|
|
I have raised this question regarding printing white and its reliability on the brilliancy of photo paper to a number of industry professionals and received agreeing replies as well replies making reference to expensive B&W processing software with capabilities to make B&W prints without color casts of any kind. The assumption remains however, that a white ink cartridge integrated in the color availability of the photo printing process, grays and B&W printed images maybe better controllable. That, is a controversial assumption since it departs from the traditional RGB color process but then again, is not the digital photo color printing process already deviating from the tradition with the use of color cartridges not being of the traditional RGB line-up? Epson being considered the leading professional and semi-professional photo printer manufacturer makes available (for better color hue control) in many of their models, half tone colors such as light black, light magenta and light blue. Interesting! Why this is done and not simply adding a white to the color availability may indicate that introducing a white color cartridge to the color line-up is not so simple either controlling the white digitally (white equals zero meaning no value or status equals "off") or creating it. In 2005 and with the introduction of the R1800 printer, the "white" problem or the lack of it leaving bare patches for highlights and white areas, has been partial solved by Epson with the addition of a cartridge with clear ink thus, providing for a uniform print appearance. Having said the above and not being able to answer the reason for the missing white cartridge in our printer, other than assuming it would life simpler if it was available, I shall return to the current problem of the B&W print. Black & White Printing
Explanations
This article takes into consideration three different
but similar software packages and two different printing methods. To
prevent the writing of multiple articles covering each software package
and printing method, we combined all in one article. In order to follow
the suggested instruction for a particular software package and printer
(combination) a color coding of the text guides the way. The following
text colors are used,
Photoshop 7.x using Paper ICC Profiles -- Black
Photoshop Elements using Paper ICC Profiles -- Blue & Black Photoshop CS using Paper ICC Profiles -- Green & Black Photoshop 7.x using RGB Profiles -- Light Blue & Black Photoshop Elements using RGB Profiles -- Maroon & Black Photoshop CS using RGB Profiles -- Navy & Black
What is easier:
Stick a roll of film into a camera, expose it, remove it and drop it off at your local processor, pick-up the prints and find processing scratches all over your them or... Stick a memory card in a digital camera, shoot pictures, upload them to your computer, process it with an image processor and print it on your printer to find the colors are disappointing. Which one is the better? My opinion, both are a huge problem but the latter, you are in control! Many amateur photographers and professionals take the latter because they know how to post process the image however, many consumers are experiencing the pitfalls of home processing such as wasting ink, expensive paper and untold disappointment with the lack of manufacturer guidance and the ability to make pictures that the local super market laboratory would have disposed of as unacceptable.
What happened? The salesman said the printer would
make pictures "you would not believe" and he was right! Many owners of
the ongoing "do-it-yourself-photo-processing" marketing saga can not
belief that they can not get a print equal to or better then the local
drugstore. The pictures either have a disturbing color cast or are over
color adjusted and/not to mention the "miss-prints" due to wrong
settings in the various (ambiguous) printer dialog boxes
Getting a print equal or better than the local
processor is not a simple task and yet many people say their home made
prints are just that, better than or almost just as good. Sometimes
things are in favor of the consumer with all variables being about right
(like prints uploaded to a printer docking station of alike
manufacturer*) thus obtaining a print that is "almost" as good or
"better" than the corner store. As a whole however, it appears that the
attempts are many. Good or excellent results however are usually
obtained by the advanced amateur or by someone who has done a fair
amount of researching the subject and/or reading an abundance of
literature with confusing and often conflicting advice
* HP digital camera to a HP "docking type"
printer or Canon camera to a Canon dedicated printer accepting direct
image transfer to the printer.
How than can we get a good print?
There appears to be no straight answer for this. If you own a digital camera with a docking station or a printer that takes the images from the camera thus bypassing the computer and consequent photo processing software, changes are that you will get an acceptable snapshot/print are very good. If however, you are into digital photo processing commonly referred to as having a digital darkroom, the quest of making a good or outstanding print becomes more difficult. The reasons are many. It could be the processing software, wrong settings, wrong paper and a number of other wrong doings but in many instances, not enough understanding of the process itself. Good digital image processing software is progression software based on the chemical photo developing/printing process. This industry and its process has its own related terminology which migrated into today's software. Therefore, if you have experience in chemical photo processing, digital processing is not going to baffle you. If however, you are a photo amateur or hobbyist with limited or no photo chemical processing experience, you are going to have a trying time understanding the applied lingo, expressions and values as used in professional image processing software such as Photoshop to name one.
Adobe recognized this problem a number of years ago
and created Photo Album and Photo Elements for the consumer market.
There are many photo processing and related programs on the market. All
of them have various capabilities but all of them have the ability to
print pictures of various sizes. If however, you have bigger horizons
and want to make quality enlargements, the selection of good or
outstanding photo software (and equipment) becomes smaller and more
expensive.
Guide lines for Epson Stylus Photo printers using Photoshop 7.x &
Elements, using ICC management
The equipment and software used to establish the suggested workflow is an Epson 2200 Stylus Printer, Photoshop 7.1 and Photoshop Elements. However, with some adjustments, the workflow is applicable to all photo class printers and other good photo processing software. If your hardware/software is short of a mentioned setting, than skip the setting because the setting may be software intrinsic or may not be part of the algorithm of that software. All photo class printers and all good photo papers have ICC profiles available although you may have to go to the respective websites to get them.
Down loading the ICC drivers is usually not a problem
and are installed in the appropriate location where the respective
programs can get to them and make them available to the user via
"Program Selection Tables." In the event one is in doubt about the
location of the drivers for Windows XP, they are installed in,
C:\Windows\System32\Spool\Drivers\Color\drivername.icc
Workflow & Prerequisites.
Creating a workflow that guarantees a good printed image is based on a number of conditions related to hardware as well as the software used to process the image. One of the first variables responsible for bad/good prints is the monitor Gamma setting. Unfortunately, the Gamma setting is usually set by eye using a routine that is part of Windows XP, ME, 2000 * operating systems and often photo processing software such as Adobe Photoshop.* (Gamma is located in the Control Panel and can be edited from there)
The Gamma wizard relies on your eyesight to set the
intensity values, which is a variable by its self. A better way of
setting the Gamma is to use a monitor-calibrating device. ColorVision, *
Monaco Systems * and Gretag Mcbeth * to name a few, make monitor
calibration systems in a variety of ability and cost.
The monitor of my system is calibrated with a very affordably ColorVision Spyder.* This gadget is simple to operate and sets a variable which, in my opinion, is difficult to establish by eye. * registered trademarks
.Color Settings - Photoshop Elements:
|
