In a message dated 12/2/06 1:05:27 AM, dlruckus@... writes:


> I still see distinct differences, with varying lighting, between the
> gray inks versus color based B&W. It may very well be that the newer
> printers are helping to minimize the effect but it is still there.
>
Indeed, for any printers that do not have a light gray ink (light light black
in Epson's terminology) there is significant metameric shift with differing
light sources. This is very much minimized with the K3 printers, and other
'two-gray' printers. Should still see a bit more metameric consistancy with gray
inksets, but I can't really distinguish it visually.

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


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

I think it would be nice, if people posting on this list include a place
where their images can be seen. I realize that viewing images on the net
isn't ideal, but it helps to know where they are coming from. Please, no
replies that you already do that. This message is for the posters that
don't.  Talk is becoming very cheap.

Gary

baffin@...
www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown

----- Original Message -----
From: "A.Zwaan" <azw@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Friday, December 01, 2006 1:39 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: First steps toward black and white digital
printing


I am a myself new in the field of B&W digital printing and it took me about
a month, which I can afford being retired, to get accustomed to the various
aspects of not getting the print you are expecting. Color Management,
profiling, curves and proofing, everything was new to me. So I did a lot of
reading and trying, but to be able to print every subtle change you are
planning was not possible at first. And, to my opinion, printing B&W is much
more delicate than color printing. It can make or ruin the picture. If you
want the look of old fashioned barite, you will have to master everything
that is involved in printing.
Of course you can get a lot of advice from Paul Roark and others, but I
found it several times not completely correct. The results depended too much
on a lot of settings in Photoshop for instance. Tiny tweaks that gave an
enormous difference. So I developed my own system that, of course, is much
better.
As follows;

I use Epson R220 en MIS inks in the combination warm tone/cool tone.  That
works marvelous.
The paper is INNOVA ifa-14 (matte) but for the future that will be ifa-09
(white gloss).
That was the easy part.

How to profile the paper? I noticed that the downloaded profile was not
correct (I suppose that every printer needs its own profile). Making a 21
grey-step was easy and the print was scanned with my scanner (Epson V700).
Maybe not needed for this stage, but keep working in gray 8-bit and
gamma=2,2.
My scanner does not give L-values, but with the use of a graph made with the
values for RGB and L which you see when you make the grey-step, you can read
the L-values from the graph when you scan the printed 21-step.
Make the txt-file needed for QTR-Create-ICC-RGB.exe and do not forget that
you have to use Tab's. Otherwise it won't work. And do not use the value 0
(zero), but use 0,1. And there is always a positive increment needed. Twice
the same value for L and it won't work.
With the resulting profile the grey-step printed nicely (printed from
Photoshop with preview,color management and profile QTR-INNOVA etc.)

But then the really hard stuff. How to get on the screen what is coming out
of the printer!
I tried curves, I tried custom dot-gain, I tried adjustment layers and I
tried adjusting the monitor, but I did not get a consistent result. And I
kept forgetting about no colormanagement, assigning profile, with or without
proof (you see, I am not a trained expert), RGB or Gray-mode and so on.
I gave up and found something better.

Deciding on the settings for your screen is completely visual. You can never
get a complete likeness between a picture on screen and what is on the
print. It depends on your position for the screen, the balance between
highlights and shadows in the picture. It depends on the light in the room
and, I noticed, it depends on your being tired, your mood. If you get it
right (or almost) for one picture, it will be wrong for another.

I use a grey-step (AdobeRGB, Gray gamma=2,2) with 21 steps + the steps in
between. Arranged so that the steps in-between are placed not in between but
besides. You print that special grey step using the profile for the paper
you are using. Than relax and sit back a bit. In Photoshop you have that
grey-step on screen. No colormanagement and proof is off. Than you compare
the grey's on the print with the grey's on the screen and you decide on a
L-value (they are printed on the steps). Do so for all the 21 steps on the
print but do not follow a sequence. That can be misleading! No, it certainly
is! Every decision for a L-value has to be a new start. So start with step
4, than step 16, than 8, than 20 etc. Repeat it several times and make a
graph for step's 1 to 21 against L. You can see how much difference there is
between each 'measuring' of L. But you can draw a nice graph and use those
values for making, as above, of a profile (Let's say  screen-INNOVA.icc).
Place it in the right folder.

Now you can use that screen profile as proof (in Photoshop:  view / custom
profile etc.)
Open the grey-step in Photoshop (no colormanagement and proof = screen
profile) and compare your screen with the print. It starts to get close. How
close depends on your ability to guess the L-value (above), but if it
differs it can be changed quite easily. Make a new profile for which you
change the L-value for the step that is wrong. L a bit higher and it becomes
a bit brighter. I succeeded so it must not be too difficult.

Now you have a good screen profile and a working paper profile so the prints
must be good? Wrong. As abovementioned you can not get a good setting for
every picture. You will have to adapt it just before the final printing. But
there is the graphic card too. I suppose that every graphic card  has the
possibility to adjust color settings. Mine has. Brightness, contrast and
gamma. I keep the program for adjusting the monitor open. Than I make a
print of the picture I want to work on. Adjust the settings for brightness,
contrast and gamma (minor adjustments) and know now that what is on the
screen will be on the print.
But I have noticed that you need to repeat that just before the final print.
I am the instability in the system who is changing all the time.

This is the way I am working now and it works fine. I am completely in
control of every minor adjustment  needed to get a good print. Mainly
landscape in cloudy, misty or rainy atmosphere, and they do need a lot of
work to get it lively.

In include my grey-step's for those who want to have a look at it.

Greetings,

Anne Zwaan




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



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links

Hello,
Has anyone received a new 3800 yet. Any news on release date?
Thanks,
Gary

i got one on thursday via inkjetart

On 12/2/06, garyphoto6 <gcwagner@...> wrote:
>
> Hello,
> Has anyone received a new 3800 yet. Any news on release date?
> Thanks,
> Gary
>
>
>



--
   -------------------------------------
   regards, mehrdad


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

Gary, they are shipping in the US.  Jack Flesher on the LL forum has had one
for several days, others on the dpreview forum--but most of those are in
Europe.  Inkjetart, Samy's and others are shipping--but they (3800) are
elusive LOL.  I understand that only wide format resellers will have them
until after the first of the year.  I am on a quite long list---and though I
preordered with a deposit the end of October I am still low down on the
list---so I did some calling today and found one to be shipped Mon--should
have it by the end of the week.  I will use my deposit money for paper/other
needs.

Diane
-----------
Diane B. Fields
picnic@...
photo site  http://www.pbase.com/picnic


----- Original Message -----
From: "garyphoto6" <gcwagner@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 4:18 PM
Subject: [Digital BW] 3800


Hello,
Has anyone received a new 3800 yet. Any news on release date?
Thanks,
Gary



Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, and other resources as
they are often being updated.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

If you wish to receive no emails or just a daily digest, or you wish to
unsubscribe, please edit your Membership preferences by visiting this same
page.

Please follow these basic guidelines:
- As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
- Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or flames.
Hostile, aggressive or argumentative users may be removed from the
membership without notice.
- Keep your posts and threads related to the group topic of digital B&W
printing. Users who persistently make off-topic posts may be removed from
the membership.
- By posting on this forum you agree to abide by the group rules and
guidelines, and to abide by the actions and decisions of the group Owner and
Moderators. See "Group Topic, Rules and Guidelines" in the Files section:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint/files/

BY PARTICIPATING IN AND/OR POSTING MESSAGES TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT
YAHOO! GROUP YOU EXPRESSLY UNDERSTAND AND AGREE THAT THE "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP SHALL NOT BE LIABLE TO YOU
FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO, DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS,
GOODWILL, USE, DATA OR OTHER INTANGIBLE LOSSES (EVEN IF THE  "OWNER" AND
"MODERATORS" OF DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP HAVE BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES), RESULTING FROM: (i) THE USE OR THE INABILITY
TO USE THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; (ii) UNAUTHORIZED ACCESS TO OR
ALTERATION OF YOUR TRANSMISSIONS OR DATA; (iii) STATEMENTS OR CONDUCT OF ANY
THIRD PARTY ON THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP; OR (iv) ANY OTHER
MATTER RELATING TO THE DIGITAL BW, THE PRINT YAHOO GROUP.

Yahoo! Groups Links





--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.15.4/563 - Release Date: 12/2/2006

I find this a rather peculiar post.  This forum is to help people print B&W
photographs.  Frankly I couldnąt care less as to whether the leading voices
on this forum could take an adequate photograph.  Even if they could take a
łgreat˛ photograph I might not find their style appealing and so łnot
great˛.  (For the record I did take a look at your website and did like some
of your work.) What I do care about is their technical expertise in
PRINTING. Of course, in any net based community it is very difficult to
judge a participantąs ability.  It is impossible, short of in person visits
and print exchanges, to view their work.  But listen in here long enough and
like any community of this nature one can pick out those whom one should
spend a little more time listening to than those one shouldnąt.



From: Gary Brown <baffin@...>
Reply-To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2006 11:26:26 -0700
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Re: First steps toward black and white digital
printing





I think it would be nice, if people posting on this list include a place
where their images can be seen. I realize that viewing images on the net
isn't ideal, but it helps to know where they are coming from. Please, no
replies that you already do that. This message is for the posters that
don't.  Talk is becoming very cheap.

Gary

baffin@... <mailto:baffin%40cox.net>
www.pbase.com/garyallenbrown




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

Very interesting thoughts from both gentlemen. I always thought of B&W
as inherently abstract, to the human eye, since we do not see in
shades of gray.

Therefore B&W is essentially devoid of any color harmonies or
inconguities with the real 4 Dimensional world (time matters as well).
I have found that a B&W looks more "right" when converting from a
color world when there is a greater increase of end-to-end, as well as
local contrast. Since conversions of equal luminances of 2 spectrally
opposite colors remove the color contrast, we must use pre or post
processing color distortions to create a visually pleasing image WITH
those contrasts (if that is the intent). It's also why Tmax 100, Tech.
Pan, and Trix had completely different renderings of the same scene,
without filters, exposed at the same Zone I threshold and developed to
the same Contrast Index.

I know I'm generalizing here, but B&W, as a visual medium, from the
darkroom or lightroom, maintains it's inherent abstract properties
nonetheless. It seems that any minute deviations from perceived
"neutrality" is more readily apparent to the human tri-stimulus system
in the B&W image vs. the color one. Why else would we be so sensitive
to metameric issues?

This, in part, explains the intelligence and intensity of this board
and why some color scientists, technicians, and photographers
(including this one) have such an avid interest in keeping up with it.

Claude Jodoin
Tech. Editor
Rangefinder

I've noticed that when I convert from RGB (24 bit) to Grayscale
(8-bit) in Photoshop CS2 that the histogram shifts to the left, yet
the monitor image stays the same.

Has anyone found any differences between 2 prints from the same file
printed with their favorite method as Grayscale vs. RGB??

Please elaborate on specific settings, etc.

Claude

I went through the process and ended up with an "invalid profile" when
I tried to send a .tiff image to my 1160.

The steps in the Lab template that I created the .icc file from with
Roy's Create ICC.exe had distinct steps (at least 3 Lab numbers
between them) and no reversals after linearizing the ScanMaker4
according to his procedure.

Any suggestions?

Frank

I think when it is very dark we only see in grays.
So possibly we do have some processing in our brains for B&W.
Mike J.

-----Original Message-----
From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of Claude
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:09 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] Grayscale Vs Color (was PFP with UT7)


Very interesting thoughts from both gentlemen. I always thought of B&W
as inherently abstract, to the human eye, since we do not see in
shades of gray.

Therefore B&W is essentially devoid of any color harmonies or
inconguities with the real 4 Dimensional world (time matters as well).
I have found that a B&W looks more "right" when converting from a
color world when there is a greater increase of end-to-end, as well as
local contrast. Since conversions of equal luminances of 2 spectrally
opposite colors remove the color contrast, we must use pre or post
processing color distortions to create a visually pleasing image WITH
those contrasts (if that is the intent). It's also why Tmax 100, Tech.
Pan, and Trix had completely different renderings of the same scene,
without filters, exposed at the same Zone I threshold and developed to
the same Contrast Index.

I know I'm generalizing here, but B&W, as a visual medium, from the
darkroom or lightroom, maintains it's inherent abstract properties
nonetheless. It seems that any minute deviations from perceived
"neutrality" is more readily apparent to the human tri-stimulus system
in the B&W image vs. the color one. Why else would we be so sensitive
to metameric issues?

This, in part, explains the intelligence and intensity of this board
and why some color scientists, technicians, and photographers
(including this one) have such an avid interest in keeping up with it.

Claude Jodoin
Tech. Editor
Rangefinder

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, CDTobie@... wrote:
> We see in color, so color is obliged to be 'realistic' to a large
> degree. We don't see in black and white

With all due respect, I think these statements are simply not true, at
least from a physiological standpoint. Although it's likely I'm
misunderstanding you, a matter of terminology and semantics.

You probably mean that we understand the world in color. (Although,
where does that leave the variously colorblind, btw?) But it's
interesting to note that, as far as how we see (as I understand it),
the human eye indeed has both black and white receptors (rods) and
color receptors (cones). Furthermore, not only do the rods greatly
outnumber the cones, they dominate, or exclusively sense, our
peripheral and low-light vision; the color receptors, on the other
hand, are fewer, concentrated at the center of our vision and are far
more dependent on illumination. One could argue that, in a sense (no
pun intended), black and white dominates our visual experience, even
though our perception of that experience is colored.

As for the notion that color is obliged to be "realistic", that's a
very slippery one. As I am sure you are well aware, our perception of
color is very dependent on expectations, color interactions, and
aesthetics, to name three random factors off the top of my head. Our
brains constantly play fast and loose with the colors we see to make
them "right". So "realistic" color is rather psychological and
subjective, and our idea of it is easily fooled; I'd say it's even a
bit of an oxymoron. It should be pretty obvious to anyone surveying
digital cameras (or film) that different people have rather different
ideas of what's "right" or "realistic" re color. Etc., etc.--I'm sure
you can think of many more examples.

And I don't think I buy that our expectation of "realistic" luminance,
or tonal value is any less demanding (or any less subjective) than our
expectations for colors. I have no doubt that it's more of a challenge
to meet/fool those expectations through artifice where color is
concerned, as opposed to mere tonality, but it does not follow that
because there are technical inequities, our expectations are unequal.
I don't think it's going too far to say that our expectations of color
in photographs or artwork are no more exacting or rigid than are our
expectations of tonal values in such situations.

Having said all this, I have an inkling that we consider black and
white more artistic and less representational (no argument there), not
just because of novelty or abstraction, but also because it resonates
with our peripheral, subliminal, and darker visual experience--the
world seen by the rods--the mysterious world seen in the corner of
your eye, in the shadows, in the darkness. By its nature, much good
still photography intrigues us by, among other things, showing us a
world we see but can't or won't notice or contemplate outside of
temporal experience. I think black and white goes a bit further, by
allowing our focused, conscious vision to see the world as it might be
seen by our peripheral, unconscious, and more primal vision.

Bob L

P.S. A nice overview of the human eye and how it works:
http://thalamus.wustl.edu/course/eyeret.html

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "njfranknj" <kolwicz@...>
wrote:
>
> I went through the process and ended up with an "invalid profile" when
> I tried to send a .tiff image to my 1160.
>
> The steps in the Lab template that I created the .icc file from with
> Roy's Create ICC.exe had distinct steps (at least 3 Lab numbers
> between them) and no reversals after linearizing the ScanMaker4
> according to his procedure.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Frank
>

That sounds like the Windows right-click installer.   Windows doesn't seem to
recognize the grayscale ICC profile.  So you'll have to manually place it in the
correct system folder.

Roy

Hello Bob L,

>Having said all this, I have an inkling that we consider black and
>white more artistic and less representational (no argument there),
>not just because of novelty or abstraction, but also because it
>resonates with our peripheral, subliminal, and darker visual
>experience--the world seen by the rods--the mysterious world seen in
>the corner of your eye, in the shadows, in the darkness. By its
>nature, much good still photography intrigues us by, among other
>things, showing us a world we see but can't or won't notice or
>contemplate outside of temporal experience. I think black and white
>goes a bit further, by allowing our focused, conscious vision to see
>the world as it might be seen by our peripheral, unconscious, and more
>primal vision.


Very thoughtful and interesting post.  Thanks very much.

Regards,
Clayton


Info on black and white digital printing at
http://www.cjcom.net/digiprnarts.htm

At the bottom of the htm file below, you'll find how to put the ICC in the
correct folder:



http://home1.gte.net/res09aij/Making_B-W_ICCs.htm



Paul

www.PaulRoark.com <http://www.paulroark.com/>





   _____

From: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roy
Harrington
Sent: Saturday, December 02, 2006 5:46 PM
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Digital BW] Re: Paul Roark's Create ICC with scanner



--- In DigitalBlackandWhit
<mailto:DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint%40yahoogroups.com>
eThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "njfranknj" <kolwicz@...>
wrote:
>
> I went through the process and ended up with an "invalid profile" when
> I tried to send a .tiff image to my 1160.
>
> The steps in the Lab template that I created the .icc file from with
> Roy's Create ICC.exe had distinct steps (at least 3 Lab numbers
> between them) and no reversals after linearizing the ScanMaker4
> according to his procedure.
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> Frank
>

That sounds like the Windows right-click installer. Windows doesn't seem to
recognize the grayscale ICC profile. So you'll have to manually place it in
the
correct system folder.

Roy





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

There's a much longer history of (artistic) monochrome
representation of the world around us than the one with multi
colors. Say  40.000 years against 4000 years. In no technology
I can recall there has been multi-color first and monochrome
later. So I think it must be baked in our genes meanwhile
despite the fact that we see in colors. While it may be more
abstract it isn't alien to our system, the translation is made
without that abstraction coming to mind. Could well be that
the latest generations bombarded with full color see it as
more abstract than my generation and the ones before do, but
you don't wash 40000 years from your system that fast.

This doesn't imply that there are no physiological reasons, we
are much more sensitive to tonal differences and tonal
contrast than to color differences and contrast.  If that
hadn't been the case we wouldn't have accepted the primitive
multi-color representations in early photography and movies at
all, much of that was a B&W skeleton draped with one, two or
three colors and they were the rage of their time.  In
contrast: strip a modern movie of its tonal content and
there's little left, much more abstract than we can get used
to. A friend made some paintings like that 35 years ago,
interesting but not for a wider public. There are other
examples. Most sharpening techniques in digital color are
based on tonal contrast only (for more reasons) and it works
without question. I do not know the development of the visual
system in species but I would be surprised if it didn't start
somewhere as a monochrome one,  say 1 bit quality.

I just find it strange that B&W photography isn't set in that
history of the monochrome representation of the world. It got
its place there long before we started discussions about color
control on B&W images.

Come to think of it. If I go to an old B&W movie like
Polanski's Repulsion, Cul de Sac, Cassevete's Shadows,
whatever from that period when color was available but not
affordable for everyone, you don't think about abstraction
after the first 10 seconds. Deneuve, Pleasence, become as real
as they were in color movies.

Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst


|  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
|     www.pigment-print.com    |
|             ( unvollendet )            |

In a message dated 12/2/06 7:17:57 PM, claudej1@... writes:


> Since conversions of equal luminances of 2 spectrally
> opposite colors remove the color contrast, we must use pre or post
> processing color distortions to create a visually pleasing image WITH
> those contrasts
>

Yes, I used to use a color image of cows in a pasture under lilacs as a
sample image for students to convert to B&W. The B&W Holstein cows converted
nicely
by they would always be quite suprised when the lilacs diappeared into the
foliage on conversion. Getting them to work with channel blending (or more
recently CameraRAW channel adjustments) to bring out contrast between the lilacs
and the foliage was a good way to get them thinking about the relationships
involved.

Another tutorial I find effective is to slide the CameraRAW saturation slider
all the way to desaturated. Then adjust the master curve to offer effective
black and white global and local contrasts. Now resaturate the image, and see
what those adjustments do to the color image...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

In a message dated 12/2/06 7:23:13 PM, claudej1@... writes:


> Has anyone found any differences between 2 prints from the same file
> printed with their favorite method as Grayscale vs. RGB??
>

A fairer test is to do it the other way: convert a grayscale image to RGB,
print both, and the results (bia my workflows at least) are identical. The RGB
to gray conversion is making choices about channel mixing, that could be the
cause of your differences. If you desaturate the image before conversion that
should eliminate the issue, as the three channels will be identical. Going
from AdobeRGB to Gray Gamma 2.2 is a proper conversion, as they share the same
gamma.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com



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

In a message dated 12/2/06 8:08:06 PM, wpajohnson@... writes:


> I think when it is very dark we only see in grays.
> So possibly we do have some processing in our brains for B&W.
>

We have two entire image processing systems: Red, Green, and Blue sensitive
cones for color, and monochrome rods for B&W. Being "unfiltered" the rods are
more sensitive, so we depend on them for night vision, when our color vision
fails. The rods see things as quite cool (blue), so when the two types of vision
mix, the rods add a blue component. This is why at low room light you
calibrate a low luminance CRT to a much yellower 5000k whitebalance ( to
compensate
for this blueness), and at moderate room lighting, you can calibrate a much
brighter LCD to a 6500k whitebalance, for similar visual results. That is one of
the factors that the ambient light feature in Spyder2PRO adjusts for...

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

In a message dated 12/2/06 8:29:49 PM, l33ry@... writes:


> One could argue that, in a sense (no
> pun intended), black and white dominates our visual experience, even
> though our perception of that experience is colored.
>

In the dark yes, in the daylight, no... and I even dream at night in color,
though that doesn't prove much, we have a webmaster than sometimes dreams in
HTML... <G>

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

Not to sure how close this is to the primary purpose of this Group, nor
quite what point I'm making - but for me this was fascinating ...

Ernst's comment reminded me of an experience in 1965 that left a lasting
impression on me.  When I was 16 year old schoolboy I visited Russia for
2 weeks (from the UK).  An amazing trip with many strong memories.  But
the overwhelming memory was to discover that Russia was in colour!  It
was almost a shock.  Everything I'd seen about Russia up to that point
was via B&W TV and newspapers.  Colour TV was only just starting to
appear at that time and there was no colour in newspapers for many more
years.  B&W had been my norm as far as my notions of what the place
would be like; indeed of what much of the world was like.  I wonder
whether that 'grounding' in our formative years in B&W media experiences
sets us older folks apart in some way from those who are younger for
whom colour has been really been the norm in all of the media.  I doubt
it - but I do wonder.

Steve Gledhill
http://www.virtuallygrey.co.uk/

Ernst Dinkla wrote:
>
> ...
>
> Come to think of it. If I go to an old B&W movie like
> Polanski's Repulsion, Cul de Sac, Cassevete's Shadows,
> whatever from that period when color was available but not
> affordable for everyone, you don't think about abstraction
> after the first 10 seconds. Deneuve, Pleasence, become as real
> as they were in color movies.
>
>
>
>
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com

Hello John:
I don't get the sense from Mr. Tobie's input that he is giving a
sales pitch as much as sharing information about a workflow that his
products help accomplish. There are other ways to achieve a CM
workflow without his products as I discovered back in March (see post
#74990)and found it to be a viable approach for me though I knew it
would not meet everyones needs. It's clear that often a "vendor" may
slant his information toward the products they sell. My guess is, in
addition to potential economic gains, they simply know alot more
about those products and related workflows. One must do research and
compare methods and products and make purchase selections based on
that research but,so as long as shamless shilling isn't the intent,
more information on methods that work and detailed info on products
that work is good to know. On a more personal note, Mr.Tobie has been
quite generous in sharing his extensive knowledge on printing with me
and I have never bought a thing from him.
Lou Meluso


   DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "john dean"
<deanwork2003@...> wrote:
>
> As a post modern "traditionalist" I think it is really sad how
this )
> site has become primarily a blog for companies and photo salesmen
> selling the latest versions of their wares. It used to be totally
> different and much more creative venu. Oh, well. I guess all good
> things have to come to an end. RIP.
>
> John
>

In a message dated 12/3/06 10:46:59 AM, stephengledhill@... writes:


> I wonder
> whether that 'grounding' in our formative years in B&W media experiences
> sets us older folks apart in some way from those who are younger for
> whom colour has been really been the norm in all of the media.  I doubt
> it - but I do wonder.
>

In competitive architectural presentations, color was more or less mandatory
on the West Coast of the US years earlier than it was on the East Coast. You
could chalk this up to being less conservative, more exposed to modern media,
and a number of other concepts, but whatever the reason, we reached a point
where we just couldn't trust that a black and white presentation, even a lovely
one, could grab the attention of potential clients the way that color could.
Emotion was often thrown about as a factor, color added 'emotion' to
presentations. Certainly architects were raised in a black and white
tradition... but
their clients may well have changed from that generation to the
color-media-saturated generation(s) that followed; and that may have happened
sooner on the
West Coast, where younger people were in positions of power, than the East,
where
the previous generation continued to run things for longer.

But here we are many years later talking about the emotive nature of B&W. I
find that the color versions of some of my AC/DC capable images are much more
emotive, and grab people instantly; where as the black and white version
appeals to a much more cerebral, contemplative audience, or even the same person
later, after more time.


C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

In a message dated 12/3/06 11:05:50 AM, lmeluso@... writes:


> I don't get the sense from Mr. Tobie's input that he is giving a
> sales pitch as much as sharing information about a workflow that his
> products help accomplish. ...
>
We know what we work with, and what I work with is what I'm developing, so
thats where my current thinking is centered, etc...

> On a more personal note, Mr.Tobie has been
> quite generous in sharing his extensive knowledge on printing with me
> and I have never bought a thing from him.
>
Well, perhaps someday I'll develop something that will tempt you. Or not;
that works too... I don't only shoot with photographers who use the brand of
cameras I'm involved with either; I learn more detailed, specific stuff from
those
working with similar equipment, but broader stuff from those working
differently.

C. David Tobie
Product Technology Manager
ColorVision Business Unit
Datacolor Inc.
CDTobie@...
www.colorvision.com


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

Well said. The films of these guys are more "real" if you want to use
a 10 cent word that has no "real" value in the "real" artworld. There
is nothing missing in early Hitchcock. That is the highest form of
visual expression accomplished in photography in over 100 years. Most
people who are "real" artists and not techno marketers know that.


>
> Come to think of it. If I go to an old B&W movie like
> Polanski's Repulsion, Cul de Sac, Cassevete's Shadows,
> whatever from that period when color was available but not
> affordable for everyone, you don't think about abstraction
> after the first 10 seconds. Deneuve, Pleasence, become as real
> as they were in color movies.
>
> Met vriendelijke groeten,  Ernst
>
>
> |  Dinkla Grafische Techniek  |
> |     www.pigment-print.com    |
> |             ( unvollendet )            |
>

Thanks, Paul and Roy, but it didn't work.

Originally I created the profile, opened Windows Explorer and dragged it
to the C:\WINDOWS\system32\spool\drivers\color folder. Now I have
followed Paul's directions exactly, ended up with the same profile in
the same folder and still get the invalid profile message when I try to
print either an RGB or a grayscale TIFF file from Photoshop. The file is
named "EPS1160_Matte_Kayenta_UTFSN_G22.icc" in the folder with "QTR"
appended in the Photoshop profile list.

Thanks for all your help and all your efforts on behalf of B&W printing,

Frank

Ernst,

From what I have read, our predecessors had only black and white vision and
rods in their eyes. At some time in our evolutionary history, cones
developed and a color system was superimposed on top of the original B&W
system (not in place of). So we have both. In dim light, our color vision
doesn't work very well, so we see only luminance using the rods, while in
the light the cones come into action overlaying color info, but the
luminance measured during the day comes from summing the output of the rods
and the cones, not just the output of the rods.

A good book that explains all this in relation to the use of color in art
is:-

'Vision and Art: the Biology of Seeing' by Margaret Livingstone, Professor
of Neurobiology at Harvard.

One quote: -

"Some aspects of visual perception - such as object recognition, face
recognition, and of course color perception - depend heavily on color,
whereas other aspects of vision - such as motion perception, depth
perception, figure/ground segregation, and receiving positional
information - are colorblind."

Bob Frost.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Ernst Dinkla" <E.Dinkla@...>


There's a much longer history of (artistic) monochrome
representation of the world around us than the one with multi
colors. Say  40.000 years against 4000 years. In no technology
I can recall there has been multi-color first and monochrome
later. So I think it must be baked in our genes meanwhile
despite the fact that we see in colors. ...............................

I've been using Black Only on my 2100 for a couple of years with good
results.
Now I seem to be getting very faint lines in the direction that the
print head lays down the ink. It's most noticeable in plain medium
gray areas. The other thing is, it seems to come and go. Sometimes
it's quite pronounced, others, it's barely discernible,
Does anyone have a solution?
thanks
Yaakov Asher Sinclair

David,

Amazing how Spiders can creep into everything - even dreams!   Mind you, I'm
not sure the strange things you mention (do you use spellcheck?) qualify as
Spiders! My book on Spiders says they have eight legs, and eight eyes, and
evolved about 400 million years ago. So perhaps your three-legged, one-eyed
one is an early evolutionary dead-end!  ;)

Spiders only see in B&W (back on topic!), and the jumping spider vibrates
its retina so that it can collect more info with fewer sensors in the eye!
NASA is working on this idea apparently. A camera that vibrates its sensor
to increase resolution, not just to get rid of dust or the 'shakes'.

Bob F.

----- Original Message -----
From: <CDTobie@...>

and I even dream at night in color

We have two entire image processing systems: Red, Green, and Blue sensitive
cones for color, and monochrome rods for B&W. Being "unfiltered" the rods
are
more sensitive, so we depend on them for night vision, when our color vision
fails. The rods see things as quite cool (blue), so when the two types of
vision
mix, the rods add a blue component. This is why at low room light you
calibrate a low luminance CRT to a much yellower 5000k whitebalance ( to
compensate
for this blueness), and at moderate room lighting, you can calibrate a much
brighter LCD to a 6500k whitebalance, for similar visual results. That is
one of
the factors that the ambient light feature in Spyder2PRO adjusts for...

HELP!! I must be getting old but I can't preview the changes I make to
a custom dot gain curve. I start with a 21 step grayscale and apply one
on Paul's curves. I then print the curve. I then go into CS2 and
through assign profile I check don't color manage. I then go into Color
Settings and in Working Space Gray I select Custom Dot Gain. The Curve
comes up but as I make changes it has no effect of the grayscale on the
monitor. I have Preview checked in the Color Setting menu. I have tried
flattening the scale and the curve, converted from RGB to Grayscale,
making the background active - - - still no effect. I have done this
before but for some reason I continue to have difficulty with this.
Thanks in advance.

I've seen some posts on the R260, but I haven't seen any B&W ink sets
available for this yet.  The R260 seems to have better color prints
and is the same price now as the 220 with rebates.  Is anyone using it
for B&W or do we know if b&w ink sets are on the way?