 | | From: | Unknown | | Subject: | If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:38:44 -0600 |
|
|
 | Before my employer went with RamPage, we did all corrections and trapping
manually. At least 90% of the files we received were created in Xpress,
with the remainder generated in InDesign or Pagemaker. (We had no workable
Acrobat workflow at the time, and turned down Publisher files.)
Since adopting RamPage, we open client files using the originating programs
only to produce EPS files, and use them to make changes only when
specifically requested to do so by customers. Today, the percentage of
InDesign files received is increasing, but my experience with Xpress
remains much greater than my experience with InDesign because we do so
little work within the original apps.
This question is for those of you who have significant experience using
both programs. Do you have a preference between InDesign and Xpress, and if
your preference is InDesign, what do you view as its primary advantages?
|
|
| | From: | Gene Palmiter | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Tue, 04 Jan 2005 02:57:07 GMT |
|
|
| I much prefer InDesign. I have both but use Quark only when the native files
are all I have to work with. If starting from scratch I start with ID. When
first learning InDesign there were lots of little things I liked...don't
recall them all...one is that it rarely crashes. I suppose the first benefit
that comes to mind is that it uses native Adobe file formats. I can edit a
photo in Photoshop and bring the PSD file straight into ID...then if I want
to change it I right click on the image and PS pops up and the image is
ready for editing. I close the image in PS and there it is in ID all fixed
up. Works for Illustrator too.
"Unknown" wrote in message
news:Xns95D3C7D57A3BDchunk@216.196.97.131...
> Before my employer went with RamPage, we did all corrections and trapping
> manually. At least 90% of the files we received were created in Xpress,
> with the remainder generated in InDesign or Pagemaker. (We had no workable
> Acrobat workflow at the time, and turned down Publisher files.)
>
> Since adopting RamPage, we open client files using the originating
programs
> only to produce EPS files, and use them to make changes only when
> specifically requested to do so by customers. Today, the percentage of
> InDesign files received is increasing, but my experience with Xpress
> remains much greater than my experience with InDesign because we do so
> little work within the original apps.
>
> This question is for those of you who have significant experience using
> both programs. Do you have a preference between InDesign and Xpress, and
if
> your preference is InDesign, what do you view as its primary advantages?
|
|
| | From: | Ted | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | 5 Jan 2005 05:29:32 -0800 |
|
|
| Lee, for eps output just use fontwizard xt which embeds all your fonts
within the eps. Can you post the specific blend you were having trouble
with. I like to test it.
Ted
|
|
| | From: | Ted | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | 4 Jan 2005 06:09:15 -0800 |
|
|
| Well, my Illustrator CS can save eps without images included. OPI works
fine with Rampage with them
Ted
|
|
| | From: | Lee Blevins | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:34:05 -0500 |
|
|
| Ted wrote:
> Well, my Illustrator CS can save eps without images included. OPI works
> fine with Rampage with them
>
> Ted
Are you saying the fixed this in CS?
It certainly doesn't work in 10. I don't have CS on this laptop to check
it but clearly in 10 when you place an EPS you get a warning that
linked eps files may not print correctly. I can tell you they don't from
experience. The warning says to embed the graphic.
When saving as eps you get a warning that says linked files will not be
saved (with include linked documents unchecked) and that if you intend
to print from other applications you should embed the files.
The program then proceeds to save but if you check the size of the eps
you'll see it includes the images. You'd also notice this on the amount
of time you spend saving.
This has been this way for awhile.
I'd love to believe it's fixed in CS and I'll check it tomorrow but
somehow I don't think it is and you might be mistaken.
|
|
| | From: | John Doherty | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Tue, 04 Jan 2005 19:41:36 -0600 |
|
|
| In article <1gpvrb0.huq5fa1ilu2h4N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>, Lee
Blevins wrote:
> Ted wrote:
>
>> Well, my Illustrator CS can save eps without images included. OPI
>> works fine with Rampage with them
>>
>> Ted
>
> Are you saying the fixed this in CS?
>
> It certainly doesn't work in 10. I don't have CS on this laptop to
> check it but clearly in 10 when you place an EPS you get a warning
> that linked eps files may not print correctly. I can tell you they
> don't from experience. The warning says to embed the graphic.
> When saving as eps you get a warning that says linked files will not
> be saved (with include linked documents unchecked) and that if you
> intend to print from other applications you should embed the files.
> The program then proceeds to save but if you check the size of the
> eps you'll see it includes the images. You'd also notice this on the
> amount of time you spend saving.
> This has been this way for awhile.
> I'd love to believe it's fixed in CS and I'll check it tomorrow but
> somehow I don't think it is and you might be mistaken.
I don't think it is, but I don't have it handy to check right now,
either. But I can't figure out what goes on with the Illustrator
development team. They have been screwing that program up for years
now.
--
|
|
| | From: | Ted | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | 5 Jan 2005 05:27:19 -0800 |
|
|
| Sorry, must have had a brain fart, they didn't fix it. I just checked
in Freehand MX and it is the same way. I never remember even thinking,
damn I wish it didn't do that though. So it doesn't hurt my workflow
none.
Ted
|
|
| | From: | Lee Blevins | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Tue, 4 Jan 2005 06:19:57 -0500 |
|
|
| Unknown wrote:
> Before my employer went with RamPage, we did all corrections and trapping
> manually. At least 90% of the files we received were created in Xpress,
> with the remainder generated in InDesign or Pagemaker. (We had no workable
> Acrobat workflow at the time, and turned down Publisher files.)
>
> Since adopting RamPage, we open client files using the originating programs
> only to produce EPS files, and use them to make changes only when
> specifically requested to do so by customers. Today, the percentage of
> InDesign files received is increasing, but my experience with Xpress
> remains much greater than my experience with InDesign because we do so
> little work within the original apps.
>
> This question is for those of you who have significant experience using
> both programs. Do you have a preference between InDesign and Xpress, and if
> your preference is InDesign, what do you view as its primary advantages?
Adobe has stacked the deck against Quark with having Indesign support
native .ai and .psd formats.
For that reason alone I prefer Indesign.
They made life difficult for Quark when they stopped letting Illustrator
save .eps without images included. It was once possible to use Quark
with an OPI server and .eps with images omitted but no longer.
Add to that Quark's failure to support transparency. A totoal loser idea
that Quark did to itself.
Then there comes the issue of Quark's limited file size. I'm in the
large format printing business and it's just intorlerable. And Quark's
inability to set page enlargment to over 400% causes us to convert Quark
documents to ID when we receive them for output.
Another Quark quirk that loses me is the inability to convert a facing
page document after it's made. Adobe fixed that.
I used to prefer Quark for simple typesetting because I was more
familiar with it but no longer.
Recently I had an employee steal a copy of Quark 6 from me. I still have
the s/w installed and running on a Mac but I'm concerned about if I have
a hard disk failure or buy a new computer. I called Quark and they were
their usuall worthless customer support. I asked them if they can block
the serial from being registered and send me a new copy. Nothing.
I'll return the consideration by making it my shop policy to NOT USE
Quark for anything we do.
Quark deserves to die as punishment for years of punishing customers
with their arrogant attitude.
Quark should drop their price to less than two hundred dollars. It's not
worth that but it might help them compete.
|
|
| | From: | John Doherty | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:25:04 -0600 |
|
|
| In article <1gpup23.1ku4vtp1klobdeN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net>,
leeb@digitalgraphics.net (Lee Blevins) wrote:
> Quark should drop their price to less than two hundred dollars. It's
> not worth that but it might help them compete.
How long do you figure before QuarkXPress ends up being acquired
by Corel? That's where a lot of old software goes to die.
--
|
|
| | From: | Marek Williams | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Sat, 08 Jan 2005 19:21:08 -0800 |
|
|
| On Tue, 04 Jan 2005 12:25:04 -0600, John Doherty
dijo:
>How long do you figure before QuarkXPress ends up being acquired
>by Corel? That's where a lot of old software goes to die.
They certainly deserve each other.
--
Bogus e-mail address, but I read this newsgroup regularly, so reply here.
|
|
| | From: | Tim Monk | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its | | Date: | Tue, 04 Jan 2005 05:29:18 -0600 |
|
|
| On 1/4/05 5:19 AM, "Lee Blevins" wrote:
> Adobe has stacked the deck against Quark with having Indesign support
> native .ai and .psd formats.
>
> For that reason alone I prefer Indesign.
>
> They made life difficult for Quark when they stopped letting Illustrator
> save .eps without images included. It was once possible to use Quark
> with an OPI server and .eps with images omitted but no longer.
>
> Add to that Quark's failure to support transparency. A totoal loser idea
> that Quark did to itself.
>
> Then there comes the issue of Quark's limited file size. I'm in the
> large format printing business and it's just intorlerable. And Quark's
> inability to set page enlargment to over 400% causes us to convert Quark
> documents to ID when we receive them for output.
>
> Another Quark quirk that loses me is the inability to convert a facing
> page document after it's made. Adobe fixed that.
>
> I used to prefer Quark for simple typesetting because I was more
> familiar with it but no longer.
>
> Recently I had an employee steal a copy of Quark 6 from me. I still have
> the s/w installed and running on a Mac but I'm concerned about if I have
> a hard disk failure or buy a new computer. I called Quark and they were
> their usuall worthless customer support. I asked them if they can block
> the serial from being registered and send me a new copy. Nothing.
>
> I'll return the consideration by making it my shop policy to NOT USE
> Quark for anything we do.
>
> Quark deserves to die as punishment for years of punishing customers
> with their arrogant attitude.
>
> Quark should drop their price to less than two hundred dollars. It's not
> worth that but it might help them compete.
Amen and Amen!!
Tim
|
|
| | From: | Joe | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Tue, 4 Jan 2005 18:22:21 -0600 |
|
|
|
"Lee Blevins" wrote
> Adobe has stacked the deck against Quark with having Indesign support
> native .ai and .psd formats.
> For that reason alone I prefer Indesign.
Lee I know you are knowledgeable and think you are using Rampage so I have
to ask if I am missing something here, but what is the upside to this
"feature"?
I had an Indesign job a few months back that was about 125 pages with
thousands of images ( over 20 gigs worth ). All the images were placed as
raw .ia or .psd files. Rampage would not rip them images omitted as I kept
getting errors something to the effect of no supported OPI information save
file as a different format. I was able to get most of the pages to rip by
saving them images included but it took the better portion of two days to do
this and there was still 10-20 pages where I had to go back and save the
images as tiffs or eps's to get them to rip. If the images in this job had
been saved as eps or tiff to begin with I could have made eps's on the
entire job in under 15 minutes omitting images and let OPI in rampage handle
it then just dumped the entire job in the rip as I was leaving on day and
could have come in the next morning to 125 ripped pages.
Joe
|
|
| | From: | Ted | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Tue, 4 Jan 2005 19:33:06 -0500 |
|
|
|
>
> "Lee Blevins" wrote
>
> > Adobe has stacked the deck against Quark with having Indesign support
> > native .ai and .psd formats.
>
> > For that reason alone I prefer Indesign.
>
> Lee I know you are knowledgeable and think you are using Rampage so I have
> to ask if I am missing something here, but what is the upside to this
> "feature"?
> I had an Indesign job a few months back that was about 125 pages with
> thousands of images ( over 20 gigs worth ). All the images were placed as
> raw .ia or .psd files. Rampage would not rip them images omitted as I kept
> getting errors something to the effect of no supported OPI information
save
> file as a different format. I was able to get most of the pages to rip by
> saving them images included but it took the better portion of two days to
do
> this and there was still 10-20 pages where I had to go back and save the
> images as tiffs or eps's to get them to rip. If the images in this job had
> been saved as eps or tiff to begin with I could have made eps's on the
> entire job in under 15 minutes omitting images and let OPI in rampage
handle
> it then just dumped the entire job in the rip as I was leaving on day and
> could have come in the next morning to 125 ripped pages.
>
> Joe
I agree, I am on Rampage also. It is easier for designers to do it this way
but it can be troublesome for prepress. I can see why sometimes you have to
save to eps or tiffs to get them to rip but 2 days saving with include
images seem kind of long but I guess 20 gigs is a lot.
Ted
|
|
| | From: | Lee Blevins | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Tue, 4 Jan 2005 20:34:11 -0500 |
|
|
| Joe wrote:
> "Lee Blevins" wrote
>
> > Adobe has stacked the deck against Quark with having Indesign support
> > native .ai and .psd formats.
>
> > For that reason alone I prefer Indesign.
>
> Lee I know you are knowledgeable and think you are using Rampage so I have
> to ask if I am missing something here, but what is the upside to this
> "feature"?
> I had an Indesign job a few months back that was about 125 pages with
> thousands of images ( over 20 gigs worth ). All the images were placed as
> raw .ia or .psd files. Rampage would not rip them images omitted as I kept
> getting errors something to the effect of no supported OPI information save
> file as a different format. I was able to get most of the pages to rip by
> saving them images included but it took the better portion of two days to do
> this and there was still 10-20 pages where I had to go back and save the
> images as tiffs or eps's to get them to rip. If the images in this job had
> been saved as eps or tiff to begin with I could have made eps's on the
> entire job in under 15 minutes omitting images and let OPI in rampage handle
> it then just dumped the entire job in the rip as I was leaving on day and
> could have come in the next morning to 125 ripped pages.
>
> Joe
Of course you can't use OPI with native files. I'm not aware of any OPI
spec for native PSD and AI files.
Rampage certainly doesn't (and no OPI server I'm aware of does) have the
necessary code to read a native Adobe file and stream it into the
postscript.
The problem here is that you're the one who is being sent native
documents and have the responsibility of converting them to Postscript.
A sad state of affairs.
Why the designer didn't send you a pdf is the problem with the
lithographic printing industry that has caused me to make the descision
that I no longer want to be associated with it.
Rampage needs to fix their OPI code. It's pathetic. If an OPI comment
exists AND the image is embedded, they still error out if they can't
fine the image. Even though THEY DON'T NEED TO FIND IT - IT'S IN THE
GODDAMN FILE. HELLOOOOOOOOO.
I am not happy with Rampage as of late.
I don't like having PDF as a wrapper. It doesn't really take PDF native,
it has Acrobat runnining on the rip and opens the PDF and saves it as
Postscript. I have two rips and they only gave me one Acrobat in the
upgrade. It's got a lot of problems hanging up on dealing with PDFs.
I've had them on the phone and never got a resolution. I canceled the
service contract because I started to realize they never really had an
answer to any of the problems we experience.
I'm tired of EPS only input. I want Postscript so I don't have to point
the rip to a font directory. It tells us fonts are missing that are
clearly there.
Somewhere along the line they broke ripping eps files with blends. They
rip but they take forever. If you distill the same file and save it as
eps it rips much faster. I don't have time to deal with that. You may
say this doesn't happen in your shop but they were IN MY SHOP and
witnessed it and couldn't solve it. Their suggestion was distill
everything.
Our PS/M on a mac runs so much faster at everything than Rampage it
should be embarrassing to Rampage but apparently not. I'm talking about
10X faster. NO EXAGERATION.
Rampage called the other day and asked if was interested in upgrading.
I asked the two questions -
1) Are you PDF native now?
2) Do you take Postscript now?
They said they do take PDF native in the latest (vs. 10 I believe) but
they still don't take Postscript. I'd be real interested to see how
they're taking PDF native. No chance the guy lied to me?
But I only need a Rampage to do work that is destined for the
lithographic printing industry and I am ending my association with that
disgusting industry.
In large format printing I don't have to color separate or trap and rips
cost less than 5 thousand dollars and take PDF native. Proofs are made
on the same material that the run is on. RGB images actually work
better... I don't get moires. On and on and on.
Litho sucks. You can have it.
|
|
| | From: | t2_lurking | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Wed, 5 Jan 2005 08:23:07 -0600 |
|
|
| (Delurking for an incredulous question)
Are you saying that Rampage WON'T output native files placed in Indy
correctly?
Ho-Ho-Ho
About three months ago some salesperson had my owner convinced that Rampage
was the way to go and to dump our Heidelberg Delta system. I said "when you
pry my cold dead hands off the mouse" or words to that effect. We have
absolutely NO problem generating imposition files for Signa. As a matter of
fact I just got done doing a 56 page 6/c in IndyCS chock, and I mean CHOCK
full of .ai and .psd files. Not even a hiccup.
I have been under the impression that Delta (v8) is kinda aging and this
gives me a boost.
--
gingersnap
geabbottATabbottandabbottDOTcom
============================
Well, i dreamed i saw the silver
Space ships flying
In the yellow haze of the sun
-- Neil Young --
====================
"Lee Blevins" wrote in message
news:1gpvruv.xrzoeuwocdq8N%leeb@digitalgraphics.net...
> Joe wrote:
>
>> "Lee Blevins" wrote
>>
>> > Adobe has stacked the deck against Quark with having Indesign support
>> > native .ai and .psd formats.
>>
>> > For that reason alone I prefer Indesign.
>>
>> Lee I know you are knowledgeable and think you are using Rampage so I
>> have
>> to ask if I am missing something here, but what is the upside to this
>> "feature"?
>> I had an Indesign job a few months back that was about 125 pages with
>> thousands of images ( over 20 gigs worth ). All the images were placed as
>> raw .ia or .psd files. Rampage would not rip them images omitted as I
>> kept
>> getting errors something to the effect of no supported OPI information
>> save
>> file as a different format. I was able to get most of the pages to rip by
>> saving them images included but it took the better portion of two days to
>> do
>> this and there was still 10-20 pages where I had to go back and save the
>> images as tiffs or eps's to get them to rip. If the images in this job
>> had
>> been saved as eps or tiff to begin with I could have made eps's on the
>> entire job in under 15 minutes omitting images and let OPI in rampage
>> handle
>> it then just dumped the entire job in the rip as I was leaving on day and
>> could have come in the next morning to 125 ripped pages.
>>
>> Joe
>
> Of course you can't use OPI with native files. I'm not aware of any OPI
> spec for native PSD and AI files.
>
> Rampage certainly doesn't (and no OPI server I'm aware of does) have the
> necessary code to read a native Adobe file and stream it into the
> postscript.
>
> The problem here is that you're the one who is being sent native
> documents and have the responsibility of converting them to Postscript.
>
> A sad state of affairs.
>
> Why the designer didn't send you a pdf is the problem with the
> lithographic printing industry that has caused me to make the descision
> that I no longer want to be associated with it.
>
> Rampage needs to fix their OPI code. It's pathetic. If an OPI comment
> exists AND the image is embedded, they still error out if they can't
> fine the image. Even though THEY DON'T NEED TO FIND IT - IT'S IN THE
> GODDAMN FILE. HELLOOOOOOOOO.
>
> I am not happy with Rampage as of late.
>
> I don't like having PDF as a wrapper. It doesn't really take PDF native,
> it has Acrobat runnining on the rip and opens the PDF and saves it as
> Postscript. I have two rips and they only gave me one Acrobat in the
> upgrade. It's got a lot of problems hanging up on dealing with PDFs.
> I've had them on the phone and never got a resolution. I canceled the
> service contract because I started to realize they never really had an
> answer to any of the problems we experience.
>
> I'm tired of EPS only input. I want Postscript so I don't have to point
> the rip to a font directory. It tells us fonts are missing that are
> clearly there.
>
> Somewhere along the line they broke ripping eps files with blends. They
> rip but they take forever. If you distill the same file and save it as
> eps it rips much faster. I don't have time to deal with that. You may
> say this doesn't happen in your shop but they were IN MY SHOP and
> witnessed it and couldn't solve it. Their suggestion was distill
> everything.
>
> Our PS/M on a mac runs so much faster at everything than Rampage it
> should be embarrassing to Rampage but apparently not. I'm talking about
> 10X faster. NO EXAGERATION.
>
> Rampage called the other day and asked if was interested in upgrading.
> I asked the two questions -
>
> 1) Are you PDF native now?
> 2) Do you take Postscript now?
>
> They said they do take PDF native in the latest (vs. 10 I believe) but
> they still don't take Postscript. I'd be real interested to see how
> they're taking PDF native. No chance the guy lied to me?
>
> But I only need a Rampage to do work that is destined for the
> lithographic printing industry and I am ending my association with that
> disgusting industry.
>
> In large format printing I don't have to color separate or trap and rips
> cost less than 5 thousand dollars and take PDF native. Proofs are made
> on the same material that the run is on. RGB images actually work
> better... I don't get moires. On and on and on.
>
> Litho sucks. You can have it.
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Lee Blevins | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Wed, 5 Jan 2005 20:35:42 -0500 |
|
|
| t2_lurking wrote:
> (Delurking for an incredulous question)
>
> Are you saying that Rampage WON'T output native files placed in Indy
> correctly?
>
> Ho-Ho-Ho
>
> About three months ago some salesperson had my owner convinced that Rampage
> was the way to go and to dump our Heidelberg Delta system. I said "when you
> pry my cold dead hands off the mouse" or words to that effect. We have
> absolutely NO problem generating imposition files for Signa. As a matter of
> fact I just got done doing a 56 page 6/c in IndyCS chock, and I mean CHOCK
> full of .ai and .psd files. Not even a hiccup.
> I have been under the impression that Delta (v8) is kinda aging and this
> gives me a boost.
I'm not sure you're fully understanding the problem.
NO SYSTEM ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH THAT I KNOW OF WILL OPI NATIVE
ILLUSTRATOR OR PHOTOSHOP FILES.
So this is not a Rampage system problem, your system won't do it either.
Now ponder this, after you write Postscript form you Indesign the rip
doesn't know it's a .ai or .psd file. It's just binary postscript data.
Rampage has no problem with output from Indesign, We run it everyday.
You will only get an opi error if you have OPI comments on and omit a
PSD or native AI. A stupid move by any account based on my ALL CAPS
comment above.
The realization that I have come slowly to, READ dragged kicking and
screaming but I'm old and stupid and learn slowly is this:
Adopt a PDF workflow if you want to have peace love and trangquility.
Why?
1) if for nother other reason the postscript gets cleaned up if you
write postscript or export postscript from acrobat.
2) You now have separation preview and you can print seps from Acrobat.
3) you know you have it it's working in PDF and it passes X1a.
While it can be argued that you will find some PDF file what won't rip
the odds are so much greater that it will rip from PDFX1a than native
documents that it's not worth really considering native docs anymore.
That being said, if I was given a Quark document with all placed EPS and
TIFF images I'd just OPI it to Rampage.
But here's the reality.
Those kind of jobs are getting more scarce.
What we face now is ever increasing complexity of the programs and file
formats and fonts.
It's no longer the simple Mac/Quark/Suitcase world. In fact, it's a
fucking mess.
I am becoming merciless on messed up files. Either you pay the full
labor to fix it or you send in a correct file or I don't want your
business.
I have no workers that will agree to work for free so I don't.
Some might argue that I'm passing on work but the way I see it is that
work is not very profitable. You have to take messed up crap and try to
make it work for far to little money and then you are faced with stupid
deadlines.
I'LL PASS.
|
|
| | From: | t2_lurking | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Thu, 6 Jan 2005 07:25:05 -0600 |
|
|
| Aha, yes I guess I did miss the part about the OPI not being picked up, not
the native file.
Sorry.
We haven't used OPI in years...I don't miss it.
--
--
gingersnap
geabbottATabbottandabbottDOTcom
============================
"Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice.
"Who cares for you?' said Alice, "You're nothing but a pack of pixels"!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
New to Diabetes? Go to:
http://www.alt-support-diabetes.org
*********************************************************
"Lee Blevins" wrote in message
news:1gpxmv9.sah3171ds6t3aN%leeb@digitalgraphics.net...
> t2_lurking wrote:
>
>> (Delurking for an incredulous question)
>>
>> Are you saying that Rampage WON'T output native files placed in Indy
>> correctly?
>>
>> Ho-Ho-Ho
>>
>> About three months ago some salesperson had my owner convinced that
>> Rampage
>> was the way to go and to dump our Heidelberg Delta system. I said "when
>> you
>> pry my cold dead hands off the mouse" or words to that effect. We have
>> absolutely NO problem generating imposition files for Signa. As a matter
>> of
>> fact I just got done doing a 56 page 6/c in IndyCS chock, and I mean
>> CHOCK
>> full of .ai and .psd files. Not even a hiccup.
>> I have been under the impression that Delta (v8) is kinda aging and this
>> gives me a boost.
>
> I'm not sure you're fully understanding the problem.
>
> NO SYSTEM ON GOD'S GREEN EARTH THAT I KNOW OF WILL OPI NATIVE
> ILLUSTRATOR OR PHOTOSHOP FILES.
>
> So this is not a Rampage system problem, your system won't do it either.
>
> Now ponder this, after you write Postscript form you Indesign the rip
> doesn't know it's a .ai or .psd file. It's just binary postscript data.
>
> Rampage has no problem with output from Indesign, We run it everyday.
> You will only get an opi error if you have OPI comments on and omit a
> PSD or native AI. A stupid move by any account based on my ALL CAPS
> comment above.
>
> The realization that I have come slowly to, READ dragged kicking and
> screaming but I'm old and stupid and learn slowly is this:
>
> Adopt a PDF workflow if you want to have peace love and trangquility.
>
> Why?
>
> 1) if for nother other reason the postscript gets cleaned up if you
> write postscript or export postscript from acrobat.
>
> 2) You now have separation preview and you can print seps from Acrobat.
>
> 3) you know you have it it's working in PDF and it passes X1a.
>
> While it can be argued that you will find some PDF file what won't rip
> the odds are so much greater that it will rip from PDFX1a than native
> documents that it's not worth really considering native docs anymore.
>
> That being said, if I was given a Quark document with all placed EPS and
> TIFF images I'd just OPI it to Rampage.
>
> But here's the reality.
>
> Those kind of jobs are getting more scarce.
>
> What we face now is ever increasing complexity of the programs and file
> formats and fonts.
>
> It's no longer the simple Mac/Quark/Suitcase world. In fact, it's a
> fucking mess.
>
> I am becoming merciless on messed up files. Either you pay the full
> labor to fix it or you send in a correct file or I don't want your
> business.
>
> I have no workers that will agree to work for free so I don't.
>
> Some might argue that I'm passing on work but the way I see it is that
> work is not very profitable. You have to take messed up crap and try to
> make it work for far to little money and then you are faced with stupid
> deadlines.
>
> I'LL PASS.
|
|
| | From: | Simon Warner | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main | | Date: | Thu, 06 Jan 2005 09:39:46 +0000 |
|
|
| Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when you place an .ai file in
InDesign aren't you actually placing a PDF? Doesn't the .ai format mean
only that the PDF also contains the information needed by Illustrator to
edit the file.
|
|
| | From: | Matthew Taylor | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main | | Date: | Sun, 09 Jan 2005 17:06:37 +0000 |
|
|
| Simon Warner wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when you place an .ai file in
> InDesign aren't you actually placing a PDF? Doesn't the .ai format mean
> only that the PDF also contains the information needed by Illustrator to
> edit the file.
I was under this impression, but I'm certain that at some point in the
past, Adobe stated categorically that this was not the case. I can't
remember the details of why this was though now.
--
Matthew Taylor
www.mtaylor.co.uk
|
|
| | From: | Lee Blevins | | Subject: | Re: If you prefer InDesign over Xpress, what do you view as its main advantages? | | Date: | Thu, 6 Jan 2005 19:02:13 -0500 |
|
|
| Simon Warner wrote:
> Please correct me if I'm wrong, but when you place an .ai file in
> InDesign aren't you actually placing a PDF? Doesn't the .ai format mean
> only that the PDF also contains the information needed by Illustrator to
> edit the file.
That's a question for Adobe and I don't believe they're revealing the
programming details of their software.
But the point is that after you write postscript, it's not either
anymore. It's Postscript.
|
|
