Re: CMYK separations on Adobe Photoshop

Keith wrote:
I will personally
> make two gum prints, one using CMYK negatives and the other using RGB
> negatives. OK? I am confident that this demonstration will prove that
> neither has an advantage.

Can we also get the details of your conversion to CYMK on Photshop (UCR,
etc.)
Thanks,
Giovanni
----- Original Message -----
Wrom: NNYCGPKYLEJGDGVCJVTLBXFGGMEPYOQKEDOT
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 7:23 PM
Subject: RE: CMYK separations on Adobe Photoshop

> I'll make a deal: IF the bickering ceases immediately, I will personally
> make two gum prints, one using CMYK negatives and the other using RGB
> negatives. OK? I am confident that this demonstration will prove that
> neither has an advantage.
>
> Keith - who, by opening a can of worms, inadvertently escalated this
> controversy
>
> (this may take awhile)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> Wrom: WFAOBUZXUWLSZLKBRNVWWCUFPEGAUTFJMVRESK
> Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 12:58 PM
> To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
> Subject: Re: CMYK separations on Adobe Photoshop
>
>
> >>> kthayer@pacifier.com 11/04/04 6:15 AM >>>
> Joe Smigiel wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > My statement never puts forth any absolute about which set is better.
> > Nor did I ever say that people "should always convert to CMYK before
> > printing separations" as you've implied.
>
> Joe Smigiel wrote: (Sat Oct 30)
> >
> As
> > I've said and the image example shows, the colors are different in the
> > final image than when you do a CMYK conversion and make separation
> > negatives from those files. If you want a more accurate
> transcription
> > you should do the RGB to CMYK conversion.
>
>
>
> >
> > Leave me out of your posts in the future.
>
> Don't worry.
> Katharine
>
>
>
> A convenient edit by Katharine Thayer in an apparent attempt to again
> distort what I've actually said. But, If you read further into the
> cited paragraph you'll see my admission that:
>
> "... In a later post I did say I believed CMYK negatives gave more
> "accurate" transcriptions. Having not seen any
> visual evidence to the contrary (i.e., another side by side test of a
> RGB vs. CMYK set of negatives printed in gum) I still hold that belief."
>
> I have not seen any visual evidence to the contrary as of yet even
> though I've asked several times now for evidence from Katherine Thayer
> that supports her contradictory statement. Where is that visual
> evidence?
>
> Never did I say or recommend that people "should always convert to CMYK
> before printing separations" as Katherine Thayer has again attributed to
> me. I would never tell anyone that they "should always" do anything,
> especially when it comes to gum printing. "If you want a more accurate
> transcription you should do the RGB to CMYK conversion" is not the same
> thing as people "should always convert to CMYK before printing
> separations." A minor semantic difference perhaps, but to me an
> important one.
>
> Katharine, rather than wasting any more of the list's time with these
> verbal distortions, why don't you simply provide visual supporting
> evidence for your position as I have done? It could be your own
> personal example...someone else's... anyone's?
>
> Again, sorry to bother the list with this but since Ms. Thayer has
> chosen to publicly distort my actual comments, I feel a need to defend
> myself publicly as well.
>
> But, I'm really tired of playing "He said, she said" so no more from me
> on this. My apologies.
>
> Joe
>
>
>
Received on Thu Nov 4 18:27:09 2004