[Scribus] Inkscape and Gimp

[pixelnate]

Christoph Sch?fer wrote:
> Am Freitag, 2. Juni 2006 00:28 schrieb Marc de Banville:
>   
>> Well, Gimp2 with the separate plugin produces quite good CMYK pictures.
>> I previously had to work with Photoshop for CMYK conversion, and now I
>> go directly through Gimp/separate. Do you think this method has drwbacks?
>>     
>
> You can't work in (an emulated) CMYK colourspace, and you have little to no 
> control wrt the output. Moreover, CMYK is not enough. Other colourspaces need 
> to be supported as well.
>   
Yes, additional color spaces would be nice.
> "Ashamed" is completely wrong here. However, one must not forget that the GIMP 
> team has deliberately ignored all requests from users to implement CMYK 
> features for years. Their point of view has been for a long time: That's the 
> printer's job, not ours. So, they might be to blame for their current 
> difficulties ;) They also have ignored many requests for a better usability, 
> and badmouthing the guy who created GIMPshop or the cinepaint team is not 
> what I would call good manners. That doesn't diminish my admiration for what 
> has been achieved by the GIMP developers. The GIMP has become my favourite 
> tool for restoring old b/w photographs. It's fast and very reliable.
>   
That mentality regarding cmyk is something to be ashamed of. And it is 
just sad that the guy that created GIMPshop was shunned so. What he did 
was no small task, and it made Gimp so much easier to use.

> And I really hope no one will complain about inkscape. Given the youth of the 
> project, it is simply amazing what the guys have achieved in such a short 
> time. Just have a look at the release notes of the soon-to-come 0.44. It's 
> really hard to believe what's happening there (same as with Scribus): 
> http://wiki.inkscape.org/wiki/index.php/ReleaseNotes
>   
Inkscape does look good, but until they implement support for cmyk in 
the SVG spec v1.2, it will still miss the mark for many.

~N