Digital BW, The Print

In a message dated 11/11/06 9:27:23 PM, tyler@... writes:


> these are sections about .8" high, one from the 9800 UCK3 w/ RGB
> driver and custom profile on HPR, the other a straight quad on the
> 9600, also HPR. Both at 1440, drum scanned at 2000 dpi and downsized
> to 1000dpi for posting here. 4000 dpi would have described the dots
> better and the difference would have been greater.
> The difference is obvious. Clearly there is photographic information
> in the file that the RGB driver operating normally is incapable of
> describing on paper. Not only resolution details, but levels of gray
> and tonal subtleties simply non-existent in one and not the other
> 

This is microscopic analysis, Tyler. You are looking at a .8 inch section of 
an image about 8 inches high on screen. When you back these samples off to .8 
inches high all of that has gone away. What suprised me at the Black and White 
Print meeting in Brooklyn was the opposite of what you describe (and frankly 
the opposite of what I expected as well): that at normal viewing distances 
(lets be reasonable and say 18 inches and above) even the K3 dithering didn't 
show as coarser, thinner, or weaker, than any of the specialty systems prints up 
there. What it might have lacked in microscopic detail, it more than made up 
for in reasonable tonalities and linearity. What you are describing has more 
impact on 2 inch wallet photos than two foot art photos. 

As for the dithering on Canons and HPs: the Canon dither and dot size is more 
coarse under a loupe than the existing K3s (such as your 9800); but actually 
produces better visual results from viewing distances. The HP may be finer 
under a loupe (not something I spend a lot of time verifying) but also improves 
on the 9800 dither. And the new 3800 from Epson similarly improves on the 9800 
dither, putting all three competitors on about even footing in that 
department, and one notch above what the K3 sample you offer looks like. So this means 
the Canon iPF models would look worse than your 9800 sample in microscopic 
analysis, but better than your 9800 sample to the eye from viewing distances. The 
relation between microscopic and viewing distance results does not have a very 
high correlation.

Now that I'm showing PrintFIX PRO 2.0 black and white prints in show booths, 
people are looking at those, and taking them as premium examples of gallery 
quality black and white , not some intermediate solution short of proprietary 
black and white with a dedicated printer. There was lots of B&W output on the 
show floor at PhotoPlus, and I was never told by anyone that the stuff we had on 
display was a poor second; rather the opposite: that it was the most 
outstanding stuff at the show. Numerous top photography and color management experts 
came into the booth, looked at the gallery prints, at the images coming out of 
the printers, and said they were sold, and that they wanted to review it, use 
it, sell it, train users on it, or otherwise jump on board. So what you are 
seeing, Tyler, is simply not affecting the vast majority of the photographic 
field, who are very enthused about the idea of ICC-based control, preview, 
adjustment, and printing, of their black and white images, and very happy with the 
results as well.

So while I appreciate the distinction you are making, its just not something 
that end users are seeing when they look at prints. When I got involved in B&
W, my criteria was that I wanted to produce low metamerism, long-life black and 
white, with OEM systems, but I wanted to control the linearity, neutrality, 
and other factors so that I could achieve dead neutral, extremely linear, 
creamy smooth results, and adjust them as I saw fit from there. Now that I'm 
getting that, the convenience, simplicity, and control it offers make it even more 
powerful than I expected, and the results are more exciting then I expected as 
well.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Division
DataColor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]