Digital BW, The Print

Pete-

The devil is in the details with all this stuff.  It is amazing how 
one person's workflow simply doesn't work for others.

That said, I think what you are doing should work, but I have some 
quewstions.

How are you calibrating the monitor?  Some experienced people on the 
board seem to feel that this is not too critical, but that is not my 
experience, particularly with regard to gamma (for BW).  What you 
want here is accuracy and consistency.  I use the i1 and though some 
find it fine, I did not have good results with the Spyder or Spyder 2 
(which do not allow a selection and calibration of luminance 
levels).  You also need a monitor profile *in the Windows system* so 
that PS can do the file to monitor conversion properly.  My monitor 
is calibrated for 2.2, 65K and luminance of 40 cdm2 (which is lower 
the the usually recommended value, but works for me).

I think U.S. Prepress is gray space 2.2 and color space Adobe RGB and 
that should be fine.

In PS, do not use a print space for ABW (unless you are using a BW 
profile from QTR Create ICC).  Set "color managment off" (or "same as 
source" in CS and earlier) and no print space can be selected.  

I have not used QTR as a RIP, so I cannot comment on that.  I use 
only the Create ICC with an i1 to produce profiles.

Good wishes,
Walt 


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "petexp2" 
<kafoozalem@b...> wrote:
>
> Thank you Walt,
> "I hope all this hasn't been too obvious, but I didn't have a sense 
> of your experience level". 
> Not a bit of it --it was just the answer I needed to galvanise 
myself 
> for another bout of testing and printing. What you seem to be 
saying 
> is that it is the invisible parts of ABW which are most useful. 
> Certainly the editing functions on there own seem inferior to PS. I 
> have only produced one B&W print so far which is not enough to 
> validate the workflow I was using though I was very happy with the 
> result. I couldn't detect any crossover in my semi gloss print (a 
> world of difference to my attempts with the Epson 2100). My 
> adjustment curve semed to produce a satisfactory smooth 21 step 
wedge 
> but I concede that using curves is a blunt tool which should be 
used 
> as a last resort for very minor tweaking. 
> You have convinced me to do further testing to see if the various 
> gamma controls in ABW gets me closer to the desired result thus 
> requiring no adjustment curve or at least a far less radical curve 
> adjustment. My adjustment curve was needed to undo the 
Epson "punch" 
> which certainly compresses the shadows.
> Whilst I don't have access to an i1 etc I believe I have done a 
> passable job in calibrating the monitor to gamma 2.2. CM in PS is 
set 
> up for US prepress defaults and I have been using "printer colour 
> management" as the print space profile. In the 2400 driver I opt 
for 
> Gamma 2.2 and Adobe RGB as the colour mode and there are some minor 
> corrections to brightness contrast and colour (the first tests were 
a 
> bit yellow. My test on the ICC profile downloaded from Epson also 
had 
> a yellow cast so I decided not to use it).
> I think my set up is consistent with the gamma 2.2 workflow you 
> advise. Can you see any problems? Would you advise me to trial the 
> QTR rip (without an i1)? It is on my "to do" list!  I believe it is 
> for matte papers only which I intend to use for the bulk of my 
work. 
> I just thought I'd first get the colour set up sorted with the PK 
> installed and see what semigloss B&W looked like at the same time. 
> I'd like to be able to do the occasional quality b&w on semigloss 
for 
> an audience of trad photographers in my postal club who can be 
> somewhat scathing of matte prints (perhaps I should send the prints 
> out framed under glass! That would confuse them. Lol!).
> 
> Regards,
> Pete.
> 
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "wwodets" 
> <odets@c...> wrote:
> >
> > Pete-
> > 
> > I think the ABW driver is worth using if only because the 
dithering 
> > and screening is different from the color mode.  I presume that 
> this 
> > handles dot patterns and ink crossovers differently.  Certainly 
my 
> > experience trying to print BW images in the color mode of the 
Epson 
> > driver have shown the latter to be obviously inferior.  
> > 
> > If you are using the various tonal adjustment controls in the ABW 
> > driver, I do think that is a problem.  The ABW driver is a sort 
of 
> > combination RIP and image editing program and I wouldn't want to 
> use 
> > the image editing component of this.  I think this driver is an 
> > effort to accomodate people who do not use PS or the like.  The 
one 
> > component I do use is the gamma setting, because the shadows are 
> > smoother in the normal or light positions.  Epson seems to like 
to 
> > compress the shadows for "punch."
> > 
> > I find that the screen image with a calibrated monitor (Gamma 
2.2) 
> is 
> > very close to the ABW output--so close that soft proofing is 
almost 
> > unnecessary.  I do however use the QTR Create ICC because it 
allows 
> > PS to manage both the file to screen and file to printer 
> > conversions.  This is an incredibly good workflow and much more 
> > accurate and reliable than anything one can do with PS curves.  
The 
> > ouput is remarkably refined and delicate.  I tried the use of 
> curves 
> > to avoid buying an i1 and it was O.K., but ultimately a big waste 
> of 
> > time.  I then just went to a gamma 2.2 workflow (file, screen, 
> > printer) and it was good.  The BW ICC profiles are superb and 
much 
> > more flexible than the other options.
> > 
> > You didn't say anything about monitor calibration which made me 
> think 
> > that you might be using the ABW "editing" controls or PS curve to 
> > match the print to an uncalibrated monitor.  Since monitor space 
> > really isn't what we want in a print (or can get in a print) this 
> > wouldn't be the way to go.
> > 
> > It's occurred to me that someone might provide standard or custom 
> > profiles for those using the 24/48/78/98 series printers using 
QTR 
> > Create ICC.  This could be done by including the $50 fee in the 
> first 
> > purchase of a profile, that being given to Roy.  It would be 
worth 
> > every penny.
> > 
> > I hope all this hasn't been too obvious, but I didn't have a 
sense 
> of 
> > your experience level. 
> > 
> > Good wishes,
> > Walt
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "petexp2" 
> > <kafoozalem@b...> wrote:
> > >
> > > Is setting up to use ABW worth the bother? Having spent days to 
> > achieve 
> > > WYSIWYG for colour images why not just use these settings to 
> > produce 
> > > mono? I have taken great care to produce a neutral mono 
greyscale 
> > with 
> > > a smooth transition through a 21 step wedge as part of my 
tests. 
> I 
> > have 
> > > developed a curves adjustment layer to apply to the image file 
to 
> > get 
> > > the gamma and shadow values spot on prior to sending to the 
> printer 
> > so 
> > > I do not really need the gamma adjustments offered by ABW mode 
> > > (lighter,darker etc). 
> > > Any changes you make in ABW are previewed on a pathetically 
small 
> > > picture of Epson's choosing (nice lady but not really 
appropriate 
> > for a 
> > > landscape photographer). I would much rather preview in 
Photoshop 
> > where 
> > > I can apply colour tone as required and if I want to lower 
> > highlight 
> > > values to reduce bronzing I can do it without lowering the 
> midtones 
> > too 
> > > (unlike highpoint shift). All the other sliders cannot be 
> > accurately 
> > > judged on the small preview picture meaning endless test prints 
> to 
> > view 
> > > the changes. They also seem to presume you haven't achieved 
> WYSIWYG 
> > > when viewing in PS.
> > > Am I missing something or has ABW got nothing going for it?
> > > 
> > > Pete.
> > >
> >
>