FotoDave@aol.com
Mon, 25 Jan 1999 11:03:25 -0500 (EST)
In a message dated 1/24/99 10:23:35 PM Pacific Standard Time,
kthayer@pacifier.com writes:
> But if you invert an RGB of 128,
> 128, 128, you *will* get a CMY of 128, 128, 128. Which is my whole
> point.
Yes, that's true. And to tell you the truth, I did miss your whole point. :)
> Look, I didn't just make this up myself. This comes out of everything
> I've learned about color printing both for traditional color photography
> and for gum printing. If you don't believe me, there was an excellent
> article on making digital separations for color gum printing in Photo
> Techniques several years ago, 1995 or 1996, and I don't remember the
> guy's name, but he does his color separations exactly the way I do,
> working in RGB and inverting the channels to create CMY negatives. And I
> don't remember anyone writing in later to say the guy was a fool.
I did know this method, and I did know the article(s) that you mentioned. It
was by Phil Davis. He wasn't / isn't a fool although anybody who is doing
digital gum might have tried that even if he didn't mention this method in his
article because as you have also said, it was a basic color theory.
What I did NOT know was that you were working in this method. That was why a
while ago I even asked whether you were working with filter separation without
color masks and separation of the K negative, or you were using Photoshop
separation with Black generation turned off etc. etc.
Maybe I was the ONLY one who did not know about your particular method and
hence was a little confused about the particular issue we were talking about.
If that is the case, I apologize to you and to the list. But I just want to
point out that when things are not clearly spelled out, there is always room
for confusion, as we have seen from the discussion that inversion of R channel
to be used as C negative, etc. etc. is not really the same as not using black.
One can still use Photoshop separation to generate CMY without black, but the
result would be different, and the discussion about whether K should be used
will be different as well.
I agree that you have said many times that you don't use black but only CMY,
but I think you have worked with your method so long that you assumed that
when you said that, everyone understood that you meant direct (straight-line)
inversion from a channel to its complement.
I am really not trying to argue here, just trying to explain why there was
confusion.
> Besides the fact that it's the way I learned it, it has the added appeal
> for me of making sense, which CMYK doesn't, and it also makes prints
> that look right to me, which CMYK doesn't. But as I keep saying, each to
> his own!
Yes, doing straight conversion like that is more or less equivalent to filter
separation without color correction mask. It gives a unique look especially
with color saturation. Some people love that look. Preference is a very
personal matter, and I certainly am not going to argue for or against a
particular look (I never did either. I am just interested in techincal
details/discussion. When it finally comes to making my own prints, I also make
my own decision regarding the look).
Anyway, welcome back and good to see you posting again. :)
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b3 on Sat Nov 06 1999 - 10:06:44