On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, yahvuu wrote: > > just to be shure (i'm probably just paraphrasing Andrew A. Gill's follow-up): No, you're not. That came out a little sharp. Let me try to soften it. You're entitled to your opinion, but I just want to make sure that there's no misunderstanding. > I think this task can be done equally well in an RGB space, say sRGB. > If Pantone's Bridge has sRGB approximations, it should be trivial. If not, > you have to convert that single color from your best-guess CMYK to sRGB first. I said before that I didn't think this was a real use for CMYK, but that is because I think that even if GIMP had CMYK support, it would not be able to perform this task well enough. GIMP would need native Pantone support, which I don't think is really that useful at this time. As little as I trust Pantone to CMYK, I trust Pantone to RGB even less. > By this i mean anything which can't be done by processing > the "plates" as separate grayscale channels (see ?yvind Kolas's post). This is not fun. What you are suggesting is a very laborious process, and having such a process work properly would probably result in tens of minutes to hours of wasted time, depending on the image in question. And it still would result in one of the following: 1.) A helper application which creates the CMYK image 2.) GIMP still is unable to deal with trapping or rich black. -- | Andrew A. Gill To ensure continued quality of service, | | this e-mail is being monitored by the NSA | | <superluser@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <http://www.needsfoodbadly.com> | -- _______________________________________________ Gimp-developer mailing list Gimp-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.XCF.Berkeley.EDU/mailman/listinfo/gimp-developer
