In a message dated 11/20/99 4:42:29 PM, rafeb@channel1.com writes: > >C.D., I wish to respectfully disagree with at >least part of the above. > >When I see a patch of (100,100,100) in an image, >using Photoshop 4, I expect it to display and >print as gray. I accept (and expect) that as >an "absolute." In fact, the case where R=G=B >is one of the few "absolutes" I get to use to >advantage. Well your assumptions bridge quite a span, starting with the assumption that 100,100,100 is a neutral gray. Depends on your monitor doesn't it... Second you are assuming that your "raw" RGB numbers are going to be translated to device CMY in an even manner. Finally you are assuming that the printing of equal amounts of CMY on paper will produce a dead neutral result. Oddly the formuli generally accepted for producing a CMY gray are not actually that simple.I'm afraid that any and all of these points could be argued, and prefer a far more exacting solution: work in a carefully devised RGB workingspace, where R=G=B is a carefully engineered fact (not a monitor space where it may or may not be close to the truth), and this neutrality can be displayed visually through a carefully constructed monitor profile (made by actually measuring the output of your monitor with a colorimeter, and balancing it) then measuring your printed results to similarly adjust the CMY balance with a printer profile. But you and I have agreed to disagree on this issue before, I'm just describing the theoretical underpinnings of that disagreeement. I won't argue with your results, only the convenience and control of your method. C. David Tobie Design Cooperative CDTobie@designcoop.com - Turn off HTML mail features. Keep quoted material short. Use accurate subject lines. http://www.leben.com/lists for list instructions.