RE: CMYK separations on Adobe Photoshop

Soon after making this reckless statement, I realized how much work I had
gotten myself into. (My negatives are on lith film made in the
old-fashioned way: in a soon-to-be cold darkroom, and I hate it. darkroom
work, that is). So this is what I'll do: I will make a diptych where each
half is of the same subject shot at the same time. In other words, I am
reneging on the offer to make two versions with identical source, but
they'll be pretty darn close to being identical. I'm thinking of something
on the order of a nude with two similar poses side by side. And, I suppose
if this effort is going to result providing any valid new information, I
ought to stick with a conventional color palette and play by the rules,
i.e., attempt for a "true" representation of the original shot. And yes,
I'll record and publish the steps in the process.

Anybody have any other suggestions? I'm new to this whole "scientific
testing" stuff.

-----Original Message-----
From: gdimase@hotmail.com [mailto:gdimase@hotmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 04, 2004 4:26 PM
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: 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,
>
Received on Thu Nov 4 18:52:09 2004