Dot Gain 20 or Gamma 2.2

Piezography Professional Tools
1

Hi
I have successfully linearised Museo Portfolio Rag with a reduced density curve from PhotoRag - and I get a Dmax of 1.80!
Since I was not very sure about the best gammma curve, I was testing Dotgain 20 against Gamma 2.2. The result is, that Dotgain 20 looks better/closer to the original image on the screen (on screen it looks the same).
I had the same in StudioPrint but was guessing that it should not matter what curve to take in Print Tool. What is your experience?

Best, Markus

2

Yeah, studioprint uses a dot-gain system (it isn’t a linear system with soft proofing like Piezography on QTR).

There is a luminance matching tool in PPE that lets you take an old StudioPrint validation target and calibrate a QTR against that btw.

 

best,

Walker

3

… and what is your experience with the Print Tool and PiezoPro?

Do you see the difference (between DG20 and Gamma 2.2) - and which one do you choose?

 

Best, Markus

4

Always print with GG2.2. Piezography is calibrated for GG2.2 (to print linear). This gives you a more predictable print path. You can read the entire chapter about this in the Piezography Manual in >Piezography>Documentation.

 

best,

Walker

5

Thanks - however the results looks much closer to the screen when I am using DG20…

 

Best, Markus

6

That is because you are not soft-proofing for the linear environment. Screens are not linear, so to perfectly match the monitor to a linear print environment, you must soft proof with “Preserve RGB Numbers” on.

This is explained in the manual.

best,

Walker

7

RTFM… Ok, thanks - will do :slight_smile:

8

OK - I have read and searched the manual more than once - and there is no real description for how to get a softproof profile…

There is a description in the QTR manual - from the good old times. I will check this again, as I did in StudioPrint. But it would be helpful if there would be a section about creating a softproof profile in the Deluxe Manual as well.

Two general questions:

  1. You have invested a lot into using the i1Profiler for creating ICC profiles. I do not very much like this software, but can give it a try of course. For the moment ColorPort does a nice job. Would you recommend to switch to the i1Profiler workflow now - and could you ouse the ICC profile for both printing (in Photoshop) and softproofing?

  2. If I stay with ColorPort and PrintTool. What if I use DG20 instead of Gamma 2.2 if the image on the screen looks almost identical to my print - without having to softproof?

Best, Markus

9

It’s in the grayscale management chapter.

However, if you want to simply use the i1Profiler workflow you can built Piezography ICC profiles with that with the provided Piezography ICC Tool found in your Tools folder. For consistency of workflow (for you) I suggest it.

 

best,

Walker

10

Thanks - I know what you mean - but the description for how to create such profile is not there …

I think I stay with what I have - even with DG20. I have made a softproof profile via the measurement tool - which is running under Windows. No chance for doing this on Mac anymore.

Hmmm - never touch a winning team

Markus

11

It’s Beta still so not in the manual itself.

[attachment file=28953]

Screen-Shot-2017-12-11-at-10.46.49-AM.png
Screen-Shot-2017-12-11-at-10.46.49-AM.png835×252 38.1 KB

12

But yeah, if windows, just keep w/ soft proofs. (in general, whatever works!) :slight_smile:

 

cheers,

Walker

13

Thanks

Interesting: I get different tonalities whether I use Gamma22 or DG20 - and I prefer Gamma22 - with softproof correction.
So something to keep in mind…

Markus