GNOME.org
 

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

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 :).


Last year I attended to the most important trade show of the
argentinian print industry invited by the most renowned institution of
pre-press training in Argentina, and they didn't seem to "tolerate"
Late Binding as the dumb little brother.
That's interesting. Not "yea… riiiiight…" kind of interesting, just interesting :). 


Late binding is an alternative workflow that is gaining acceptance, as
valid as early binding (of course, with its advantages and
disadvantages, just like the other)
I didn't say late binding is hands down wrong ;). What I was trying to say is that CMYK model support is implemented here and there not just for "historical" reasons :). 


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 :)


Why would I do that? I use GIMP :-p
Seriously: any decent web designer wouldn't use PS and slices. That's
indeed a set of tools for the lowest common denominator.


Exactly! :)



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.


Who's going to guarantee that the CMYK combination you chose in your
software will look like you expect on paper? Soft-proofing, which is
RGB.
You're right soft-profing… but also your experience gives you a serious hint what to do :). What happens when most profiles attempt to convert RGB black to CMYK "black"? One ends up with "black" composed of every single CMYK channel – wasteful. What happens if your "red" or "orange" is converted to CMYK's magenta, yellow and cyan? It'll look "dirty" on print. The list goes on… :). By controlling CMYK values I can avoid some of the problems or adjust colors before somebody/somthing will do it for me not always in a way I'd wish to. Sometimes I just want this or that paint exactly in this or that quantity :). 


Papers, inks and press settings vary from provider to provider and
that's why serious printshops create their own profiles.


I couldn't agree more!


There's no way you can know for sure the printed appearance of a
particular CMYK combination without a printed proof.


Agreed.


Additionally, tweaking CMYK separatios manually can result in
combinations that go beyond the profiles TAC values.
True. Software should give one some more hint about that. However even quadruples from far beyond TAC can be printed by experienced and skilful printer. The question is: what for? :) 


I wonder how many designers know this and understand what can go wrong
with CMYK.
in my personal experience most of them don't know, and just choose
CMYK because "it's for print", and end up stripping profiles because
the file is smaller and mixing 100% CMYK because it looks truly black.
I don't condone using CMYK just "because it's for print/I look pro if I do" ;). Having possibility to directly mangle CMYK values can be dangerous, but also lifesaving. It's like an aerobatic airplane: experienced pilot can use it to do amazing things, while novice will most likely turn it into his coffin ;). Bottom line is: aerobatic planes are cool and needed :). 


Don't underestimate people who work with late binding and don't
overestimate people who choose CMYK ;-)


That's true :).


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


I'm not saying it's an invalid choice. If it's an informed choice and
it works for you, great.
I chose working in RGB and I get what I want. I get the amount of
control I need and my clients are pleased.
Works for me!™
Exactly the case with me and CMYK. I'm not trying to "convert" anyone ;). I'm merely trying to prove that using CMYK can be more than 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.


gamut-wise, choosing RGB doesn't necessarily mean "the lowest common
denominator". Some generic CMYK profiles have smaller gamuts than
sRGB!
That's why I said "potential sacrifices" ;). But I meant not only CMYK, RGB or "color" in general. Cross-media LCD can also mean sacrifices in usability or flexibility of a content. 


I'd say that going to a generic CMYK at the beginning sacrifices
color, hence you're working with the lowest common denominator.
Right, but I'm using CMYK only for printing purposes, admitting this medium is specific. When I'm preparing some work for web, I'm likely to use sRGB. I take care of each medium separately, not trying to say "it's all visual". 


Keeping RGB using colors that fit inside the gamuts of all the devices
involved for the essential colors (for instance branding colors) give
you a good balance of color preservation and color reliability.


That "common gamut" is one example of lowest common denominator I meant.


I don't think it's necessary to sacrifice the color richness of a
photography to the lowest common denominator for every intended
output, and afaik that's what you do when switch your assets to CMYK
at the beginning of the pipe.
I switch them "at the end" leaving "sources" intact (it proved to be right way many times). 


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 :).


A little clarification: Both were almost identical color-wise, but the
definition of FM screening was better in RGB.


Ahhh… Now it's all clear.


This was the test file (interesting test btw)
http://ubuntuone.com/p/XX2/

When I said "it favors RGB" I meant when using the same file with
different providers.
I did some tests sendind the same files to different providers both in
RGB and CMYK to see what happened. Comparing the samples I find RGB
more even accross providers.


So, RGB images were reproduced more consistently?


Even the decompose command will be useful :-p


Even better :) – obsolete.


Ha! :D


Bless
thebodzio
[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]