Printable View
When I export a .xar file to PDF, the CMYK seems to be not exported the right way (in XaraXtreme).
For example if I have a red square with the values: C 0% M 100% Y 100% K 0% and export it to PDF, then in the PDF file when I use the PITSTOP inspector to check the color values the CMYK values are: C0% M 100% Y 52% K 0%?
see attached examples.
Any solution to this? thanks.
RickX
I used the colour picker from Xtreme to examine the .PDF and your original file and the colours values agree in both.
That's true, XaraX exports the page as RGB not CMYK, when you color pick it with Xara you will get the same RGB value.
The closest workaround I found now is to export the .xar file to a 'Xara EPS' file, and then run it through acrobat distiller to create the PDF. The colors than ALMOST match the right CMYK colors (98% in stead of 100%).
I am now checking it with different color combinations.
Get CMYK template from Xara Xone
and save as default if you use CMYK colors native...
then you shouldn't have any problems with CMYK export like EPS or PDF (this is valid for vectors, bitmaps always stay RGB 'cose Xara natively work only with RGB bitmaps)
minimiro this works perfect! only, is there a way to convert my existing document to the CMYK template (or a way to copy the xara guides to another document? can't copy the layer)
Thanks!
try to import your document in CMYK redefined....
this should import all existing your data incl guidelines....
but you may must redefine your colors of shapes... for. example if you have red shape, you again must give it RED from new color line.....
Xara Xtreme does export CMYK colour values correctly into PDF files. That document of yours Rick has the red rectangle defined as an RGB colour not CMYK. If you make it a CMYK colour then it will export as that exact CMYK to the PDF.
You can tell it's a RGB colour by just opening the colour editor and clicking on it. (First make sure the Options -> View -> Edit local colours in 'Automatic colour model' option set. This means that the colour editor shows colours in the colour model they're defined in and as you will see this is RGB.) The cyan line is however defined as a CMYK colour and that export correctly.
To change it to be a CMYK colour, just right click on the colour editor, select CMYK, and adjust the values slightly (you need to do this to force the colour to be CMYK. If you just switch to CMYK and do not alter the values you are just viewing, and not setting the colour).
But now if you export you should find your CMYK colours are correctly exported as CMYK.
That will do the trick! now I understand.... thanks!Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Moir
"select CMYK, and adjust the values slightly (you need to do this to force the colour to be CMYK. If you just switch to CMYK and do not alter the values you are just viewing, and not setting the colour"
Is there a _reason_ why you must "tweek" a value slightly instead or merely changing the type of color space?
Could this be "fixed" in a forthcoming patch?
Thanks for asking this - it took me a while to find that out myself and it's annyoing as hell to have to "tweak" the color values "a little" to turn to a different color *editing* mode.Quote:
Originally Posted by jclements
I can't repeat often enough how annyoing this is.
Speaking of fixes - another on the wishlist would be that if i'm using the cmyk template (or even without) there shouldn't be a reason why bitmaps nevertheless get exported as RGB; actually i can't see any sane reason why it does.
Yes this is deliberate and correct behaviour. The reasons is that you would not want all your colours to change to CMYK just because you happen to look at the CMYK value.Quote:
Is there a _reason_ why you must "tweak" a value slightly instead or merely changing the type of color space?
The act of looking at a CMYK colour is not the same as setting a CMYK colour. So just right clicking and selecting CMYK, should not alter the colour.
If you alter the CMYK value (i.e. drag a slider in CMYK mode) then you are clearly setting a CMYK value. So the rule is pretty simple and pretty logical.
Yes there is a good reason. CMYK bitmaps are bad news. Converting from RGB to CMYK is a non-reversible and lossy process. The conversion process result in data loss because the colour gamut is either cropped (Adobe) or compressed (Xara). So in effect your bitmaps get corrupted doing this, and so you really, really do not want to work in CMYK mode. Another good reason for not wanting to work in CMYK mode is that it's a far smaller gamut than RGB mode (i.e. less colours). Lastly, and perhaps the main reason for not wanting to work in CMYK mode throughout, is that transparency effects, (e.g. feather, shadow and transparency tools) work in RGB colour space and are not compatible with CMYK colours. i.e. using these effects on CMYK objects will convert them to RGB to apply the effect.Quote:
another on the wish list would be that if I'm using the cmyk template (or even without) there shouldn't be a reason why bitmaps nevertheless get exported as RGB
You are perhaps confused by the rather restrictive Adobe practice of forcing you to work in only one colour mode. Xara can mix colours models and you can have a mix of RGB and CMYK objects in the same document. This is more flexible and does not force you to decide ahead of time whether you drawings are going to be only for print or only for screen (as all Adobe products force you to).
So Xara does not really have the concept of 'CMYK templates'. We have templates that have pre-defined CMYK colours on the colour line (such as minimiro's) but that doesn't stop you using RGB colours as well, and there are very good reasons for wanting to do so.
Xara works primarily, and we recommend that everyone work, in RGB space, and use CMYK colours only where you have an absolute requirements to do so (e.g your company logo is a fixed CMYK or Pantone process colour). At all other times you are far better just working in RGB (or HSV) colour mode all the time and leaving the RIP to convert to CMYK at the last possible minute in the print chain. This guarantees the highest colour fidelity, and provides the widest working colour gamut.
But to stress the point again, Xara does support CMYK colours, you can use them on objects, and they are output to PDF files correctly.
Charles, i have to strongly disagree with you on some points here.
First of all:
Like it or not, so far it's just so not the case Xara has been established in professional work environments, especially not with printers.
What that means is this:
Maybe it's a nice feature to be able to work in a "mixed mode" color workspace if you actually do print your stuff yourself on your own home printer so you can directly print from Xara but please please please isn't it time to realize that's just so not the case in daily professional work ?!
Like, 99% of my work requires to send print-ready files to either my clients (98%) or to their printer (1%) which means *THEY WON'T* have Xara installed and therefore need an industry standard format.
Again, like it or not, but the only way so far to include Xara in a halfway decent professional workflow is to create the artwork in Xara, export to Illustrator and optimize them there.
So, now here is the problem:
Illustrator, still being one of maybe 3 industry standards doesn't allow a "mixed mode" to my knowledge.So to recommend working in RGB or a mixed mode when CMYK is an absolute requirement for *most* print jobs (yes, logos being one them) is really bad advice i think.
And yes, in reality we *are* forced to decide wether or not artwork is going to be for screen or print because - read my lips again - most print houses do *not* have installed Xara and need a non-mixed mode (at least for most stuff that i do like logo design) standard file format.
You know, as much as i love Xara and as much as i think Illustrator is way too complicated i can't stand the constant Illustrator bashing when in fact it's one of the few applications that actually help Xara to be included in a professional everyday workflow.
To put it in other words: Without apps like Illu Xara would have no chance to even be considered by professionals simply because the color workspace and export options are too unsure and vary in quality or are missing certain features (Illustrator import not up to date, no separations or Pantone with Xtreme etc).
So stop the Illustrator comparisons and the "Xara is soo much better" hype.
Don't get me wrong, i do love Xara and it's still my No1 tool but honestly without Illustrator as an overpriced luxury "conversion tool" so to speak especially and only for files exported from Xara i would be lost.And i am sure that's the case with most Xara users that use Xara on a daily (semi-)professional basis.
Back to details:
"If you alter the CMYK value (i.e. drag a slider in CMYK mode) then you are clearly setting a CMYK value. So the rule is pretty simple and pretty logical"
No it's not.
What would be logical is if there was a button or similar that would simply convert the document (or single objects for the mixed mode lovers) to cmyk rather than actually altering *the values*.It's so totally not logical that you have to change the values to set to cmyk - are you actually aware that altering the values means altering the values ?!
As in "not the same color values as before" (like it would be the case if converted correctly to a specific cmyk profile) ?!
It's not like changing the values and then trying to change them back to the exact matching values is fun really you know.
All other applications i know like indeed Illustrator have an option to define the color workspace and/or to convert to a specific (cmyk) color profile *without* having to alter the actual values.
So there's really no reason to say altering the values would be the only logical way to achive this when it's really totally not logical and even more results in time consuming re-altering work.
Sorry if i might sound a bit upset :)
One more for the wishlist btw:
It would be great to not only be able to have a "convert to cmyk" button (instead of having to alter the actualy values like mentioned above) but to also have the option to define certain (cmyk) color profiles as workspace or export profile.
Like, the ability to import and set the industry standard color profiles you can download (for free) from eci.org
I think that would push Xara on a totally higher level professionality wise and i don't think the implementation would cost too much (as said, the color profiles are free to download anyway).
I could list all the technical reason why we believe the Adobe way of working in a restricted fixed colour workspace is so flawed, but really I don't have the space (e.g. the fact that you have lossy data conversion. The fact you can't convert to CMYK and then back to RGB and get your original colour back - Xara does not have these problems. Thus is technically superior).
Perhaps the main argument against the Adobe way is simply that most people faced with the question (which Adobe give you every time you create anew document) which in effect is "Do you want to create a drawing for screen use or print use" is nonsense.
Most people, I know from direct experience, answer "Neither", or 'I want it for both", or 'How on earth do I know, I might want to show it on screen and I might want to print it, why ask me the question now".
So fundamentally you start or the wrong foot with the Adobe way. If you choose 'for print' (i.e. CMYK model) then you can never, ever get screen colours.
If you choose for screen, then you can never ever include CMYK colours, such as a fixed company logo.
To my mind that's a pretty damn severe restriction.
Worse they've got a very distorted veiw of the basic science. You learn at school that cyan is a pure mix of green and blue. In Adobe products there are two definitions of pure cyan. In RGB mode you get one version. in CMYK mode you mix the same green and blue and now you get a completely different version of cyan. So which is right? What's more if you convert this cyan back to RGB mode you do not get the original cyan you started with. So now mixing red and green doesn't give you cyan at all. Sorry, but this is just plain wrong.
In Xara we have ONE definition of cyan, it's the one you learn about in school, and mixing pure bright green and blue always gives you the same result. What's more you can view what this would look like on your printer (simulate print colours) but your data is not changed (technically on the fly gamut conversion). But this is the key point. Your data is not changed. So you can merrily swap between simulating the printer gamut and the screen gamut, but we do NOT corrupt your document as Adobe does. To my mind that's pretty damn basic.
BUT having said all that, Adobe are the industry standard and we understand that. We have in the past, and will again in future compromise, indeed cripple, our products in order to provide greater industry standard compatibility.
I actually agree with this - yes it would be good to provide such features for professional users who understand CMYK, colour spaces, or require pure CMYK documents. Or for those, like you say, that are working for 'print only' graphics. We're working towards that, as well as a lot of other features.Quote:
One more for the wishlist btw:
It would be great to not only be able to have a "convert to cmyk" button (instead of having to alter the actualy values like mentioned above) but to also have the option to define certain (cmyk) color profiles as workspace or export profile.
Like, the ability to import and set the industry standard color profiles you can download (for free) from eci.org
I think that would push Xara on a totally higher level professionality wise and i don't think the implementation would cost too much (as said, the color profiles are free to download anyway).
As you say that would move Xara into a totally higher level professionally. But for most users, this is not something we should be providing on a $79, mass market, very general purpose, easy-to-learn software product.
I suppose if one had the time, they could make a professional version of Xara Xtreme. There are more or less different versions anyway, Webster, etc.
Heck, the 3D companies do it all the time, so do the font and desktop publishing software companies. They sell lite (Light), standard and professional versions.
Of course, all that set up that is required with professional support may or may not be worth the peptic ulcer. :)
Thanks for the answer(s). :)
I guess my main point is just as you said, Adobe is the industry standard no matter if you or i like it that way.Because of that, to be able to work professionally it's an absolute must to have a compatibility with that standard.
Besides, things as mentioned icc profiles from eci.org are cross-platform standards (i.e. cmyk profiles for different types of printing/paper, such as coated, uncoated, newspaper etc), not specificly for Adobe only so to have an option within Xara to specifiy the cmyk and RGB workspace profiles would be a great plus and a step towards better compatibility.
As for pricing etc, i - just like many others - don't understand why you're heading towards the mass "hobbyist" market anyway with such a great product.
I think by going that route you indeed have to make sacrifices to appeal to that market but at the same time it means by not including things like Pantone, better compatibility etc you're destroying what actually seemed to make Xara a great product - same power as the "big ones" but easier to handle.
I think you're on the wrong path if you think it's "same power as the big ones but lower price" - price is of lesser interest to me and i guess for a lot of others as well.
If you for some reason think you *have to* go the mass market route, then why not develop a "Pro" version for people like me and all the others that went for Xara not because of the price but the easier handling ?
I know that "easier handling" might sound like a contradiction to my demand for more options but it's not - i'm not saying make it as complicated as Illustrator but (re-) implement a few basic options and industry standards comatibility and make it as easy to handle as Xara X1.
I for one am willing to pay the double or triple price of what Xtreme costs today if those things would be included - it would still be a great deal compared to the others.
See, sometimes this "who's better" reminds me of the discussions about SVG or even .png - we all know .png is far more superiour technically compared to .gif or .jpg; just the thing is, although .png has been around now for a while, endusers and even people like me use it rarely just because it's not the common standard yet.It's like the hen and the egg, if even people like me (designers) don't use it, so how is it going to become a standard ?
But that's just the way it is.
BECAUSE: As a designer, i don't want to change the world, at least not as far as the technical sides of things goes. What i do want, is a maximum industry standard compatibility to have one thing less i have to worry about.
That's why .png hasn't been a mass market success so far so to speak and why - even if there might be good reasons why it should be the better solution or the "more right" solution or even the new industry standard - Xara is far away from being a standard.
Not because of it's capabilities but because Adobe is the standard.
It's not fair but it's the way it is so people like me are *DEPENDING* on industry standard compatibility which means we *HAVE TO* have those mentioned options in a graphics software.
And i just don't think that reducing the functionality and downgrading the upgrade if you will is what will help Xara in the long run.
I've read a lot of comments lately that basically say Xtreme is a downgrade from Xara really and i have to agree - not for the hobbyist people maybe but for people with professional ambitions.
So please please please - we do need a PRO version !
The great thing about industry standards is there are so many to choose from :rolleyes:
WOW Someone read my mind ;)
We are many Charles ;)
The time is come...
Xara Ltd, sit back and work hard, do for us and for you PRO-version and come to PRO-reality
Dont loose us
CMYK is fact, offset press is fact and they still will be "grande" fact many many years I supose
You must make this investment in your future
Dont justify with price. When one designer can pay 400-500-700$ Euros or whatever pay for big sluggish software you must think about it!
Give us freedom to work in high end level standarts and we will pay what you say, believe me!
For now all we pro xaran's use maybe one of highly paid plugins for Xara correct CMYK - Illustrator and Corel ;)
But this become borring, 'cose we must make one thing two times - fact!
Best Regards
minimiro
In regular intervals, a large German computer magazine tests vector graphics editors. Xara Xtreme is always classified as a "semi-professional" and Adobe Illustrator as "professional".
The testers already know the professional tools of Xara Xtreme and its speed. But the absence of a "industrial-compatible CMYK mode" leads to this evaluation.
The testers orient themselves at the everyday tasks of a designer, to which Web graphics, but also Logos and Brochures/Flyers belongs. And we all know, that there is still a little bit to do particularly within this range in Xara Xtreme.
Remi
I think there are 3 solutions:
- Either have Xtreme as it is but (re-) add all the cmyk/Pantone stuff from the X1 version plus a few other print related options (HKS color palettes would be great as they're much more of a standard here in Europe/Germany than Pantone) or
- Split into an "Xtreme Standard" and "Xtreme Pro" or
- Split into a more vector related version and a more bitmap oriented version just like Adobe does with PS and AI - maybe "Xtreme Print" and "Xtreme Screen" or alike
I hope Xara Ltd realizes they might be on the wrong path with their turn to mass market and forgetting about the more professional users.
You know i wish the day would come where ".xar" would be the industry standard (because it indeed would simplify things a lot) but as long as this day is not tomorrow i think it is an absolute must for Xara to be standards compatible to be further taken seriously in the "pro" market.
That day might come much more quickly because of Xara's move toward the non-pro user. If everybody uses it, it does become a standard.Quote:
Originally Posted by beatz01
Defintely not the way it is now.
The current Xtreme version is not half as usable for pro users like the X1 version was, so even if the non-pro users market increases, at the same time by having reduced the options and functionality in the new version Xtreme has become less acceptable for the pro users than ever.
Not a wise move in any way, as leaving the pro users out surely will *not* help .xar become an industry standard, no matter how much the hobby market share increases.
As said, that's for the current state.
I have posted a new "Xtreme Pro" wishlist thread - maybe it can help to convince the makers there is a demand for a pro version :)