Leonard Gee Photography wrote:
Better instructions would be, pinpoint dot in the highlights were there is detail and let it go white in the specular highlights or where there is no detail. But it's a judgement call depending on the image, the press, the paper, the run speed and the press operator.
OP was watching Gry Garness's vid on retouching, in which she uses a ~251,251,251 layer, blended to "darken" to bring back the overcast sky so it won't be "paper white".
(one of the primary things i learned watching that video series is that the sky is ALWAYS overcast in britain! "here's a pic i shot..." white sky over and over again!)
251-all in rgb translates to 1% in each of c,m,and y channels, which makes sense for offset printing, which is done in CMYK. It means that there will be *something* in the white areas.
I do NOT agree with Gry that it's best to apply this in a whole layer, because specular highlights *should* be "paper white" (zone X in the zone system). IMO, it should be masked in where needed to preserve any speculars in the image (else why even go to 255 in each channel?)
Minimum dot sounds very similar to what we'd do in the darkroom in basic b/w photo class. If you effed up and got no detail in the sky, fade it in with a moving burn board and a bare bulb so you have at least a boundary for your photo, so it's not bleeding off the edge of the page.