Tech
Well-known member
Re: Cropping PDF in Acrobat or Pitstop
This thread is still alive?
Boys, let's not make things personal here. We are all pros. The great thing about this forum is that we all bring a little bit of different working background and experience together here.
Regarding automated preflight PDF workflow (correct me if I'm wrong), magazines were one of the earliest to adept to this technology. Does it save money? Of course, it does. Is it more efficient in turnaround time and greater productivity? You bet! Now take a step back and ask yourselves... Does it help improve quality? Does it not also reduce human labor and hence job loss? Former is debatable and latter is a 100% job loss!
I spend the last 8 years in part-time magazine production (while holding two other jobs....don't ask... I burned myself out). The same magazine went from adapting Atex in the late 70s to DTP in '90s to fully automatic PDF workflow now. I wasn't there for Atex but went through at least two generations of Mac DTP workstations with them. Remember those ugly beige PowerMacs and 30lb+ monitors?
Now, ever since the switch to DTP fom Atex, most magazines have a close DTP workflow. By this, I mean they have limited font library usage; high repetitive file workflow (static hot-folders for FPO/Hi-Res images; centralized servers with backups, etc) because once their copy is in Quark layouts and Copydesk server the only chance for their files to go wrong are mostly end user errors. By adapting to automated PDF preflight system prior to press they can eliminate a lot of end user errors like forgetting to place hi-res image or not enough bleeds or some hot-shot editor wanting to make last minute changes... the old way of making last minute editorial changes will cost a lot more than just a few hundred dollars.
The point is, depending on what stage of the production process you are at now and what your past experience are, each of us will have different opinions on what the best workflow is. What work for one magazine may not work the same for another (I also freelanced some work at another magazine; similar workstation setup but never the same workflow because people works differently at different work environments). What work well at my old job may or may not apply to my current job.
We can sit here and debate all day about how great PitStop or automated PDF workflow is to publishing upstream and downstream. We can debate all the facts about how PDF and automation can save "someone' money and greater productivity. But be careful who's money you are saving and whose jobs you are cutting; have fun searching for skilled employees you actually need and find to be so-highly productive. Maybe someone needs to convince designs schools to start teaching PitStop in addition to Adobe products. God knows, how many of us former designers actually end up doing production!
There will always be someone like me here telling you guys it's not the same here or else where. As I stated before, the reality check is that different workflow requires different solutions and tools. That said, it's the people and work environment (money) that dictates workflow not dead hardware/softwares. Lastly, technology provides tools for adaptation. It's not always smarter and certainly not always faster.
Peace out.
Tech
This thread is still alive?
Boys, let's not make things personal here. We are all pros. The great thing about this forum is that we all bring a little bit of different working background and experience together here.
Regarding automated preflight PDF workflow (correct me if I'm wrong), magazines were one of the earliest to adept to this technology. Does it save money? Of course, it does. Is it more efficient in turnaround time and greater productivity? You bet! Now take a step back and ask yourselves... Does it help improve quality? Does it not also reduce human labor and hence job loss? Former is debatable and latter is a 100% job loss!
I spend the last 8 years in part-time magazine production (while holding two other jobs....don't ask... I burned myself out). The same magazine went from adapting Atex in the late 70s to DTP in '90s to fully automatic PDF workflow now. I wasn't there for Atex but went through at least two generations of Mac DTP workstations with them. Remember those ugly beige PowerMacs and 30lb+ monitors?
Now, ever since the switch to DTP fom Atex, most magazines have a close DTP workflow. By this, I mean they have limited font library usage; high repetitive file workflow (static hot-folders for FPO/Hi-Res images; centralized servers with backups, etc) because once their copy is in Quark layouts and Copydesk server the only chance for their files to go wrong are mostly end user errors. By adapting to automated PDF preflight system prior to press they can eliminate a lot of end user errors like forgetting to place hi-res image or not enough bleeds or some hot-shot editor wanting to make last minute changes... the old way of making last minute editorial changes will cost a lot more than just a few hundred dollars.
The point is, depending on what stage of the production process you are at now and what your past experience are, each of us will have different opinions on what the best workflow is. What work for one magazine may not work the same for another (I also freelanced some work at another magazine; similar workstation setup but never the same workflow because people works differently at different work environments). What work well at my old job may or may not apply to my current job.
We can sit here and debate all day about how great PitStop or automated PDF workflow is to publishing upstream and downstream. We can debate all the facts about how PDF and automation can save "someone' money and greater productivity. But be careful who's money you are saving and whose jobs you are cutting; have fun searching for skilled employees you actually need and find to be so-highly productive. Maybe someone needs to convince designs schools to start teaching PitStop in addition to Adobe products. God knows, how many of us former designers actually end up doing production!
There will always be someone like me here telling you guys it's not the same here or else where. As I stated before, the reality check is that different workflow requires different solutions and tools. That said, it's the people and work environment (money) that dictates workflow not dead hardware/softwares. Lastly, technology provides tools for adaptation. It's not always smarter and certainly not always faster.
Peace out.
Tech