Digital BW, The Print

Actually the below is around the wrong way.  Only with a NON-colour managed
workflow does the workspace matter.  This is because there is no translation
service (colour management) operative - file values are sent directly to the
printer without adjustment.  WITH colour management, file values are
adjusted to reflect the properties of the print space.  This is why some
people fussed around trying different workspaces with their Same as Source
workflows.  With a colour (or in our case, a luminance) managed workflow
this is not necessary because regardless of what workspace we use, the file
values are amended on the fly to more suitable numbers prior to being sent
to the printer.

The thing to remember about your display is that it is ALWAYS colour
managed.  Even if a file does not have an embedded profile (or you selected
Don't Color Manage this document), PS will assign your workspace to it for
the purposes of the colour translation from there to your display profile.
This is why, when we look at step wedges without embedded profiles, their
look changes when we change our workspace setting.  Their file values remain
the same but the way those numbers are interpreted is changed according to
the workspace setting.  If the step wedge (or any other image) has an
embedded profile then of course that profile is used and not the workspace
(often when we say workspace we should really say the document's embedded
ICC profile - think of the workspace as a default only) and so changing the
workspace setting doesn't change the look of the image (because it is
irrelevant).

As for shadow separation, it really is worthwhile understanding the above.
A GG1.8 profiled step wedge shows a greater difference in luminance between
95 and 100% grey than a GG2.2 step wedge.  That is gamma.  But send those
two step wedges to your printer without colour management and you'll get the
same output because the same numbers are being sent (without dictionaries to
suggest they mean different things).  With colour management, file values
are adjusted to maintain the appearance of the greys you see on your display
(subject to the dynamic range of your printer and the handling of any tonal
range compression).  In a colour managed world, GG 1.8 is not any better
than 2.2 (except for the possible circumstance I mentioned above).  (And
remember it is the document profile that is important and not the workspace
per se.)  What matters most is that you've as accurately as possible
depicted the output of your printer in response to its range of possible
input values (8 bit, 0-255) and have a suitable methodology for dealing with
inevitably necessary tonal range compression.


> From: Paul Roark <paul.roark@...>

> 
>> 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.
>