How do I choose digital colors that look good on print? I mean digital colors have a larger range than CMYK and so its easy to pick colors that will not look good printed and make the print muddy.
If you are making something for print,working CMYK and use ICC profiles that match your paper when you go to print. You should have a very accurate representation in print as you do on the screen.
Also, even if you do RGB, just do what looks good and convert it before printing. It should alter that much really.
I knew a guy whos job was literally to pick colours that would look good on print.
Comic book colorist here.
1-Buy a good monitor - (IPS technology preferably).
2- Calibrate it - Modern screens nowdays come with over brightness and contrast, and the colors are super saturated.
3- Pick your colors normally, but AVOID the K. Black ink doesnt print well as represented in the monitor. When I color comics, I rarely use the K at all As a rule, I never use more than 30%. You should be fine working on CMY if you know what to do.
4- ????
5- Profit.
I find this problem so weird..
Just work in rgb and then print it? I've literally never had a problem with this. Just make sure your image isn't too dark. Yeah, it'll probably come out a little warmer too, who cares?
If you really want to be insane about it, it sounds like you'll just have to set your application to cmyk mode before you start working. Don't most art programs have this feature?
When you switch between cmyk and rgb, you'll notice the difference is basically fucking nothing. Perhaps as a designer this stuff is more important, as you will use larger fields of single colour, and may need to match a specific process colour exactly.. but as an illustrator making prints or whatever, i don't think there's much point to it. I find the conversion does a better job of picking colours than I ever could anyways. If I pick out a really bright rbg colour, yeah, it gets dulled down a bunch, but it's not like there's some secret cmyk colour that i could go find that's better/brighter than what the computer picked.
>>2325941
Same here. I worked in a canvas print shop and asked them about it, and they said "just use RGB you fucking weirdo".
Anyone who tries to tell you RGB <=> CMYK doesn't matter is either a scrub or a print shop employee trying to get you out the door faster.
This is the simplest gamut comparison graphic you'll ever find, and much more immediately useful for grokking where the incompatibilities are without trying to deal with the visual clutter of the like 15 goddamn color spaces they always cram into these.
Wherever RGB's gamut extends a good chunk further, most significantly for any colors / color palettes with a strong emphasis on one particular RGB component value, your CMYK conversion for print's gonna come out looking muddier / lower contrast / more muted.
That and your blacks will suffer.
The easiest way to think of the RGB / CMYK comparison, imo, is this: their acronyms are antonyms.
Additive primaries == R + G +B.
Additive secondaries == C + M + Y.
Subtractive primaries == C + M + Y.
Subtractive secondaries == R+ G + B.
So:
RGB => strong in the additive primaries => weak in the additive secondaries (CMY).
CMYK => strong in the additive secondaries => weak in the additive primaries (RGB).
It also works for the blacks, in a bit more convoluted sense:
Relative to primaries, additive secondaries means more additive mixing => closer to white.
Relative to primaries, subtractive secondaries means more subtractive mixing => closer to black.
But the subtractive secondaries are R + G + B, and CMYK is weak in them => "weaker blacks for CMYK"
Whereas the converse "weaker whites for RGB" is a nonphysical statement, because mixing pigments (CMYK) can only ever get you monotonically further from white (mixing light can always can you black -- just mix nothing).
So we can say both of these things at the same time without contradicting ourselves:
CMYK => weaker blacks
RBG => lighter / brighter values overall
>>2329145
If you wanna see pretty much every intersection from this figure in action, one of my own old projects is a good example.
It was a super shitty/rushed group thing I did all the work on, in a group w/o anyone else who had art/design background.
The files for print ended up getting run through the worst series of color conversions possible because of a print shop employee who didn't listen to my color profile instructions, resulting in a hilariously dismal-looking final print.
This copy I just simulated going through that will give you a rough idea, though it was far worse in print.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/rkgz758p36f18m1/sRGB_to_AdobeRGB_to_Coated-GRACoL-2006_%28CMYK%29.pdf
>>2325147
IN photshop CTRL + Y while painting wil preview your picture in cmyk. If you want your pictures to be same as when printing, fix bright colors that areavailable only in RGB. f you dun care, then don't do anything. Also It's good to know saome basics of preparing your shit for print
>>2329145
Printing has come along way from just CMYK. The chemistry in the inks have changed. More colors can be used and swaped for primaries. It's funny you dont talk about the LAB color gamut, and yet stick to an outdated comparision between rgb and cmyk
>>2329219
For CPS/MS5 users, View->Preview lets you do this.
I'm preparing something for a print for the first time and I'm a little confused by all these options MS5 is giving me. The generic CYMK profile dulls down my blacks as I expected but a few of them look nearly identical to the RGB original. Does that mean saving it in those profiles will retain the RGB colors in print? Or are these profiles only for specific types of paper?
>>2329241
I'm guessing those are just previews what it'll look like in different papers
>>2329249
Won't fuck with those then. I edited the levels to get it as close to the RGB colors, so no skin off my back.
>>2329234
I studied biochemistry, among other things. Let's not do shitty insinuations about scientific illiteracy.
More advanced and/or state-of-the-art considerations are irrelevant here. No benefit to an audience trying to work out the basics of navigating between color spaces, plus few-to-no regular Joe printshops set up to handle higher-end / specialty jobs without passing on huge costs to the client.
>>2329241
Those profiles are for particular commercial printing processes + materials you might happen to be working with.
Some profiles are more generic than others.
GRACoL is a widely supported standard for sheet-fed processes.
The various SWOP profiles are likewise go-to choices for web-fed.
FOGRA shows up more in editorial printing and europe / germany in particular.
If you don't know why you'd use a particular profile, you shouldn't, because it's N/A.
>>2329317
I studied mechanical engineering and was a consultant for espon's development labs so let's not pretend you're the informed one here.
Get with the times. Print has come a ways since your bubble-jet printshop bullshit excuses. Software has gotten better at conversions, printers are smarter. And now that more companies are participating in print technology conferences the old "problems" with CMYK are now just stereotypical beliefs held by stuckup little brats who think they know a thing or two becuase they ordered prints online and watch some lynda.com videos.
>>2329351
My reply was my way of nipping the internet tuff guy bullshit in the bud, not an invitation to whatever this weirdly insecure peacocking is supposed to signal.
Not here to talk about your dull little fantasies of supremacy or pretend to be impressed by vainglorious shitposting. Talk about art or shoo.
>>2329351
So, what is your version, smart guy? We should just stop worrying and use rgb? Cause I've heard that printed digital art doesn't really look good, even in the high end
I'm not reading any if the posts in this thread, because it seems like everyone is just blabbing about shit that is largely irrelevant, but seriously as long as you make sure your file is cmyk you're fine. You can work in rgb too just remember to convert it at the end. There will be a slight difference, but it will be 99% imperceptible. I work at a print shop and we do art reproductions. Digital printers and RIP softwares are pretty sophisticated nowadays so it's really an issue that you don't have to worry about. If there are color inconsistencies the shop will usually take care of it for you by color correcting themselves. We do, at least.
>>2329145
Just because rgb and cmyk are, in fact, different doesn't mean you actually need to care. I mean, it makes a difference, but it's not all that critical.
For someone printing off their art, the difference is pretty subtle, and if you just work in cmyk mode, all will be fine. If you work in rgb and let the printer convert it, all will be fine. I'd say you get more variation depending on what paper you use, actually.
>>2329419
Truth. It's hilarious how novice artists and designers nitpick about subtle colour shifts in their prints as if they're actually good enough for it to matter. As if all the other aspects of their work aren't total shit. Saw this all the time in design school. They're just trying to impress people; trying to look like they're really particular about what they're doing.
>>2329418
Not that anon, but your average joe has basically two options:
1) Work in rgb mode. You can use software to convert it to cmyk before printing. The bright colours will dull, but you will have a better idea of what it will look like printed. Or, you can let the printer automatically convert it, which will basically give you the same result.
2) Work in cmyk mode. You will have access to a smaller range of colours, but at least you know how it will 'really' look printed while working on it. However, if your image is going to be used in a digital context as well, you're limiting yourself a bit.
In the end, the changes as you switch from rgb to cmyk are pretty minor. I find the easiest thing to do is just work in rgb, and just know that if you print the image it will come out a little darker and warmer, so maybe just make a 'print version' that's a bit lighter and cooler. I rarely do this, unless an image is already quite dark and warm. The colours will change more depending on what paper you use than on how you convert your colours.
Honestly, if you think the quality of your art hinges on the difference between how it looks on the screen and how it looks printed, your art was probably pretty shitty in the first place. It should work in black and white.
>>2325930
That is very interesting since I made this thread thinking of printing a comic.
I will keep the K thing in mind but my biggest issue is how the greenest green you can see on a screen can't be replicated with ink and I mostly want to avoid such colors.
Do you have any resources for comic coloring?
>>2329476
>the greenest green you can see on a screen can't be replicated with ink and I mostly want to avoid such colors
but if you just go ahead and pick the greenest rgb green, you will get the greenest green in cmyk also. it won't be as green as the green you saw on your screen, but it will still be the greenest printable green
>>2329387
if you didnt shitpost that cmyk vs rgb bullshit there wouldnt be this mess of a thread. if you actually read up on the latest with your bullshit, you wouldnt have embarassed yourself with such outdated rationale about color management.
>>2329540
so this is a sexual thing for you, then
>>ctrl+f for pantone
>>no results
Get a Pantone color book if you're targeting printing.
This is printing 101 by the way. You want to pick good print colors? Get a book full of color codes that match the printer you're targeting.
I'm really surprised this thread went so far without mentioning pantone.
>>2329859
Maybe if you're a designer, or working in a highly simplified style with limited colours. For most people on here it would be unneccesary. You can't really use pantone colours and paint naturally, with blending and transparencies and such, at the same time.
>>2329859
Don't you need a licence from pantone to use theyr colors?
