Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Black & White => Topic started by: DavidPalermo on February 20, 2016, 03:29:24 pm

Title: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: DavidPalermo on February 20, 2016, 03:29:24 pm
According to this very well written article I should get better shadow detail using Ilford's profile over using Epson's ABW...

https://luminous-landscape.com/whats-the-gold-standard-of-inkjet-papers/

Does using Ilford's ICC profile use any color ink?  I print from Lightroom and my images contain no color information. I don't think the ABW control uses color unless I tell I want to tint the image.

Thanks!

David

Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Alan Goldhammer on February 20, 2016, 03:47:08 pm
According to this very well written article I should get better shadow detail using Ilford's profile over using Epson's ABW...

https://luminous-landscape.com/whats-the-gold-standard-of-inkjet-papers/

Does using Ilford's ICC profile use any color ink?  I print from Lightroom and my images contain no color information. I don't think the ABW control uses color unless I tell I want to tint the image.

Thanks!

David
Colored inks are used to create B/W prints with both an ICC managed process and using the ABW driver.  However, the ABW driver uses less.  this is a rather old link but shows the difference with the 3800 printer:  http://gerryeskinstudio.com/ABW_sept08_paper/index.html   
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: DavidPalermo on February 20, 2016, 04:05:04 pm
Interesting. Thanks Alan.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: DavidPalermo on February 20, 2016, 07:04:32 pm
Would it be worth it (or possible) to create a custom profile for my paper of choice that uses only Epsons B/W inks and bypasses the ABW control?
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: deanwork on February 20, 2016, 10:59:34 pm
You can do that with Canon and Hp but Epson's gray inks are a greenish brown so in my opinion they are quite ugly without the addition of some magenta and cyan to balance out that hue. Look like they didn't change that with the latest inksets either. I wonder about the new 11880 replacement with the quad bw set.

By far the best way to go with Epson is using QTR, that software minimizes the use of color inks and blends them for toning much better than ABW. The neutral prints are much cleaner without ugly tonal color crossover.

QTR also allows you to linearize much more accurately, with an I1 spectro, if you want to go that way. This has the potential of much nicer shadow detail with most papers, even uncoated ones.

j





Would it be worth it (or possible) to create a custom profile for my paper of choice that uses only Epsons B/W inks and bypasses the ABW control?
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: DavidPalermo on February 21, 2016, 05:36:23 pm
Quote
By far the best way to go with Epson is using QTR, that software minimizes the use of color inks and blends them for toning much better than ABW. The neutral prints are much cleaner without ugly tonal color crossover.


I would try QTR but I am really liking Lightroom's interface/functionality when I print.  As far as I know to print to QTR you need to export the file first, know if the resolution is optimized for the size print you want to make, and sharpen so it looks good in the print.  Lightroom does this seamlessly. So unless there is a big difference in QTR output I'll probably stick with Lightroom.  But you got me thinking!  ; )
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: GrahamBy on February 22, 2016, 05:10:02 am
According to this very well written article I should get better shadow detail using Ilford's profile over using Epson's ABW...

https://luminous-landscape.com/whats-the-gold-standard-of-inkjet-papers/

I wonder if there isn't a bit of dubious logic going on here. From the article:

"There are essentially two important observations from this data: (i) the DMax of the gloss/luster papers is far superior to that of the matte papers, and (ii) by far the highest DMax of all comes from using the Epson ABW driver with GMS paper. We remind, however, that accompanying this result is the slight loss of shadow detail in parts of the B&W test image."

It seems to me that under the same lighting, greater Dmax obliges some loss of shadow detail. Given that the white points are very close, the difference between a Dmax of 1.4 and 2.4 is a black point that is 10 times less reflective. So if you light a matte paper so that the blacks look reasonably black, you will not be able to see the last 2-3 stops in the shadows of the gloss paper.

If otoh you turn up the lights by a factor of 10, those shadows will open up, and the blacks on the matte paper will look grey.

Of course it is possible that the printer is compressing the bottom of the tonal range on the paper, in which case no change in lighting will help... but my suspicion is that there is far too little attention paid to the effect of lighting the print... which for shadows, is huge.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: richardboutwell on February 23, 2016, 12:48:28 pm

I would try QTR but I am really liking Lightroom's interface/functionality when I print.  As far as I know to print to QTR you need to export the file first, know if the resolution is optimized for the size print you want to make, and sharpen so it looks good in the print.  Lightroom does this seamlessly. So unless there is a big difference in QTR output I'll probably stick with Lightroom.  But you got me thinking!  ; )

That is true if you are on Windows, but OS X allows you to print with QuadToneRIP through any application. There was a long discussion on the QTR Yahoo group about working with Lightroom and QTR and how to use ICC profiles to control shadow detail. It got a little deep and is a little convoluted, and I am working on writing up an alternative method I've been using for soft proofing and keeping the shadows open when printing through QTR with color management. Honestly though, I think Lightroom is a Joke for doing serious printing. If you don't want to use Photoshop then Capture One is a much better option for printing. It has color readouts, real time soft proofing, Local adjustments with curves that can be used for final print adjustments. Even localized "output sharpening" with Local Adjustments.

I wrote a guest post for Phase One a few weeks ago, and I show how it can be used as a fully contained editing and printing environment:

http://blog.phaseone.com/print-fine-art-images-directly-from-capture-one-pro-9/


Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: DavidPalermo on February 23, 2016, 05:52:01 pm
Quote
Honestly though, I think Lightroom is a Joke for doing serious printing.

Hi Richard!  Can you elaborate on your statement?

I am all for learning better ways to make my images look better!  But to tell you the truth I am getting excellent prints when I print through Lightroom using ABW control.  I don't print color so please keep this subject to B/W.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: GrahamBy on February 24, 2016, 04:26:53 am
I am getting excellent prints when I print through Lightroom using ABW control.  I don't print color so please keep this subject to B/W.

That's also my experience in B&W and I'm equally happy in colour when I use it, admittedly on a restricted range of papers. Then again, I rather like the idea of staying fairly close to what came out of the camera: not for any reasons of moral virtue, that's simply my aesthetic.

So, maybe some examples of things that you find important facilities in PS or Capture which aren't available in LR? I guess tri-tone or quad-tone processing in the case of PS could be one.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Ferp on February 24, 2016, 05:16:41 am
By far the best way to go with Epson is using QTR, that software minimizes the use of color inks and blends them for toning much better than ABW. The neutral prints are much cleaner without ugly tonal color crossover.

QTR also allows you to linearize much more accurately, with an I1 spectro, if you want to go that way. This has the potential of much nicer shadow detail with most papers, even uncoated ones.

+1.  What he said.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: DavidPalermo on February 24, 2016, 04:32:30 pm
So far I am not convinced that what you guys have mentioned make Lightroom a "joke for doing serious printing".

Perhaps QTR has options for Tri-tone etc...  Ok that is something to consider if I were interested in that.  Better shadow detail and better linearization... cool... can I see that in a print very well or is it one of those things only measured by highly calibrated instruments?

Again, how does any of this make Lightroom a "joke" for doing serious printing?

(playing devil's advocate here)

Thanks!

David

Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: richardboutwell on February 24, 2016, 06:19:00 pm

Perhaps QTR has options for Tri-tone etc...  Ok that is something to consider if I were interested in that.  Better shadow detail and better linearization... cool... can I see that in a print very well or is it one of those things only measured by highly calibrated instruments?

Again, how does any of this make Lightroom a "joke" for doing serious printing?

The curve blending is only a small part of what makes printing with QTR better than ABW (and this isn't exactly about printing with ABW but it is about shadow detail) The problem with ABW is that it does put a "curve" on the printers density increase, causing some "crunch" in the shadows, especially with matte papers, to somewhat simulate what you are seeing on the display. If you are printing with something like Epson Premium Luster then the ABW settings might do acceptably well, but using other manufacturers' papers will end up with guess work, test prints, and additional tweaks in Lightroom to get it to look the way you really want it. And that is where I really start to have problems with Lightroom.

I think Lightroom lacks the finer tonal controls that you have in Photoshop (or Capture One) for the final printing adjustments. I've always found those kinds of final edits are best done with adjustment layers or local adjustments. And to me, the absolute worst thing about Lightroom is the use of local adjustments (or rather that they are almost entirely unusable).

Soft proofing is decent in Lightroom, if you can make your own QTR or ABW ICC profiles using the QTR Create-ICC script, but you still need to have a good way of making fine tonal adjustments to keep you shadows open (using the ICC profiles will try to map the shadows tones from the straight line to the compressed view as they are in the working space). With Capture One you can preview in the printing ICC or with the QTR-RGB Lab which will show you how the image will print with the straight line QTR linearization.

And then there is sharpening... Do you want Low, Medium, or High, on and on glossy or matte paper (It is like you are ordering a sandwich). Those are your only choices, and you can't preview how it will look, and you can't control the sharpening any further. Personally, I think the idea of the "sharpening for output" formulas is one of the greatest crimes against fine printing.... At least with Capture One you can adjust the degree out print sharpening, or turning it off, and control sharpening with a local adjustment layer.

If someone is committed to Lightroom then I am sure they will make it work for them, but I wonder how much the software is holding back what more they could really be getting from their prints. It isn't about being perfectly linear (although it helps) but it is more about having predictable results and the ability to easily and effectively edit the image to get the most out of it and the final printing materials. 
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Ferp on February 24, 2016, 07:23:50 pm
If someone is committed to Lightroom then I am sure they will make it work for them, but I wonder how much the software is holding back what more they could really be getting from their prints. It isn't about being perfectly linear (although it helps) but it is more about having predictable results and the ability to easily and effectively edit the image to get the most out of it and the final printing materials.

+1 to pretty much all of this post as well.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: DavidPalermo on February 25, 2016, 10:06:35 am
Quote
but I wonder how much the software is holding back what more they could really be getting from their prints.

The only way to really tell is to make prints using both QTR and ABW. The same image.

I may have to do that so I can see what you guys are talking about. Thank you all for sharing your knowledge here!
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: larrybb on February 28, 2016, 01:24:12 pm
I just went through this myself.  I did print the same image using QTR using Epson K3V inks, and the ABW mode.  The ABW did look sharper, and initially I kind of liked it.  But when I looked at it more closely, I started to hate it.  Here's why.

I did have ABW, QTR, and also piezography prints made up.  When I compared the ABW and QTR versions, I found out how ABW was achieving the sharpness.  First, by crunching the shadows into blacks, the dark greys became either very dark, or very light.  Along edges, this had a sharpening effect.  Any detail that relies on a transition from dark to light grey will be altered or lost completely.  You are also not in control of sharpening.  If you have your image sharpened just as you like it, ABW will sharpen it more.  If you like that, than ABW is for you.  If you want to be in control, QTR (or piezography if you want to go further) is for you.

The three prints I had made up (actually 10 in total, 5 on matte, 5 on glossy) adjusted to keep the overall tonality as similar as possible.  The QTR and piezography prints came out fairly closely matched. The fellow who made the prints has a profile that compensates for the crunching of the deep shadows which actually did produce edges similar to both QTR and piezography.  However, the prints using QTR or ABW were very sensititve to lighting conditions.  When I compared them to the piezography K6 print (which uses 6 shades of grey and no colour ink), the QTR-K3 print looked warmer than the piezography print under warm lighting (halogen desk lamp), but it looked cooler than the piezography print under cooler lighting (LED room light).  When comparing the ABW and QTR-K3 prints, they looked almost identical under warm lighting (ABW had slightly warmer shadows), but the ABW looked significantly cooler than the QTR-K3 under the cooler lighting.  When viewing them under a loupe, the ABW uses the most colour inks in the black and white, presumabely to tone and neutralize the blacks.  QTR uses less colour ink, but it's still there.  Piezography uses no colour ink because all ink positions are grey or GO.  ABW seems to be the most sensitive to lighting conditions and will its change appearance under warm or cool lighting.  QTR is more forgiving of lighting conditions, but the effect is still there.  I am convinced that the colour inks added, probably the cyan, reflect a significant amount of blue light from cooler light sources such as LED lighting.  Because there are no cyans in piezography (shades of grey), the excessive blue light in cooler sources is not reflected the same way, except perhaps from the paper itself.  (Although, piezography tends to cover even the highlights with the lightest shade 7 for K7, or 6 for K6, which would further reduce the amount of blue light being reflected from LED sources.

All of this representss qualitative observations, so it's not really scientific.  I could try measuring it with a device and prove my points, but I'm convinced for myself and I have other things to do other than prove this one experiment.  Besides, I don't have a measuring device yet.

As David said, one should probably print the QTR and ABW yourselves to see.  I thought I'd include my own observations though.

Larry
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Jager on March 03, 2016, 06:55:38 am
Well, I'll heartily disagree with the notion the ABW is a "joke" for "serious printing."  It certainly doesn't have the depth or granularity of editing functions resident in Photoshop, but then no one said we couldn't jump there if needed.  LR and PS actually integrate quite well.  The argument about Lightroom's limited sharpening options is a better one.  But in practice I find its output sharpening to work quite well.

Capture One is quite nice software.  But since that is proprietary software that quite deliberately chooses not to support my Hasselblad files, it's not in the game.

To the OP's question... my opinion is that you can get great B&W results using either ABW or conventional profiles.  ABW has the benefit of rendering images with somewhat heightened contrast and sharpness - imagery characteristics much in vogue these days.  And doing so while minimizing use of color inks, which helps with longevity.  Its biggest drawback is, like any RIP, it's a black box.  If you're on a Mac there ain't no soft-proofing.  On balance, I think it works quite well.  Mark didn't mention which ABW settings he used in his article, but there certainly are controls for raising and lowering those shadows and those blacks.

Conventional profiles allow you to soft-proof and be very deliberate about what you're going to get.  Just like your color stuff.

And for those who seek ultimate not-a-joke detail and tonal range in B&W digital printing, there's always K7 Piezography. 
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: GrahamBy on March 03, 2016, 07:14:33 am
I found out how ABW was achieving the sharpness.  First, by crunching the shadows into blacks, the dark greys became either very dark, or very light.  Along edges, this had a sharpening effect.

Surely if this were the case, it would show up when printing 50-step tone ramp? For a given Dmax, you can't exagerate some tonal gradients without losing others. So you are saying this is achieved by squashing all the dark tones to black and expanding the contrast range at higher densities... but is that just a choice of paper, ie trying to print a D=2.3 image on a D=1.5 paper? And, to come back to my original soap-box issue, have you looked at the images under brighter light? I'm recalling Ctein's review of the P800, where he showed ABW gave excellent separation of step-wedge tones all the way down.

With all respect, if someone says "It looked great, then I decided I hated it (and I prefer the system into which I've invested vast amounts of time and effort)", then it sounds a lot like the well known phenomenon of comfirmation bias.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Schewe on March 04, 2016, 12:11:14 am
If someone is committed to Lightroom then I am sure they will make it work for them, but I wonder how much the software is holding back what more they could really be getting from their prints. It isn't about being perfectly linear (although it helps) but it is more about having predictable results and the ability to easily and effectively edit the image to get the most out of it and the final printing materials.

Hum...I seem to do just fine printing from Lightroom and I do know a bit about the Print module since I helped design it and licensed PhotoKit output sharpening for use in LR's printing. And yes, you really only need 3 levels of sharpening tuned for either matte or glossy paper. Bruce Fraser pretty much wrote the book on image sharpening (literally wrote a book on sharpening which I updated after his passing) and because of that, Adobe licensed it for LR.

However, it's the printing workflow from LR that is the real benefit...and seriously, you can't use LR's local controls? Do you actually know how to use them?
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Schewe on March 04, 2016, 12:17:40 am
The only way to really tell is to make prints using both QTR and ABW.

It's best if you do the test yourself with your own images but I quite like the QTR workflow in Lightroom on Mac. QTR allows you to create a print driver so it works well in Lightroom. You just select that printer and you can print to QTR and make the settings you want.

The one big difference of QTR vs ABW is you can create ICC profiles for your B&W output to use in soft proofing and the ability to do split toning-something ABW can't do.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: richardboutwell on March 04, 2016, 09:26:04 am
Hum...I seem to do just fine printing from Lightroom and I do know a bit about the Print module since I helped design it and licensed PhotoKit output sharpening for use in LR's printing. And yes, you really only need 3 levels of sharpening tuned for either matte or glossy paper. Bruce Fraser pretty much wrote the book on image sharpening (literally wrote a book on sharpening which I updated after his passing) and because of that, Adobe licensed it for LR.

However, it's the printing workflow from LR that is the real benefit...and seriously, you can't use LR's local controls? Do you actually know how to use them?

Well it doesn't work for me. And I know a bit about fine prints . . . Just because something "works for you" doesn't mean there aren't better options out there. 

Lightroom Local Tonal Controls: Yes, I can use them, but they are the least intuitive and biggest pains in the anus. And, since there are better options out there, I don't bother with dumbed-down software like Lightroom and the slew of plugins needed to get what I consider decent results from it.

The magical-mystical sharpening algorithms: Judging from the few pictures on your site, I'd argue that they are all over-sharpened. I've never seen one of your prints in person, but I assume they are over sharpened as well. I know your are well regarded as being the one who "wrote the book" on a lot of this digital stuff (I even bought your printing book a few years ago). I also realize you have to stick up for those controls because you helped helped design some of them and licensed the sharpening software to Adobe. But, that doesn't make it good, and just because someone literally wrote the book on a subject doesn't mean that it shouldn't be reevaluated. Every time someone sends me a file to print that has gone through one of these sharpening plugins, I have to ask them to send me a file that hasn't been sharpened so I can make a print that isn't peanut brittle. People can talk all day about spatial frequencies, deconvolution sharpening formulas, and resizing algorithms until the fixer's exhausted, but that doesn't mean the print looks good when its hanging on a museum wall.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Schewe on March 04, 2016, 12:30:37 pm
The magical-mystical sharpening algorithms: Judging from the few pictures on your site, I'd argue that they are all over-sharpened. I've never seen one of your prints in person, but I assume they are over sharpened as well.

So, you are judging my sharpening based on PNG files on my website? Really? And no, my prints are not over sharpened...they are properly sharpened for the final print size and resolution. Many members of LuLa have seen my prints...maybe somebody who HAS seen my prints might chime in...
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: richardboutwell on March 04, 2016, 01:32:14 pm
So, you are judging my sharpening based on PNG files on my website? Really? And no, my prints are not over sharpened...they are properly sharpened for the final print size and resolution. Many members of LuLa have seen my prints...maybe somebody who HAS seen my prints might chime in...

Yes, I am judging your work as it is displayed—how else it is supposed to be judged? If what you are showing on your site is supposed to be a representation of how they look in printed form, and if your sharpening formulas are using the final print size and resolution (in this case "print" size is screen size and resolution), then they are over-sharpened and brittle. Honestly, I would be happy to see more and have a better understanding of your current work and aesthetic. Seeing someone's work is really the only way to put people's opinions and comments in context. I am working to get more of my older work from 2001-2010 rescanned, edited, and finally printed and posted online for that very reason.

It is hard to have other people who have seen your prints comment because you are seen as the expert and you can say, "that is how it is supposed to be for that size and resolution" and people will believe you (do you make them stand back the appropriate distance that your formula dictates as well?).

This gets to my biggest problem with these kinds of plugins and the people who rely on a formulaic and mechanistic approach to printing. It takes aesthetic decision making away from the artist and can result in lowering expectations and standards of what a good print really is.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Schewe on March 04, 2016, 11:29:25 pm
It is hard to have other people who have seen your prints comment because you are seen as the expert and you can say, "that is how it is supposed to be for that size and resolution" and people will believe you (do you make them stand back the appropriate distance that your formula dictates as well?).

Uh huh...so if Kevin or Michael post a comment, clearly their opinions would be biased by my fame? Sorry bud, you just lost any cred with me...
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: richardboutwell on March 05, 2016, 01:06:41 am
Uh huh...so if Kevin or Michael post a comment, clearly their opinions would be biased by my fame? Sorry bud, you just lost any cred with me...

At this point I think I should apologize to the original poster for how this thread has devolved. Someone asked why I thought Lightroom was a joke and my justifiable criticism made Schewe mad, and it went down hill from there. Sorry everyone. Sorry to you too Jeff.

Better Shadow detail with black and white: Like I said, you might do better with something like QTR that will print linearly without completely blocking up in the shadows, and then control the amount of shadow compression with something like a curves adjustment watching the output tonal values on screen and having a physical proof in hand. If you can do that in Lightroom then more power to you. If you are not Jeff and don't have a stake in the software that you endorse or helped develop then find the tool that works best for you.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Schewe on March 05, 2016, 03:26:36 pm
If you are not Jeff and don't have a stake in the software that you endorse or helped develop then find the tool that works best for you.

Actually I no longer "have a stake" in Lightroom (or ACR), but my experience in helping to develop the app has allowed me to deeply learn all of the strengths and weaknesses of printing out of LR. I don't get "mad" when people denigrate what I've been involved with, I know what I know and know how to do what I want. That knowledge & experience does not extend to everybody else who uses the app. Which is one of my motivations for teaching and writing books, to bring my knowledge to others.

Lightroom is an excellent app for a printing workflow and the quality of the printing from LR rivals all other apps & rips I've tried. There are, of course some specialty apps that offer expanded functionality such as QTR for advanced toning or ImagePrint for dedicated workflows. Heck, even Qimage has some functionality unique to that app, but I don't often use it due to its Win only platform restrictions.

The best advice I can give for improving shadow detail is use a really good paper with a really good profile and learn to soft proof to get the most out of your image files. That advice holds regardless of what app you are printing from.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: brandon on March 06, 2016, 04:10:09 am
That knowledge & experience does not extend to everybody else who uses the app. Which is one of my motivations for teaching and writing books, to bring my knowledge to others.

The best advice I can give for improving shadow detail is use a really good paper with a really good profile and learn to soft proof to get the most out of your image files. That advice holds regardless of what app you are printing from.
Nice, and valuable advice! Thanks Jeff.
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: JRSmit on March 06, 2016, 04:25:07 am
Hum...I seem to do just fine printing from Lightroom and I do know a bit about the Print module since I helped design it and licensed PhotoKit output sharpening for use in LR's printing. And yes, you really only need 3 levels of sharpening tuned for either matte or glossy paper. Bruce Fraser pretty much wrote the book on image sharpening (literally wrote a book on sharpening which I updated after his passing) and because of that, Adobe licensed it for LR.

However, it's the printing workflow from LR that is the real benefit...and seriously, you can't use LR's local controls? Do you actually know how to use them?
I use Lightroom as my printing application for my commercial print services. For several reasons:
- I can see the image the same way my customer sees it in his image application mostly PS or LR  .
- I can catalog the images for reprint, including the print setup (s) used.
- The print quality is second to none. (I did try several print solutions) ( i print at 720 ppi etc)
- The softproof virtual-copy concept, so I can Adjust to match the paper characteristics. I can do this for whatever paper profile easily.
- Explain or even show possibilities to further improve their image. In a way they can easily add to their workflow

In short i can litterally connect with my customers with their unique image on my screen as if it is their screen and get the best possible fine art print out on my epson surecolor p printers.


Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: Schewe on March 07, 2016, 01:25:54 am
I use Lightroom as my printing application for my commercial print services. For several reasons:
- I can see the image the same way my customer sees it in his image application mostly PS or LR  .
- I can catalog the images for reprint, including the print setup (s) used.
- The print quality is second to none. (I did try several print solutions) ( i print at 720 ppi etc)
- The softproof virtual-copy concept, so I can Adjust to match the paper characteristics. I can do this for whatever paper profile easily.
- Explain or even show possibilities to further improve their image. In a way they can easily add to their workflow

Which explains quite nicely why somebody might want to print out of Lightroom but it falls a bit short of singling LR for B&W printing. Yes, using ABW in the Epson driver is pretty darn good but you cant's actually use soft proofing because it's atypical to use B&W ICC profiles (since the ABW pipeline are NOT ICC profile based–which for me sucks).

Lets just say, there are a lot of ways to skin a cat...sometimes it is based of faith (and experience) and sometime it's based on profiles.

Based on experience, I can usually look at the dynamic range of an image and apply the correct adjustments for a really good ABW print. Sometimes I may need to make adjustments to correct the resulting print. Not often and not usually but sometimes...but I used to print in a B&W darkroom (with a chem based system) and I used to make a bunch of prints to get one I thought was "good".

If you want the best possible print, it may take a couple of test prints before you decide how to print the rest of the print run. And that's ok too...
Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: JRSmit on March 08, 2016, 11:45:51 am
Printing black&white i also do from LR. The problem with ABW is like you said not icc profile controlled.
With the new sc-p line of printers you get a rather cool tone (b is  a bit negatieve in the bottom half of the tone curve)
When i print black and white is use the normal icc route.
Works fine with the new sc-p printers. They show a very smooth tone response curve both in luminance and a and b dimensions.

Title: Re: Better shadow detail in BW...
Post by: deanwork on March 13, 2016, 06:29:33 pm
Are the new Epson gray inks neutralized, or do they have the same warmish hue they always have had.

john



Printing black&white i also do from LR. The problem with ABW is like you said not icc profile controlled.
With the new sc-p line of printers you get a rather cool tone (b is  a bit negatieve in the bottom half of the tone curve)
When i print black and white is use the normal icc route.
Works fine with the new sc-p printers. They show a very smooth tone response curve both in luminance and a and b dimensions.