Re: rgb to cmyk conversions
Re: rgb to cmyk conversions
- Subject: Re: rgb to cmyk conversions
- From: Bret Hesler <email@hidden>
- Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 17:35:13 -0500
- Thread-topic: rgb to cmyk conversions
I agree with Rich. Receiving RGB and CMYK from many sources, I feel it is
better to know what flavor of RGB or CMYK I am receiving. There can be
problems with embedded profiles, if a workflow is set to honor embedded
profiles and convert to whatever the house flavor of CMYK happens to be.(not
a good idea) I have yet to see a RIP that converts profile to profile as
well as Photoshop does in the hands of a knowledgeable operator. The
exception being device link profiles.
Or, if there are different profiles embedded in different images, it will
preview in Acrobat or Photoshop as described by the profiles, but proof
differently because my RIPs are set to ignore embedded profiles (because of
the problems associated with blindly accepting the embedded profiles and
converting)
I too have heard many times that printers are not using color management. My
company is and has been for several years, and so are many of our
competitors. I have also experienced that many up-stream from printers are
using application defaults and know little about using color management or
making good CMYK separations.
Five or so years ago, it was standard practice for printers to request
images supplied in CMYK, for some it still is. That prompted a bunch of
people to go Image>Mode>CMYK and produce a sub-par file. With US web coated
SWOP v2 as a default now, that will not be a bad separation, but it is not
tailored to my process, and the black generation is much too light for
neutral subjects.
I guess my point is that we should not make assumptions about what the other
guy is doing, and start a dialog to determine the best way to handle images
and profiles.
Bret Hesler
L.P. Thebault Company
On 2/28/06 3:02 PM, "email@hidden"
<email@hidden> wrote:
> Message: 1
> Date: Tue, 28 Feb 2006 08:30:31 -0600
> From: Rich Apollo <email@hidden>
> Subject: Re: rgb to cmyk conversions
> To: email@hidden
> Message-ID: <email@hidden>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
>> Why not simply give the poor chap a file that works - for both of you!
>
> If it were that simple we'd either be very rich from the efficiency,
> or there'd be no money in it because it's so simple...
>
>> I have heard, over and over, from many people, including printers
>> themselves, that many or most printers, including good printers,
>> don't use
>> color profiles.
>> Is this true? If so, why not?
>
> It would be a gross generalization to say that most printers do or do
> not "use color profiles". You need to speak to the printers you work
> with. However, it doesn't cost anybody a "plug nickel" to
> appropriately tag the files. If the printer doesn't utilize the
> profiles, fine. If the printer is color managed then you have
> communicated important information.
>
> And again I'll stress the fact that all Adobe apps are color managed
> all the time. For any file a source profile must be provided or assumed.
>
>> Somehow, I had gotten the idea that a primary reason for using color
>> profiles was so you could get better print work. But if large
>> presses
>> don't use them, then I'm definitely misunderstanding something.
>> Help.
>
> Try this: create a new CMYK document in Photoshop. Fill it with 50C,
> 40M, 40Y, 0K. Now start assigning different CMYK profiles to the
> document. The profile provides a context in which to view the "gray"
> tint.
>
> So, I say, whether providing CMYK or RGB, appropriately tag the
> files. It can only benefit you.
>
> Rich Apollo
> 314-344-1144
> email@hidden
> www.prioritylitho.com
_______________________________________________
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