On 8/7/07, Bhavin Suthar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Can someone tell me the truth behind this? Does this also mean that if you
> write text on image (like your jpeg Canon photos) then they can't be printed
> properly?

Point #1 is almost accurate.  The true part: GIMP does not natively
support CMYK yet.  It will in time, and there is a plug-in if you
truly need CMYK separations.  The false part: you can't use GIMP to
prepare for printing.  You certainly can, but be aware of the
RGB->CMYK translation process - eg, there is no way to print the color
#0000FF in CMYK.

Point #2 is pretty much FUD.  I occasionally convert something to CMYK
in PS just to check the shift, but if you are a "graphics
professional" [sic] you should already be aware of the RGB colors that
exist outside of CMYK color space and avoid them.  A cheap inkjet
printer will show you the result of converting your RGB to CMYK if you
really need to know - and this type of proof (a "hard" proof) is more
accurate anyway, owing to the fact that all monitors operate on the
principal of additive light (hence RGB), and most printers operate on
subtractive light (thus CMYK).  A "soft" proof can easily[1] be
obtained by using imagemagick[2].

Short answer: I doubt you need CMYK.  You certainly won't be prevented
from printing your photos by not using it.  Many desktop printers
expect RGB input these days[3].


1. - If imagemagick is set up correctly.  I've had trouble with
certain versions provided certain distros.  If colorspace conversion
isn't working, visit imagemagick.org and get the source or a binary

2 - http://www.imagemagick.org/script/command-line-options.php#colorspace

3 - Purely my own observation.  I can vouch for a $20,000+ USD printer
manufactured by Brother that *requires* you to print from sRGB in
order to get anywhere close to accurate output.
Gimp-user mailing list

Reply via email to