Re: CMYK separations: a correction

Further explanation:
The thing is that I save my images, once I've used them to make
negatives from, as inverted RGB, and apparently in my experiments with
CMYK separations, I didn't always remember to invert the image back to
positive RGB before converting it to CMYK. To get the correct
separations, my workflow has to go: invert my CMY negative back to
positive RGB, convert to CMYK, then invert again before making
separations. But sometimes I forgot and just sent the inverted file to
CMYK and made separations from that, and that's apparently when I got
the wrong separations, at least that's how I've replicated getting bad
separations today. So you guys were absolutely right: it was in the
workflow. What's interesting is that rather than an inversion, what you
get is a perversion of the correct separations,
Thanks,
Katharine

Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
> Okay, I figured it out, and you're right of course, it didn't have
> anything to do with image size or resolution. It was in fact rather
> stupid, though not entirely obvious. You were right the first time,
> Mark, when you suggested that perhaps it might be something about the
> order of inversion. Apparently I wasn't always inverting the image at
> the same point in the process, and when I inverted at the wrong place,
> that threw the separations off. So now I know (although I'm not sure
> what good the information will do me since I never intend to make
> another CMYK separation in my life). Thanks for suggestions and patience
> while I figured this out,
> Katharine
>
> Ender100@aol.com wrote:
> >
> > Katherine,
> > Can you repeat the results?  If not, and you get the appropriate
> > results with the workflow that makes sense to you, then I wouldn't
> > worry about it.  We all occasionally get results from out in left
> > field, and it usually is something we absent-mindedly do, some setting
> > that is weird and we don't notice.  I've had this happen with the
> > Epson Printer Driver, thinking that a certain saved setting will
> > repeat automatically and it doesn't, resulting in a negative that
> > doesn't print as predicted.
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > In a message dated 12/18/04 2:34:45 AM, kthayer@pacifier.com writes:
> >
> > Okay, I believe you, but if so, then what is this other
> > thing that could
> > logically be causing this? I'm quite willing to believe it's
> > something
> > unbelievably stupid I'm doing, but I'd be happy anyway just
> > to know what
> > it is
> > Katharine
> >
> > Mark Nelson
> > Purchase the eBook & System for Your Own Custom Workflow@
> > Precision Digital Negatives
> > PDN's Own 31-Step Tablet Now Availableâ*”produced by Stouffer
> > Industries
> > Credit Card & Paypal now accepted
> > www.MarkINelsonPhoto.com
> > Workshop info on Home Page
Received on Sat Dec 18 15:26:40 2004