RGB or CMYK in print?

[meddington]

Originally Posted by mattbeals

So the whole idea of PDF/X-1a is to say "here's my color space and everything is ready to go, hands off!". Which is like sending an untagged CMYK image. PDF/X-4 isn't much different other than to say "flatten the transparency for me". And that isn't too far removed from the idea of sending a tagged CMYK image that needs to be converted to a different space. Which is a bit of processing or massaging. And how many printers do touch customer native files to massage them into a usable state. Which again is like sending a RAW or DNG file.

Not sure I agree with this Matt. Processing and massaging native files into a usable state, from a printer's perspective, almost always has the goal of maintaining the original intent, which is known so long as the image is tagged (or defined via PDF/x-1a). If the original intent is unknown, we can make some assumptions that are usually not far off the mark. I used to be a proponent of receiving RAW images. After all, the level of control you have is very powerful. However, what you lack is the context...the original intent of the person who clicked the shutter. Without that, its largely a guessing game, per Gordo's example. Of course if we're just told to make it "look good", than we can do that...subjectively. That subjectivity is a very quick way to hose the original context (presuming that someone, somewhere cares). We do a lot of higher-end work and things go so much smoother for everyone when you work with a talented (or at least competent) photographer who can already do that for you upfront. IMO, processing of RAW images is a photographer's job. You wouldn't ask a chef to just hand over the ingredients (sans recipe) and you'll do the cooking.

[sannysmith]

Thank you all for your comments. Was helpful and a lot of research is needed on my end to understand the concepts of printing.

Marsh thanks for those links...

Sanny

[michaelejahn]

Originally Posted by John Clifford

Just to be clear, PDF/X1-a does not include ANY ICC color profile information and REQUIRES CMYK. PDF/X-4 does carry tagging and can include tagged RGB, as does PDF/X-3 (x-3 does requires preflattened transparency, x-4 does not)

Hi John,

While I think I know what you are driving at in that when processing a file into a PDF/X-1a file, that the any ICC Profiles that may be linked to an image (such as an RGB image) would be 'applied' - I do not think it is correct to state that "PDF/X1-a does not include ANY ICC color profile information"

PDF/X-1a can indeed contain color profile information - and often does - and as a PDF/X-1a PDF file requires an output intent (which is itself a ICC Color Profile) - well...

[acp]

Sanny,

There is a lot of good info in this post and you may already have your answer. My workflow, from an agency view, simply put...

We request RAW from photographers - since we are doing the creative our AD's are on the shoot and will give the direction as to what they want the final image to look like. (If you are not doing the design then you may want to leave the processing to the photographer.) Since we receive RAW there is no need to instruct the photographer to supply a hi-res RGB or CMYK tiff.

If you are receiving final supplied images from the photographer you should find out what the vendor requires. Before I process any image I find out what the vendor's specifications are - RGB, CMYK, TIF, DPI, TAC, etc., once I have this info I can proceed.

When supplying files to magazines, the publication should be able to give you their specs. If they are unable, usually 300 dpi, CMYK and SWOP2006_Coated3v2 (or SWOP2006_Coated5v2) is good, as Matt stated earlier.

Good luck and I hope this helps.

[dleather]

Originally Posted by mattbeals

Third question could be "Should I have the photographer make the conversion?".

I think we all agree there is a workflow level of sophistication that needs to be determined to answer the question(s) correctly/fully, which we do not yet have.

Mat, your third question hits the nail on the head. If my photographer told me "I'm new to the world of print publication", I would, by all means, want the Raw file to do my own processing and color work. That's the only way to get all the information. In fact since raw is captured at 12 bit and standard photo programs resolve at 8 bit, asking the photographer to output his own image is automatically cutting out 33% of his initial spectrum anyway.

The file you turnover depends on the client's needs. I wouldn't take it upon myself to decide that without talking to them first. The photographer is paid to capture the image - what ends up in the final ad, poster, magazine article, package, business card, book cover, etc. is really the final vision of the a graphic artist using the photo as a tool. If I were producing a bill board and my photographer gave me a 300 dpi image, I'd have to ask him to reprocess it. If I were producing a promotional e-mail, I'd be burdened with a 170 MB Raw file.

I'd say first, talk to your client. For archiving, I'd save the raw data somewhere, and maybe process to a 600 dpi RGB image for your own storage. The short answer on RGB vs. CMYK output (from a prepress stand point) is to give the client an RGB image and let them convert to CMYK however they need to. That way they have more control, and you don't unnecessarily clip your color gamut.

[mattbeals]

Dleather, I may very well be as crazy as some people say. But all of these things go back to my idea of premedia rather than prepress. As Gordon and others rightfully stated the RAW image has no context. That's true, I agree. So maybe RAW for this application/customer is not the right "master". Maybe a retouched RGB image is the right "master". Regardless, we need that master to give us the most flexibility for repurposing the content in, as you said, an email, web image or variety of print methods not only in the near future but for long term use in 5, 10 or more years from now. Content is king. And printing is simply one context in which that content is used.

[gordo]

It would be an interesting exercise to take a RAW image straight out of the camera and have some of the prepress folks on this forum do their massaging of the image as if it was a live job and compare the differences in final work. I'd be happy to supply one if there is interest.

best, gordon p

[mattbeals]

Send me one, I'll give it a shot with the automated image correction/adjustment software we use (Elpical Claro). It will convert RAW images and make basic adjustments to it. First round color, not final (but you could use it as final) color is how several users use Claro.

[acp]

Gordo - I would love to take a shot at it...I guess I should ask, what format you would like back?

[Stephen Marsh]

Gordo wrote:

> It would be an interesting exercise to take a RAW image straight out of
> the camera and have some of the prepress folks on this forum do their
> massaging of the image as if it was a live job and compare the
> differences in final work. I'd be happy to supply one if there is
> interest.

Count me in!

A similar topic is taking place among landscape photographers here:

Process Other People's RAW files - file exchange - Luminous Landscape Forum


ACP wrote:

> Gordo - I would love to take a shot at it...I guess I should ask, what
> format you would like back?

I would suggest that we all agree, or that Gordo stipulates a common
colour space (say either sRGB or a specific ISO CMYK) and also a common
resolution in pixels and a format such as JPEG (I guess it depends if the
results will be viewed in a browswer, or say a PDF or PSD etc).

It would also help if Gordo gave some sort of "brief" to describe the
intent of the rendering - or just give us all freedom to do what we wish
without "customer creative direction".

Stephen Marsh