Digital BW, The Print

>  ... I made my
> first grayscale ICC today.  I printed Paul's 21 step stepwedge (with
> 2.20 max density, as that's what I get with my R2400 and EPSM).  I
> noticed that the profile embedded with the file is grayscale 2.2.

I just removed the profiles from those files.  So, most are now untagged.
There is one that is marked with typical Gray Gamma 2.2 Lab L readings for
EEM when printed with an ICC and in GG2.2 space.  That one does have Gray
Gamma 2.2 embedded.

> I have been using Dot Gain 20%, as I've heard that it leads 
> to more 'open' lower print values.

Only in a color managed workflow does the working space matter.  In such a
workflow, the Dot Gain 20% does result in more separation of the deep shadow
values.  You can see this on the monitor by changing the gray working space.

>  I didn't color manage the stepwedge. (That was the
> right thing to do, right?)

Yes, the test print that is used to input values to Create ICC must tell
that program how the system prints with no color management.

> Should I change my working space to 2.2 when I use the ICC?

The same ICC can be used with either space.  When I was working in a
non-color managed workflow I used a custom dot gain curve for the monitor
view and final printing density distribution that is closer to Dot Gain 20%.
I did this because it was what my files had originally been geared to with
the Piezo system. I think that distribution may have more efficiently used
the limited 8 bit file information.  However, since Gray Gamma 2.2 is a much
more common standard, and we mostly use high bit depth files, I now
recommend using the GG 2.2 standard.

Whichever space you use, the point of the color managed workflow is to have
the (calibrated) monitor better match the print, without the need to make a
custom dot gain curve.  That and the linearization feature of Create ICC
makes for a very nice workflow.

Paul
www.PaulRoark.com