GIMP and color use-cases

http://www.gimp.org/

GIMP is the only image software I use, I am running linux

their color management has only two use-cases

1) display
2) soft proof

wondered how that compares with Photoshop, Painter and others nowadays?

why no

3) hard proof
4) press proof

?

 

Am 30.01.14 10:40, schrieb Dale:

Because the Gimp can't make those materialize. Softproof is the furthest
you can get to on a digital level.

 

I can't really do vector all that well (Inkscape)
and page layout is a thing of my past (Scribus)

how far has XLS-FO gotten compared to postscript, ghostscript, etc.?

http://www.w3schools.com/xslfo/

seems like a RIP for both online and hardcopy would be nice

 

not really much of an artist, my work was Kodak hybrid imaging systems
integration, more of a tech guy

my Uncle is an artist though, and he learned how to use Inkscape for
icons, he would do well in commercial art, but he prefers fine art

I remember Adobe had a Photoshop training CD for the basics, I went
through the basics okay, but to create something with software like
Painter is beyond me, linux lacks a image creator, you can do some of
that with GIMP but its no where near the brush selection, etc., that
Painter has

 

Am 31.01.14 01:55, schrieb Parko:

These are layout programs, not image processing programs.

As I already said: a hard proof is the product of a machine called a
proofer, a press proof is the product of the original printing machine
the job is expected to be done with. A softproof is a color reduction
because sRGB and AdobeRGB both have a wider range of gamut than any
printer can handle. There can only be one of those two options: display,
which works with a wide range of colors that can be preceived on-screen
and softproof which deals with a reduced set of colors, according to
what the printer can handle.

 

you can simulate a hard proof, Kodak did it with PCS100, and maybe
Prophecy and Design Master, Design Master was Eikonix before Kodak
bought it, Kodak bought Eikonix because it had a patent which made
scanners with filtration matching XYZ, Prophecy and PCS100 were the
Eikonix Kodak people's products, I didn't quite understand that the
print reference medium of the above products would have to be made inot
an option for other media to get these products from the pre-press
markets in which they were successful to the commercial photo labs that
were interested in color management for multi-purposing of images

one way to do a hard proof, you just use the proofer's profile and not
the monitor, use the proofer's space as the working space

one way if you want to simulate a hard proof on the monitor, you use the
"reverse" transform in the profile for the proofer, for instance
CMYK->XYZ, then XYZ of the proofer to XYZ of the monitor then the
"forward" transform of the monitor's profile, for instance XYZ->RGB,
this implies an XYZ working space, but you could pick a device space by
XYZ->device

a simulation of a press proof works the same way

a better hard proof simulation incorporates the press's profile, for
instance CMYK of press to XYZ of press to XYZ of proofer to XYZ of the
monitor to RGB of the monitor

all of the above should happen in the frame buffer of the graphics card
above the working space, for instance RGB of proof or simulation of
proof to RGB of working space, the working space should be held in
memory for editing under the buffer, the edits are made to the
simulation in the frame buffer then transferred to the working space and
eventually a standard storage space which should be a CIE delta E* space
like LAB or LUV for quality and purposing considerations

I'm wondering if/when CIECAM will enter ICC

I'm also wondering if/when ICC and W3C will meet

 

Am 01.02.14 06:29, schrieb Dale:

Yes. This is what we call a softproof.

 

....and even this is dependent on a calibrated monitor/display and your
Mk.I eyeball.

 

I have been out of the industry for almost 20 years now, and like I
said, I was a hybrid systems engineer with a little experience in color
science and prepress

it would be interesting to see a whole listing of color workflow
use-cases, especially in team with W3C, last time I looked at W3C they
seem to be using sRGB, XLS-FO would need more than that since it seems
to purpose documents for more than just web applications

http://www.color.org
http://www.w3.org/
http://www.w3schools.com/xslfo/

is XLS-FO an open systems RIP competing with Adobe Postscript?

 

Am 02.02.14 15:54, schrieb Savageduck:

You win some, you lose some...

A softproof is an economic and fast solution. Of course, you as the
client are on duty of being able to view the proof properly. If you
don't have a monitor with sufficient gamut and good calibration, you
should pay the extra 10$ for a harproof.

 

Am 03.02.14 07:08, schrieb Dale:

A RIP consists of hardware + software. You feed it with Postscript, PDF
or PCL and it spits out a raster image. It's a bit like a digestive
system for vectors and ASCII, if you like, so neither Postscript nor
XSL-FO are RIPs. Now to that: XSL is a script language that works on XML
documents. XSL-FO is a part of that script language that aims at
producing different document formats, including but not limited to
Postscript and PDF so you couldn't use XSL-FO directly on a RIP. It
would be like feeding seeds, ground and fertilizer to the digestive
system