Re: Quark vs Indesign
Re: Quark vs Indesign
- Subject: Re: Quark vs Indesign
- From: Chris Murphy <email@hidden>
- Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:26:00 -0700
On Nov 3, 2005, at 12:00 AM, Rene Rodriguez wrote:
Is it possible for a cmyk file that was proofed from Quark 4.11, to
look
differently in appearance when proofed from Indesign?
With QuarkXPress 4, anything is possible. It is a virtual color
management roach motel of bugs. I got so frustrated testing the
various permutations of bugs (it has cascading bugs where triggering
certain bugs would reveal a whole new level of buggy behavior until
you restarted the app).
With respect to QuarkXPress 5 and 6:
SOFTPROOFING:
QuarkXPress will provide substantially the same soft proofing result
as InDesign in a CMYK-only workflow. The exceptions for QXP: a.) the
CMYK images can't be EPS, b.) if the CMYK images are JPEG their
embedded profile is ignored in favor of a default CMYK source profile
(which you can set and should be the same as the CMYK Working Space
in Photoshop).
If you are asking QuarkXPress to convert images (either RGB>CMYK or
CMYK>CMYK'), you will get a difference between ID and QXP in the
primary conversion due to QXP's lack of black point compensation, and
therefore you will see a difference in the resulting soft proof as well.
HARDPROOFING:
Including the caveats above, the "Composite Simulates Separations"
checkbox doesn't work at all in QXP 4. Checked or unchecked, you will
get the same output. In other versions you don't have control over
the rendering intent. So this feature is of questionable value
without a lot of testing.
I normally Print from
Quark, but recently the computers hard drive that we were using for
proofing
went bad. We had to use another departments computer which uses only
Indesign layouts to proof randoms. The proofs from Indesign did
not match
our previous proof from Quark. I checked the color setting and
found that
CM was turned off,but I could see that Generic RGB and Generic CMYK
were
grayed out. I understand that Quark does not have the color managing
capabilities that Adobe utilizes. I noticed when trying to trouble
shoot the
problem that when opening a file which had an embedded cmyk profile,
Indesign's CM message indicated that the file had no embedded profile.
Amoung the three choices given I mistankenly used do not CM, "use
working
profile" and got a proof that did not match a previous proof
printed out
from Quark. The working profile was different from the embedded
profile.
However when I turned off CM I got a proof that was very close the
Quark
proof. It was slightly warmer by two or three percent but
noticeably closer.
I also tried proofing with CM on but applied the proper profile
that matched
the embedded profile (cmyk), and got the exact same result as with
CM turned
off. Is it possible that even with the proper profile applied that
color
output will be different between the two applications?
I can't make heads or tails out of this sequence. But what I can tell
you is you have a CMYK TIFF, with or without an embedded profile and
place it into QXP 4, 5, 6 or ID of any version, with color management
defaults turned on - you will get identical output. Not 2-3 percent,
but the same thing.
So if you are getting different output between ID with color
management off, compared to QXP, then QXP clearly has color
management on. And if you're using QXP 4 with color management on,
good luck with that.
Chris Murphy
Color Remedies (TM)
www.colorremedies.com/realworldcolor
-------------------------------------------------------------
Co-author "Real World Color Management, 2nd Edition"
Published by PeachPit Press (ISBN 0-321-26722-2)
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden