[filmscanners] Re: CMYK rant (was Digital DarkroomComputer Builders?)

["Anthony Atkielski" <anthony@atkielski.com>]

Roger writes:

> If I understood correctly the CMYK issue, it
> has little to do with photographers but is
> crucial on the printer's side.

Yes.  CMYK is irrelevant if you never intend to print anything on paper; it
is unavoidable if you want hardcopy.

> There seems to be an agreement on the gamut
> limitation relative to RGB and that any file
> translation must use the specific printer profile.

One reason why it is so hard to get a perfect match from inkjet printers is
that they are actually printing in CMYK, even though you are trying to
supply them with an RGB image.

> Digital photographers are now being requested
> to perform most pre-press work (sometimes even
> including blind CMYK conversion) before sending
> their images to the publisher.

Blind CMYK is a really bad idea, since CMYK conversions must always be done
with a specific output device in mind.  If the real output device isn't the
same, image quality is always lost, and it cannot be recovered.

> Some are wondering if it couldn't be more rewarding
> to get back to film photography, sending slides as
> previously and not caring about pre-press and colour
> management.

Just provide files as RGB.  Tweak them to look good on a monitor, not on
paper.  It's up to the end user to convert the image for printing, since
every end user will have different requirements for CMYK conversion.  It's
illogical to expect a photographer to do this, and any customer wanting it
must be pretty clueless about how CMYK works.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe 
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or 
body