| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Greg
Guest
|
 Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:46 am Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
 |
|
"Papa Joe" <Sorry> wrote in message
news:2007060221164616807-Sorry@news.panic.com...
| Quote: |
On 2007-06-01 20:05:06 -0300, "Greg" <gsbatchelor@verizon.net> said:
"Mike Powell" <nospamthankyou@optimapprreess.com.au> wrote in message
news:Xns9941DAE5B5553Aussieprepressguy@203.59.27.131...
hudgevudge@yahoo.com wrote in
news:1180614132.040021.301220@m36g2000hse.googlegroups.com:
On May 31, 6:08 am, "Neil Gould" <n...@myplaceofwork.com> wrote:
Recently, Papa Joe <Sorry> posted:
. I'd bet that someone asking
about handling PPT files for commercial printing may not know the
difference between these options.
Bingo. Now that we've established that I'm not a prepress expert,
does anyone have a real answer?
If you really must go down the path of using Powerpoint for a purpose
for
which it was not designed, you will need an Acrobat plugin such as
Pitstop
Professional or Quite a Box of Tricks.
You will also need the correct colour profiles for both RGB and CMYK in
order to achieve anything like an acceptable result.
Don't expect to get anything that looks professional as the finished
product. The resolution will be well below standard and the type and
graphics will probably be rasterised at a low resolution.
Actually, unless you do something to rasterize it, the type will be
vectors
and any placed graphics will be at the resolution you placed them at.
Charts
and graphs will be vector as well. Upgrade to Acrobat 8 pro and you can
convert to CMYK without plugins. If you use MicroS**t clip art and
backgrounds, they are generally lower rez. I print tons of PPT generated
material and it is no different thant any other file - you get out what
you
put in.
Powerpoint is intended to create presentation which will be viewed on
screen or projected, it is not intended for commercial printing.
Well, half correct. Yes, the primary purpose is for the actual
presentation,
but it is also designed to publish a complete set of support materials -
reports, outlines, and handouts. I run everything from small lots on the
Konica or Indigo to large distributions on the press and other than a
crappy
graphic that somone pulled from the web, everything looks great.
(This is in no way to be considered an endorsement of a Microsoft
product. I
hate Microsoft! I hate Microsoft! I hate Microsoft! I hate Microsoft!)
If you want a professional finish, hire a professional or invest the
time
to learn to use professional software.
Regards
Mike
Is this what commercial printing has been downgraded to... let it be
Digital or offset.
I can't belive I've just seen a printer partly justify using graphics from
powerpoint.
Images will mostly likely be under 100dpi, I doubt anyone is forced ot use
a 25 lpi screen, so this is sub standard. Graphics... vector from
powerpoint? I doubt it's postcript or clean, another big problem.
|
Where did you get this idea from? If I put a 300 dpi image into it, I get a
300 dpi image out. 600 in, 600 out.
Whatever the internal vector format is - WMF most likely - Acrobat doesn't
seem to have a problem with it.
| Quote: |
Powerpoint is not made nor does it store data that is suppose to be used
for anything but viewing on a monitor. Anyone that is trying to use
graphics from this source, either has no choice or is plain stupid.
|
Again, I don't know where you get this from. Powerpoint IS designed to
produce printed material as well.
| Quote: |
My god, we have CTP printers and digital printers that can print better
quality with less dot gain than any commercial press in the 80's and guess
what we do...we throw JPG and powerpoint files at it... Way to go guys.
|
And they look fantastic. And the customer is happy. And the customer pays
well.
| Quote: |
--
Welcome to Papa Joe's
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Greg
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 4:59 am Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
|
|
"Allen Wessels" <awessels@EXPUNGEpacbell.net> wrote in message
news:awessels-7C433D.22074003062007@newsclstr03.news.prodigy.net...
| Quote: |
In article <_sSdncu2y4Rfu_7bnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Peggy" <pjcoquet@comcast.net> wrote:
"Papa Joe" <Sorry> wrote in message
news:2007060221164616807-Sorry@news.panic.com...
On 2007-06-01 20:05:06 -0300, "Greg" <gsbatchelor@verizon.net> said:
Is this what commercial printing has been downgraded to... let it be
Digital or offset.
I can't belive I've just seen a printer partly justify using graphics
from
powerpoint.
Images will mostly likely be under 100dpi, I doubt anyone is forced ot
use
a 25 lpi screen, so this is sub standard. Graphics... vector from
powerpoint? I doubt it's postcript or clean, another big problem.
Powerpoint is not made nor does it store data that is suppose to be
used
for anything but viewing on a monitor. Anyone that is trying to use
graphics from this source, either has no choice or is plain stupid.
My god, we have CTP printers and digital printers that can print better
quality with less dot gain than any commercial press in the 80's and
guess
what we do...we throw JPG and powerpoint files at it... Way to go guys.
--
Nice - I hope you have a lovely view from your high horse. Down here on
the
ground, we try to meet our customers' needs without pointing out to them
how
technically and intellectually (and morally?) superior we are. If they
want
ppt files printed, I try to find a way to do that as attractively as
possible. What I don't do is say, "Take your crap files elsewhere, you
twat." I've never found the second approach very effective at increasing
business or winning friends.
Just my US$.02
Peggy
It's all about what you get paid for. And how much of what the customer
will pay for will pay for what they won't pay for. :-)
One of the worst things you can do in any service industry is to dig
your heels in and decide what you won't do. You have to put the service
where the customer is.
- Allen
|
Absolutely! In fact, we built a huge business by doing something that no
other printer around would do... we accepted PC files.
Yep. All the other printers sent the customers packing if they didn't have
Mac. Actually, all the other printers sent them to us once they learned we
handled PC files. I never did figure out what the issue with PC files was.
Everything worked fine for us.
Now, 15 years later, all the other printers are out of business, and we have
ALL of their customers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Matti Vuori
Guest
|
| Posted: Tue Jun 05, 2007 7:33 pm Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
|
|
"Greg" <gsbatchelor@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3o29i.16037$t84.1173@trnddc04:
| Quote: |
"Papa Joe" <Sorry> wrote in message
news:2007060221164616807-Sorry@news.panic.com...
Is this what commercial printing has been downgraded to... (...)
Images will mostly likely be under 100dpi, I doubt anyone is forced
ot use a 25 lpi screen, so this is sub standard.
Where did you get this idea from? If I put a 300 dpi image into it, I
get a 300 dpi image out. 600 in, 600 out.
|
That is what commercial printing has been downgraded to - no real
technical knowledge, not even experience, just prejudige, opinions and
misinformation...
| Quote: |
Whatever the internal vector format is - WMF most likely - Acrobat
doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
|
When the file is converted into PDF using a printer driver, what Acrobat
Distiller sees is PostScript and after the conversion the format is of
course PDF.
--
Matti Vuori, <http://sivut.koti.soon.fi/mvuori/index-e.htm> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Papa Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:54 am Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
|
|
On 2007-06-05 12:33:48 -0300, Matti Vuori <mvuori@koti.soon.fi> said:
| Quote: |
"Greg" <gsbatchelor@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3o29i.16037$t84.1173@trnddc04:
"Papa Joe" <Sorry> wrote in message
news:2007060221164616807-Sorry@news.panic.com...
Is this what commercial printing has been downgraded to... (...)
Images will mostly likely be under 100dpi, I doubt anyone is forced
ot use a 25 lpi screen, so this is sub standard.
Where did you get this idea from? If I put a 300 dpi image into it, I
get a 300 dpi image out. 600 in, 600 out.
That is what commercial printing has been downgraded to - no real
technical knowledge, not even experience, just prejudige, opinions and
misinformation...
Whatever the internal vector format is - WMF most likely - Acrobat
doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
When the file is converted into PDF using a printer driver, what Acrobat
Distiller sees is PostScript and after the conversion the format is of
course PDF.
|
I guess this is an open-ended discussion but...
1. of course there's a chance that whoever created the powerpoint files,
used 300dpi. About as much of chance as being hit by an asteroid.
Don't play russian roulette with powerpoint. It's most likely 100dpi or less.
2. Vectors in powerpoint, I would not trust personally. Possibly with a
good printer that will make sure output res, overprints, traps are all
decent, and paths aren't jaggy... o.k. This would require some work I'm
guessing here, cause I'd never put the pressman through such misery.
But if you guys want it... go right ahead  Ask yourself this: Would
you accept powerpoint files for a 200 page magazine, expect a few
hiccups perhaps :)
3. PDF isn't perfect. cmon. Saying powerpoint vectors are good to go
cause they look decent with an on screen PDF. Did you sep the job? Is
distiller set at the proper settings or is it just set at generic
default that would acccept any piece of trash Is X1-A on? Did you
preflight that PDF... ETC..
I've seen PDF's sebd to press that we're pure trash when tested but
they looked great on-screen.
4. I guess being pragmatic is necessary. Printing files that aren't up
to par is going to happen. Agreeing to print the sub-standerd jobs is
o.k, . Everyone is printing JPG's, I mean even when the client gives
you a JPG and u save to CMYK tif and sent it to the printer...it's
still crap. But the problem is the control is shifted to the client
because the printer has no choice but to accept these files. The client
believes JPG is god since the web. Powerpoint, word document, they've
come to loves these files and push them on the printers. And that's the
way it is. We made a choice and that choice isn't about money, it's
about convenience. It's convenient to just take the files, time is
money and why invest the time to educate the client or even lose the
job. I'll agree that sometimes you gotta just bend over and take it...
But don't diss a guy that calls it like it is. crap in ...crap out You
start with 100dpi you end with a shitty halftone screen. This industry
is at a low level of quality output, client's fault... conveniently.
--
Welcome to Papa Joe's |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Neil Gould
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 3:11 pm Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
|
|
Recently, Papa Joe <Sorry> posted:
| Quote: |
On 2007-06-05 12:33:48 -0300, Matti Vuori <mvuori@koti.soon.fi> said:
"Greg" <gsbatchelor@verizon.net> wrote in
news:3o29i.16037$t84.1173@trnddc04:
"Papa Joe" <Sorry> wrote in message
news:2007060221164616807-Sorry@news.panic.com...
Is this what commercial printing has been downgraded to... (...)
Images will mostly likely be under 100dpi, I doubt anyone is forced
ot use a 25 lpi screen, so this is sub standard.
Where did you get this idea from? If I put a 300 dpi image into it,
I get a 300 dpi image out. 600 in, 600 out.
That is what commercial printing has been downgraded to - no real
technical knowledge, not even experience, just prejudige, opinions
and misinformation...
Whatever the internal vector format is - WMF most likely - Acrobat
doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
When the file is converted into PDF using a printer driver, what
Acrobat Distiller sees is PostScript and after the conversion the
format is of course PDF.
I guess this is an open-ended discussion but...
1. of course there's a chance that whoever created the powerpoint
files, used 300dpi.
This is rather easy to determine. And, as I said originally, it may not |
matter to the customer, anyway, if their "printed" output is going to a
copier instead of an offset press.
| Quote: |
2. Vectors in powerpoint, I would not trust personally. Possibly with
a
good printer that will make sure output res, overprints, traps are all
decent, and paths aren't jaggy... o.k. This would require some work
I'm guessing here, cause I'd never put the pressman through such
misery.
First off, at least in most shops around here this isn't the pressman's |
job. But, as has been pointed out, if the vectors look OK in Acrobat, then
it's highly likely that the job will turn out fine.
| Quote: |
3. PDF isn't perfect. cmon. Saying powerpoint vectors are good to go
cause they look decent with an on screen PDF. Did you sep the job?
Today, this is rudimentary work. If you aren't up to speed with a PDF |
workflow, then THAT is the difficulty you face, and will be the definition
of your limitations as a print shop. I haven't dealt with a printer that
doesn't have a valid PDF workflow for almost a decade, and the first thing
that disqualifies a bidder from one of my jobs is a request for native
files.
| Quote: |
4. I guess being pragmatic is necessary. Printing files that aren't up
to par is going to happen. Agreeing to print the sub-standerd jobs is
o.k, . Everyone is printing JPG's, I mean even when the client gives
you a JPG and u save to CMYK tif and sent it to the printer...it's
still crap.
You're just digging yourself in deeper, here. Whether a jpeg is crap or |
not depends on how it is made. A high-res, first generation jpeg will be
indistinguishable from the tif version of the file once it's off the
press. The person that can't make a good jpeg probably also can't make a
decent tif, so you'd wind up with crap either way.
| Quote: |
But the problem is the control is shifted to the client
because the printer has no choice but to accept these files.
Welcome to the age of DTP... what, circa 1985 or so? |
Your rant is not really about quality, it's about knowledge and skill. If
one lacks the knowledge and skill to work with these files and formats on
the back end, then jobs will likely fail and look like crap. OTOH, those
with the knowledge and skill on the front end can produce files in these
formats that will print just fine if the printer knows what they're doing
and has the right knowledge, skill, and tool set.
Neil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Tim Monk
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 5:15 pm Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
|
|
On 6/6/07 6:11 AM, "Neil Gould" wrote:
| Quote: |
Recently, Papa Joe <Sorry> posted:
On 2007-06-05 12:33:48 -0300, Matti Vuori said:
"Greg" wrote in
news:3o29i.16037$t84.1173@trnddc04:
"Papa Joe" <Sorry> wrote in message
Is this what commercial printing has been downgraded to... (...)
Images will mostly likely be under 100dpi, I doubt anyone is forced
ot use a 25 lpi screen, so this is sub standard.
Where did you get this idea from? If I put a 300 dpi image into it,
I get a 300 dpi image out. 600 in, 600 out.
That is what commercial printing has been downgraded to - no real
technical knowledge, not even experience, just prejudige, opinions
and misinformation...
Whatever the internal vector format is - WMF most likely - Acrobat
doesn't seem to have a problem with it.
When the file is converted into PDF using a printer driver, what
Acrobat Distiller sees is PostScript and after the conversion the
format is of course PDF.
I guess this is an open-ended discussion but...
1. of course there's a chance that whoever created the powerpoint
files, used 300dpi.
This is rather easy to determine. And, as I said originally, it may not
matter to the customer, anyway, if their "printed" output is going to a
copier instead of an offset press.
|
It may not matter either way. I have customers that knowingly supply
garbage, but either that's all they have, or they don't care anyway.
Sometimes the content is more important than the design or aesthetics.
| Quote: |
2. Vectors in powerpoint, I would not trust personally. Possibly with
a
good printer that will make sure output res, overprints, traps are all
decent, and paths aren't jaggy... o.k. This would require some work
I'm guessing here, cause I'd never put the pressman through such
misery.
First off, at least in most shops around here this isn't the pressman's
job. But, as has been pointed out, if the vectors look OK in Acrobat, then
it's highly likely that the job will turn out fine.
|
Usually, yes. Acrobat does have some difficulty showing an accurate preview
of certain aspects of a design. Generally what you see in Acrobat will be
what you get in print. Since you can't always trust Acrobat's preview, OTOH,
it's a good idea to get a proof. Me, personally, if I were spending
thousands of dollars on a print job, I'd do a press check--but that's just
me...
| Quote: |
3. PDF isn't perfect. cmon. Saying powerpoint vectors are good to go
cause they look decent with an on screen PDF. Did you sep the job?
Today, this is rudimentary work. If you aren't up to speed with a PDF
workflow, then THAT is the difficulty you face, and will be the definition
of your limitations as a print shop. I haven't dealt with a printer that
doesn't have a valid PDF workflow for almost a decade, and the first thing
that disqualifies a bidder from one of my jobs is a request for native
files.
|
I request native files on a daily basis, and I've been using PDF workflows
since the beginning of PDF workflows--with a short period in between being
forced to use Rampage instead (ARRGG). PDF workflows these days are not
necessarily the issue. A bad PDF is still a bad PDF. Workflows can fix a
lot, but garbage in, garbage out. Period.
Often the only way to get good output from a customer file (or to make their
last-minute changes), I need their native file because they've ruined their
PDF. Asking for a new PDF is a waste of my time because if they knew how to
create a good PDF, I wouldn't need another one. I don't really like chasing
my tail.
I like the folks who give me both. I'll use your PDF if I can. If I can't
I'll use your native files. This way I'm not wasting my time, and you're not
wasting your time.
| Quote: |
4. I guess being pragmatic is necessary. Printing files that aren't up
to par is going to happen. Agreeing to print the sub-standerd jobs is
o.k, . Everyone is printing JPG's, I mean even when the client gives
you a JPG and u save to CMYK tif and sent it to the printer...it's
still crap.
You're just digging yourself in deeper, here. Whether a jpeg is crap or
not depends on how it is made. A high-res, first generation jpeg will be
indistinguishable from the tif version of the file once it's off the
press. The person that can't make a good jpeg probably also can't make a
decent tif, so you'd wind up with crap either way.
|
Actually Neil, I think you're digging yourself in here. JPGs aren't for
print. If you can make a JPG that's good enough for print, you probably know
better than to save it as a JPG in the first place. I agree that you might
not be able to see the artifacts on the press sheet (if the JPG is, like you
say, first generation and high-res), but why risk it if you know what you're
doing? What's the point? Just save it as a TIFF. Or better yet, just keep
everything as PSD nowadays. The compression is pretty good, InDesign handles
PSDs flawlessly, and there is no risk of lossy compression. Why introduce
potential problems?
I don't exactly understand your point. If someone knows how to save files
correctly, why encourage them to save files incorrectly? I'm confused.
| Quote: |
But the problem is the control is shifted to the client
because the printer has no choice but to accept these files.
Welcome to the age of DTP... what, circa 1985 or so?
|
Yeah, no shit. I print garbage all day everyday. It's a damn shame. I take
pride in the jobs I work on, and they're looking worse and worse everyday,
but I can't really control it. I try to warn the customer, but they usually
don't care. It's a damn shame.
| Quote: |
Your rant is not really about quality, it's about knowledge and skill. If
one lacks the knowledge and skill to work with these files and formats on
the back end, then jobs will likely fail and look like crap. OTOH, those
with the knowledge and skill on the front end can produce files in these
formats that will print just fine if the printer knows what they're doing
and has the right knowledge, skill, and tool set.
|
I call bullshit. ;)
I can look at a customer-supplied laser (if I'm lucky enough to get one),
and tell you that it's a Publisher file before looking at their file. I can
usually tell the difference between an InDesign file and a Quark file, too.
The knowledge and skill of the printer has little to do with the way the
files are supplied. We can fix a lot, but we can't fix irreparable damage
that's already been done.
I don't see the point in encouraging bad behavior, though. We should really
be discouraging it, IMHO.
Tim
BTW: I can get decent output from Powerpoint, Publisher, Word, Xcell, you
name it. But it will never be as good as a real file intended for print. 2c. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Neil Gould
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 7:12 pm Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
|
|
Recently, Tim Monk <tmonk@austin.rr.com> posted:
| Quote: |
On 6/6/07 6:11 AM, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Papa Joe <Sorry> posted:
I guess this is an open-ended discussion but...
1. of course there's a chance that whoever created the powerpoint
files, used 300dpi.
This is rather easy to determine. And, as I said originally, it may
not matter to the customer, anyway, if their "printed" output is
going to a copier instead of an offset press.
It may not matter either way. I have customers that knowingly supply
garbage, but either that's all they have, or they don't care anyway.
Sometimes the content is more important than the design or aesthetics.
In my line of publishing, content is *always* more important than the |
aesthetics because people can be injured or killed if the content is
incorrect. I have yet to hear of a design that caused physical harm (aside
from making us a little ill). ;-)
| Quote: |
2. Vectors in powerpoint, I would not trust personally. Possibly
with a
good printer that will make sure output res, overprints, traps are
all decent, and paths aren't jaggy... o.k. This would require some
work I'm guessing here, cause I'd never put the pressman through
such misery.
First off, at least in most shops around here this isn't the
pressman's job. But, as has been pointed out, if the vectors look OK
in Acrobat, then it's highly likely that the job will turn out fine.
Usually, yes. Acrobat does have some difficulty showing an accurate
preview of certain aspects of a design. Generally what you see in
Acrobat will be what you get in print. Since you can't always trust
Acrobat's preview, OTOH, it's a good idea to get a proof. Me,
personally, if I were spending thousands of dollars on a print job,
I'd do a press check--but that's just me...
It's easy to proof Acrobat output prior to going to press. All one needs |
is a valid proofer and make a print and/or separations. I consider a valid
proofing printer to be a minimal requirement for any designer. As for
press checks, I'll do it if my customer will pay for it, but beyond that,
just providing a valid PDF file is sufficient.
| Quote: |
3. PDF isn't perfect. cmon. Saying powerpoint vectors are good to go
cause they look decent with an on screen PDF. Did you sep the job?
Today, this is rudimentary work. If you aren't up to speed with a PDF
workflow, then THAT is the difficulty you face, and will be the
definition of your limitations as a print shop. I haven't dealt with
a printer that doesn't have a valid PDF workflow for almost a
decade, and the first thing that disqualifies a bidder from one of
my jobs is a request for native files.
I request native files on a daily basis, and I've been using PDF
workflows since the beginning of PDF workflows--with a short period
in between being forced to use Rampage instead (ARRGG). PDF workflows
these days are not necessarily the issue. A bad PDF is still a bad
PDF. Workflows can fix a lot, but garbage in, garbage out. Period.
Often the only way to get good output from a customer file (or to
make their last-minute changes), I need their native file because
they've ruined their PDF. Asking for a new PDF is a waste of my time
because if they knew how to create a good PDF, I wouldn't need
another one. I don't really like chasing my tail.
Well, you wouldn't get a native file from me. I have had too many problems |
with folks that thought they could "correct" something that they clearly
didn't understand. Their "corrections" caused my customers to wonder
whether I knew what I was doing. Print shops also can't usually deal with
the apps that I use, so it is pointless to provide a native file. There is
no excuse for a designer to hand off a bad PDF, and someone likely to do
that is likely to have a bad native file as well.
| Quote: |
I like the folks who give me both. I'll use your PDF if I can. If I
can't I'll use your native files. This way I'm not wasting my time,
and you're not wasting your time.
Unfortunately, it has never worked out well for me in the last couple of |
decades for the reasons stated above. OTOH, I've had no problems getting
good output from sending fat PostScript in the days before PDF. Now, it's
completely painless. As I said, there is no reason to hand off a bad PDF
file for output.
| Quote: |
4. I guess being pragmatic is necessary. Printing files that aren't
up to par is going to happen. Agreeing to print the sub-standerd
jobs is o.k, . Everyone is printing JPG's, I mean even when the
client gives you a JPG and u save to CMYK tif and sent it to the
printer...it's still crap.
You're just digging yourself in deeper, here. Whether a jpeg is crap
or not depends on how it is made. A high-res, first generation jpeg
will be indistinguishable from the tif version of the file once it's
off the press. The person that can't make a good jpeg probably also
can't make a decent tif, so you'd wind up with crap either way.
Actually Neil, I think you're digging yourself in here. JPGs aren't
for print.
I think it depends on what you are printing. JPEGs were created precisely |
for printing, specifically for news gathering around the world. The jpeg
compression technique was designed to allow reasonable upload times from
remote locations.
| Quote: |
If you can make a JPG that's good enough for print, you
probably know better than to save it as a JPG in the first place. I
agree that you might not be able to see the artifacts on the press
sheet (if the JPG is, like you say, first generation and high-res),
but why risk it if you know what you're doing?
If you know what you're doing, there will be no artifacts visible in a |
pixel-level blow up of the JPEG file when compared to the TIF version. The
main downside to JPEG is that it is a lossy compression format, so those
files can't be edited without irreversably degrading the image. However,
for final output, this is not an issue.
| Quote: |
I don't exactly understand your point. If someone knows how to save
files correctly, why encourage them to save files incorrectly? I'm
confused.
Yes, you are confused. If you do a bit of research on the web, you will |
find numerous exhaustive comparisons between images in these file formats.
As a photographer who has edited thousands of images that have been
published over the last few decades (from the '60s on), I can say
confidently that no one would be able to tell the file format of a
properly prepared image from looking at the printed page.
That doesn't say that there aren't a lot of lousy images out there, but I
don't see that as a file format issue.
| Quote: |
Your rant is not really about quality, it's about knowledge and
skill. If one lacks the knowledge and skill to work with these files
and formats on the back end, then jobs will likely fail and look
like crap. OTOH, those with the knowledge and skill on the front end
can produce files in these formats that will print just fine if the
printer knows what they're doing and has the right knowledge, skill,
and tool set.
I call bullshit. ;)
I can look at a customer-supplied laser (if I'm lucky enough to get
one), and tell you that it's a Publisher file before looking at their
file. I can usually tell the difference between an InDesign file and
a Quark file, too. The knowledge and skill of the printer has little
to do with the way the files are supplied. We can fix a lot, but we
can't fix irreparable damage that's already been done.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote, above. To paraphrase it; if the |
designer knows what they're doing and has the right tool set to create
valid PDF files and the printer has a valid PDF workflow, the process is
pretty paiinless. You shouldn't have to "fix" anything. OTOH, if either
the designer or printer lacks skill or proper tools, the results can
suffer.
| Quote: |
I don't see the point in encouraging bad behavior, though. We should
really be discouraging it, IMHO.
Tim
BTW: I can get decent output from Powerpoint, Publisher, Word, Xcell,
you name it. But it will never be as good as a real file intended for
print. 2c.
It sounds like you are comparing PowerPoint, Publisher, Word and Excel to |
produce comparable to professional layout apps. That is not their intent,
nor should it be. The world of printing is pretty broad, ranging from
"digital presses" (high-end copiers) through 1c paper plates (you don't
need much to keep up with that), to high-end CTP. AFAIK, there is no "one
size fits all" solution that invalidates everything else.
Neil |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Guest
|
| Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2007 8:10 pm Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
|
|
hudgevu...@yahoo.com schrieb:
| Quote: |
Here goes,
Forgive me if this has been covered before, but I'm finding many
different answers to this question.
I'm trying to make a CMYK PDF of 2-up slides from PowerPoint for press
printing--is this possible with Acrobat 6? I know PPT likes RGB.
I'm using Windows XP with PowerPoint 2003. I use Acrobat 6 to make a
PDF. If I choose US Press settings in Acrobat 6, will that convert it
to CMYK? Do I need some kind of specialized software to do it? I'm
getting stumped.
|
Unfortunately I have to print occasionally PowerPoint posters by
students, using the derived PDF and ColorGate Production Server,
all this for a large format inkjet.
The PP to PDF conversion fails often essentially, concerning two
issues:
1) Raster images are downsampled unintentionally, mainly for GIF.
This effect is not predictable.
2) If the height of the poster is above about 500mm (20 inches ?),
the PDF will be garbled geometrically in the lower part.
Issue 1 can be overcome by saving important images as EPSs.
PP cannot display CMYK EPS colors correctly, but the print of
the respective PDF will be OK.
Issue 2 can be overcome by saving the PP doc as PostScript file,
and distilling PostScript for (e.g.) page size A3 (297x420
millimeters).
Printing the poster PDF by scale factor 2.0 is of course possible.
Beyond any discussion is the effect, when a transparent RGB GIF
is placed on a CMYK background (psychedelic).
Not much hope ....
Best regards --Gernot Hoffmann |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
Papa Joe
Guest
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2007 6:36 am Post subject: Re: PowerPoint to CMYK PDF for Press? How? |
|
|
On 2007-06-06 12:12:35 -0300, "Neil Gould" <neil@myplaceofwork.com> said:
| Quote: |
Recently, Tim Monk <tmonk@austin.rr.com> posted:
On 6/6/07 6:11 AM, "Neil Gould" wrote:
Recently, Papa Joe <Sorry> posted:
I guess this is an open-ended discussion but...
1. of course there's a chance that whoever created the powerpoint
files, used 300dpi.
This is rather easy to determine. And, as I said originally, it may
not matter to the customer, anyway, if their "printed" output is
going to a copier instead of an offset press.
It may not matter either way. I have customers that knowingly supply
garbage, but either that's all they have, or they don't care anyway.
Sometimes the content is more important than the design or aesthetics.
In my line of publishing, content is *always* more important than the
aesthetics because people can be injured or killed if the content is
incorrect. I have yet to hear of a design that caused physical harm (aside
from making us a little ill). ;-)
2. Vectors in powerpoint, I would not trust personally. Possibly
with a
good printer that will make sure output res, overprints, traps are
all decent, and paths aren't jaggy... o.k. This would require some
work I'm guessing here, cause I'd never put the pressman through
such misery.
First off, at least in most shops around here this isn't the
pressman's job. But, as has been pointed out, if the vectors look OK
in Acrobat, then it's highly likely that the job will turn out fine.
Usually, yes. Acrobat does have some difficulty showing an accurate
preview of certain aspects of a design. Generally what you see in
Acrobat will be what you get in print. Since you can't always trust
Acrobat's preview, OTOH, it's a good idea to get a proof. Me,
personally, if I were spending thousands of dollars on a print job,
I'd do a press check--but that's just me...
It's easy to proof Acrobat output prior to going to press. All one needs
is a valid proofer and make a print and/or separations. I consider a valid
proofing printer to be a minimal requirement for any designer. As for
press checks, I'll do it if my customer will pay for it, but beyond that,
just providing a valid PDF file is sufficient.
3. PDF isn't perfect. cmon. Saying powerpoint vectors are good to go
cause they look decent with an on screen PDF. Did you sep the job?
Today, this is rudimentary work. If you aren't up to speed with a PDF
workflow, then THAT is the difficulty you face, and will be the
definition of your limitations as a print shop. I haven't dealt with
a printer that doesn't have a valid PDF workflow for almost a
decade, and the first thing that disqualifies a bidder from one of
my jobs is a request for native files.
I request native files on a daily basis, and I've been using PDF
workflows since the beginning of PDF workflows--with a short period
in between being forced to use Rampage instead (ARRGG). PDF workflows
these days are not necessarily the issue. A bad PDF is still a bad
PDF. Workflows can fix a lot, but garbage in, garbage out. Period.
Often the only way to get good output from a customer file (or to
make their last-minute changes), I need their native file because
they've ruined their PDF. Asking for a new PDF is a waste of my time
because if they knew how to create a good PDF, I wouldn't need
another one. I don't really like chasing my tail.
Well, you wouldn't get a native file from me. I have had too many problems
with folks that thought they could "correct" something that they clearly
didn't understand. Their "corrections" caused my customers to wonder
whether I knew what I was doing. Print shops also can't usually deal with
the apps that I use, so it is pointless to provide a native file. There is
no excuse for a designer to hand off a bad PDF, and someone likely to do
that is likely to have a bad native file as well.
I like the folks who give me both. I'll use your PDF if I can. If I
can't I'll use your native files. This way I'm not wasting my time,
and you're not wasting your time.
Unfortunately, it has never worked out well for me in the last couple of
decades for the reasons stated above. OTOH, I've had no problems getting
good output from sending fat PostScript in the days before PDF. Now, it's
completely painless. As I said, there is no reason to hand off a bad PDF
file for output.
4. I guess being pragmatic is necessary. Printing files that aren't
up to par is going to happen. Agreeing to print the sub-standerd
jobs is o.k, . Everyone is printing JPG's, I mean even when the
client gives you a JPG and u save to CMYK tif and sent it to the
printer...it's still crap.
You're just digging yourself in deeper, here. Whether a jpeg is crap
or not depends on how it is made. A high-res, first generation jpeg
will be indistinguishable from the tif version of the file once it's
off the press. The person that can't make a good jpeg probably also
can't make a decent tif, so you'd wind up with crap either way.
Actually Neil, I think you're digging yourself in here. JPGs aren't
for print.
I think it depends on what you are printing. JPEGs were created precisely
for printing, specifically for news gathering around the world. The jpeg
compression technique was designed to allow reasonable upload times from
remote locations.
If you can make a JPG that's good enough for print, you
probably know better than to save it as a JPG in the first place. I
agree that you might not be able to see the artifacts on the press
sheet (if the JPG is, like you say, first generation and high-res),
but why risk it if you know what you're doing?
If you know what you're doing, there will be no artifacts visible in a
pixel-level blow up of the JPEG file when compared to the TIF version. The
main downside to JPEG is that it is a lossy compression format, so those
files can't be edited without irreversably degrading the image. However,
for final output, this is not an issue.
I don't exactly understand your point. If someone knows how to save
files correctly, why encourage them to save files incorrectly? I'm
confused.
Yes, you are confused. If you do a bit of research on the web, you will
find numerous exhaustive comparisons between images in these file formats.
As a photographer who has edited thousands of images that have been
published over the last few decades (from the '60s on), I can say
confidently that no one would be able to tell the file format of a
properly prepared image from looking at the printed page.
That doesn't say that there aren't a lot of lousy images out there, but I
don't see that as a file format issue.
Your rant is not really about quality, it's about knowledge and
skill. If one lacks the knowledge and skill to work with these files
and formats on the back end, then jobs will likely fail and look
like crap. OTOH, those with the knowledge and skill on the front end
can produce files in these formats that will print just fine if the
printer knows what they're doing and has the right knowledge, skill,
and tool set.
I call bullshit. ;)
I can look at a customer-supplied laser (if I'm lucky enough to get
one), and tell you that it's a Publisher file before looking at their
file. I can usually tell the difference between an InDesign file and
a Quark file, too. The knowledge and skill of the printer has little
to do with the way the files are supplied. We can fix a lot, but we
can't fix irreparable damage that's already been done.
I think you misunderstood what I wrote, above. To paraphrase it; if the
designer knows what they're doing and has the right tool set to create
valid PDF files and the printer has a valid PDF workflow, the process is
pretty paiinless. You shouldn't have to "fix" anything. OTOH, if either
the designer or printer lacks skill or proper tools, the results can
suffer.
I don't see the point in encouraging bad behavior, though. We should
really be discouraging it, IMHO.
Tim
BTW: I can get decent output from Powerpoint, Publisher, Word, Xcell,
you name it. But it will never be as good as a real file intended for
print. 2c.
It sounds like you are comparing PowerPoint, Publisher, Word and Excel to
produce comparable to professional layout apps. That is not their intent,
nor should it be. The world of printing is pretty broad, ranging from
"digital presses" (high-end copiers) through 1c paper plates (you don't
need much to keep up with that), to high-end CTP. AFAIK, there is no "one
size fits all" solution that invalidates everything else.
Neil
|
Yeah , there's no winner here on this topic.
I'm on the graphic design side of things and most of my work is build
for high-end stuff on offset, flexo and digital. Any job I work on
that's over a $1million dollar budget... We usually are talking some
high-end food shots on calenders that obviously needs to meet a higher
standard than a few thousand dollars going on a indigo printer, digital
shop or small sheetfed run.
On lower end jobs, $20,000 or less, I'll even convert JPG's to tiffs
and send files that might not meet the high standards of a million
dollar print job. But, just because we've all agreed that the client's
JPG's or powerpoint files can filter through to the rip as a TIFF or
PDF, doesn't mean it's right. We're printing some crap and some of us
still flag this to the client but always as a "recommendation" and if
the client still wants to go with it... so be it. But to say it's the
same quality as what could possibly print if it's done the right way...
it's just rubbish. Side by side, you'd see a big difference with the
proper files vs the stuff most of us print these days... FM or AM
printing... a JPG algorithm is still there, halftone screens or
electrostatic laser dots are not going to miraculously make a 100dpi
image look better than a 300dpi image at a decent lpi. You can embedd
that screen resolution image into a PDF to get through the RIP but the
quality still sucks, you've just gave the client a green light to send
it again and again and believe the crap he gave you is OK. Yes it ran
though and printed... NO it's not good quality... The client just won't
see it any better.
FYI, I agree with you all, Pay the bills first.
I just thing we're in a bit of denial on what we're doing or lying to
ourselves after printing off a lot of this blurry stuff that come from
technology made for the internet not a press :)
Just because it can print... doesn't mean it should.
--
Welcome to Papa Joe's |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
| |
Ads |
Advertising
Sponsor
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
159 Attacks blocked
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
