For printing it does not matter of course if the files are in colour mode (I scanned old photos in colour mode as recommended) since the printer driver will print the images in black and white from colour anyway.
Question:
I tried printing in advanced black and white from Lightroom, and it worked fine just like from ps.
At one point I clicked on the black and white tab in Lightroom, but today I suddenly came to think I should have left that alone, as maybe there is less image info available after reducing the image to black and white.
If you produce a rendering in B&W you like and want to honor on the print, you have to bypass ABW and use an ICC profile.
Just two different processes and options.Or you can switch to a Win7 machine and still use ABW profiles which are easy enough to generate using QTR (or use Eric Chan's profiles that are still available on his website). You can also soft proof using this technology as well and I don't have any trouble getting accurate representations of conversions that have been done in either LR or PS this way.
ABW with Epson is a black box, proprietary conversion AND print process. Nothing wrong with it. There are advantages and some disadvantages. Using LR to convert to B&W also have advantages but don’t expect that appearance to be honored using ABW. If you produce a rendering in B&W you like and want to honor on the print, you have to bypass ABW and use an ICC profile. You’ll use more inks, might find a slightly less neutral result and the light-fastness is reduced compared to ABW.
Or you can switch to a Win7 machine and still use ABW profiles which are easy enough to generate using QTR (or use Eric Chan's profiles that are still available on his website).
Switch to Win7? You’re kidding <g>.Why not, I never have to worry about any of the MacOS updates which screw up color management. It's interesting in my years here on LuLa that I've never seen any Win users complaining about print drivers and imposed color management changes by the OS. Maybe Microsoft is doing something right by not doing anything at all.
ABW with Epson is a black box, proprietary conversion AND print process.
Why not, I never have to worry about any of the MacOS updates which screw up color management.
Why not, I never have to worry about any of the MacOS updates which screw up color management. It's interesting in my years here on LuLa that I've never seen any Win users complaining about print drivers and imposed color management changes by the OS. Maybe Microsoft is doing something right by not doing anything at all.
If by "black box" you mean just the same as any other printer driver then I agree.
My question is "who is in a position to challenge Apple regarding such things as the conversion of all greyscale images to Generic Gray Gamma 2.2 which makes no sense whatsoever?"Nobody, Apple will do what they always do which is what they want and everyone else be damned. We had a lengthy discussion on this forum a couple of months ago when the Epson driver was changed to deal with the new MacOS and you could no longer use a profile with ABW, it had to be printer manages the colors. I remember Eric Chan lamenting this and stopping his ABW profile service at that time.
you could no longer use a profile with ABW, it had to be printer manages the colors.
okay, you have a point with quadtone rip. I went over to their website and it is only 50 dollars.Yes, all you have to do is be able to read the densities of the patch set. If you are going to use a ColorMunki, see this site (http://www.northlight-images.co.uk/article_pages/bw_printing/bw_print_colormunki.html) for how to do it. Kieth also has a 21 step patch set just for the Munki.
I can borrow a colour monkey, can that work with it?
Correct and one can see differences between an un-profiled density curve and a profiled one. It is quite subtle but there none the less. Those who are interested can get added benefit from using an ABW profile. Since QTR is the only game in town now that Eric is no longer doing ABW profiles, interested parties should probably go to the QTR User Group (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/QuadtoneRIP/) to post questions.
(A more relevant statement would be to note that with QTR ICC profiles, or Eric's for that matter, we are only managing the L* axis and allowing the driver to control a* and b*. We are profiling a* and b* (as well as L*) for soft proofing purposes but a* and b* aren't managed. Therein lies the difference between these "profiles" and a regular ICC profile-managed workflow. If you're not profiling either then they're both "black boxes". Only a RIP that allows full control over ink channels, ink deposit and linearisation could be described as not a black box - even then it is still generally an opaque one.)
No more so than ANY driver is if you aren't managing colour with an ICC profile. Therefore, I'm afraid the above doesn't say or add much at all.
(A more relevant statement would be to note that with QTR ICC profiles, or Eric's for that matter, we are only managing the L* axis and allowing the driver to control a* and b*. We are profiling a* and b* (as well as L*) for soft proofing purposes but a* and b* aren't managed. Therein lies the difference between these "profiles" and a regular ICC profile-managed workflow. If you're not profiling either then they're both "black boxes". Only a RIP that allows full control over ink channels, ink deposit and linearisation could be described as not a black box - even then it is still generally an opaque one.)
BIG difference between ABW and color printing with profiles. There are profiles pretty readily available for a variety of printers and papers via paper manufacturers' websites. Not so with ABW.
As far as my comment not saying or adding much at all; that response does exactly what I outlined. It patently ignores the fact that a lot of people are not in a position to make their own custom profiles. Finding some through the The Print Yahoo group is fine but even then the variety available is unlikely to be close to what is available for color printing.
WRT a and b being unmanaged in the print process, should it matter? ABW expects to receive data in true grayscale, R=B=G. Given that, all that should be required is L. Or are you saying that a and b are required as well because the printer still mixes some colour ink even when printing via ABW?
You don't need a density curve to see the differences, Alan. The difference between printing through ABW with and without a profile can be easily seen in regular prints of b&w images. And the differences are not always that subtle.
I said that the ABW driver is no more a "black box" than any other. Both need/should be used with profiles.
Andrew, again (as we've had this conversation before), that's because its "design" was inadequate.
To be acceptable to a reasonably sophisticated user it does require the very sort of profile that is supplied by QTR Create ICC.
Once again, the driver is no more a "black box" than Epson's colour driver - it causes the printer to produce ink on paper in reaction to a particular input number set. Neither provides the user with greater insight or control over all the variables that control that printer response for a given input. Both the Epson regular colour driver (or colour printing component of the Epson driver) and the ABW driver can be used with or without profiles. The capabilities of both are greatly enhanced by profiles.
Actually that isn’t so, at least in terms of the end user having to supply, use or select a profile. In the state of it’s original design, ABW doesn’t require any output profiles and the color portion of the Epson driver can operate without them as well.I don't think you are arguing that users who print out color prints should accept the fact that the Epson driver can manage color in the absence of a profile. One might get some kind of "acceptable" print in this type of workflow but it would not be optimal. Those of us who do a lot of B/W work have found that optimal results come from the use of the ABW driver with a comparable profile. I really wish that you would quit bad mouthing this approach by referring the ABW driver as a "black box." Apple just made a bad choice to impose its version of CM on that community of users which has screwed up the ABW workflow that we Win users employ. I'm just getting a little tired of hearing this "black box" argument when it just is wrong.
Perhaps you had something to do with the design of Epson ABW and are offended by my remark that its design was inadequate.
I guess one ought to define "the vast majority". If we are talking all people who use computers, displays and printers I would say that the vast majority haven't a clue about colour management and how to deploy it at all. Same for many people who occasionally print a B&W photograph.
But Epson ABW wasn't designed to appeal to this definition of the vast majority.
In the same way that those who are serious about colour printing can benefit from learning about colour management, those who are serious about printing B&W can benefit from the deployment of QTR (or Eric's) profiles in their workflow.
How much effort one puts in to learn and deploy these tools, for either colour printing or B&W printing, simply depends on how serious one is, one's mental aptitude and one's budget. Thankfully, the budget needed to deploy these tools for B&W use is considerably less than it is for colour.
Nope. I don’t find it inadequate and I suspect neither do the vast majority of users. The overwhelming reports of dissatisfaction would be found where?
You prefer the output using QTR, great.
Well people who like to send endless time and money on differing solutions and then need to convince others that doing something any other way is inferior will probably agree with you.
And who would use Epson papers for serious work? They really aren't good at all. So, just like using a profile to improve ABW, many of us use better quality papers to enhance the quality of the output achievable with an Epson printer.I don't use Epson paper anymore because I found that Ilford GFS works so good for me. I like the color and the finish.
So all those extremely successful photogs using Epson papers are just idiots and ripping off their customers?
This is the one really big problem about using ABW alone. You only have this little postage stamp window of a sample image to show you what the various settings do which bears no reality at all to the image you want to print. If you don't use some type of managed workflow, you will have to do some guess work to figure out what the right setting is. We don't tolerate this for color work and should not tolerate it for B/W.
I do believe (again, my opinion) Epson encountered this "flat and lighter than expected" issue very directly when they built ABW. It is no coincidence in my view that the default ABW setting is "darker". Whether they understood the issue completely or simply fudged an answer I don't know, but they did feel the need to introduce curves in the driver to darken the otherwise too-light output. Perhaps they introduced the exact appropriate tone curve, recognising that it could be handled by a special ICC profile but baulked at adding this complication to the workflow. The output would suggest they didn't.
In my view, Epson papers are only useful for proofing. Their PK papers are absolutely terrible versus a quality product like Hahnemuehle Photorag Baryta. Awful bronzing and metamerism.
Well, in that there is no "manufacturer" in this case I would agree with you but there are a lot of people willing to help out someone with no access to a densitometer (see the last paragraph below).
I said that the ABW driver is no more a "black box" than any other. Both need/should be used with profiles. It's a real shame that Epson missed a beat and didn't deploy this extension of their great ABW driver - and make available profiles for at least their papers and the standard settings (warm, cool etc). But then they've always been focused elsewhere and not on B&W. ABW was a good step forward but it's far, far away from current "state-of-the-art" B&W printing. It is, however, when coupled with QTR ICC profiles, tremendously convenient for the average user.
I think you miss the point a little bit but I will attempt to answer your question. In crude terms, as you undoubtedly know, with a conventional colour profile and colour printing, we profile (as opposed to calibrate) a printer by measuring its colour response to a set of colour numbers and then try - as much as possible within the available gamut - to get the printer the produce the right colours by altering the image file numbers "on the fly" as it is sent to the printer. Various methods manage any necessary gamut compression including the rendering intent and black point compensation.
When black and white printing (when not using a colour workflow), we use the driver to select hue and, typically, only send it a single channel file (or, as you note, an RGB file where R=G=B). In a RIP such as QTR, managing hue is done by selecting which inks (they may be colour inks or a graded B&W ink set which in turn may or may not have warm and cool inks for toning) are used, when and in what amounts. In ABW, this is managed with the (very convenient) hue picker (or standard settings) which drives how the ink channels are used/mixed. I may want a warm print (via either driver) and so not desire a=b=0 across the gradation from paper white to ink black, even though my image in PS appears as a (neutral) greyscale file (whether in an RGB or single channel workspace). If a QTR ICC profile tried to manage a* and b* then it would attempt to alter file values to reverse the selected hue in ABW. So in outbound management of the file, a* and b* are ignored. Rather we are only concerned with fitting the image's luminance ramp into the narrower print space (for, particularly for matt papers, the printer doesn't get close to a perfect black or even a perfect white). We record the luminance response of the printer for various stimulus numbers build a curve for that response and embed it into an ICC profile shell. Together with BPC, the profile manages the file to print space "luminance gamut" transition by changing the files numbers (either single channel or, in the case of an RGB image, with always R=G=B) to produce the appropriate, corrected L*. So this is what I mean by a* and b* aren't managed. a* and b* are left to fall where they may according to the shift in L*.
Metamerism is a good thing.
I'm really not sure I know what you're saying here. I'm not sure you do either. The statement makes no sense.
Re, the QTR profiles, you continue to ignore the statements I made previously.
When the goal is to create a neutral b&w print there is no hue.
Except to say that Colorsync is a Mac utility and I'm not a brainwashed member of the Jobsian cult. ;D
You've tried every Epson paper then?
What a load of rubbish.
You are free to use whatever paper you want and to not consider non-Epson products
Who said anything about constraining the use of ABW to "neutral" prints? ABW is designed to provide colour toning. In other RIPs such as QTR we use various inks to add colour toning. In managing the transition from image file to print space we don't colour manage the hue but do manage the luminance axis.
Use whatever utility you prefer then. As to the comment about "the Jobsian cult" we'll just let that slide.
I did. I'd venture that there are a fair number of people who, if they are going to tone their b&w prints, don't do it in ABW but do it themselves then print using a colour workflow. The reason I do it, is that it can't be controlled and it can't be soft proofed.
Clearly you don't have a sense of humour. Pity.
You ask Farmer whether, because he likes Epson papers, he's affiliated with Epson. One could pose the same question to you about Hahnemuhle.
When I use the this term, I am referring to colour shift with changes in lighting. Shifts to green or magenta casts are a bad thing for B&W printing. The introduction of LK and LLK inks helped a lot with this issue but the quality of their branded papers (I don't care who actually manufactures them or where they are made) remains poor.
But I do admire your brand loyalty. Are you in any way affiliated with Epson?
Case in point. It appears that anyone who disagrees with your rather weak arguments must somehow be affiliated with Epson. You affiliated with HP or Canon?
It can be controlled and soft-proofed with ABW and QTR Create ICC. I can also convert images to the profile I use to proof that toning and save this toned image for electronic display.
To call it a "hack", particularly when you are involved in colour management as a profession is not only disappointing but, frankly, puzzling.
I did not call QTR a hack. Read the sentence again: The vast majority of users don’t seem to have any problem with either the design or the results without the use of a 3rd party ‘hack’ or drivers.
That last part of that sentence can include any solutions or options that are not the result of printing using ABW as designed and used by the vast majority of ABW users.
You clearly lost the point of the sentence to aim onto your preferred output methods while implying that those who don’t follow your workflow are incapable of recognizing or producing quality output. Some call that mindset elitist...
Converting the image to the profile is not following a properly colour managed workflow.
Please explain how you are softproofing toned images that are to be printed via ABW? That is, how you are softproofing without converting the image to the paper profile. How are you previewing the tone that will be added to the image? How are the profiles created? Are you printing the QTR step wedge by adding a tone in ABW then creating the profile from that toned step wedge? How are you determining what the readings from the step wedge should be compared to in order to create the profile since, as far as I know, Epson doesn't provide the numbers at various toning (hue) settings?
Well a greyscale profile isn't much more than a curve. Plus black point compensation and soft proofing etc. I do know what the toning will be like but, yes, only because I have printed a range of step wedges (and profiled them) and figured out a set of favourites.
If you want full control over ink channels and hue then you're into using a RIP like QTR
BPC isn’t part of a profile, it is part of the CMM.
You are getting a soft proof or not? Knowing via a step wedge isn’t soft proofing.
It is a RIP? Really? Postscript comparable?
Yes and having an ICC profile gives access to the CMM.
The point Bob was mentioning is that I don't know what particular settings will produce until I print a step wedge, create a profile and soft proof the image.
It's a RIP for printing B&W images with any ink set and provides full control over individual ink channels and how they are limited and "mixed" to create toned output.
The Apple CMM does support BPC. I have implemented this several years ago, and it still seems to work in 10.7.