Talk:CMYK color model

message: \begin{matrix}
(128, 128, 128)_{RGB} = (0, 0, 0, 0.5)_{CMYK} = (0,0,0,128)_{CMYK, scaled to bytes}\\ 
(255, 0, 0)_{RGB} = (0, 1, 1, 0)_{CMYK} = (0,255,255,0)_{CMYK, scaled to bytes}\\
(255, 255, 0)_{RGB} = (0, 0, 1, 0)_{CMYK} = (0,0,255,0)_{CMYK, scaled to bytes}
\end{matrix} 
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)
thread_title: some tests 

message: Doesn't anyone think this page should be made more simpler so people can understand or add more explanations to the algorithm-ishs 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 real-world 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Easily understood 

message: 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)
replies: text: As far as I can tell it can just as easily stand for "key" or "black"; since the key plate is black in CMYK printing, it works just as well either way. I do not know which usage is older, but now both seems to be usable. --Zzo38 (talk) 22:53, 26 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  K: Key or blacK