Owing to a little local difficulty, this msg has been delayed and
forwarded. TS
---- Forwarded Message ----
Received: from 127.0.0.1 by tsphoto (VPOP3) with POP3; Fri, 20 Oct 2000
15:25:38 +0100
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection0: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection1: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection2: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection3: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection4: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection5: X
X-NAV-TimeoutProtection6: X
Received: from hermes.csd.unb.ca (hermes.csd.unb.ca [131.202.3.20])
by nickel.cix.co.uk (8.9.3+Sun/8.9.1) with ESMTP id DAA07003
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Fri, 20 Oct 2000 03:45:17
+0100 (BST)
X-Envelope-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Received: from pop.unb.ca ([EMAIL PROTECTED] [131.202.3.36])
by hermes.csd.unb.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA18845
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:45:19
-0300 (ADT)
Received: from [131.202.97.108] ([131.202.97.108])
by pop.unb.ca (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id XAA20590
for <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:45:19
-0300 (ADT)
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Message-Id: <f05001903b6155b497fd2@[131.202.97.108]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 23:45:17 -0300
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Roger Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" ; format="flowed"
X-UIDL: ebbc9c0cf4c00a54a935285487b7ba52
Subject: Re: CMYK vs RGB for publication
I seem to have stirred up a bit of a hornet's nest here - all
to the good, I'm sure. Thanks to everyone for their input, and it may
not stop here.
At 11:37 AM +0100 10/19/00, jeremy spence wrote:
>Its fairly standard practice to provide a proof of some sort for the
>printers. Doing CMYK conversions without having a profile for the
process is
>just as likely to lead to difficulty as sending RGB files. I think in
this
>case what you've got is a Time/Motion/Workflow decision by the
printers,
>that if they can shave a few moments off jobs here and there then
they'll be
>saving more money than they lose through not providing a full service.
At 11:37 AM +0100 10/19/00, Tony Sleep wrote:
>What they are saying is exactly that : they don't have the software or
>> system to do it properly, therefore you must do it for them. What
are you
>> going to do? Convert in Photoshop? They could of course do the
same, and
>> using correct settings for their process which you can only guess
at.
> >
At 1:37 PM +1000 10/19/00, Rob Geraghty wrote:
> Am I on the
>right track in thinking that what is required is a profile for the
CMYK
>device before adjusting the colours in CMYK is advisable?
What I was trying to get at is what Jeremy, Tony, and Rob say
in the above quotes. Having me, for example, send CMYK files to the
printer with no idea of the settings required would surely result in
a "worse print job" as Tony describes it. Do the printers adjust my
CMYK file which I presume is already "crippled" from my hack
conversion job from RGB? Providing a proof does seem to be a useful
step, but I suppose it still takes some trial and error to get a
match.
I have seen at least three other publications which require
CMYK files from authors. If it's so bad, how do these places stay in
business? From what Tony says, it seems to be an all-too-common
occurence. Maybe I've answered my own question.
Regards,
Roger Smith
====================================================================
The filmscanners mailing list is hosted by http://www.halftone.co.uk
To resign, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> with UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS in the
title, or UNSUBSCRIBE FILMSCANNERS_DIGEST if you are reading the Digest.
