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 be obtained by using imagemagick. 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. Chris 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 Gimp-user@lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-user