[Scribus] cmyk workflow

[jon]

Am 05.02.2007 um 20:35 schrieb Gustavo Homem:

> I understand the principle. However, the workflow I am close to, works 
> like
> this:
>
> 1- Photographer takes pictures (RGB JPEG)
> 2- Pictures are edited for color, brightness, etc on PS and saved 
> again (RGB
> JPEG)
> 3- Another guy opens the pictures on PS, changes some more parameters, 
> crops,
> cuts and exports from PS as a CMYK EPS using the default PS profile. 
> He also
> saves the CMYK PSD.

This is to some degree wrong, because there simply is no "default" in 
CM nor is it in PS CM.
If you convert from rgb to cmyk you at least have to decide if or if 
not to use the input profile
wich is provided or not provided within the rgb file.
As far as I know "defaults" in PS are set differently from Version to 
Version.
May be wrong because I always overwrite color setting defaults at first.

And, of course, you have to choose the output profile according to your 
needs.
And you should always consider if you want to append the used profile 
to your images
(for further cmyk-to-cmyk conversion).

One last thought. If  "defaults" in PS are set to < SWOP uncoated > and 
your printer calibrates
her machines to < ISO Euroscale coated > you will never get what you 
intended.

> 4a - CMYK EPS is imported to QXP, which then generates Postscript, then
> converted to PDF via extra tools
> 4b - CMYK PSD is imported to Scribus which generates directly PDF
>
> 5 - PDFs from 4a and 4b look exactly the same

That might tell us that everything in 4 works correctly. But the "view" 
of an pdf in a pdf viewer,
not capable to simulate cmyk or printing colors, does not say anything 
about the output.

When you are ready and know how to set up with rgb images and colors in 
scribus
I suggest to let the printer proof parts of your files to see if the 
output is correct or not.

> There are no colour profiles involved besides the PS default. The rest 
> comes
> from intuition.
>
> So, I'd like to know how to have this RGB -> CMYK conversion working 
> well
> enough to take PS out of the equation (step 3), but without 
> complicating the
> process.