On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 7:06 PM, Chris Mohler <cr33...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:44 PM, peter sikking <pe...@mmiworks.net> wrote:
>> Mix master tape (in rgb) and then cut
>> the lp (in cmyk).
> I can express any CMYK color in RGB - but not the other way around.
> Therefore, I "master" all of my print jobs in CMYK, and if I "cut"
> something like a preview for a client then I use RGB space. So you
> see, it's actually quite the opposite in my world. This is why GIMP
> is only a small portion of my day to day work flow - it is not
> printer-friendly (yes, friendly to the device sitting on your desk,
> but not a person who is a printer).
> And I agree that Scribus is coming along nicely and will (hopefully)
> become a robust page layout program - but I think where GIMP comes
> into the arena is creating a single image that will be printed (in a
> magazine, screen printed, newspaper, whatever). Something like
> PDF+CMYK export is a good first step, but ultimately CMYK editing and
> channel operations are needed to make GIMP suitable for preparing an
> image for print.
I consider spot colors much more important than CMYK. I also consider CMYK
a special case of spot colors. Spot colors could be implemented using GEGL ops
that take a set of grayscale buffers (plates) as input and provides
(potentially even animated for gloss/metallic inks). This would leave
the image processing
algorithms dealing with sane or mildly sane color models like gray
scale, RGB, YCbCr or CIE Lab,
while allowing the user direct control over the contents of spot
colors and seeing a preview
of the resulting processing.
If the above is considered CMYK support I would be supportive of it.
CMYK support in the
form of CMYK and CMYKA pixel buffers as a first class citizen (or even
a third grade citizen)
with support in most operations and routines is something I will
continue to oppose.
«The future is already here. It's just not very evenly distributed»
-- William Gibson
Gimp-developer mailing list