<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/strict.dtd"> <html><head><meta name="qrichtext" content="1" /><style type="text/css"> p, li { white-space: pre-wrap; } </style></head><body style=" font-family:'DejaVu Sans'; font-size:12pt; font-weight:400; font-style:normal;"> On Friday, March 04, 2011 06:31:51 AM Alexandre Prokoudine wrote: > On 3/4/11, Cyrille Berger Skott wrote: > >> I mean, come on, even Audacity has simplistic printing, and it's > >> a multitrack audio editor. > > > > Makes me wonder what it prints :) > > Sonograms are not so uncommon in applied linguistics :) > > > Here is a realistict workflow: > > > > * artist paint image in "cool drawing/painting application" > > * artist send image to print worker > > * print worker print image using "cool printing application" > > > > You might even insert in the workflow: > > * artist send image to editor/layouter (not sure how about the proper > > name in > > english ;) ) > > * layouter put the image in a book/newspaper/magazine using "cool > > layouting application" > > * layouter send book/newspaper/magazine to print worker > > OK, point taken. > > > And that last point is important, and it is why we were considering > > removing the print option. Printing is somehow related to > > drawing/painting. It is one of the possible goal of the artist work. > > Similary, I would find it weird if PhotoPrint would get a brush engine, > > it is not something a print worker needs to print the resulting images. > > Now that's unfair analogy :) > > >> > We even have people who get > >> > confused because most image viewer don't use the profile and the > >> > image looks different than in Krita. > >> > >> Tell them to use proper viewers then :) > > > > Is there any proper viewers other than graphics/imagemagick? > > In KDE? :) Gwenview isn't color managed? I don't think it is. > Or maybe digiKam isn't color managed? :) Yes it is if the user has set things up. > > Or you mean GNOME with its bundled EoG which supports reading X's ICC > atom since 2007 or so, or F-Spot that has basic color management since > 2008 or 2009? > > I do genuinely believe that even popular Windows apps like IrfanView > and ACDSee are color managed these days. That, of course, doesn't > cover tons of crap freeware and shareware apps that still have their > use, but then you don't have to recommend tons of apps. Pick one or > two that are known to work. Habits are habits, but if a user wants to > keep dealing with a crappy application instead of a working one, that > means he doesn't want to be educated and hence there is nothing you > can do for him. > > Alexandre Prokoudine > http://libregraphicsworld.org > _______________________________________________ > openicc mailing list > openicc@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/openicc </body></html>