Thanks all for your replies. From below answers I guess I am ok with sRGB
and do not required CMYK seperation.


On 8/7/07, Chris Mohler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> 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].
> 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 and get the source or a binary
> 2 -
> 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