Re: Print shop asks for original instead of pdf file
Tacit
Give your print shop what they want. If they ask for a Quark file and support
files, give them the Quark file and support files.
--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Unknown
4ax.com:
> Print shop asks for the original Quark file but I intend to
> give the pdf file. I'm afraid that the shop will go to my
> client directly, if not this time, next time they might
> will. They say the Quark file would allow them more freedom
> to maneuver to produce what I want. The PDF doesn't allow
> them that. What to do now?
Unless your printer has a PDF workflow in place, they may not be *able* to
process your pdf file. Common problems are designs that are supposed to
bleed but have none, linked files instead of embedded, and on and on. As a
content creator, you have to realize that if you want to work with PDF
files, you have to either create *perfect* PDF files or take them to a
printer with a PDF workflow. If the printer is asking you for the original
files, it means they are having a problem with your PDF, and you should be
willing to provide them with what they need to process your work.
Aandi Inston
>Print shop asks for the original Quark file but I intend to
>give the pdf file.
The print shop should reject your custom then, if you won't provide
what they request.
What on earth can be your objection to working with your print shop
rather than fighting them?
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston qu...@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
aha
Jay Chevako
business for long.
Jay
phlip
Oftentimes we're able to work from pdf files, but just as often, the pdf
file doesn't work. In that case, if we both have the same program and it
insures quick turnaround for you and customer, then why wouldn't you?
Even with a pdf file, couldn't they still go directly to your customer? Do
you really distrust your vendor that much??? If you do, then you might want
to look for another vendor...
P
"aha" <a...@dream.com> wrote in message
news:io31r0dgmk68366ju...@4ax.com...
Mxsmanic
> Ask yourself what would be the best, and easiest for everyone,
> solution to get the job delivered on budget and on time: give them
> what they want, or piss them off by acting like a pushy demanding
> asshole and get nothing but MORE problems from them, and eventually
> have to find another printer.
It doesn't take that long to find another printer, and if the current
printer is unwilling to accept what you produce, it's probably best to
find another printer, anyway.
> You may choose to not work with them
> againin the future; for now, i would advise, work with them instead of
> against them.
I'd advise changing printers immediately. Why should you settle for
less when you're paying money?
> One printer uses the PDF, another likes the
> original files. Personally, I could not care less which they use, as
> long as I'm happy at press check time.
What possible need could they have for the InDesign files, if they are
going to print exactly what you gave them?
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
aha
layout, especially the text, changes a bit when loaded up on
their system. Sometimes the change is so small that I don't
realize till printed. That's when I want them to use pdf
instead.
I always provide the printer the fonts used. There is no
reason the text changes if they use the fonts I provide,
right?
Maybe they think their system has the same font, but in fact
it's a little different from mine.
Mxsmanic
> Unless your printer has a PDF workflow in place, they may not be *able* to
> process your pdf file.
How long are people expected to wait for printers to develop PDF
workflows? 2038 perhaps?
Mxsmanic
> They say the Quark file would allow them more freedom
> to maneuver to produce what I want. The PDF doesn't allow
> them that.
That makes no logical sense. Since the PDF presumably reflects what you
want, it is sufficient to produce what you want. They don't need the
Quark file unless they intend to change your job to something other than
what the PDF represents ... which in turn means that they intend to
print something other than what you want.
Mxsmanic
> Give your print shop what they want. If they ask for a Quark file and support
> files, give them the Quark file and support files.
If they ask for your wallet, give them your wallet.
Tacit
In the prepress industry? BWAH hahahahaha!
In the prepress industry, it's been my experience that the customer can rarely
tell a proper PDF from a screwdriver. I consider myself lucky when my customers
know how to spell "EPS."
Customers pay printers because customers lack the skill, knowledge, and
equipment to be printers themselves. Either give your printer what he asks for,
or go to a different printer, or do the goddamn printing yourself--but if you
won't give your printer what he asks for and don't go somewhere else, then take
what you get as a result.
Any competent printer should be able to use a PDF in this day and age--provided
that the PDF is produced properly. I've seen the PDFs some people produce, and
I know *I* don't trust my clients to make press-ready PDFs on their own--do
you? How long have you worked in the industry? :)
M Black
It doesn't necessarily mean this. I was asked if I could send original
ID files to the printer so that they would be in a position to process
possible late changes to a book. I was uneasy because of the Mac/PC
thing and possible reflow, or incompatible fonts, so said I would rather
make the changes myself and provide a new pdf.
As it happened "last-minute changes" happened 3 times in all and I sent
a new pdf each time (at no extra charge). I preferred to do this than to
leave my name on work which someone else was editing. I don't believe
that other people care about my work as much as I do, and I know that if
there are errors in the final print, I will be blamed whoever put them
there. That being the case, I would rather put them there myself.
Maire Black
Mxsmanic
> What on earth can be your objection to working with your print shop
> rather than fighting them?
Why on earth would the print shop need the original file to print what
the client wants, if the PDF already embodies what the client wants.
Answer: the print shop intends to make its own changes, no matter what
the client wants.
Tacit
>workflows? 2038 perhaps?
I'd say "about as long as printers are expected to wait for people to make
perfect PDFs"--which, if my own experience is any indication, should come about
the time of the heat death of the Universe.
There are two schools of thought on doing work of any kind:
1. I'm paying my vendor. My vendor had better goddamn well jump when i say
jump. If I say the vendor is gonna use PDF, then dammit, the vendor is gonna
use PDF, no matter what, and any vendor that doesn't do as I say can take a
flying leap.
The disadvantage here is that if you call all the shots and you screw up,
either because you lack technical skill or because you lack some crucial bit of
knowledge about the job the vendor does, then my, aren't you the asshole. The
job's screwed up,a nd guess who's at fault? T'ain't the vendor!
This attitude works until the first time it doesn't. When it doesn't, you don't
shoot yourself in the foot--you blow off your entire leg with a large-gauge
shotgun, and you got nobody to blame but your ownself.
2. Hire a vendor, then work with the vendor to get the job done. In the final
analysis, a designer who is worried about file formats is in the wrong
business. it's not a designer's job to create files, it's a designer's job to
design something that looks good when ink hits paper. the designer doesn't put
the ink on the paper, and it really makes no difference how the ink hits the
paper as long as the result looks like it should. So, you don't micromanage
your vendor--you hire a vendor because that vendor does a good job at a good
price, then you provide that vendor with the materials the vendor wants in
order to get ink on paper. Who gives a goddamn what extension comes after the
file's name on disk? Ink, paper, that's where it's at.
The advantage of doing this is that the relaionship with the vendor is easy,
and if syou give the vendor what he wants and he can't do the job, it ain't
your fault.
In the end, it's about RESULTS, not about PROCESSES. As long as the vendor is
getting ink on paper and you like what you see, don't worry about the vendor's
workflow; that's his problem, not yours. If a vendor won't keep up with
advances, then you'll find a vendor who puts ink to paper better for less
money. It ain't your problem.
The downside is that most people using approach #2 have only one leg, because
at some time in the past they've blown their other leg clean off with a
high-powered shotgun by using approach #1.
ME Hill
"Tacit" <tac...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041203152511...@mb-m16.aol.com...
That's the first thought that came into my mind - what type of pdf do they
usually get from this OP? I personally ask people for their original files
only when their work usually needs work!
ME Hill
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1fg1r09fkc5i3al46...@4ax.com...
And when the finished print job is handed over and the customer's face
screams 'Yuck! That's not how it's *supposed* to look! That's not how it
looked on my ink jet!', then you can explain how it was all the customer's
fault, not your print job.
Jay Chevako
> That's the first thought that came into my mind - what type of pdf do they
> usually get from this OP? I personally ask people for their original files
> only when their work usually needs work!
>
>
Which is about 95% of the time. Most of the local ad agencies think that
a 100k pdf file for a fullpage ad (US letter with a full page photo) is
just fine, especially since they can email it. Never mind that they left
out the bleed and included 3 spot colors.
Michael Sullivan
> Aandi Inston writes:
>
> > What on earth can be your objection to working with your print shop
> > rather than fighting them?
>
> Why on earth would the print shop need the original file to print what
> the client wants, if the PDF already embodies what the client wants.
Does it? Or has it merely passed a proof test that doesn't take
important issues into consideration, such as bleeds, proper sizing,
proper folding max ink generation, press-ink-paper profiles, etc.
You cannot possibly imagine how many things a non-printer (and some
printers) can fuck up on their file generation. If you've encoded your
file in a hard format like PDF, it's a lot more work to fix.
> Answer: the print shop intends to make its own changes, no matter what
> the client wants.
Answer: They intend to be *able* to make changes, if they see something
the client did not consider or could not possibly notice on a computer
screen.
Michael
Wed
> That makes no logical sense. Since the PDF presumably reflects what you
> want, it is sufficient to produce what you want. They don't need the
> Quark file unless they intend to change your job to something other than
> what the PDF represents ... which in turn means that they intend to
> print something other than what you want.
I agree with that.
Also, if you hand out an application file there is always a possibility the
text will reflow differently. Why risk it? Why risk incorrect text reflow,
non exact fonts, missing images or images not linked properly, etc, etc...
If PDF file if made properly it is predictable and you get what you expect
to get.
Ive been handing out PDFs for past 3 years to different printers and not a
single time I had a problem.
W.
Peggy
news:31c261F...@individual.net...
Mmmph. I think I produce good PDFs. HOWEVER ... the PDFs I *get* from ad
clients almost always need *something*. Wrong color space. Wrong size.
Placed on letter paper, so the art box needs cropping. Typos. SOMEthing. So
I fix them, and place them, and then produce a PDF of then entire pub.
And I just found out - after years of working with them! - that one of the
printers I use has problems with my PDFs. So I'm beginning to wonder whether
PDFs can be trusted at all. At this point, I give printers PDFs created by
printing to Distiller, all my native files and fonts. It's a PITA, and I
can't help wondering if there isn't an easier way. At least this way the
results are predictable.
I'm just about to go back to mechanicals.
<grumble>
Dave Balderstone
<jdoh...@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
> My experience is that providing printers with application files is a poor
> process that tends to produce poor results more often than better processes.
> And many of the printers I work with seem to agree, in that they either give
> a discount for properly-prepared PDF files or tack on a surcharge if they
> have to handle application files.
That's increasingly my experience. It sounds like the OP's printer is
using older equipment and either can't handle PDFs properly (IOW,
they's going to drop them on a Quark page and output from there.
Eugh...)
BTW: I've got 5 years on you. ;-)
Mac Townsend
PDF. Especially if I've never worked with that "designer" before or have (
as is the case most of the time) no direct access to the file creator.
And here's several examples why:
1) the "designer" drew a 3.5 x 2 inch box on the letter page and
proceded to layout a business card. then he drew another box and laid
out the backside. The printer, my customer, wants the card imposed 4X.
In PDF you almost always have more work to fix this than in the native
file...even when the PDF is properly constructed (and MOST are not in my
experience).
2) The printer thinks this is a K+spot job. The PDF is about 7 different
spots and several different versions of black. Including some blends
that ended up being forced to cmyk because they made them PMS to White. (
fixing blends/graduated colors in PitStop is not easy and sometimes not
possible AFAIK but can be click-click in the native app)
Unknown
news:ejg1r0tkpknh696ng...@4ax.com:
> Unknown writes:
>
>> Unless your printer has a PDF workflow in place, they may not be
>> *able* to process your pdf file.
>
> How long are people expected to wait for printers to develop PDF
> workflows? 2038 perhaps?
>
No one is expected to wait. If you, as a content creator, want to work with
PDF files, then it's up to you to find a printer that can handle the files.
Not every printer, who are businessmen btw, are going to invest in the
tools to do so. That's called free enterprise.
Lee Blevins
> Print shop asks for the original Quark file but I intend to
> give the pdf file. I'm afraid that the shop will go to my
> client directly, if not this time, next time they might
> will. They say the Quark file would allow them more freedom
> to maneuver to produce what I want. The PDF doesn't allow
> them that. What to do now?
Is your PDF made to X1a specification?
Do you create bleeds in even and consitent measurements?
Are the marks on?
Is it centered on the bounding box?
Did you make sure all the colors were colored correctly?
Did you set all overprints and traps or are you leaving that up to them?
It could be that they've received so many bad pdfs (imagine that) that
they have a general policy of requesting native documents.
Unknown
> As it happened "last-minute changes" happened 3 times in all and I
> sent a new pdf each time (at no extra charge). I preferred to do this
> than to leave my name on work which someone else was editing. I don't
> believe that other people care about my work as much as I do, and I
> know that if there are errors in the final print, I will be blamed
> whoever put them there. That being the case, I would rather put them
> there myself.
>
> Maire Black
>
That's a valid point, and frankly, if I were your printer, I would prefer
the PDF files for exactly the same reason. I'm surprised they would prefer
accepting responsibility for potential mistakes instead of processing the
PDFs.
Unknown
Would you rather be right, or have your work done properly and on time? You
would be wise to work *with* your printer instead of adopting an attitude.
John Doherty
wrote:
> fixing blends/graduated colors in PitStop is not easy
It sure isn't.
> and sometimes not possible
I'd be interested to hear about any method you've found that does
work, even if only sometimes.
--
John Doherty
wrote:
> And then there are those of us who like to establish long-term
> relationships with various printers. A little compromise and
> flexibility goes a long way towards establishing a relationship
Sure, but that cuts both ways -- the printer should be willing to show
a little flexibility, too.
--
John Doherty
Dave Balderstone wrote:
>> My experience is that providing printers with application files is
>> a poor process that tends to produce poor results more often than
>> better processes. And many of the printers I work with seem to
>> agree, in that they either give a discount for properly-prepared
>> PDF files or tack on a surcharge if they have to handle application
>> files.
> That's increasingly my experience. It sounds like the OP's printer
> is using older equipment and either can't handle PDFs properly (IOW,
> they's going to drop them on a Quark page and output from there.
> Eugh...)
> BTW: I've got 5 years on you. ;-)
Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing. :-)
--
John Doherty
>> And whatever happened to "the customer is always right?"
> Would you rather be right, or have your work done properly and on
> time?
I would prefer both, of course. :-)
> You would be wise to work *with* your printer instead of adopting an
> attitude.
I'm always willing to work with printers to solve any problems there
may be with our work. But I haven't given a printer application files
in something like ten years or so and I'm not going to do it again.
And since we quit doing that, there have been an awful lot fewer
problems to solve. That's why we do it. Assuming that what you give
them is properly prepared, it's a much better process, mostly because
there are a lot fewer things to go wrong.
--
Tim Monk
> In article, "Mac Townsend" wrote:
>
>> fixing blends/graduated colors in PitStop is not easy
>
> It sure isn't.
>
>> and sometimes not possible
>
> I'd be interested to hear about any method you've found that does
> work, even if only sometimes.
Yeah, me too!! Please!!
Tim
Tim Monk
> For me, let's see: let's say (conservatively) 200,000 or so pages a year
> for six or seven years now -- that's well over a million pages.
>
> So yeah, I'm pretty sure PDF files can be trusted, at least under some
> circumstances. :-)
Yeah, for someone like yourself, and many of the other cpp regulars, like
myself. The file format isn't really the problem that's being discussed
here, IMO. It's likely that the OP's printer has seen the same trend I'm
seeing lately:
Customer demands that we accept their file as PDF. Fine. Great! The concept
of receiving PDFs from customers is a wonderful thing. Unfortunately, after
opening their PDFs we happen to notice that the images are low-rez and RGB,
there is no bleed, folds won't work because all the panels are created
equal, the fonts aren't embedded, there are 437 spot colors in use, etc,
ect, ect. I could go on for paragraphs, trust me, I've seen a lot of crappy
PDFs. :)
For the most part, the PDF revolution is only a concept so far. The format
is not the problem. It's more of a restriction really, because we're often
left with no choice (as demanded or requested by customers or sales staff)
but to fix files setup by people who shouldn't even have computers. And
we're forced to do that with nothing more than a PDF. Native files are much
easier to manipulate in situations like these. But often egos seem to get in
the way of productive business practices, as I see it.
I believe in my heart of hearts that communication with your
printer/customer is the most vital, yet neglected need in the graphic arts
industry. Butting of heads does absolutely nothing to better any situation.
Printers/Designers need to work together. They're a team. Bread and Butter.
You can't have one without the other.
Have a great weekend!!
Tim
Tim Monk
> My experience is that providing printers with application files is a poor
> process that tends to produce poor results more often than better processes.
> And many of the printers I work with seem to agree, in that they either give
> a discount for properly-prepared PDF files or tack on a surcharge if they
> have to handle application files.
This scenario is perfect. I think this should become an industry standard,
but I'm just little 'ole me. I don't have that kind of power. It's very
important that you and the others who agree with you are vocal about this.
It won't happen if it's not discussed. Unfortunately, if it happens, more
folks will be paying the surcharge than receiving the discount! ;)
Happy Friday!
Tim
Unknown
> problems to solve. That's why we do it. Assuming that what you give
> them is properly prepared, it's a much better process, mostly because
> there are a lot fewer things to go wrong.
John, I certainly agree with that. Unfortunately, most of the files
received by prepress, whether they are PDFs or any other format, have some
sort of problem that needs to be fixed. I recently worked on a two-color,
tri-panel brochure on 11x8.5. The file provided was a PDF. It was supposed
to bleed, yet the PDF had none. Also, it had a photo on the front panel
which was supposed to hit the fold, but didn't. If I had an Xpress file, I
could fix both problems in about a minute. Not so with a PDF. So the
designer that created this dog is in California and doesn't open for three
hours, but his client (our customer) is upset that the job can't be
delivered this morning. This is typical. Hamstringing the prepress
department may seem like a good idea, and might actually be one if you are
more competent than they. But in my experience, the people in my prepress
department are far more knowledgeable than 90% of our customers, and they'd
be much better off providing a full complement of files.
John Doherty
>> My experience is that providing printers with application files is
>> a poor process that tends to produce poor results more often than
>> better processes. And many of the printers I work with seem to
>> agree, in that they either give a discount for properly-prepared
>> PDF files or tack on a surcharge if they have to handle application
>> files.
> This scenario is perfect. I think this should become an industry
> standard, but I'm just little 'ole me. I don't have that kind of
> power.
I don't either, not by any means. It's just that some of our clients
are really big publishers who buy printing worth millions of dollars
a year. They have the clout to get printers to sit up and listen. The
printers understand the "who's paying who" thing just fine.
> It's very important that you and the others who agree with
> you are vocal about this. It won't happen if it's not discussed.
Well, as above, it doesn't really matter how vocal I am, because I'm
not the one paying the big invoices. But the publishers clearly know
that if the printer receives properly-prepared PDF files, there's a
bunch of work they just don't have to do.
Also, there are a lot fewer things that can go wrong and the things
that can go wrong tend to be a lot easier and quicker to resolve with
a lot less finger-pointing and wasted time.
So knowing those things, the publisher is just not going to pay the
same prepress rates they used to. In my part of the printing biz,
this trend has been clear for some years now.
(Like anybody else, my part of the printing biz is anything but the
whole thing and I understand that a lot of people work in other parts
that are sometimes very different.)
> Unfortunately, if it happens, more folks will be paying the
> surcharge than receiving the discount! ;)
People whose work needs a lot of fixing in prepress should be paying
more. And that's good for the printer, if their customers tend to be
like that, and good for prepress trade shops (at least the few of
them that are still around).
> Happy Friday!
Thanks. Same to you.
--
Mxsmanic
> And when the finished print job is handed over and the customer's face
> screams 'Yuck! That's not how it's *supposed* to look! That's not how it
> looked on my ink jet!', then you can explain how it was all the customer's
> fault, not your print job.
No, it's the printer's fault, if the customer's PDF met the printer's
published specifications.
--
Transpose hotmail and mxsmanic in my e-mail address to reach me directly.
Mxsmanic
> Does it? Or has it merely passed a proof test that doesn't take
> important issues into consideration, such as bleeds, proper sizing,
> proper folding max ink generation, press-ink-paper profiles, etc.
The printer can put this into its specifications book. Customers can
then generate PDFs to these specs. If a PDF is unacceptable, send it
back for the customer to correct. If it looks like it won't print
correctly, send it back for the customer to correct. If the customer
insists on printing a bad PDF as-is, have him sign off on it, and print
whatever can be printed.
> You cannot possibly imagine how many things a non-printer (and some
> printers) can fuck up on their file generation.
Sure I can.
> If you've encoded your file in a hard format like PDF, it's a
> lot more work to fix.
That's the whole idea of the format. PDFs aren't supposed to be fixed,
they're supposed to be generated. Just as a book on paper is designed
to be printed, not fixed on press.
> Answer: They intend to be *able* to make changes, if they see something
> the client did not consider or could not possibly notice on a computer
> screen.
If they need changes in my PDF, they can come back to me with the
changes required. That's the advantage of PDF: there will be no secret
changes.
If an end user is too incompetent to generate a proper PDF without a
tremendous amount of effort, then he can use a prepress service to
generate the PDF.
Mxsmanic
> so what? What do you care if they change to the art file, once it gets
> on their inhouse machines, as long as the matchprint is exactly what
> you specify, and it looks identical on press?
It cannot be exactly what I specify if it has been changed. The PDF is
the specification.
> So they go in there and
> tweak the colors for their imagesetter or do some trapping work? Whats
> wrong with that?
It's not what I wanted.
Mxsmanic
> 1. I'm paying my vendor. My vendor had better goddamn well jump when i say
> jump. If I say the vendor is gonna use PDF, then dammit, the vendor is gonna
> use PDF, no matter what, and any vendor that doesn't do as I say can take a
> flying leap.
>
> The disadvantage here is that if you call all the shots and you screw up,
> either because you lack technical skill or because you lack some crucial bit of
> knowledge about the job the vendor does, then my, aren't you the asshole. The
> job's screwed up,a nd guess who's at fault? T'ain't the vendor!
That's the price for total control. You get exactly what you specify,
but if it's wrong, it's your fault.
I prefer this model. If my PDF is wrong, my printer can tell me why,
and I'll fix it. Once it's fixed, he'll print the PDF as-is. After a
few jobs, I'll know exactly what he expects on the first pass, and he'll
be able to print PDF practically sight unseen. In exchange for his
commitment to print PDFs as-is, I won't hold him responsible for
printing errors that result from an incorrect PDF (as long as he tells
me in advance of any errors that he sees and gives me an opportunity to
regenerate the PDF).
> This attitude works until the first time it doesn't. When it doesn't, you don't
> shoot yourself in the foot--you blow off your entire leg with a large-gauge
> shotgun, and you got nobody to blame but your ownself.
Life is tough.
> 2. Hire a vendor, then work with the vendor to get the job done. In the final
> analysis, a designer who is worried about file formats is in the wrong
> business. it's not a designer's job to create files, it's a designer's job to
> design something that looks good when ink hits paper. the designer doesn't put
> the ink on the paper, and it really makes no difference how the ink hits the
> paper as long as the result looks like it should. So, you don't micromanage
> your vendor--you hire a vendor because that vendor does a good job at a good
> price, then you provide that vendor with the materials the vendor wants in
> order to get ink on paper. Who gives a goddamn what extension comes after the
> file's name on disk? Ink, paper, that's where it's at.
That depends on the designer. Some designers may also be good
technicians. Others are purely artists.
> The advantage of doing this is that the relaionship with the vendor is easy,
> and if syou give the vendor what he wants and he can't do the job, it ain't
> your fault.
This works no matter what file format you use.
Your philosophy assumes that printers know more than designers. The
assumption is incorrect. Printers know printing, designers know design.
A good printing job that does not match what the designer wanted is no
better than a bad printing job of exactly what the designer specified.
Just because something is beautifully printed doesn't make it
acceptable, if the printer deviated from the designer's intentions in
order to get it printed.
Just as a good designer should know the limitations of printing, a good
printer should know how to put just about anything on paper, no matter
how bizarre. Neither side should have to compromise excessively for the
other, or there's something wrong.
Mxsmanic
> I usually insist (if I have the choiuce) on original files rather than
> PDF. Especially if I've never worked with that "designer" before or have (
> as is the case most of the time) no direct access to the file creator.
>
> And here's several examples why:
>
> 1) the "designer" drew a 3.5 x 2 inch box on the letter page and
> proceded to layout a business card. then he drew another box and laid
> out the backside. The printer, my customer, wants the card imposed 4X.
> In PDF you almost always have more work to fix this than in the native
> file...even when the PDF is properly constructed (and MOST are not in my
> experience).
>
> 2) The printer thinks this is a K+spot job. The PDF is about 7 different
> spots and several different versions of black. Including some blends
> that ended up being forced to cmyk because they made them PMS to White. (
> fixing blends/graduated colors in PitStop is not easy and sometimes not
> possible AFAIK but can be click-click in the native app)
You can either refuse the PDFs until the customer corrects them, or have
him sign off on your statement of how the existing PDFs will print and
print them as-is. You don't need application files, any more than the
designer needs your press in his office.
Remember, if you start doing his job, he may end up doing yours.
Mxsmanic
> It doesn't necessarily mean this. I was asked if I could send original
> ID files to the printer so that they would be in a position to process
> possible late changes to a book. I was uneasy because of the Mac/PC
> thing and possible reflow, or incompatible fonts, so said I would rather
> make the changes myself and provide a new pdf.
>
> As it happened "last-minute changes" happened 3 times in all and I sent
> a new pdf each time (at no extra charge). I preferred to do this than to
> leave my name on work which someone else was editing. I don't believe
> that other people care about my work as much as I do, and I know that if
> there are errors in the final print, I will be blamed whoever put them
> there. That being the case, I would rather put them there myself.
Exactly.
I'll take the blame for mistakes, but only if I also control every
detail of the electronic files. Since PDF is almost impossible to
usefully edit (by design), it forces a printer to accept a job without
modification. The customer has full control, and full responsibility.
Dave Balderstone
<jdoh...@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
> I don't doubt that for a minute, and I am not suggesting that someone
> who delivers a totally fucked-up PDF file but demands that it be used
> anyway shouldn't just be shown the door.
There's nothing wrong with firing a customer. I've done it before.
I had to quote a design/layout job yesterday that I didn't really want.
Quoted high because I don't know whether the client will be a PITA or
not. If we get it, fine. If the client turns out to be a good one we
can drop the price later.
If we don't get the design/layout work, they'll still be inserting the
piece into our newspaper.
> But there are a lot of assumptions being made here, and they may not
> be applicable to the person who started this thread.
>
> All we really know is that he or she prefers to deliver PDF files to
> the printer (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to prefer, under
> at least some circumstances) and the printer prefers to receive
> application files (which is also a reasonable thing to prefer, though
> less and less as time goes by).
Muhammed. meet mountain? As I said before, it sounds like the printer
just can't handle PDFs. I'd rather supply native files then have some
SFUP drop my PDFs into Quark.
> We don't know that the original poster isn't capable of producing
> perfectly good PDF files or that the printer has any good reason for
> preferring application files. But then, we don't know the converse of
> those things, either.
>
> We do know that there are lots of clueless customers, but not that the
> original poster is one of them. We also know that there are lots of
> SFUPs out there, but not whether this printer is one of them. And we
> know that both clueless customers and SFUPs will ask for and expect
> all kinds of crazy things for no good reason.
Ayup.
> > For the most part, the PDF revolution is only a concept so far.
>
> Like so many things, it depends on what part of the big wide world of
> printing you work in. It really is a big wide world, and what makes
> sense for a mom-and-pop shop might not make sense for a $20 million a
> year shop, which might not make sense for a much bigger shop.
PDF is, by and large, the preferred file delivery format. I'm in
western Canada, which is a different (smaller) market than New York
Toronto, or Chicago. Here, there are no printers I've dealt with, from
the small quick-print to major multinationals (Quebecor and
Transcontinental, for instance) that not only accept but prefer
receiving well-formed PDFs. Of course, we know how to deliver
trouble-free PDFs to our printers.
>
> What makes sense in newspaper printing might not make sense in
> packaging; what makes sense for a magazine with a circulation of
> 20,000 might not make sense for one with a circulation of 2 million;
> and what makes sense in the wild and crazy world of commercial
> printing... well, that's hard to say, a lot of the time. :-)
>
> But all that said, the "PDF revolution" in my part of the printing biz
> is a lot more than a concept: by now, it is a done deal.
Amen. Anyone who is resisting PDF is making a serious business planning
error.
> > I believe in my heart of hearts that communication with your
> > printer/customer is the most vital, yet neglected need in the
> > graphic arts industry.
>
> Well, again, it depends on what part of the printing biz you're in. I
> almost never need to communicate with printers, because we produce
> the exact same thing no matter who the printer is. Sometimes we don't
> know who the printer will be when we make our final PDF, and even
> when we do, we almost never care. It doesn't make any difference.
Communication with the printer is important. The nature and volume of
that communication will vary depending on the relationship. There are
printers we deal with where we can call them and say "The file's on
your FTP server." and that's all the communication that's required. In
fact, that's most of them...
Our primary printer, we don't even have to ask them to quote on most
jobs because we have a pricing agreement. We issue a P.O. at the same
time we schedule the press time.
But we still have to communicate. Just not about our files. <g>
> > Butting of heads does absolutely nothing to better any situation.
>
> I definitely agree with that. Six, eight, ten years ago, I spent a lot
> more time on the phone with printers than I do now, and enjoyed being
> able to solve problems with them without butting heads.
My "Vendor Attitude Adjusment Wrenches" rarely come out of their
toolbox these days...
> That hardly ever happens any more, though, because there are so many
> fewer problems to solve. And the fact that there are so many fewer
> problems is a direct result of not giving them application files,
> with which so many things can go wrong. :-)
Ayup.
Tim Monk
> Since PDF is almost impossible to
> usefully edit (by design), it forces a printer to accept a job without
> modification. The customer has full control, and full responsibility.
You don't know much about PDFs do you? Silly boy.
Tim
Dave Balderstone
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Since PDF is almost impossible to
> usefully edit (by design), it forces a printer to accept a job without
> modification.
That's a false assertion. We edit PDFs easily.
Move out of the 90's and into the 21st century.
Mxsmanic
> Huh? I'll have a couple of hits of whatever it is that you've been smoking!
How much do printers know about design?
> I must disagree. Printers know design and the printed results.
Leave design to the printer and the world becomes a very dull place.
> It's an
> occupational responsibility. You'd probably be surprised as to how many
> traditional artists, photographers, graphic artists, typographers, and so
> on, are employed in the printing industry.
They hide well.
> The term "designer" is very loose these days.
Whereas the term "printer" is surgically precise?
> This makes no sense. A good print job should always match exactly what the
> customer expects, and any necessary changes should be discussed in advance.
Then there's no reason not to accept PDF, which is designed precisely
for that.
> That's what proofs are for. But the result is not always the responsibility
> of the print shop. Garbage In = Garbage Out. Does that make sense?
It sounds one-sided.
> I suspect you haven't even noticed the contradiction you just made.
Point it out to me.
Mxsmanic
> That's a false assertion. We edit PDFs easily.
What kind of editing?
Tim Monk
> Your philosophy assumes that printers know more than designers. The
> assumption is incorrect.
Huh? I'll have a couple of hits of whatever it is that you've been smoking!
;)
> Printers know printing, designers know design.
I must disagree. Printers know design and the printed results. It's an
occupational responsibility. You'd probably be surprised as to how many
traditional artists, photographers, graphic artists, typographers, and so
on, are employed in the printing industry.
The term "designer" is very loose these days. Call yourself what you like,
but the proof is in your pudding. ;)
> A good printing job that does not match what the designer wanted is no
> better than a bad printing job of exactly what the designer specified. Just
> because something is beautifully printed doesn't make it acceptable, if the
> printer deviated from the designer's intentions in order to get it printed.
This makes no sense. A good print job should always match exactly what the
customer expects, and any necessary changes should be discussed in advance.
That's what proofs are for. But the result is not always the responsibility
of the print shop. Garbage In = Garbage Out. Does that make sense?
> Just as a good designer should know the limitations of printing, a good
> printer should know how to put just about anything on paper, no matter
> how bizarre. Neither side should have to compromise excessively for the
> other, or there's something wrong.
I suspect you haven't even noticed the contradiction you just made. But yes,
you're right: "Neither side should have to compromise excessively for the
other, or there's something wrong."
Cooperation and teamwork is all that's asked. Is that too much?
I hope not.
Tim
John Doherty
> Since PDF is almost impossible to usefully edit
I (or more specifically, systems that we have) edit PDF files usefully
and routinely every single day. So it seems to me that (1) PDF files
are not "almost impossible to usefully edit," and (2) it's a darn
good thing they're not.
> The customer has full control, and full responsibility.
In some fantasy world of yours, I guess that might be true. But for
the most part, in the real world, customers almost never have either
full control or full responsibility, and neither does the printer.
Both printers and their customers are perfectly capable of making
mistakes of their own, and that isn't ever going to change.
--
John Doherty
>> For me, let's see: let's say (conservatively) 200,000 or so pages a
>> year for six or seven years now -- that's well over a million
>> pages.
>> So yeah, I'm pretty sure PDF files can be trusted, at least under
>> some circumstances. :-)
> Yeah, for someone like yourself, and many of the other cpp regulars,
> like myself. The file format isn't really the problem that's being
> discussed here, IMO. It's likely that the OP's printer has seen the
> same trend I'm seeing lately:
> Customer demands that we accept their file as PDF. Fine. Great! The
> concept of receiving PDFs from customers is a wonderful thing.
> Unfortunately, after opening their PDFs we happen to notice that the
> images are low-rez and RGB, there is no bleed, folds won't work
> because all the panels are created equal, the fonts aren't embedded,
> there are 437 spot colors in use, etc, ect, ect. I could go on for
> paragraphs, trust me, I've seen a lot of crappy PDFs. :)
I don't doubt that for a minute, and I am not suggesting that someone
who delivers a totally fucked-up PDF file but demands that it be used
anyway shouldn't just be shown the door.
But there are a lot of assumptions being made here, and they may not
be applicable to the person who started this thread.
All we really know is that he or she prefers to deliver PDF files to
the printer (which is a perfectly reasonable thing to prefer, under
at least some circumstances) and the printer prefers to receive
application files (which is also a reasonable thing to prefer, though
less and less as time goes by).
We don't know that the original poster isn't capable of producing
perfectly good PDF files or that the printer has any good reason for
preferring application files. But then, we don't know the converse of
those things, either.
We do know that there are lots of clueless customers, but not that the
original poster is one of them. We also know that there are lots of
SFUPs out there, but not whether this printer is one of them. And we
know that both clueless customers and SFUPs will ask for and expect
all kinds of crazy things for no good reason.
> For the most part, the PDF revolution is only a concept so far.
Like so many things, it depends on what part of the big wide world of
printing you work in. It really is a big wide world, and what makes
sense for a mom-and-pop shop might not make sense for a $20 million a
year shop, which might not make sense for a much bigger shop.
What makes sense in newspaper printing might not make sense in
packaging; what makes sense for a magazine with a circulation of
20,000 might not make sense for one with a circulation of 2 million;
and what makes sense in the wild and crazy world of commercial
printing... well, that's hard to say, a lot of the time. :-)
But all that said, the "PDF revolution" in my part of the printing biz
is a lot more than a concept: by now, it is a done deal.
> I believe in my heart of hearts that communication with your
> printer/customer is the most vital, yet neglected need in the
> graphic arts industry.
Well, again, it depends on what part of the printing biz you're in. I
almost never need to communicate with printers, because we produce
the exact same thing no matter who the printer is. Sometimes we don't
know who the printer will be when we make our final PDF, and even
when we do, we almost never care. It doesn't make any difference.
> Butting of heads does absolutely nothing to better any situation.
I definitely agree with that. Six, eight, ten years ago, I spent a lot
more time on the phone with printers than I do now, and enjoyed being
able to solve problems with them without butting heads.
That hardly ever happens any more, though, because there are so many
fewer problems to solve. And the fact that there are so many fewer
problems is a direct result of not giving them application files,
with which so many things can go wrong. :-)
--
John Doherty
wrote:
>> Does it? Or has it merely passed a proof test that doesn't take
>> important issues into consideration, such as bleeds, proper sizing,
>> proper folding max ink generation, press-ink-paper profiles, etc.
> The printer can put this into its specifications book. Customers
> can then generate PDFs to these specs. If a PDF is unacceptable,
> send it back for the customer to correct. If it looks like it won't
> print correctly, send it back for the customer to correct. If the
> customer insists on printing a bad PDF as-is, have him sign off on
> it, and print whatever can be printed.
It doesn't sound very much as if you've ever worked in printing.
> If an end user is too incompetent to generate a proper PDF without a
> tremendous amount of effort, then he can use a prepress service to
> generate the PDF.
A lot of the time, the "printer" and "prepress service" are one and
the same -- the trend has been all in that direction for quite a
while now -- and charges the same flat per-page "prepress fee" for
pretty much all jobs, or at least tries to.
Independent prepress service bureaus are fewer and farther between all
the time, because it's a business that has had most of the profit
squeezed out of it, and that is not a trend that's going to reverse
itself.
--
Mxsmanic
> It doesn't sound very much as if you've ever worked in printing.
I'm not a printer.
> A lot of the time, the "printer" and "prepress service" are one and
> the same -- the trend has been all in that direction for quite a
> while now -- and charges the same flat per-page "prepress fee" for
> pretty much all jobs, or at least tries to.
The principles still remain the same.
Dave Balderstone
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You can either refuse the PDFs until the customer corrects them, or have
> him sign off on your statement of how the existing PDFs will print and
> print them as-is.
Or you can work with the customer, build a relationship and become a
valuable resource for him so that he keeps supplying work to you that
gets easier and easier for both of you...
The inability to do that pretty much defines the SFUP.
Mxsmanic
> You don't know much about PDFs do you?
I know a lot about them. Unfortunately, each generation is worse than
its predecessor.
Aandi Inston
>Aandi Inston writes:
>
>> What on earth can be your objection to working with your print shop
>> rather than fighting them?
>
>Why on earth would the print shop need the original file to print what
>the client wants, if the PDF already embodies what the client wants.
>
>Answer: the print shop intends to make its own changes, no matter what
>the client wants.
Yes, this is a serious problem. Every day, printers are introducing
gratuitous changes to documents to mess up their clients. The only
solution is to send an uneditable format like PDF. Oh wait, what
about PDF editors? Perhaps we'd better send film, and a security
guard to make sure nobody goes near it with a scalpel.
----------------------------------------
Aandi Inston qu...@dial.pipex.com http://www.quite.com
Please support usenet! Post replies and follow-ups, don't e-mail them.
Peggy
news:a4n2r0hksj514f0gv...@4ax.com...
Good Lord! This little one-woman low-budget shop routinely:
Changes text to correct errors
Edits photos to correct color space
Changes colorspace in any area of the PDF (RGB -> CMYK, RGB -> Greyscale)
Crops
Moves elements (photos, art, text blocks)
Removes elements (old phone numbers, defunct email addresses, expiration
dates)
Etc.
Eric
> Print shop asks for the original Quark file but I intend to
> give the pdf file. I'm afraid that the shop will go to my
> client directly, if not this time, next time they might
> will. They say the Quark file would allow them more freedom
> to maneuver to produce what I want. The PDF doesn't allow
> them that. What to do now?
Tell them to fuck off. How you make the PDF is none of their business. If
you are competent to make PDF then they don't need any originating software.
They should give you a spec for what should be in the PDF. If they can be
bothered to stay in business, then they can handle composite PDF.
Composite PDF is the way forward. Separation is a production detail, of no
interest to the originators. The old fasioned way is to create separated
pages: one original page is output as four or more separated pages
(C,M,Y,K,specials...). This is the ancient way of doing it. The current
best practice is to keep the PDF composite.
You should consider things like color model of all colored elements. So
colors should be probably CMYK and specials. Don't let RGB color through
because most software can't convert to CMYK accuratly; why they can't/won't
is another long story.
Also embed the fonts. Use Type1 fonts. Truely Terrible fonts are about OK
for low-end work, but can render badly. Same applys to el-cheapo T1 fonts.
Type3 fonts are no good, because they can come out steppy.
This is how our printing company works: the origniation departments fiddle
about and eventually finish their documents and create composite PDFs.
These go across the factory to the Repro depatment (which likes to call
themselves "Digital Prepress"), who convert the PDFs to plates, which go
onto press in the conventional way. It has worked this way for several
years with no problems.
If you can't make PDFs safely, get a responsible adult to do it for you.
Eric
Eric
> <What to do now?
>
> Give your print shop what they want. If they ask for a Quark file and
> support files, give them the Quark file and support files.
No. They are printers. If they can't handle composite PDF by now, then they
shouldn't be in business.
Eric
Eric
> Give them the native file. PDF's are not fool-proof, by any means.
> Oftentimes we're able to work from pdf files, but just as often, the pdf
> file doesn't work. In that case, if we both have the same program and it
> insures quick turnaround for you and customer, then why wouldn't you?
>
> Even with a pdf file, couldn't they still go directly to your customer?
> Do
> you really distrust your vendor that much??? If you do, then you might
> want to look for another vendor...
If the originators aren't competent to create clean PDF, then that's their
problem. It will be on their clock too.
Eric
Unknown
news:sle2r09fs6j7lmqdm...@4ax.com:
> I prefer this model. If my PDF is wrong, my printer can tell me why,
> and I'll fix it. Once it's fixed, he'll print the PDF as-is. After a
> few jobs, I'll know exactly what he expects on the first pass, and
> he'll be able to print PDF practically sight unseen. In exchange for
> his commitment to print PDFs as-is, I won't hold him responsible for
> printing errors that result from an incorrect PDF (as long as he tells
> me in advance of any errors that he sees and gives me an opportunity
> to regenerate the PDF).
Unless you create every job with exactly the same specs, no printer will
ever be able to print your PDF practically sight unseen. Regardless of the
format of the files you provide, there is still going to be a certain
amount of detective work (pre-flighting) of any job.
I think that you're on the right track though. I doubt there will ever be a
day when prepress will be obsolete and files zip right through, because
there simply aren't enough people creating content who know how to prepare
files properly on their own. (Unless you've worked in prepress, you will
not know what I mean). Nevertheless, you are taking a proactive approach to
making your files work, and customers like that are as rare as gold, and
just as valuable.
Unknown
news:a9f2r0ta1fvsoqtk8...@4ax.com:
> You can either refuse the PDFs until the customer corrects them, or
> have him sign off on your statement of how the existing PDFs will
> print and print them as-is. You don't need application files, any
> more than the designer needs your press in his office.
Most printing company executives would choke down raw liver before refusing
*any* file. Before they send it back, they want prepress to examine it and
determine if there's anything that can be done in-house to make it work.
Now, if you're a client that's made it clear that you want him to pre-
flight your work and explain why it doesn't work, then okay. I would
certainly respect that and work any way you preferred. But quite a few
content providers send in files that will simply not work without a few
adjustments, and are usually very relieved that they can be fixed without
being sent back. So maybe what we're talking about here should be
individual clients and how they like to do things, instead of a generic,
across the board approach.
Dave Balderstone
<mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Dave Balderstone writes:
>
> > That's a false assertion. We edit PDFs easily.
>
> What kind of editing?
Text, color, reseparate photos to meet our ink limits, remove
elements... All the things our advertising customers do wrong. Nothing
to do with PDF as a format. Everything to do with clueless designers.
Tim Monk
> Tim Monk writes:
>
>> Huh? I'll have a couple of hits of whatever it is that you've been smoking!
>
> How much do printers know about design?
A lot more than designers know about printing. ;)
>> I must disagree. Printers know design and the printed results.
>
> Leave design to the printer and the world becomes a very dull place.
Why do you think that? You've been dealing with far too many SFUPS!
It's important that printers understand design. It's important that printers
consult with customers/designers (lots of customers are print buyers rather
than designers), so that their printed piece will be what they expect it to
be. Since, as I mentioned earlier, printers know more about design than
designers (typically) know about printing, a good relationship between
designer and printer is important. I'd be surprised if anyone disagrees.
>> It's an
>> occupational responsibility. You'd probably be surprised as to how many
>> traditional artists, photographers, graphic artists, typographers, and so
>> on, are employed in the printing industry.
>
> They hide well.
Or you're wearing blinders. Do you think people end up in the printing
industry by mistake? An accountant is somehow processing your PDFs? Come on.
The printing industry is saturated with folks who started in the design
world. They've since upgraded their experience and taken the pay raise to
enter printing.
>> The term "designer" is very loose these days.
>
> Whereas the term "printer" is surgically precise?
Of course not. You're still wearing those blinders, huh? The fact remains
that a printer must know how to get ink on paper, and do it well. Whereas
anyone with a computer and a program can call themselves a designer, and
demand that we accept their PDF, regardless of how fucked up it is. Now do
you see where I'm coming from?
>> This makes no sense. A good print job should always match exactly what the
>> customer expects, and any necessary changes should be discussed in advance.
>
> Then there's no reason not to accept PDF, which is designed precisely
> for that.
I'll happily accept PDF. I don't understand what you don't understand about
what I've posted.
I'll type slowly for you : I love PDF! PDF has made my job much easier, for
the most part. My part in this discussion isn't about file formats.
>> That's what proofs are for. But the result is not always the responsibility
>> of the print shop. Garbage In = Garbage Out. Does that make sense?
>
> It sounds one-sided.
It is one-sided: Garbage In = Garbage Out. If the customer/designer is not
happy with what they've done, they should see it on their proof. At that
point, changes can be made to give the customer what they want. Either they
can make those changes and submit new files, or I can make their changes for
a fee. If I'm expected to make the changes, I'd prefer native files because
editing PDF is just a bad idea--though it can be done quite easily for most
changes. A new proof will reflect the changes, and if everything is good we
go to press.
>> I suspect you haven't even noticed the contradiction you just made.
>
> Point it out to me.
You snipped it. Do you need to be hand fed, too?
Tim
Tim Monk
> Tim Monk writes:
>
>> You don't know much about PDFs do you?
>
> I know a lot about them. Unfortunately, each generation is worse than
> its predecessor.
Huh?
Tim Monk
> Yes, this is a serious problem. Every day, printers are introducing
> gratuitous changes to documents to mess up their clients. The only
> solution is to send an uneditable format like PDF. Oh wait, what
> about PDF editors? Perhaps we'd better send film, and a security
> guard to make sure nobody goes near it with a scalpel.
Thanks Aandi! I needed a laugh! :)
Tim
Jono Moore
> Also embed the fonts. Use Type1 fonts. Truely Terrible fonts are
> about OK for low-end work, but can render badly.
Please don't spread font FUD.
There is nothing wrong with True Type fonts.
...Jono Moore
John Doherty
It's one of those old-wives tales that just won't go away.
--
Michael Sullivan
> Independent prepress service bureaus are fewer and farther between all
> the time, because it's a business that has had most of the profit
> squeezed out of it, and that is not a trend that's going to reverse
> itself.
I'm not aware of *any* independent prepress service bureaus in my market
that still have prepress output as their primary business. Every one
that used to do this is either designing, printing or both, or out of
business.
You can still get the service, though, at a few places.
Michael
Michael Sullivan
> In article <64f2r0tscs4geutqh...@4ax.com>, Mxsmanic
> <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Since PDF is almost impossible to
> > usefully edit (by design), it forces a printer to accept a job without
> > modification.
> That's a false assertion. We edit PDFs easily.
I would not say "easily". Pitstop and Acrobat are slow as molasses and
incredibly painful to use for extensive editing, compared to being able
to edit the native file.
For some things, it's not that bad, for a very few, it's easier. For
some things, it's darn near impossible (changing the colors in a blend.)
Michael
Mxsmanic
> A lot more than designers know about printing.
At least that's what printers say.
> Why do you think that?
Because printers are technicians first.
> It's important that printers understand design.
Understanding it and creating it are two different things.
> Do you think people end up in the printing industry
> by mistake?
No, but I don't think that they start out as designers, anymore than
engineers begin as architects.
Mxsmanic
> Unless you create every job with exactly the same specs, no printer will
> ever be able to print your PDF practically sight unseen.
Perhaps. In that case he can tell me what is wrong, if anything, and
I'll regenerate the PDF.
> Regardless of the
> format of the files you provide, there is still going to be a certain
> amount of detective work (pre-flighting) of any job.
No doubt.
Mxsmanic
> Huh?
Adobe is bloating and endangering PDF by trying to turn it into a
replacement for HTML or Flash. With that comes bugs, bloating, and
viruses.
Mac Townsend
It was a real small blend.
otherwise, a kludge might be to open a copy in Pshop, crop away the
other junk, and try to fix/recreate the blend there and import into the
pdf.
In <BDD67A36.17436%tm...@austin.rr.com> Tim Monk wrote:
> On 12/3/04 6:35 PM, "John Doherty" wrote:
>
>> In article, "Mac Townsend" wrote:
>>
>>> fixing blends/graduated colors in PitStop is not easy
>>
>> It sure isn't.
>>
>>> and sometimes not possible
>>
>> I'd be interested to hear about any method you've found that does
>> work, even if only sometimes.
>
> Yeah, me too!! Please!!
>
> Tim
>
>
Mac Townsend
More often then not the one who made the file is not available to me.
Even the person who dropped the job off at the pritner frequently
doesn't know where the thing came from. They just told me to bring this
over here.
And most often whoever did make it doesn't know a PDF from a Pumpkin
other than there is a "pdf" button on the toolbar. So they use it. A
fractional page 2-c ad in full page RGB PDF...not even proportional! (of
course the native file is probably just as wrong and it is faster to fix
the PDF in this case).
expecting this category of customer to even understand what is wrong (
say the words" copy your fonts ontpo a disc" and watch their eyes glaze
over...1. they don't know how to copy anything, 2. they don't know what
a font is, and 3. they only know how to eamil stuff...not put it on disc.
<G>
meanwhile the press is waiting.
I've about 15 years experience as a sb owner working with virtually
every type of file one could imagine (I think I have a copy of RSG and
PageStream around here somewhere!). ANd when working with unknowns, it's
better to have more ways to approach the job than is is to have onlyh
one.
With the native file, I have a chance to get the job out on time at
minimal cost.
>
> You can either refuse the PDFs until the customer corrects them, or
> have him sign off on your statement of how the existing PDFs will
> print and print them as-is. You don't need application files, any
> more than the designer needs your press in his office.
>
> Remember, if you start doing his job, he may end up doing yours.
>
Wed
"Mac Townsend" <mac...@spamadcomgraphics.com> wrote in message
news:20041204165326443-
> With the native file, I have a chance to get the job out on time at
> minimal cost.
... which in the end generates maximal cost.
You have to purchase every available software one could use to generate
pages. Why not invest that money into PDF workflow?
Also, woldnt it be a bit more appropriate to teach someone to make a proper
PDF file? Usually a small manual explaining how to make proper PDF from
popular applications does the trick.
1. Teach person once how to make valid PDF and you have a customer that
won't generate you any more problems (mostly).
-or-
2. Do not teach him/her and each time you will have to open a file, edit it,
make PS/PDF. All this with a risk that you will reflow text incorrectly,
that something will go wrong. To avoid this you have to use even more money
on generating contract proofs, investing time (time is money) into
additional possible corrections, new proofs, etc etc...
And I will only mention that by sending a font file to someone you are
usually pirating it.
Which of these two methods sounds more reasonable and easier to you? 1. or
2.?
W.
Stan The Man
printers who automatically would replace a blend/gradient/vignette
created in Quark or Illustrator with their own Photoshop TIFF - because
they have suffered too much with designers who don't know how to create
blends which don't band. Does a PDF workflow change anything here? Is a
PDF blend certain to be WYSIWYG? I have in the past taken a job away
from a printer or bureaux who claimed that the blends couldn't be
printed without banding and given it to one of my regular outfits,
using a different RIP, who has printed the same file without any
problem, and without substituting the blends for Photoshop TIFFs.
Not yet having made the leap to PDF workflow, I would be interested to
know if a blend which displays properly in the PDF will always print
properly.
Stan
In article <20041204164...@news.dslextreme.com>, Mac Townsend
Eric
> Mxsmanic <mxsm...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> news:sle2r09fs6j7lmqdm...@4ax.com:
>
> > I prefer this model. If my PDF is wrong, my printer can tell me why,
> > and I'll fix it. Once it's fixed, he'll print the PDF as-is. After a
> > few jobs, I'll know exactly what he expects on the first pass, and
> > he'll be able to print PDF practically sight unseen. In exchange for
> > his commitment to print PDFs as-is, I won't hold him responsible for
> > printing errors that result from an incorrect PDF (as long as he tells
> > me in advance of any errors that he sees and gives me an opportunity
> > to regenerate the PDF).
>
>
> Unless you create every job with exactly the same specs, no printer will
> ever be able to print your PDF practically sight unseen. Regardless of the
> format of the files you provide, there is still going to be a certain
> amount of detective work (pre-flighting) of any job.
That's the very problem. People with pony tails think that because they
went to some, probably dodgy, art school that they are in any way qualified
to do DTP. Even the Quark that they create is flakey, let alone the PDF.
In our environment we force things via the contract. We only start our
repro dept's clock when the originator has provided a correct PDF. If the
originator is in-house then we have control. If the origination is done
externally we keep a good grip of the client.
> I think that you're on the right track though. I doubt there will ever be
> a day when prepress will be obsolete and files zip right through, because
> there simply aren't enough people creating content who know how to prepare
> files properly on their own. (Unless you've worked in prepress, you will
> not know what I mean). Nevertheless, you are taking a proactive approach
> to making your files work, and customers like that are as rare as gold,
> and just as valuable.
You can, and we do, get competent clients.
Managing clients is a pain. What we do is quote on the job done correctly;
and then put the client "helping" as variantions. If they want to provide
their own PDF, then we charge for every second that we think about it.
Eric
Fixx
John Doherty <jdoh...@nowhere.null.not> wrote:
Because there are more bad cheap truetypes around than bad T1's. It is
annoying to have euro signs replaced with squares in paid adverts.
Big vendor truetypes are probably OK, and problems surface only with
some RIPs.
Truetype does render differently from PS T1 but I dont think would see
the difference even with a loupe. That is, when we talk about hi res
imagesetters or CTP. -F
Denis Fitzgibbon
"Lee Blevins" <le...@digitalgraphics.net> wrote in message
news:1go8eof.b8id9x12del5uN%le...@digitalgraphics.net...
> aha <a...@dream.com> wrote:
>
>> Print shop asks for the original Quark file but I intend to
>> give the pdf file. I'm afraid that the shop will go to my
>> client directly, if not this time, next time they might
>> will. They say the Quark file would allow them more freedom
>> to maneuver to produce what I want. The PDF doesn't allow
>> them that. What to do now?
>
>
> Do you create bleeds in even and consitent measurements?
>
> Are the marks on?
>
> Is it centered on the bounding box?
>
> Did you make sure all the colors were colored correctly?
>
> Did you set all overprints and traps or are you leaving that up to them?
>
> It could be that they've received so many bad pdfs (imagine that) that
> they have a general policy of requesting native documents.
Spot on Lee.
We preflight supplied pdfs and if they are not to spec we inform the
customer
of the problems and supply a copy of the preflight report.
Its not unusual to get the corrected pdf back with some of the problems not
rectified.
The designers have access to all sorts of resources but fail to utilise them
or plain
just dont understand what they mean.
Denis
Dave Balderstone
<mic...@bcect.com> wrote:
> I would not say "easily". Pitstop and Acrobat are slow as molasses and
> incredibly painful to use for extensive editing, compared to being able
> to edit the native file.
I didn't say "extensive editing".
Ass Cop
news:051220041319501688%dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca:
No, but you *did* say they make it easy to make changes. You did not
specify whether those changes were simple or extensive. So take the rebuke
like a man and STFU.
Tacit
>
>The two can't be separated so easily. Better processes tend to produce equal
or
>better results more consistently.
True. But instead of trying to micromanage your vendors and tell them how to do
their job, the better technique is to worry only about the ink on paper. The
end result, not the process, is what matters; find a printer who gives the best
results, and treat hiom like a black box. Don't worry about the process; let
him do that. If better processes produce better results, you'll get the
processes that work the best simply by choosing the vendor who provides the
best results.
Micromanagement is the bane of production. It's the printer's job to worry
about that. If the ink on paper is good, that's all the designer should worry
about.
--
Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
Tacit
>that if the printer receives properly-prepared PDF files, there's a
>bunch of work they just don't have to do.
>[snip]
>So knowing those things, the publisher is just not going to pay the
>same prepress rates they used to.
There's no doubt that a properly-prepared PDF makes life for the prepress
people a whole lot easier. The emphasis is on "properly prepared," however.
The interesting thing about preparing a PDF for print is that it moves the
burden of responsibility from the prepress operator to the designer. It assumes
that the designer knows at least a bit about prepress, and can make intelligent
and informed decisions during the process of PDF production. Sometimes, this is
true; sometimes, it is not.
I believe that knowing prepress can unquestionably be a huge asset to a
designer. I also believe that it should not be NECESSARY for designers to know
prepress; while that knowledge makes everyone's life easier, in the final
analysis, things go most smoothly when each part of a job is done by the person
with the greatest skill in doing that particular task. A designer shouldn't
have to take on the responsibilities of prepress as well; it's not his job.
Relatively few designers can tell you what all the options in Acrobat
Distiller's job options dialog mean, or what they do. Fewer still understand
prepress well enough to be able to take on all the prepress responsibilities
themselves.
An all-PDF workflow works best in situations where designing, production,
prepress, and printing take place under one roof--some magazines, for instance.
It works less well when the prepress or print house cannot necessarily make
assumptions about the level of prepress knowledge the designer has.
Many of the design shops I've worked with can not be trusted to produce a
print-ready PDF without a lot of hand-holding...hand-holding that it can be
difficult to charge for. Explaining that the client knows a lot less about
prepress than he thinks he does is also politically problematic. If I don't
know a client's level of prepress knowledge, I ask for source files, because I
don't want to have to explain for the seventeen-thousandth time why some
particular PDF that looks just spiffy on screen isn't going to print the way
the client expects.
Now, if the client gives me source files and what he gets isn't what he asked
for, then it's my fault; that's why I make sure I know how to make those source
files work. But if a client gives me a crap PDF and refuses to provide source
files, it's his fault, not mine--but I'm still the one who ends up looking like
an asshole. I'd rather just skip the political rubbish and make sure I have
what I need to do my job, until and unless the client shows that he can
generate useable PDFs. I don't thinkt hat's unreasonable.
I also think that regardless of one's prepress skills, micromanaging one's
vendors--regardless of the industry or the nature of the service being
provided--is just plain bad process. If the end result is good, what does it
matter? If my process produces good end results, then that process works, BY
DEFINITION.