Re: gum curves
Hi Katherine,
what I meant was, what is wrong with this
statement
..... At the very > least, a good curve would have been
able to
get a close match to > the uncurved print (possibly with
some changes in
exposure, > etc.).
...
Surely if a good
curve should be a close match to the uncurved print then why oh why use a
curve in the first place..
I haven't used this particular
software yet although I have downloaded it. But, it looks as though the
algorithm which makes the curve adjustment is moving the end points of the
curve away from 0 and 255. Just a guess. I know though that you will savage
this until the problem is identified ! Which is good for us
:)
Regards,
David
On Oct 28 2006, Katharine
Thayer wrote:
Hi David,
Well, obviously something's
wrong here, but that was my question,
what is it that's wrong? If
you have an idea what's wrong, I wish
you'd tell me. I
didn't run just the one curve, I've run a dozen of
them, and
I've run them on different pigments, and they all come out
flat
like that; none of them come close to the print as printed from
the
inverted, uncurved file. I have an offlist correspondent working
on
gum curves from ChartThrob; I hope by comparing notes we can
figure
out what's going on, but like I said, if there's anyone here
who has already generated good gum curves from ChartThrob, I'd like
to hear about it. Kees, you sounded knowledgeable about ChartThrob;
have you generated gum curves from ChartThrob?
If I sound
a bit frustrated, it's because I've wasted a lot of time
on
this for nothing, but I can't seem to let it go because I'm a
person who always needs to understand why something is the way it is
and keeps worrying at it, like a dog with a bone, til I figure it
out. I wish I could just give it up as a lost cause and go back to
gum printing; I've got prints to finish.
Katharine
On Oct 28, 2006, at 7:23 AM, davidhatton@totalise.co.uk
wrote:
> Er..Isn't there something wrong here
..... At the very > least, a good curve would have been able to
get a close match to > the uncurved print (possibly with some changes
in
exposure, > etc.).
Regards,
David H