On Sunday 06 January 2008 11:52:49 Mark Lowry wrote: > The reason I asked is that my goal when > post-processing is to end up with a print that looks > like my screen. This is one goal that users should be able to achieve. But I would take it even farther by saying I want what is on my screen to match what I saw when I snapped the shutter (before I start changing the image in an editor). And for that to also match what comes out of my printer. > When I print from Windows Picture & > Fax Viewer, it looks like what I see on the screen. You were lucky since this usually does not happen for most users. > I > assumed that printing from GIMP would give you a print > that looked like the image that is open in GIMP, but I > guess that's just silly. Who would want that? Most everyone wants this. The real question/issue is what is the proper/reliable way to achieve this. If you do not have your color management properly setup for your whole imaging workflow you will have difficulties getting this kind of result. GIMP now has some color management awareness and can, if properly setup, color manage images on the computer display. This also means that if it is not properly setup that you could end up with very strange results as you found out. As far as I know GIMP is still missing the functionality to directly support a color managed printing work flow. But at least on Linux and some other platforms this can be handled using other tools such as PhotoPrint. Setting up proper color management is not a trivial task and it also requires some specialized hardware and software. Not too long ago this hardware and software was considered to be very specialized and was also expensive. In the last few years the cost of the hardware has declined significantly and there are two cross platform open source software solutions (IE. the software can be free). Most users can now afford to create custom profiles for at least their input (camera, scanner..) and display devices. Many printer and paper vendors offer free printer/paper specific profiles for Windows and OS/X users that approach the quality of custom printer profiles. Now days it is possible to get everything you need to do proper color management on a Windows or OS/X system for under $100 (a color meter and a profiling target such as an IT8.7 target) assuming you can get good printer profiles from either your printer or paper vendor. Just two years ago this would have cost at least $350 perhaps more and it was difficult to get free printer/paper specific profiles. For Linux users and Windows and OS/X users who can't get free printer profiles it is possible to get custom printer profiles from vendors that do this sort of thing for as little as $25. I expect that over time we will see farther reductions in these costs but this is clearly to the point where almost anyone can afford to do this the correct way. Most of the existing barriers to users doing this are in the areas of awareness and education. Hal > > ..... Mark > > --- Sven Neumann <sven@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > 2. If Try to use... is left checked, and printing > > > > is > > > > > done through GIMP, should I expect the printed > > > > result > > > > > to be different from the version printed through > > > Windows Picture and Fax Viewer? > > > > What does the monitor profile have to do with > > printing? Nothing. > > > > > > Sven > > > ___________________________________________________________________________ >_________ Never miss a thing. Make Yahoo your home page. > http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs > _______________________________________________ > Gimp-developer mailing list > Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx > https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
