On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, yahvuu wrote:
> just to be shure (i'm probably just paraphrasing Andrew A. Gill's follow-up):
No, you're not.
That came out a little sharp. Let me try to soften it. You're
entitled to your opinion, but I just want to make sure that
there's no misunderstanding.
> I think this task can be done equally well in an RGB space, say sRGB.
> If Pantone's Bridge has sRGB approximations, it should be trivial. If not,
> you have to convert that single color from your best-guess CMYK to sRGB first.
I said before that I didn't think this was a real use for CMYK,
but that is because I think that even if GIMP had CMYK support,
it would not be able to perform this task well enough. GIMP
would need native Pantone support, which I don't think is really
that useful at this time.
As little as I trust Pantone to CMYK, I trust Pantone to RGB
> By this i mean anything which can't be done by processing
> the "plates" as separate grayscale channels (see ?yvind Kolas's post).
This is not fun. What you are suggesting is a very laborious
process, and having such a process work properly would probably
result in tens of minutes to hours of wasted time, depending on
the image in question.
And it still would result in one of the following:
1.) A helper application which creates the CMYK image
2.) GIMP still is unable to deal with trapping or rich black.
| Andrew A. Gill To ensure continued quality of service, |
| this e-mail is being monitored by the NSA |
| <superlu...@frontiernet.net> <http://www.needsfoodbadly.com> |
Gimp-developer mailing list