Converting RGB to CMYK: How to keep color from washing out!

90% of the visual media I create is for television or internet, which means I design using RGB color space almost exclusively. However, occasionally I need to create a print ad or sign based on elements I’ve already created in RGB.

Anyone who’s converted an RGB image to CMYK knows how frustratingly different the end result can be. Typically, the most obviously perceptible change is less color saturation. The beautiful image you worked long and hard to perfect is now a shadow of its former glory.

I won’t get into the reasons why the color spaces are different, you can research that for yourself if you’re curious. What’s important here is doing your darndest to get your CMYK artwork as close as possible to the RGB original!

Here’s a super easy way to restore the color:

1) Add a new layer in Photoshop or Illustrator. 

2) Fill it with black.

3) Set the color mode of the layer to Color Burn.

4) Adjust the layer opacity until you’re happy, usually in the 15-35% range.

I stumbled upon this trick while creating some business cards for print using an RGB background and am now applying the same trick to vehicle signage.  Also, instead of applying a black layer to the entire image you can just use a soft black brush in the areas of most obvious change.  You can also add a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer, but you may want to use it sparingly.  Increasing saturation to a CMYK document appears differently than RGB.  Finding a balance between the saturation adjustment layer and the color burn layer is a great way to get your CMYK conversion close to the RGB original.

Happy creating!

Adobe Production Premium CS5: The One Thing Missing

It’s no secret that I love Adobe software.  On the visual side of things, they make what I do possible.  The integration of Dynamic Link in CS4 really seals the deal as far as keeping me in the family.  I can’t imagine what could make me break away from the Production Premium bundle.

That said, I have a bone to pick with Adobe.  As a visual artist, they have everything I need in the Production Premium bundle except…a 3D modeling program.  I can create vector art with Illustrator.  I can create bitmap art with Photoshop Extended.  I can create great web animations with Flash.  I can do amazing animation, period, using After Effects.  I could edit a documentary with Premiere and use all these programs to create content for a DVD authored with Encore.

But I can’t do true 3D modeling or animation.  Sure, there’s support for 3D inside Photoshop and After Effects, but NOT creation.  And I really gotta ask why.  

Adobe could make crazy money if they entered the 3D modeling application market, because there’s basically zero competition.  All the major programs – Lightwave, Maya, 3D Studio Max, etc. – were all bought up by one company.  Autodesk.  Autodesk more or less has the market cornered, and if you want in you have to pay the price of admission.

The price of admission is about $3,500 – regardless of which program you buy.  Since they have them all, you don’t really have a choice.

But if Adobe were to enter the market and offer a less-expensive but comparable program, they.would.kill.autodesk!  Especially bundled inside the Production Premium package, and especially if they utilized the Dynamic Link between their 3D modeler and After Effect and Photoshop. 

They would expand their current share under their current  program types and gain a whole slew of new customers.  Those customers would potentially become as loyal as myself, AND they could become the new industry standard for 3D animators just through sheer numbers within a decade.

So, what gives, Adobe?  How come I gotta be the one to tell you this?  Are you afraid of the cost to develop?  I don’t see how that could be given the community of software folks you have under your roof already.  By knocking even just a few hundred dollars off Autodesk’s asking price you’d grab a majority of new buyers in no time.  It’d pay for itself (and then some)!

What do you the reader think?  Am I off base?  Or do you agree with my point?  Sound off in the comments (link at the top of this post)!