you handle different paper types.  I'd also like to get your 
> > latest profile if your results are positive.
> > 
> > Thanks, Lou
> 
> Hi Lou,
> 
> I have been experimenting with this.  I find the Lab gray space 
better than
> the gamma space.  At least I find the separations are better 
matched to the
> print and to the eye.  But you are right about how different papers 
are
> enough different that you can't switch back and forth without 
editing.
> 
> My current take is that the gray Lab space is best for editing, but 
that there
> should be a way to do a mapping with perceptual intent rendering at
> print time.   I think it's possible to have just a few profiles -- 
i.e. a
> generic matte paper and a generic photo paper -- rather than making
> a gazillion profiles for every combination.
> 
> Roy