Acrobat DC files fo output

[David Milisock]

Anyone accepting them? If you do accept them any issues?

 

[Stephen Marsh]

These are PDF files, right?


Stephen Marsh

 

[David Milisock]

These are PDF files, right?


Stephen Marsh

Yes I've been testing a graphic application which release Tuesday and the default press setting for PDF is DC and it seems to work fine with my three ink jet rips and was wondering if the press rips were seeing them and if they were working. All the base setting are the same as when it was Acrobat 6 and 9 format but not it's the DC format. Transparency and spot colors seem to work fine on my end, however my local printer is still using Acrobat 7 Distiller published format.

 

[Danny Whitehead]

There's no such thing as an Acrobat DC file, and DC is not a format or a PDF version (the newest is 1.7, which precedes the release of Acrobat DC). What graphic application are you testing, and where is it saying 'DC' for the 'default press setting'?

 

[wonderings]

I print PDF's to our RIP from Acrobat DC with no issues. I impose with Imposition Studio which gives me a PDF press file which I print from Acrobat. Have not had a single issue.

 

[Danny Whitehead]

I print PDF's to our RIP from Acrobat DC with no issues. I impose with Imposition Studio which gives me a PDF press file which I print from Acrobat. Have not had a single issue.

Why invoke the print driver, rather than putting the PDFs directly into the RIP?

 

[wonderings]

Why invoke the print driver, rather than putting the PDFs directly into the RIP?

I have issues when doing that. The RIP loads it seemingly fine. It then gets created to TIFF files I believe and sent to a computer connected to our Screen CTP. From there the files never show in RasterBlaster. If I print the PDF from Acrobat it all works perfectly. It is a somewhat new setup for us, had it for a little over 3 months. We moved from a Presstek CTP.

 

[Danny Whitehead]

I have issues when doing that. The RIP loads it seemingly fine. It then gets created to TIFF files I believe and sent to a computer connected to our Screen CTP. From there the files never show in RasterBlaster. If I print the PDF from Acrobat it all works perfectly. It is a somewhat new setup for us, had it for a little over 3 months. We moved from a Presstek CTP.

Hmmm, that's odd. The RIPping's done by that point - it's all rasterised - so I would have thought the PDF Producer would be irrelevant to how the TIFFs behave downstream. File naming issue maybe (clutching at straws)?

 

[wonderings]

Hmmm, that's odd. The RIPping's done by that point - it's all rasterised - so I would have thought the PDF Producer would be irrelevant to how the TIFFs behave downstream. File naming issue maybe (clutching at straws)?

Could be, though it has the same name whether I print or drop the PDF in a hot folder for the RIP. I will try sometime with a simple name like "test". My file names go like this Customer - file name - date.

 

[mattbeals]

Why perpetrate such a crime on a PDF by printing it? Just let the RIP process the PDF via hot folder where native PDF objects can be correctly processed rather than abusing them by converting to PostScript?

All joking above aside, just let the RIP process the native PDF's via a hot folder. cmd/ctl+Print is dead, leave it that way.

About the Adobe DC issue, tell the developer they've got it wrong. The PDF export if anything should specify the PDF version they are exporting (PDF 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, etc.).

 

[wonderings]

Why perpetrate such a crime on a PDF by printing it? Just let the RIP process the PDF via hot folder where native PDF objects can be correctly processed rather than abusing them by converting to PostScript?

All joking above aside, just let the RIP process the native PDF's via a hot folder. cmd/ctl+Print is dead, leave it that way.

About the Adobe DC issue, tell the developer they've got it wrong. The PDF export if anything should specify the PDF version they are exporting (PDF 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, etc.).

Why? Because it is not working correctly. The RIP processes it fine, but when it goes for plates Raster Blaster does like them and will not process them. If I print the PDF to the RIP everything works as it should and as it has for the last 10 years.

 

[mattbeals]

Why? Because it is not working correctly. The RIP processes it fine, but when it goes for plates Raster Blaster does like them and will not process them. If I print the PDF to the RIP everything works as it should and as it has for the last 10 years.

There's something wrong with the system then. If the RIP processes the PDF correctly and the raster blaster mucks it up, then there is fundamentally a problem. If the RIP correctly renders the native PDF into 1 bit TIFFs, and the raster blasters job is to send the 1 bit TIFFs to the platesetter, then the TIFF is is corrupt or the raster blaster is misconfigured. If the PDF is correctly interpreted/rendered, then something down stream is likely the problem, not the PDF itself. You know, because it was correctly interpreted. The whole system needs to be examined. 10 years of working one way doesn't mean it has been working correctly for 10 years. And a 10 year old process should be reexamined anyways.

 

[wonderings]

Well the Raster Blaster part is new, we switched about 3 months ago from Presstek CTP to a Screen CTP. But even then we always printed to the RIP. I disagree that a 10 year old process should be reexamined, our RIP has been the one thing that has been so stable and given almost zero headaches in that time. It works, it is consistent, prints look great. I am not mucking about to change this or try and make something work while potentially causing issues with something that has never given me any problems. I am still amazed that I am on the original install of Win XP!

 

[mattbeals]

Reexamine does not mean reconfigure. We reexamine business needs, health, finances, politics, beliefs, insurance, etc. more frequently than every ten years. It simply means to study it again. It's good to reexamine.

 

[Simon Ivarsson]

Software and file formats evolves over time and a lot has happened in 10 years. You should defiantly have a look at your workflow.

 

[David Milisock]

There's no such thing as an Acrobat DC file, and DC is not a format or a PDF version (the newest is 1.7, which precedes the release of Acrobat DC). What graphic application are you testing, and where is it saying 'DC' for the 'default press setting'?

At the time I was BETA testing CorelDraw X8 and it says DC in the publish to PDF setting dialog. Since then the applications released and I've sent a few hundred files out with that specification to Prinergy and a multitude of other RIPs with no issues. As long as you don't tell them they work just fine the minute you get into a discussion they get their heads up their butt.