Re: Rip for 9600
Re: Rip for 9600
- Subject: Re: Rip for 9600
- From: Graeme Gill <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 12:19:30 +1000
Terry Wyse wrote:
>
More to the point, this RGB2CMYK simulation proof I would regard as a sort
>
of "temporary" proof during the image manipulation stages and that a FINAL
>
proof would be performed using the final CMYK data. It's a workflow option,
>
that's all.
You get "a" (random) RGB2CMYK conversion. Unless you are actually going to
use this output as the final product, what value does it have ?
Even evaluating which RGB colors are in gamut or out of gamut is
meaningless, if the actual gamut mapping and CMYK colorspace
of the "real" RGB2CMYL conversion (the once actually used in
producing the final product), is different to the preview.
>
I can think of several workflows that I've been a part of where this would
>
be useful: The digital photographer captures the image in RGB and provides a
>
a CMYK simulation proof from the RGB data. The prepress people take this RGB
>
image, perform further corrections as needed and then do the final
>
conversion to CMYK and proof this. The first proof from the photog is an
>
accurate CMYK representation without actually performing the CMYK conversion
>
to the file itself.
"Accurate" in what sense ? You can only measure accuracy if you have a
standard to compare to. If (as is likely) the prepress RGB2CMYK conversion
is different to the "preview" one, then you're left with two possible
outcomes. Either the final product doesn't look like your preview, or you
have just given the prepress people a nightmare of a job to bring their CMYK
output in alignment with your preview.
Graeme Gill.
_______________________________________________
colorsync-users mailing list | email@hidden
Help/Unsubscribe/Archives:
http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/colorsync-users
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.