>> can that pdf creator make a pdf from a quack file with a dcs2 in it?

Sure, it can. But not with any better result than if you did output that yourself, manually. The proposition is to create a document that will not output correctly. Automation can detect, verify, notify, and output. Automation should not do the correcting, that's for us humans. This file with a DCS2 needs human intervention to fix it, deal with it, or build the doc correctly. I don't automate corrections, not in prepress work.

My automation has a human at the trigger. That human still needs to build a document that will work within the confines of each application's capability. If that human builds a decent document, most problems can be quickly identified and a pdf created, named and saved faster than anyone can do it manually.

This is funny... I always have people writing me wanting me to develop a HOT FOLDER robot to automate page output like we are talking about. From source files, no human at all. Oh Great! This is something that is but a retarded idea that will not work, unless in very, very limited situation, like same fonts/library all the time, etc etc. It's a stupid idea and I used to go through explaining why that's a bad idea. But nowadays it's so tired I just simply say "NO" I may do impositions and variable data stuff by hot folders but never Quark and InDesign document processing.

Like I was saying earlier. Sorce file automation can easily result in the fastest way to crank out bad documents full of problems". I only work on first time right file production. That's why I don't use PitStop or hack on bad PDF files. To me, the PDF is not an editable document. I don't think of or use a PDF like that, ever. My PDF is a final file. If it's messed up, I fix the source files and make another PDF that is correct. I never edit a PDF. In turn, I do not accept bad PDF files, if a customer doesn't know how to make correct PDF, I train them, or get the source files, make the PDF correctly. Editing bad PDF files is not a practice at all in my workflow, we do it really, really sparingly.

Thus, when we pick up an old job from the server... Guess what? The source files are always perfectly accurate to the final PDF of that job. A job archive has all the correct fonts, only those used, images and separations accurate to that job. Editing PDF files and playing with PitStop and the like is a trap and a bad practice that should rearely if ever be used. So, I run no PitStop actions or filters on my RIP, I don't need them at all.
_________________
JoePostscript -- support administrator

--
Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide


.

fair comments joe.

i did run that bleed fixer and it works very nicely - i did it on an envelope - and its very good.

pdf's: well - i have this customer in holland - they send pdf only - no source files. they always send files at the last min so i have no choice but to make their pdf work. i have no source files, no TIME to bounce it back to the desighners and just enough time to produce a proof from a now "good" pdf in order to hit the press slot.

so if you have time to bounce files back and obtain source files then you are in a lucky position - me - I have to deal with whats supplied. i suspect many others do too.

sure - we could say "no pdf"s" - which I used to say - guess what they send...yep...pdf's. no-one really reads pre-press requirement sheets - so - can i say no to ever editing a pdf? yes i can but i'll be sacked!

so i cant agree that editing pdf's is a kind of "bad practise" - sure the source files if made right give a good pdf - but the reason i work here is that many many desighners cant even get the source files right....so they keep me in a job!

teach my customers? not viable - i have many many all over the uk and europe - and we dont have a "set" list - they are sourced by our customers and could literally be anywhere.
_________________
expertise: nothing

and as for pdf creator creating a decent pdf from a quack file containing a dcs2 file - i'd like to see that since its not possible from quack unless you go as seperated postscript, but third party software and recombine those seps

or use indesign......



my "workflow" is the same though joe - once a job is complete, it is archived. any repeates and we load the layout, fonts etc and away - no trapping - its already done - no nothing but rip, proof and plate - well - when i get ctp it will be - repeats are dig out old film and plate
_________________
expertise: nothing

If I get a PDF file, it is never right. Everyone wants to send them. I love it when I ask the "stupid" questions like - did you check your photos to make sure they will print fine. Answer - Thats how they came out of my digital camera. Question - When creating the panels for a roll folding brochure, did you make sure all the panels are the right size? Answer-Surethey are the right size, they are all the same. I could go on and on.

same here cleveland - except its flaps, tucks, folds, panels, barcodes, spot colours, varnishes, embossing, foil blocking, windows, reverse prints, varnish free areas, ink free areas, double hit colours blah blah...ad on

keeps me in a job though
_________________
expertise: nothing

Yes, in the cases you guys are talking about the PDF is your source file. So, when that's all you have supplied, not much choice but to edit it. We get some of those but not many that will not fly through. If someone isn't interested in doing it right, just give me source files...

Automation can't replace us experts that have to fix everything. Like beermonster states a list of stuff that is not going to be automated, that's our job forever. But if you can use automation to shorten the time you spend doing brainless clicking of redundant settings and processes it's great. Like Bleed Fixer, think of a guy with a magazine spending hours fixing all the bleeds, instead, one click, and then skim through for a few things that it did not catch. Man, that's pretty major in the right hands. Well, when that was conceived, I worked in a plant running 500 titles a month. That utility in it's years of use has save millions of clicks.

If a customer wants to submit PDF then I begin working directly with them to make sure they know what the specs are, what's required. Like bleeds & copy margins, separations that are correct, folding panels that work. If this is still their wish I invest the time to send them links to my planning document that gives them a road map. I ask them to send me a quick test file to look at. I use that as training to fill the gap between where they are and what it takes to submit true plate ready files. Of course I put them on PDF-X-Robot so that settings and preflight are not even needing to discuss.

In my workflow we have heavy repeat business and a pretty slow flow of NEW customers. This also important, you have time to work customers one by one and get them squared away. For many this isn't feasible they have too heavy flow of NEW customers and too many do not repeat. In that case I would use Robot myself, not bother training them, use automation myself to get all that work preflighted and to press. Publishers and most general commercial printers can make good use of automation either inhouse or in the field. I always recommend you automate your internal file production before even thinking about using it for a customer.
_________________
JoePostscript -- support administrator

--
Wind Turbine Buyer's Guide


.

agreed joe

i did a try on the bleed fixer - worked a dream and i can see that would be a major god send in a huge quack file

i've got as much automated as i think i ever will for now (no budget = manual almost everything!) and actions are a big help sometimes - i like actions - they free up coffee drinking time!
_________________
expertise: nothing