Lynn writes ...
> ...
> I might be misinterpreting here, but I think
> that outputting to inkjets, or any printing
> medium, *is* CMYK. RGB and/or the various
> color spaces are translated and then given
> to the printer according to the ink colors
> and abilities available, ...
Correct. All desktop printers want to be told to print RGB data, and
it's the printer's software which makes the RGB=>CMYk conversion. The
printer manufacturers believe they know best, and they probably do ...
and it makes it a lot easier for us too ... not to have to worry about
tweaking individual ink curves and spot density, and whatever else.
In fact if you did need to print to a CMYk device, it would probably
be a professional printer, who would want the RGB file, and need only
know what color space it was in. If you always used a specific
professional printer, you probably should beg him (her?) for a printer
profile, so that you could set up "soft proofing" and knowledgeably
predict where your RGB was going to end up.
> What I'm wondering is "Why isn't CMYK adjustment
> more usable for prints than any RGB color-space?"
"Real World PS" implies "CMYk spaces are based on the behavior of
real physical devices, but the RGB working spaces typically are not."
This would imply RGB working spaces are better adapted to device
independency. RWPS says elsewhere CMYk spaces are "considerably"
smaller than monitor gamuts ... and I believe both of these reasons,
taken together, is why no one has developed a device "independent"
CMYk working space.
> ...
>
> I wish that Bruce Fraser would come in here
> and comment, because I think he knows the
> answer. Pretty sharp guy, IMO.
Bruce does hang out and is quiet expressive at the Adobe "color
management" forum
... it is a link
separated from the rest, on the right side of the wwwpage.
cheerios, shAf :o)
