Until my most recent Epson printer (a 880) I found the only way to get
accurate colors was via conversion of the file to CMYK and adjusting the
ink preferences in Photoshop.
I don't have any sophisticated color management on my system, so that's
the way I accomplished my color accuracy. It worked (closed loop at
least). I found I had much better control of blacks, and blues,
particularly.
With the new driver that came with the 880, I was able to get nearly
accurate to screen results with the standard RGB Epson driver without
incorporating CMYK, but the 850 with CMYK output gave me a better print
still. I haven't yet profiled the 880 to my weird CMYK method, however.
Art
Major A wrote:
>>>Here is why I don't think it's necessary to have a CMYK colour space
>>>for image manipulation:
>>>
>>CMYK is essential for people doing the whole prepress workflow so that what
>>they produce goes straight to a printer as an EPS or PDF. EG a photographer
>>producing his own postcards or posters or book who has control over every
>>aspect including the paper stock, inks and lithographic process. For anyone
>>else, just ignore it unless you like it.
>>
>
> Thanks Tony, Anthony, and Austin for contributing to this thread. It
> seems there is a 3:1 majority here who thinks CMYK isn't of any use to
> the (digital) photographer.
>
> If, as Anthony said, CMYK is useful for printing work, then it only
> makes sense to use CMYK if you do it in the colour space of the
> printer AND convert to RGB using ICC colour profiles for display on
> screen. This is great, but it implies that the CMYK file is made for
> one and only one printer, so whenever a company buys a new printer
> that is different from the old ones in colour rendition, they have to
> discard (or adapt) their old CMYK files. Also, more and more
> high-quality magazines etc. use more than 4 colours, in which case the
> entire method becomes useless.
>
> My suggestion here is the obvious one -- why don't we all work in
> CIELab or XYZ and convert to RGB for on-screen display and CMYK for
> printing? The conversion to RGB can be done via CMYK, so that the RGB
> display gives a good preview of the actual printed image. One still
> needs to have an idea of how the gamuts of screen and printer differ,
> but that's no different when working in CMYK.
>
> Thus, I think CMYK is historical dead weight which has been obsolete
> at least since the ICC standard was created.
>
> Andras
>
> ===========================================================================
> Major Andras
> e-mail: andras@users.sourceforge.net
> www:
> ===========================================================================
>
>
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe by mail to listserver@halftone.co.uk, with 'unsubscribe
filmscanners'
or 'unsubscribe filmscanners_digest' (as appropriate) in the message title or
body
