CMYK Previewing and accurate CMYK Profiles coming to Designer Pro+

Has anyone had good experience with the new CMYK Previewing and accurate CMYK Profiles now present in and, at an improved level, coming to Designer Pro+?

Up until now, the CMYK functionality has been a non-runner in my experience with Xara. But proper CMYK functionality would be an absolute deal-breaker for me!

Before I hit the subscribe button, will Magix implement this too in their desktop version? I currently own Designer Pro X17.

This is very unscientific. I brought three colorful photos into each program and exported as Commercial Printing but with PDF/X-4 for the output method. I combined the two PDF files into one (in the attached ZIP file)

To my eye, in Pro+ the magentas in the center photo are brighter and the yellow and yellow oranges in the third photo are brighter.

I am using the latest version of both programs.

I am not sure if Magix will update their CMYK output any time soon. They might, and then again.

''To my eye, in Pro+ the magentas in the center photo are brighter and the yellow and yellow oranges in the third photo are brighter.''

Certainly the Pro+ images (definitely centre and right) are brighter and more saturated. Were you working with/exporting with a specific CMYK Profile?
Did you print the images?

At present there is only one export profile, which is industry standard (whatever that means). No I did not print the images.

But I have used Xara since 1996 to create color stereogram images for books and magazines and the CMYK color has always been predictably muted in case of certain colors, such as bright green or purple. But in the end the question is, does it look convincing? Most people will never see the original of an image only the printed image.

In the 70s when I was fresh out of art school and working as an advertising art director, I spent literally two months fine tuning a magazine ad for Datsun (now Nissan) featuring two cars. The original photograph was printed (dye transfer print) retouched, and then photoengraved for the magazine, with numerous revisions made until the proofs looked absolutely perfect.

The ad ran in Time Magazine, Life Magazine and several other magazines.

When I got my first copy of Time I was appalled. The color was shifted ten ways to Sunday and not at all like the proof we approved.

I showed the ad to my wife and was going on and on about how terrible it looked. She took a look and said it looked fine to her. She could not see anything wrong.

I learned two things. One if the color looks convincing, that is about as much as you can hope for. and Two, you are always at the mercy of the other photographs on the signature. So if in this case one of the images was a white car and on the same signature is a page of red roses, the white car is going to take on a tint of red. Because all the images on the spread are soft of balanced out.

But I do think the PDF output for Pro+ shows a noticeable improvement and the colors are brighter and more saturated. (apologies for the rant)

Believe me, I could add a rant of my own!! I wish CMYK would disappear from the face of the earth. Even if the designer provides perfect material with the right profile, there are so many ways it can be messed up before it lands on the page!
Currently I'm sticking with a local printer so I can stand beside the press as the pages are being printed!

I did hear there is a new technology, expensive right now in its infancy, but it will print RGB perfectly on paper. Hallelujah!

''I showed the ad to my wife and was going on and on about how terrible it looked.'' I've been there - traumatic! It's true, though, that anyone who hasn't seen the 'original' has nothing to compare it against and thinks it's fine. What a relief!

I wonder if anyone from Xara could chime in here with a taster of CMYK developments?

sadly I can't help with the cmyk ecept to agree with gary about

Quote:

---

which is industry standard (whatever that means)

---

this interesting

Quote:

---

but it will print RGB perfectly on paper

---

the laws of physics tell me it will be a restricted gamut though... maybe enhanced to a degree with special paper...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by handrawn

maybe enhanced to a degree with special paper...

---

Yes, special paper. Printed with light as opposed to ink!

Well currently there is 6 color printing (Hexachrome) which uses a special orange and green ink to widen the color spectrum. And another process 8 Color Dark/Light. In addition to CMYK, LC, and LM this process adds a diluted yellow (LY) and black (LK) for even more photo-realism, less graininess, and smoother gradients.

It's getting closer to RGB! :)

I'll ask my local print house what they can do.

Gary:
That is a great story and not a rant at all. It should be Chapter One for every artist using print and electronic formats.

Quote:

---

That is a great story and not a rant at all. It should be Chapter One for every artist using print and electronic formats.

---

Dan — (May 1995) Looking Good in Color, my book on color. Hit the remainder tables so fast it would make your head spin.

yes colour can be very subjective [not really the right word but...]

my mother had a house coat that she called red and I knew full well was orange

we were both right, because we both saw the same thing , but differently, our visual spectrum not the same, our eyes/brain 'majoring' on different frequencies and so perceiving the non-pure hues differently... at least that is my take... hers was that I was being darft... :D

https://coverjunkie.com/cover-catego...nt-70th-issue/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pauland

https://coverjunkie.com/

---

what a great page

thx!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gwpriester

At present there is only one export profile, which is industry standard (whatever that means). No I did not print the images.

But I have used Xara since 1996 to create color stereogram images for books and magazines and the CMYK color has always been predictably muted in case of certain colors, such as bright green or purple. But in the end the question is, does it look convincing? Most people will never see the original of an image only the printed image.

In the 70s when I was fresh out of art school and working as an advertising art director, I spent literally two months fine tuning a magazine ad for Datsun (now Nissan) featuring two cars. The original photograph was printed (dye transfer print) retouched, and then photoengraved for the magazine, with numerous revisions made until the proofs looked absolutely perfect.

The ad ran in Time Magazine, Life Magazine and several other magazines.

When I got my first copy of Time I was appalled. The color was shifted ten ways to Sunday and not at all like the proof we approved.

I showed the ad to my wife and was going on and on about how terrible it looked. She took a look and said it looked fine to her. She could not see anything wrong.

I learned two things. One if the color looks convincing, that is about as much as you can hope for. and Two, you are always at the mercy of the other photographs on the signature. So if in this case one of the images was a white car and on the same signature is a page of red roses, the white car is going to take on a tint of red. Because all the images on the spread are soft of balanced out.

But I do think the PDF output for Pro+ shows a noticeable improvement and the colors are brighter and more saturated. (apologies for the rant)

---

Very interesting Gary.

No matter what you do, your printer will take your pdf/x and convert it again to their own version of icc profile pdf.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by behzad

No matter what you do, your printer will take your pdf/x and convert it again to their own version of icc profile pdf.

---

And this is the reason why you should always ask the print service provider for the used color profile (ICC)
if you want to have some control over your printed colors.

Of course, this is only one piece of the color management puzzle.
To work with Xara in a really color accurate way, you need an image processing system with color management,
Acrobat Pro to control the result in the PDF and calibrated hardware.

I have been working with Xara like this for over 10 years and have never had any problems with incorrect colors.

Servus Ernie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ernie-f

And this is the reason why you should always ask the print service provider for the used color profile (ICC)
if you want to have some control over your printed colors.

Of course, this is only one piece of the color management puzzle.
To work with Xara in a really color accurate way, you need an image processing system with color management,
Acrobat Pro to control the result in the PDF and calibrated hardware.

I have been working with Xara like this for over 10 years and have never had any problems with incorrect colors.

Servus Ernie

---

I'd be very interested in a bit more detail on how you do this. It is the one thing with Xara that still frustrates me. (I do have a calibrated screen which helps a bit.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob-H

I'd be very interested in a bit more detail on how you do this. It is the one thing with Xara that still frustrates me. (I do have a calibrated screen which helps a bit.)

---

A quick tutorial how I work with Xara and Acobat Pro:

1.) All images are judged in either Photoshop or Affinity Photo. There are also other image editing programs that support color management. Everything is left in the RGB profile.
Exceptions are catalogues or reproductions for museums, art exhibitions etc. which are converted to CMYK and also edited in this color space.

Warning: Xara cannot interpret CMYK images. Xara only accepts RGB! That’s why CMYK images of me are processed in Indesign, Affinity Publisher, CorelDraw, Quark or Scribus.

2.) In Xara I upload the color corrected photos (RGB) into my design.
Objects, fonts, and all other vector elements are colored with Xaras CMYK.
In order to reliably match the colours here, I use printed colour reference books (CMYK in all different values, Pantone and here in Germany HKS-Color scales) on different types of paper.

3.) After my design is done, the output will come as a print PDF. Now comes the conversion of images to CMYK with the color profile (ICC) stored in Xara that I received from the printhouse/printshop.
The CMYK values of fonts and objects are passed on correctly by Xara.
In Adobe Acrobat Pro I can then have the result simulated as a soft proof. Even small corrections such as converting 4C black to 100% K black can be done with Acrobat Pro.
I don't know of any other PDF viewer besides Acrobat Pro that can do this.
Since I work with calibrated hardware I see in the simmulation to approx. 90-95% the result. Of course, on the monitor we have a different color model than on the printed paper (aditive versus subtractive).

The CMYK preview in Xara is a joke and I've never used it because nothing is right anyway. This is also the reason for Acrobat Pro.
For very important jobs, I like to have a hard copy proof sent to me to be absolutely sure.

So that's my workflow for color accurate printing with Xara and Acrobat Pro.
If you get foreign images that are in CMYK (often happens from agencies that still work according to the old non-media-neutral standard), then it is advisable to return them to RGB.
In Xara you can't do anything with the pictures anyway.

A word about the media-neutral workflow: In the media-neutral workflow, all image data is left in the RGB color model in order to always have the same initial image for the most diverse scenarios.
The conversion to CMYK is then only done in the print PDF. And here the color profile (ICC) is responsible for ensuring that the conversion is carried out precisely to match the paper and printing process and the printing machine.
All of this data is stored in these color profiles. Therefore, always ask the printer about the color profile to be used.

There are also printers who want a generic CMYK without ICC. They then convert the color information into their in-house color profile.
But with that you give away control and without a hard proof it's a lottery what you get.

Thank you ernie-f that is really interesting and gives me plenty to experiment with!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rob-H

Thank you ernie-f that is really interesting and gives me plenty to experiment with!

---

You're welcome.

Cheers Ernie

@ Ernie:
Compliments for your website and homepage.

With all discussions about print, the Web is the medium that really counts at the moment. Your page is one of the best examples what a good program in the hands of a qualified person can achieve.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Michael

@ Ernie:
Compliments for your website and homepage.

With all discussions about print, the Web is the medium that really counts at the moment. Your page is one of the best examples what a good program in the hands of a qualified person can achieve.

---

Thank you for your kind words Michael.

I come from the classic commercial art school. I studied graphic design in the 1970's and after graduation trained as a typesetter, letterpress and ofset printer.
Four years later I passed the examination to become an industrial foreman in printing.

I had nothing to do with web publishing in the beginning. That didn't come until Xara.

I think a website should be clearly structured and the viewer should be able to find his way around immediately. It should always come across as professional.
This is the only way to convey information in a targeted manner. So far I have always tried to work this way no matter if web or print.

Servus Ernie

Ernie

What do you mean by:

1.) All images are judged in either Photoshop or Affinity Photo. There are also other image editing programs that support color management. Everything is left in the RGB profile.

What is judged?

Thanks
Ray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RKissane

Ernie

What do you mean by:

1.) All images are judged in either Photoshop or Affinity Photo. There are also other image editing programs that support color management. Everything is left in the RGB profile.

What is judged?

Thanks
Ray

---

Not all photos are printable without editing. Most photos are either too contrasty, too dark/bright, or too dull.
The pictures would not look good in print. If you then add the dot gain in printing, most photos become too dark or the depths have no more drawing.

In Affinity or Photoshop, I can simulate the view with the appropriate color profile (ICC) and know what to expect.

In general, photos should be slightly sharpened for offset printing to get nice crisp prints.

Thanks Ernie makes perfect sense now.

Ray

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RKissane

Thanks Ernie makes perfect sense now.

Ray

---

You're welcome!