Robert, Thanks for the feedback below, it is good to hear the other side of the story. Probably rather unusually for a photographer, I 'grew up' in Quark 3 and 4, so I am quite fond of it and I am certainly aware of some of the transparency issues of InDesign. I am fortunate in having a local printer who has recently got a new direct to plate setup and is thus quite able and happy to support InDesign. When I quote issues of Quark, I am really meaning the wider sphere. So many jobbing printers have until the lat year or so, refused to look at any form of pdf document. Correct me if I am wrong, but Acrobat has been a credible medium for some time, certainly since v4. Nick WB
> Nick, > > Actually, the problem is a little more complicated than > people being stuck > in the past. While it is accepted that as technology > advances, then so too > must service bureaus and printers advance to handle the files > that this new > technology produces. The problem is that Adobe has started > implementing > things like transparancy settings into their programs that > are causing so > many issues with printers/service bureaus that they are > holding web-seminars > just to try and educate them on how to work-around the > problems. The fact is > that without siginifcant workarounds, InDesign and > Illustrator 10 files will > not print through many current RIPs used by printers, > publishers and service > bureaus (actually, the bureaus are more likly to adapt > quickly as they are > on the front lines dealing with many more file types). > The best case senario is that a printer upgrades all of it's RIPs to > Postscript Level 3, which will enable direct handling of these new > generation of Adobe Indesign/Illustrator files. Again, it's > not that simple. > The RIPs I work with are somewhere in the $50,000 range and > to upgrade (3 in > our case) several RIPs is just to expensive for many > companies to handle > right now. It is safe to say that the timing could be better > (ecomony, war > and all). > So most printers cling to Quark because above all else, they > know that if > you can place a file in Quark or better yet, create something > in it, then it > will RIP/Print correctly without jumping through several > hoops. Most of the > time no matter what format a file comes to a printer they > will export it in > some way to place into Quark just to get the print controls. > Many photographers hate Quark for several reasons not the > least of which is > the preview which is low-rez as pointed out before. So we are > all moving > toward Indesign and other alternatives, but unfortunatly the > people on the > other end of the process are not up to speed and for the time > being, there > will be conflict. > I work both sides of the equation and putting my printers hat > on, I hate > Indesign files and I DO have upgraded RIPs but there are > still persistant > problems with transparancy. > Just my 3 cents worth. > > Robert =============================================================== GO TO http://www.prodig.org for ~ GUIDELINES ~ un/SUBSCRIBING ~ ITEMS for SALE
