RGB or CMYK in print?

[John Clifford]

PDF x-1a does allow for the output intent (ICC profile) to be embedded within the PDF, but I think your saying that it doesn't allow for individual elements to be tagged, is that right? X-1a files with embedded profiles pass preflight in Acrobat with no errors.

Actually, output intents only really refer to standards such as SWOP, FOGRA, etc. You cannot apply custom profiles in a PDF/X-1a. Remember this was the first standard that was set and color management was still 9has it improved much?) in its infancy so the standard was set up so that none of that "extra" information was carried in the file to screw up older RIPs.

 

[meddington]

Actually, output intents only really refer to standards such as SWOP, FOGRA, etc. You cannot apply custom profiles in a PDF/X-1a. .

You may be technically correct here as I'm not intimately familiar with the actual standard, so I'll take your word for it. Perhaps someone forgot to tell adobe though, as one is allowed to embed custom profiles during pdfx-1a creation, and these embedded custom profiles do not trigger any errors when pre-flighting PDFx-1a in acrobat.

?

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

Why should intents only refer to standards? So what if you are intending to print on an uncoated stock as in scandinavia, where there is hardly any paper produced with the colour of the "standard"? Having an intent is so usefull as it gives us a clue as to what settings the pdf creator had. I would really like to know who decided, and if it is true why only standards should be allowed in PDFx1a. (not having an output intent is like sending a bill and not saying if it is in euros or dollars, if you're in a local community you may assume one or the other ofcourse ;p)

 

[prepression]

Hello All,

Since I am new to the world of print publication I wanted to know if a RGB at 300dpi or CMYK at 300dpi photograph is advisable.

The photographs would go in various print magazines,brochures, etc.

Also when giving instructions to a professional photographer what all should I mention that I need a high res tiff file. Is that the best format to use for print?

Hope makes sense as I really have no idea how print publication works.

Thanks!
Sanny

I think it is better to convert to CMYK before printing to a press and apply a color profile calibrated for your press. However, i have seen better results from some laser printers when you allow the RIP to convert the images to CMYK. Depends on the printer and situation.

check out this resource:

exploring digital prepress

 

[John Clifford]

To me the output intent of a PDF/X-1a file expresses what color management has been done. That is, what color space the art has been converted to and simply communicates that to the recipient.

Yes, but only as CMYK percentage numbers. That is not what color management is all about, which is matching color values from device to device. Not trying to be difficult, but to ensure that we're comparing apples to apples.

 

[gordo]

Results of the RAW test

Results of the RAW test

Just over a week ago I published a RAW image file to satisfy the interest in seeing how different prepress folks would handle an incoming RAW image file and to see if it was a viable image format to supply printers (instead of RGB or CMYK).

The instructions were that image is destined for a tourism web site promoting a rugged beach on the west coast of VAncouver Island. It needs to be 1000 pixels wide and in sRGB color space.

Only 3 people downloaded to image processed it and sent the result back to me for comparison.

Here they are. Interesting that only the first shop corrected the chromatic aberration and curvature of the horizon (then went all artsy).

First, here is my version (i.e. the original photographer and what I would have submitted to the client)

Now the versions submitted by three different prepress shops:

Pretty interesting.

I was going to do the same test using a commercial product shot (which I think is more appropriate for a RAW image workflow) however there doesn't seem to be much interest.

best, gordon p

 

[meddington]

I was going to do the same test using a commercial product shot (which I think is more appropriate for a RAW image workflow) however there doesn't seem to be much interest.

on the contrary, I found this most interesting...despite my lack of participation...its still on my to-do list. You point on subjectivity when dealing with RAW is well taken, and this is even more pertinent to product shots. A fair of amount of subjectivity might be expected in scenery shots such as the one you provided, but when the goal is to match a product sample, being artsy often won't get the job done. I wouldn't mind seeing this...and will try to participate, but given the above, your point had already been made. Without direction and context, RAW can be dangerous.

 

[Verdant]

This is very interesting, and I would have loved to have tried my hand at it as well had I seen this post sooner. I agree that RAW given without a printed proof is just asking for trouble, as the conversion is purely subjective.

 

[gordo]

OK,

You've twisted my lens.

I will provide a (typical) product shot in RAW format this week, so we can see how an image that has more familiar/common content gets treated by prepress in a RAW workflow.

best, gordon p

 

[Lukas Engqvist]

I'm alergic to those halos you get from going too heavy on the shadow/highlights. It's a tricky shot and interesting to see what peaople choose to enhance and how.

 

[CruzinCooler]

Is the file still available? I'd like to give it a shot. Thanks.