RE: RGB vs CMYK: some experiments

From: Baird, Darryl ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 12/05/04-08:33:17 AM Z
Message-id: <>

I've tried to follow this thread closely, sometimes without much luck
due to the latest volume, but I don't recall anyone actually disputing
or strongly challenging Jason's astute conceptual model of a 0% black
generation in the CMYK separation process.

Back when I actually did color separations, they were tri-color,
hand-separated in a darkroom, but I recall the choice of filters (25A,
58, 47B - aka RGB) was designed to give rather 'equal' color
distribution in the resulting (grayscale) negatives. Even then, I used
a light black 'bump' made from an unfiltered negative... this was
using qwik-print which was originally designed to proof commercial
print jobs, before chromalith (?) or matchprint materials.

So again, what, if anything is wrong with this model of Jason's?

P.S. Despite all the 'controversy' surrounding this debate, I'm
certain a great number of list members are enjoying the discussion and
learning a lot. Since I teach this stuff (aka one who should know
better[?]), I have a small dog (maybe a puppy) in this fight.

-Darryl Baird

-----Original Message-----
From: Jason DeFontes []
Sent: Fri 12/3/2004 2:50 AM
Subject: RGB vs CMYK: some experiments
I've been trying to wrap my head around this since this thread
started, and
I finally decided to do some noodling around in Photoshop to see if I
understand it a little better. And I took some notes:

Hope it's helpful to someone.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Katharine Thayer []
> I've been thinking about this whole question of why some people
> CMYK and others prefer RGB, and it seems to me that perhaps you
> make a case for the proposition that people who came to color gum
> printing from color photography think in terms of color photography
> when approaching gum printing, and the RGB route makes more
> sense to us.
> But for people coming from printmaking, or from commercial printing
> pre-press, then the CMYK route may seem more logical. Just a
> thought....

Received on Sun Dec 5 08:32:51 2004

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 01/03/05-09:29:43 AM Z CST