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

["gespertino gmail com" <gespertino gmail com>]

The last one, I promess!

2011/11/28 Bogdan Szczurek <thebodzio gmail com>:

>> 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 agree. it's an example of knowing your outputs and acting in
consecuence choosing the best combination available to minimize
errors.

>> 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 also use that method many times. That's what I know as "Intermediate
Binding" and I agree that most of times it's the safest choice. Best
of both worlds.
And intermediate binding is more or less possible with GIMP (using
Separate+ or CMYKtool).
I proposed some time ago some enhancements to Separate+ to address
specific examples like the one you pointed out (rich black) and other
specific situations where primaries end up used more or less like spot
channels.
I agree there's a sort of gap there in late binding.

>> 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?

Yes, they did. I guess I can blame the poor CM skills of the people
who printed the samples, but it was a real world case and RGB gave
better results when the provider asked for generic profiles instead of
sending a custom profile.
I guess that having a custom profile I would have received pretty much
the same sending RGB or CMYK.

Gez.

P.s.: It was worth it, indeed. ;-)