RE: the look of tricolor vs CMYK
Mark,
I call
them gum prints. I'm pretty much an Occam's Razor sort of
person. Regardless of how the negatives are produced or what goes on the
paper, they are gum prints. If the end result looks like a "true" color
photograph or a charcoal drawing, well, it's all there in the final work and one
really doesn't;t have to go to extremes to explain it to the viewer. Judy
makes a couple of good points in her reply, the most important being that rules
are tiresome in alt (although in my reply to her, "rules" or maybe more
accurately "media descriptions" are sometimes demanded in the
marketplace.)
In any
event, people reading this thread will interpret differently.. Some
may interpret "tri-color" as being made from RGB-separated negatives. My
negatives come from a combination of CMYK and RGB and might include
something as specialized as a negative that is produced from the
80% difference between the blue channel and the inverse of the magenta
channel as defined in the Calculations function of Photoshop or a "spot" channel
that included only the turquoise in the original non-separated image. So I
might start out with 7 negatives, but the end result might use three or four or
all seven negatives to apply the same gray pigment. So what do you call
that? I call it a "gum print". And I call it that even if it happens
to also use a cyano or vandyke layer in the mix.
Keith
-----Original
Message-----
From: Ender100@aol.com [mailto:Ender100@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 30, 2007 11:11 PM To: alt-photo-process-l@usask.ca Subject: Re: the look of tricolor vs CMYK Keith,
|