In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann
<peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Fri, 02 Feb 2007 22:35:19 +0100
<eq0api$f1i$01$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> The Ghost In The Machine wrote:
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Peter Köhlmann
>> <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Fri, 02 Feb 2007 21:34:46 +0100
>> <eq0781$e85$00$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> Jeanette Russo wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hans Schneider wrote:
>>>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Make the world your palette.
>>>>>> Make it on your favorite OS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ,----[ Quote ]
>>>>>> | The movie industry has shown high demand for such software to be
>>>>>> | ported and, after a long wait, companies such as Autodesk and
>>>>>> | Softimage have ported fully supported Linux versions of their
>>>>>> | applications for their dedicated customers.
>>>>>> `----
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.jeffreyjonesgraphics.com/
>>>>>
>>>>> I am thinking this post is a troll one?
>>>>>
>>>>> It say Gimp is finished:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The GIMP (GNU Image Manipulation Program) has been the most successful
>>>>> replacement for a high-end image editing application but ever since
>>>>> development slowed in the project, the application has had no real
>>>>> improvement"
>>>>>
>>>>> Also it means that photoshop will never be happens on Linux:
>>>>>
>>>>> " Even after such bold moves by other companies, however, there is
>>>>> still
>>>>> no indication that we will ever see the popular Photoshop ever selling
>>>>> on the Linux market"
>>>>>
>>>>> And this pixel is what in terms of prices? it is not free. But what it
>>>>> gives us that Gimp does not?
>>>>>
>>>>> I am confused. Why is this good for the Linux artists when they can use
>>>>> gimp?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> It seems he is saying gimp development is stagnant. This application is
>>>> easier to use for someone who is used to photoshop.
>>>>
>>>> Also it appears to do cmyk something Gimp is not able to do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Gimp can do CMYK since quite some time
>>
>> Yeah, but don't tell the Wintrolls that; it'll confuse them. Or
>> was it the Applesauce crowd? ;-)
>>
>
> I find it hilarious that those nimwits still have the audacity to repeat
> that crap. After all, the CMYK for Gimp is not that new. And their dumb
> claim has been refuted several times here in cola, yet they are stupid
> enough to still repeat it. Guess Erik F has imbred way more than one could
> have known
It could be a little more obvious perhaps (but then,
I don't use it). It's under Image > Mode > Decompose,
which then gives a selection of extraction channels which
include RGB, RGBA, CMYK, Alpha (?), LAB, YcbCr_ITU_R470,
and a checkbox "Decompose to layers". I for one might
expect to find it under Tools, though that's more a
philosophical question at this point; clearly, it's there.
Whether the actual decomposition works as well as the
Photoshop variant, I for one can't say, but it works about
as I for one would expect. If one unchecks the checkbox
one gets 4 separate new windows, marked appropriately.
If one leaves it checked one gets a 4-stack with each
color on a layer. The images may look a bit peculiar,
presumably because white translates into more ink.
If one has dark-red-on-white text, for example, the
results will be:
Black: gray-on-black
Cyan: all black
Magenta: gray-on-black
Yellow: gray-on-black
(Make sure to merge down first; otherwise you'll just
get the text.)
Welcome to the world of subtractive color mixing.
:-) Printers are intimately familiar with this issue.
(I know that it exists and the basics on how it works.)
Red = magenta + yellow in this world. Dark red = red+black.
I have no idea what format printers would expect, though
one entry in the filetypes is "Flexible Image Transport
System" (.fit). There is also a KISS CEL; since animations
use cels in their work that makes sense to me, if not to
anyone else. :-)
There is also a Compose option. A Compose after
a Decompose to layers does work. (Each layer is a
grayscale.) Be careful with the ordering, though a tiny
representation is included. The best method I've found
for composing CMYK from scratch is to create all-black
grayscale windows, draw in white, and then Compose; this
appears to work and is logical enough. Do NOT start with
a white background in the black layer unless you know what
you're doing; that will transform to all black and nothing
else will be visible.
Of course I'm no printing expert, and have no idea whether
one has to worry about halftone screening, registration
marks, and such. Also, a display option showing something
other than basic black might be helpful; e.g., the cyan
background could have an option to display the now-black
background as white, and white as cyan.
I'm also not sure how to properly display the four-stack,
if one wants to work with the individual layers for some
reason. Note that decomposing a multi-layered construction
yields peculiar results; there probably should be a
dialog asking whether the layers should be merged first.
I'll have to ask a printing expert on how well this works.
But if a troll says Gimp doesn't support CMYK at all,
they are lying through their teeth.
(Note: tests conducted on GIMP 2.2.12.)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Useless C++ Programming Idea #2239120:
void f(char *p) {char *q = p; strcpy(p,q); }
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
|
|
