Re: [Gimp-developer] suggestion for new versions of GIMP

[Bogdan Szczurek <thebodzio gmail com>]

A little note: when I write RGB, I mean a general set of all RGB spaces 
(the RGBs if you will :)). The same goes to CMYK… or rather CMYKs ;).

> 2011/11/27 Bogdan Szczurek<thebodzio gmail com>:
>
> > …or they miss some vital functionalities like I do. Higher bit depths or
> > built-in raw handling are not really the case for me here. What is? Proper
> > CMYK, Lab and multichannel support. These can be provided by recent
> > architectural changes, but I adhere to the current status quo. Without it,
> > it's hard to think seriously about GIMP in publishing industry.
>
> Well, that's not entirely true. Print industry is shifting
> progressively to late binding RGB workflows and CMYK survives only
> because of habit.

In my opinion, it's not only a habit. I think better thing to say would 
be: print industry is more often _tolerating_ RGB. I think it's because 
of quite reasonable conversion profiles to CMYK and because more, and 
more often, different content creators (clients) provide materials in 
RGB. I think they do so partly because Adobe is trying to convince 
people that they can create a document in e.g. InDy and publish the same 
document as an ebook in epub, website, flash movie and whatnot by one 
click. All of the same quality. I say: BS :). Why? Because of some 
lowest common denominator, about which later :). Document prepared for 
print will be most probably impaired when forcibly cast to e.g. web 
space :). Try to create webpage layout in Photoshop, use it's facilities 
to export it to HTML + images and ask a good webdesigner what he thinks 
about this code :). Granted it'll look right in browser, but it won't 
change a fact that the code is a total trash. But I digress :)

I agree, most of the time, relying on good RGB profile for conversion to 
CMYK is sufficient. But there are times when it's better to modify CMYK 
values manually (of course in the same workspace as printhouse's). 
Example: in dark areas of photos one could wish to add a bit of warm 
tint to places already printed with a 100% black. You _can_ do it by 
creating your own profile but you'd have to test it with your printer. I 
also had to cope, a couple of times, with some blues or reds in photos 
converted from RGB to CMYK. In RGB – nice, in CMYK – awful. Who's going 
to guarantee my photos won't be destroyed that way during conversion? 
Nobody :). It works _most_ of the time, _not_always_. It can crash 
_unexpectedly_ on some more or less significant subtleties.

That's why I stick with CMYK for print, not because of a habit :).

> Working with early binding (CMYK from the beginning) isn't exactly a
> good idea in this age of cross-media publishing.

IMHO cross-media publishing have as many good as bad sides. Each media 
has it's own specificity. Cross-media means that one have to find a 
_lowest_ common denominator of multiple (often greatly differing) 
presentation technologies. This also means that some potential 
sacrifices have to made in the area of color reproduction.

One can design once and create many outputs for different media, but to 
do it _properly_ one have to adjust design for every output.

> Adobe and Pantone are pushing towards RGB workflows

It's their way of supporting lowest common denominator philosophy. It's 
like trying to convince people that a candle is the only lightsource 
they'll ever need ;). Also in our times when color management is still 
often misunderstood or neglected and sRGB rules the earth, maybe it's 
better to rely on a piece of software to do the conversion to CMYK and 
to hope for the best ;).

> but keep those
> legacy modes because too many professionals insist on using a workflow
> from the past century ;-)

And they do it for a reason, not because they're only soon-to-extinct 
curiosities that can't get the "new ways" ;). It's sometimes good to 
hear what they have to say. Too many good practices was abandoned 
because new generations of designers didn't want to listen :|.

> I switched to intermediate/late binding two or three years ago, and if
> I see a difference, it favors RGB.

If color management process would be observed you wouldn't see any 
difference ;). Yes… I know… theorethically ;)

> Mostly in CTPs (my print provider recently added a hybrid AM/FM CTP
> and RGB performs much better than CMYK there).

Then it's something wrong with color management here :).

> I do a lot of offset printing, every week and I haven't perceived any
> disadvantage since I moved to RGB.

Then your printer use good RGB profile and… you're lucky ;).

> Regarding channels and LAB, you have a point, but I'm sure that once
> we have a high bit depth LAB internal processing (correct me if I'm
> wrong but that's the idea, right?) the rest will be just around the
> corner.

Yup! :D AFAIK internal processing would be held in scRGB but babl does 
have a Lab model built-in as well as an ability to describe other color 
models. Anyway… there's hope for better future :).

> Even the decompose command will be useful :-p

Even better :) – obsolete.

Sorry for the long post :).

Bless
thebodzio