Talk:CMYK color model
CMYK color model has been listed as a level4 vital article in Science. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as StartClass. 
WikiProject Color  (Rated Startclass, Highimportance)  


Archives  

 
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundationsupported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Williamsrs. 
Old discussion[edit]
Adopted orphan redirects for searching: CMYK colour model
Can you convert the following RGB coordinates to CMYK??
Color RGB CMYK Gray 128 128 128 Black 0 0 0 White 255 255 255 Red 255 0 128 Orange 255 83 0 Yellow 255 255 0 Lime 83 255 0 Green 0 255 128 Sea blue 0 172 255 Blue 0 0 255 Purple 172 0 255
66.32.71.96 02:21, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Note: (or note to self :P ) we need an RGB > CMYK conversion formula, like on HSV color space , that'd be handy. Kim Bruning 12:38, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Okay, let's snarf some formulas off of : http://www.easyrgb.com/math.php?MATH=M12#text12
(mathematics isn't copyrightable AFAIK, and I'll be rewriting anyway :) )
and then rewrite them to 1 form:
// RGB > CMY //RGB values = From 0 to 255 // CMY values = from 0 to 255 C = 255  R M = 255  G Y = 255  B //CMY values = From 0 to 255 // and CMY> CMYK var_K = 1 if ( C < var_K ) var_K = C if ( M < var_K ) var_K = M if ( Y < var_K ) var_K = Y C = ( C  var_K ) / ( 1  var_K ) M = ( M  var_K ) / ( 1  var_K ) Y = ( Y  var_K ) / ( 1  var_K ) K = var_K
Okay, so we'd better write that out tidily :)
so let's see
finally:
for:
we can simply do:
Okay, as a sucky biologist, my math sucks. Can a real mathematician look this over before adding it to the main article? Else I'll add it in a week or so.
Note that I really don't like the float inbetween step, and it's not really nescesary :)
Kim Bruning 13:21, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Oh heck, let's be bold and add it, some mathematician will just come along and simplify the float step I'm sure :) Kim Bruning 13:27, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Ugh, I think I made some slight errors converting from algorithm to formula. Um I'll leave as is for now, some mathematician can pick up the pieces :/ Sorry! Kim Bruning 13:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 Here's rewriting this so it's a little neater. This is going off that site before:
 Converting CMYK > RGB = CMYK > CMY > RGB
 t_{CMYK} ∈ [0,1]^{4} is the CMYK quadruple, t_{CMY} ∈ [0,1]^{3} is the CMY triple, and t_{RGB} ∈ [0, 255]^{3} is the RGB triple. Then:
 Converting RGB > CMY, with the same color vectors as before
 Dysprosia 14:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Thanks, looks tidier at least! On computers, CYMK is usually represented in 32 bits (4 bytes: C, M , Y, K), so each C, M, Y, K value is an integer from 0 to 255, and not a floating point value from 0 to 1 as was stated on the referenced webpage. Cutting out the floating point values would improve the formula further. (something to sort out in my copious free time :) Kim Bruning 14:26, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 Can you put the coordinates in the above table that already shows RGB?? 66.32.123.29 15:36, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 Instead of giving you a fish, we gave you a fishing rod. :) Calculate the cmyk values using the formulas, or the webpage or what have you, and multiply by 255 (and round off) to get the compuer representation. Kim Bruning 16:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 What do fish and fishing rods have to do with RGB and CMYK?? Is this just an expression?? What does it mean?? Does Wikipedia have an article for expressions like this??66.32.113.34 16:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 "give a man to fish, and he will eat for a day, teach a man to fish, and he will eat for the rest of his life". The idea is that we just explained how you can figure out cmyk values for yourself, into perpetuity :) Unfortunately the formula given by dysprosia gives values from 0 to 1, and we want to scale that to 0255. (so just multiply by 255, easy enough). Well I'll do some examples to see if the formula is actually correct...
 What do fish and fishing rods have to do with RGB and CMYK?? Is this just an expression?? What does it mean?? Does Wikipedia have an article for expressions like this??66.32.113.34 16:55, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 Instead of giving you a fish, we gave you a fishing rod. :) Calculate the cmyk values using the formulas, or the webpage or what have you, and multiply by 255 (and round off) to get the compuer representation. Kim Bruning 16:00, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
some tests[edit]
Wow! This formula is really easy to use too! :) I'm sure there's a way to skip the float phase , but this is nice :)
 But 255 0 0 was not among the colors in the above table. 66.245.99.11 18:20, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 But I'm not going to calculate your table for you, I was figuring some edge cases to see if the formula actually works. Kim Bruning 18:33, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Hmm, note I was doing mental arithmetic, so values are rounded off. Kim Bruning 21:48, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)
okay, one example for 66.32.123.29, though really wikipedia isn't for this. Note that your value for red is really weird?
We're using "red, green blue" so:
tell you what, let's find blue in CMYK
 disprosia said:
 Okay, well,
so we do:
 Well ... , so:
 scaling:
 So in the end we get:
Which I happen to know is the right value for blue. :)
Easily understood[edit]
Doesn't anyone think this page should be made more simpler so people can understand or add more explanations to the algorithmishs given in the end? My thought since I still do not understand how.  WB 02:30, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)
 I think the algorithms given should be removed, as they are of little practical use. They do not reflect the realworld conversions actually needed, and by putting them into a Wikipedia article, it adds to the confusion and errors which can produce very expensive printing mistakes. Views? Notinasnaid 09:34, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 It is less productive to remove inaccurate algorithms altogether as opposed to improving the algorithms in the first place. Dysprosia 12:19, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 The crucial point is that there is no algorithm. There is no single conversion from RGB to CMYK, so  much as people yearn for there to be a simple algorithm  it is doing a disservice to put one there. Notinasnaid 16:31, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 I have tried to put some background in the new article absolute color space. Neither RGB nor CMYK are, by themselves, absolute, so there is no single conversion between them. Notinasnaid 20:27, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
It seems to me that the lack of reversibility in RGB to CMYK to RGB conversions isn't an issue which should prevent presentation of an algorithm. Such an algorithm is a necessity in many applications; for example, rendering an RGBbased image into CMYK inks on paper. CoyneT 00:54, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 To my mind, that's exactly the reason to not have it, because, frankly, it's rubbish. People have written software using this algorithm, and the results of the conversion don't really satisfy anyone, because the colors are different. Notinasnaid 07:43, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 The discretionary note added is sufficient enough. Those who want to make use of such an algorithm are warned for its use, and those who need something professional will be warned of the consequences for using the algorithm. Dysprosia 08:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 That makes sense. If I ever manage to find a way to express how it should be done, I'll add that too. (It won't be an algorithm). Notinasnaid 08:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
History...?[edit]
What's the history of CMYK?
When/where was it first used?
Who developed it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.93.233.246 (talk) 08:21, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
Requested move 5 February 2019[edit]
 The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: Not moved. (nonadmin closure) samee converse 10:38, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
CMYK color model → CMY color model – It would be great if we make it a perfect counterpart of the RGB color model. It contains both CMY color model and CMYK inks so I can't create another article named "CMY color model" because it will become a redirect to this article "CMYK color model. CMY color model itself isn't just about inks and having K as black for printers isn't necessary since it is already stated in the subtractive color that CMY will create black. I think we should change this article because RGB (it's counterpart color model in additive color or light) talks about not only of being a color model of modern devices but also the technicalities of it. This article focusing too much on CMYK inks in printing, not on the concept of the CMY color model itself. In this case, the CMYK inks in printing should be in a subheading then. I know this article is about the CMYK inks in printing but I think it would be better if this focuses on the general topic and the principles of CMY and I will volunteer to modify this article to focus in their color model. Jaspergeli (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose per WP:PRECISE. That's an argument for writing an article at CMY color model (or CMY colour model), not for moving this article about the CMYK color model. At the top of WP:RFD, "replacing a redirect with an article is wholly encouraged. Be bold!."
 All the online references refer specifically to black, although actually the Teach Yourself Adobe Photoshop one is about the CcMmYK color model. 94.21.238.64 (talk) 09:43, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 Thank you for this, If you really wish me to, then I will do it! In this case, I will write about the concept of the CMY color model itself and how it works, not about the CMYK inks. Thank you so much. Jaspergeli (talk) 19:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME; CMYK is simply far more common a label for this color system than CMY. The fact that the nom wishes it were more consistent with the RGB label is immaterial. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 01:39, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
K: Key or blacK[edit]
I added a "citation needed" for the abbreviation. I see a slow edit war on this. There are opinions about what K stands for, and opinions have no place in Wikipedia. Where there is controversy, what is needed is a reference. And it needs to be a good one, not just some other web site based on someone else's opinions. Ideally, a link to an academic article that mentions both opinions, and goes back to the early literature. Until we have a reference, please do not remove the citation needed flag just because you believe you know what it stands for!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.65.46 (talk) 09:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)