On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 16:39:00 -0400 "Bhavin Suthar" wrote:

Hello All,

I was evaluating GIMP and found below article about Adobe and GIMP

http://www.labnol.org/internet/pictures/adobe-photoshop-vs-gimp-for-serious-photographers/920/

I was mainly concerned about below statements

===

If you use Photoshop to create artwork for print, then you can forget about replacing it with GIMP for now, as GIMP supports only RGB colour. CMYK support is due to be added, but for now it's not available.

So can free software really compete with Photoshop? For the vast majority of ordinary users the short answer is certainly 'yes'. However, for graphics professionals — that is, Photoshop's target market — the answer has to be a resounding 'no'.
Link

1. You can get a Gimpl Plug-in for cmyk, try http://www.blackfiveservices.co.uk/separate.shtml

2. Do you really need to make cmyk plates?

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?

3. Well what happened when you tried? Does your canon printer print rgb images? Then that rgb image with added text is still an rgb image!

Owen

On 8/7/07, Bhavin Suthar 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 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.

On Wednesday 08 August 2007 09:19, Owen wrote:

2. Do you really need to make cmyk plates?

Printing companies do, yes.

Cheers; Leon

On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Chris Mohler wrote:

On 8/7/07, Bhavin Suthar 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

I would expect that flesh tones would give the most trouble in converting from RGB to CMYK . Among free software programs Krita, TeX, Cinepaint and Scribus handle CMYK natively, and all but TeX can use ICC color profiles. Gimp and Inkscape don't yet, and that limits their acceptablity in the publishing world despite their other excellent features. Book designers want CMYK plus ICC profiles and won't consider a product that lacks that capability for color work.

The free programs listed above that most closely approximate Gimp are Cinepaint (a Gimp offshoot0, and Krita. But neither has the range of other features offered by Gimp. and Krita only runs under the KDE desktop found on many Linux systems.

It is possible to conceive of a workflow that involved doing most of the creative work in Gimp but a final checkout/conversion to CMYK in e.g., Krita or Scribus.

Color separations where needed for the press can be prepared by specialized prepress software and need not involve the publisher. Most printers will accept color files in pdf form so long as the color is in CMYK model. It helps if the PDF adheres to the X3 specification however. Since Scribus already has all this a Gimp to Scribus workflow makes some sense.

On Tuesday 14 August 2007, John R. Culleton wrote:

On Tuesday 07 August 2007, Chris Mohler wrote:

On 8/7/07, Bhavin Suthar 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

I would expect that flesh tones would give the most trouble in converting from RGB to CMYK . Among free software programs Krita, TeX, Cinepaint and Scribus handle CMYK natively, and all but TeX can use ICC color profiles. Gimp and Inkscape don't yet, and that limits their acceptablity in the publishing world despite their other excellent features. Book designers want CMYK plus ICC profiles and won't consider a product that lacks that capability for color work.

The free programs listed above that most closely approximate Gimp are Cinepaint (a Gimp offshoot0, and Krita. But neither has the range of other features offered by Gimp. and Krita only runs under the KDE desktop found on many Linux systems.

KDE Libraries, not desktop. You do not have to run the desktop actively to use the program. Please be clear about that, or you will be spreading misinfo.

Krita is great, and going to be amazing, but right now, it fails on the basics. The developer is incredible, but has worked on some very high-end functionality, but not so much on the basic stuff like workflow, GUI design, ease of use and basic tools. He's working mostly alone, so it's understandable.