FotoDave@aol.com
Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:33:32 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 1/22/99, PM 07:01:59, kthayer@pacifier.com writes:
<<It makes perfect sense to me to take the basic steps of this model to
the digital world, staying in RGB space and forming CMY negatives by
inverting the RGB layers (Remember, RGB inverted=CMY) and then using
those negatives to gum print using CMY pigments.
Katherine,
You are an experienced printer using CMY, so I don't understand why you said
RGB inverted = CMY. That is not true in traditional film / paper (that is why
we have the integral (orange) masking of negative film instead of straight
inversion. Neither is it true in digital (that is why RGB of (128,128,128)
would not simply invert to (128,128,128,0) of CMYK. You even talked about the
numbers in your earlier post, so why are you saying that RGB inverted = CMY???
>> The only place in the universe I've ever heard it suggested that it
makes sense to use CMYK for photographic work is this list, and no one
here has yet explained to me what the logic is for the list's acceptance
of this idea. I suspect maybe it's due to a naive adherence to the rule
that Dave invoked: "RGB is for light, CMY is for printing."
No, that wasn't the reason for using CMY OR CMYK. The reason I talked about
light vs print (additive vs subtrative) was because someone asked about why
use CMY instead of RGB. I probably misunderstood his question as asking why
not use red, green and blue ink / pigment, and so I explained about additive
and subtrative models. But the fact the "RGB is for light, CMY is for
printing" is not the reason for using or not using K.
The reason for that has been discussed in other threads much earlier.
But again, Katherine, the person (was it Adam?) was NOT asking why someone
should or should not use K. He asked something else, and so the answer and/or
discussion would be different. Why do you always link everything that has the
letters CMYK to the question of whether K is to be used.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:44