Thank you for your comments & thoughts. Amen to experimenting.
The curve 1 and 2 renditions come from respective *.quad files data (of course pre-linearization), imported into Excel for the graphs. Indeed, density for curve 2 LLK was lower than for curve 1. LLK density in curve 1 is 25% and 14% for curve 2. I arrived at 14% density LLK for curve 2 as 0.55 (55% density of LK relative to K) multiplied by 0.25 (25% density of LLK relative to K) = ~0.14 x 100 = 14%.
For clarity:
·??????? Curve 1: K=100%, LK=55%, LLK=25%
·??????? Curve 2: K=100%, LK=55%, LLK=14%
·??????? Ink limits for all = 70%. No black boost.
I will linearize the 51 step readings for 2 curves later tonight, and show results. You bring up a good point that curve 2 is closer to ideal, but with more “wiggles” and it is entirely possible that linearization will throw up an error. If that happens, I will linearize using density values rather than luminosity.
